HillaryCare 2.0

[kat8585]

Well, liberals seem to think that if it doesn't get government more involved, control and regulate us more, and tax us more to do it, it isn't a real plan to address the issue.

Well, if you actually read her plan, you will see that there are tax credits to help pay for insurance in it. So, she would be cutting your taxes.

If you are running for public office, then you are running to govern and you need to actually present some plans for how you plan to do that governing thing. Thats are problem now, this outfit we got right now in the White House is pretty good at politics, but they are not too good at all at actually governing.

Like I'm really going to believe anything she says? At least anything good? Fat chance. And my previous post is still true.

Also, what Mr. Tanner says is true.

[forrestkc]

-somebody's- gotta pay for it. Oh, right. The rich again.

For one, the business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare. The healthcare costs they currently incur make it very hard to compete with their foriegn compeditors, virtually all of which get the benefit of Universal Health Care.

Secondly, if Paris Hilton pays a hair more in taxes so that we don't have 50 million uninsured in this country, then I think that the vast majority of Americans will see that as a moral and just trade off.

This is what I don't get. The cost of what she is proposing is less than the costs of the war in Iraq. Why is no one worried about who has to pay for the war in Iraq. I guess its ok to hand the bill for Bush's social experiment in Iraq to our children, but heaven forbid that we do anything in this country for anyone that actually lives in it.

[rtwo]

-somebody's- gotta pay for it. Oh, right. The rich again.

For one, the business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare. The healthcare costs they currently incur make it very hard to compete with their foriegn compeditors, virtually all of which get the benefit of Universal Health Care.

Secondly, if Paris Hilton pays a hair more in taxes so that we don't have 50 million uninsured in this country, then I think that the vast majority of Americans will see that as a moral and just trade off.

This is what I don't get. The cost of what she is proposing is less than the costs of the war in Iraq. Why is no one worried about who has to pay for the war in Iraq. I guess its ok to hand the bill for Bush's social experiment in Iraq to our children, but heaven forbid that we do anything in this country for anyone that actually lives in it.

Before anything else, I'm going to need a cite for "business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare." That, and a definition of "largely". I should also ask, are you in favor of corporate bailouts? Wouldn't some bailouts help with the cost of healthcare? Before you ask, no... I'm not in favor of corporate bailouts. I'm for the government staying out of stuff.

As for Paris Hilton, etc... look. I don't really care what she does, what she pays, and who's covered because of it. Fact remains, the plan runs contrary to basic concepts of freedom, no matter how its paid for.

[forrestkc]

Before anything else, I'm going to need a cite for "business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare." That, and a definition of "largely". I should also ask, are you in favor of corporate bailouts? Wouldn't some bailouts help with the cost of healthcare? Before you ask, no... I'm not in favor of corporate bailouts. I'm for the government staying out of stuff.

As for Paris Hilton, etc... look. I don't really care what she does, what she pays, and who's covered because of it. Fact remains, the plan runs contrary to basic concepts of freedom, no matter how its paid for.

Have you read the plan?

This is my opinion. Either we elect some pure libertarian like Ron Paul and do away with government entirely. Basically, just have a minimal government that protects the borders and keeps the mail running, or we elect people that actually believe that the public sector has a positive role to play in society. Lets just pick one though. What I don't get is these

"conservatives", that would trust the federal government to have a role in their local elementary school, but would trust that same government with hundreds of billions of dollars to attempt to democratize Iraq. Thats pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

[rtwo]

Before anything else, I'm going to need a cite for "business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare." That, and a definition of "largely". I should also ask, are you in favor of corporate bailouts? Wouldn't some bailouts help with the cost of healthcare? Before you ask, no... I'm not in favor of corporate bailouts. I'm for the government staying out of stuff.

As for Paris Hilton, etc... look. I don't really care what she does, what she pays, and who's covered because of it. Fact remains, the plan runs contrary to basic concepts of freedom, no matter how its paid for.

Have you read the plan?

Have you read my responses?

[rtwo]

Before anything else, I'm going to need a cite for "business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare." That, and a definition of "largely". I should also ask, are you in favor of corporate bailouts? Wouldn't some bailouts help with the cost of healthcare? Before you ask, no... I'm not in favor of corporate bailouts. I'm for the government staying out of stuff.

As for Paris Hilton, etc... look. I don't really care what she does, what she pays, and who's covered because of it. Fact remains, the plan runs contrary to basic concepts of freedom, no matter how its paid for.

Have you read the plan?

Might add, it's not really a "plan" so much as it is a blueprint... meaning Hillary can sell it to the American people before attaching all the stuff most Americans would object to that are necessary to make it work.

[kat8585]

Might add, it's not really a "plan" so much as it is a blueprint... meaning Hillary can sell it to the American people before attaching all the stuff most Americans would object to that are necessary to make it work.

Didn't she say she was letting someone else fill that stuff in? Clever. Then when it doesn't work she can blame someone else.

[MorningGlory]

1. Would we not have adequate money in the budget if we didn't pay for non-citizen's health care needs? OR if we do, charge their citizen country for their care....

