Members of Congress always exclude themselves from their laws and regulations.
For instance, none of them are paying into Social Security. They have a special Congressional plan.
They all send their kids to private schools, they invest in the stock market, and they have special medical programs. Anyone really think they're going to spot Hillary Clinton in the waiting room at their local hospital?
2006-07-05 11:22:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's entirely democratic to have a choice! I wouldn't join up with socialized health care either!
However, in foreign, even third world countries like Mexico the system works fine. Although, I'll admit many times others do have preferential treatment.
The stigma will continue "you are paying for what you are getting." Until the system works to perfection I do believe most people with health care will continue with their "prestigious" system. Still, having a choice is very democratic...some will choose to pay and others won't.
2006-07-05 18:12:09
·
answer #2
·
answered by bitto luv 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's their choice (and the Bush and Cheney family's as well.) They want to blow their millions on doctors, fine.
At least the poor among us won't be forced to suffer and die just because they don't have enough money to pay for decent health care.
"Socialized medicine" doesn't mean that millionares will be forced to use the same doctors as the rest of us. They'll still live the same priviliged and pampered lifestyle they've grown so accustomed to, abeit a tiny bit lighter in the wallet. Oh well, I guess they'll have to go without that solid gold back scratcher for a few days....
2006-07-05 18:13:25
·
answer #3
·
answered by BarronVonUnderbeiht 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The better question would be 'don't you wonder about socialized health care when the leaders like Kerry and Clinton will be in charge of it?'
I guess that's more of a question than an answer. Sorry.
2006-07-05 18:08:53
·
answer #4
·
answered by e1war 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Canada has "socialized" actually national health care and it works MUCH better than the US system. It helps their industry compete, too: the cost of US health care adds $1,200 to the cost of every car produced in the US, while the cost of health care adds only $100 to the cost of cars produced in Canada or Japan. So the country either grows up and fixes this problem or its biggest businesses go under. Its not too hard to figure out.
2006-07-05 18:14:25
·
answer #5
·
answered by jxt299 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Why is it BAD for Michael Moore to buy stock in companies the President practically THROWS business at??? We don't have to LIKE OR APPROVE of a company in order to make money off of their stocks (few people admit to liking Wal-Mart but it still does great business).
And YES, without a President with a good Heart, the Health companies will still rape the common man with their prices. Hey, all the money they push through Washington Lobbyists pays off!
2006-07-05 18:12:14
·
answer #6
·
answered by AdamKadmon 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yeah I know whatcha mean but then again the Democrats have the mentality of do as I say not as I do.
Such as Michael Moore called Bush evil over Carlyle and Cheney evil over Halliburton but Michael Moore owns stock in Carlyle and Halliburton.
2006-07-05 18:07:48
·
answer #7
·
answered by MrCool1978 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just like they are not part of Social Security either, they don't pay in, they don't draw out. They have a nice private system that they own and makes on average 25 times more then us schleps wasting our money into Social Security.
2006-07-05 18:08:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by tm_tech32 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yep, I wonder.
I also wonder just exactly when that Blue Cross policy was taken out when Kerry proudly proclaimed that was his insurance company.
2006-07-05 18:26:19
·
answer #9
·
answered by kathy059 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Rove plays a hand to the NY TIMES,, Bush caves in on his illegal immigration reform bill,,, a flip-flop how Reich Wing
2006-07-05 18:09:32
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