Yes, we would. We are footing the bill for emergency room visits for nonemergencies and maternity care for millions of people who are not entitled.

2. Throw out all plans but the top 5, rework those and still allows us to choose....

Yes; have a choice of health plans, paid for according to income. But, NO free ride for anyone unless they are disabled or over 70. I personally know people from South America and Mexico who won't sign up for the company plan because they can go to the clinics and the emergency rooms. Everyone should have to pay their way.

3. Give all people the same retirement benefits that our governement gets....(Okay this has nothing to do with insurance, it's my own little riot.)

Yes, good idea. Unfortunately, it won't happen.

4. Put limits with some bending room on the amount of times you could see a doctor each year....This will control costs...Why? Have you ever walked into a free clinic? I have...It's always packed wall to wall...Now just imagine free health care for all and that chair you claim in your doctor's office will fill quickly....If you have never walked into free clinic, do so...Go see for yourself what free health care will bring....

Yes, this is true. I have taken others to these clinics and they are packed to the ceiling ALL the time. And English is not spoken too often.

The bottom line is....we need an overhaul of the health care system in the U.S. and all the partisan sniping and political posturing won't change that fact. Whether it's 'Hillary Care', or something totally opposite, things have to change. I would be inclined to vote for the candidate that has some ideas that are workable. We speak with our votes, folks, so vote for the candidate that makes health care a priority.

[rtwo]

1. Would we not have adequate money in the budget if we didn't pay for non-citizen's health care needs? OR if we do, charge their citizen country for their care....

Yes, we would. We are footing the bill for emergency room visits for nonemergencies and maternity care for millions of people who are not entitled.

2. Throw out all plans but the top 5, rework those and still allows us to choose....

Yes; have a choice of health plans, paid for according to income. But, NO free ride for anyone unless they are disabled or over 70. I personally know people from South America and Mexico who won't sign up for the company plan because they can go to the clinics and the emergency rooms. Everyone should have to pay their way.

3. Give all people the same retirement benefits that our governement gets....(Okay this has nothing to do with insurance, it's my own little riot.)

Yes, good idea. Unfortunately, it won't happen.

4. Put limits with some bending room on the amount of times you could see a doctor each year....This will control costs...Why? Have you ever walked into a free clinic? I have...It's always packed wall to wall...Now just imagine free health care for all and that chair you claim in your doctor's office will fill quickly....If you have never walked into free clinic, do so...Go see for yourself what free health care will bring....

Yes, this is true. I have taken others to these clinics and they are packed to the ceiling ALL the time. And English is not spoken too often.

The bottom line is....we need an overhaul of the health care system in the U.S. and all the partisan sniping and political posturing won't change that fact. Whether it's 'Hillary Care', or something totally opposite, things have to change. I would be inclined to vote for the candidate that has some ideas that are workable. We speak with our votes, folks, so vote for the candidate that makes health care a priority.

I would disagree... I don't think healthcare is the government's job, so I don't care where it is on their list, as long as they're not planning on interfering with private lives.

[rtwo]

Before anything else, I'm going to need a cite for "business owners in this country are largely calling for universal healthcare." That, and a definition of "largely". I should also ask, are you in favor of corporate bailouts? Wouldn't some bailouts help with the cost of healthcare? Before you ask, no... I'm not in favor of corporate bailouts. I'm for the government staying out of stuff.

As for Paris Hilton, etc... look. I don't really care what she does, what she pays, and who's covered because of it. Fact remains, the plan runs contrary to basic concepts of freedom, no matter how its paid for.

Have you read the plan?

This is my opinion. Either we elect some pure libertarian like Ron Paul and do away with government entirely. Basically, just have a minimal government that protects the borders and keeps the mail running, or we elect people that actually believe that the public sector has a positive role to play in society. Lets just pick one though. What I don't get is these

"conservatives", that would trust the federal government to have a role in their local elementary school, but would trust that same government with hundreds of billions of dollars to attempt to democratize Iraq. Thats pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

That's doesn't even make sense... that's like "I don't get why people don't just go for total anarchy, or else let a totalatarian regime take over!!"

okay, number one... libertarians don't want to get rid of governmnet entirely. Anarchists do. Number two, that's kind of the point. As a conservative libertarian, I'd much rather the government stuck to dealing with real and actual crime, protected the borders and watched out for national interests (which, depending on your opinion, may include democratizing Iraq)... but pretty much left us alone as long as we aren't hurting eachother. The problem with the belief that "the public sector has a positive role to play in society" is that, while the concept is fine, the reality is that the government, especially democrats, tend not to leave well enough alone.

Hillarycare is a great example of this. Let's say I was on board with the government funding healthcare for a certain segment of society (I'm -not- ... but just for the sake of argument). Fine. Government is playing its "positive role." But wait. Hillary doesn't want to just fund healthcare for a certain group. She wants to make it a -requirement- --- and "individual mandate". Now, she's not merely playing her "positive role" -- she's unnecessarily limiting freedom.