The Canada-modeled Hillarycare we were offered in the 90's was a joke. Fortunately, America thought better of it and saved itself from the greatest policy travesty since Jimmy Carter gave away the Panama Canal. Since then, we've seen Health Canada all but collapse under the weight of its own bureaucracy, while American healthcare continues to be the best in the world. Meanwhile, government programs such as Medicare Part D and private programs such as the Partnership for Prescription Assistance are bring preventative and therapeutic drug coverage to tens of millions of previously uninsured or underinsured Americans. The "problem" has been solved, all without the extremist socialist policies of the American Left -- so why are we still having this discussion? Simple: poverty pimps and class warfare junkies know that entitlements, even when not necessary, are an easy ticket into power. Hillary and her ilk know how to breed government-dependent voters; the question is, at what cost?
2007-01-25 06:40:59 · 26 answers · asked by Str8ShootR 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Hard to say it's a vote buying scheme and I am offended by it. Does that mean I can sue her for harrassing me?
2007-01-25 06:44:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm a bit astonished by most of the responses here. And I am with you on this. Both Hillary and Obama want to sell us health insurance. I think the readers might be confused when you say you want to refuse healthcare. What you mean is that you want to refuse being forced to buy healthcare insurance. Hillary and Obama want to make it a requirement for every single person in the US to buy health insurance. This is a patch for the system, and not even a good one. I, like you, make a good living (100k income). And still, I don't want to be forced to buy insurance for the same reasons you state. And if I made much less, say 30k, I certainly would NOT be for required health insurance. In addition... and this is the 2nd most important point, there will be a huge descrepency between the kind of healthcare insurance the wealthy can afford, and the kind the poor will be able to afford. Essentially, this means that there will be a huge difference in the quality of care for the poor vs the wealthy. I still don't understand why the US does not adopt a not-for-profit healthcare system (in which case, quality is the same for all, and it's a free service). I suspect that penalties will be analogous to what happens if you don't have car insurance. It's a great question, though. We would probably be penalized with fees. Wouldn't it be insane to go to jail for not buying health insurance?!
2016-05-23 22:59:44 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What the question should be is how long will it take to recover from the exceedingly costly price of health care President Bush has bestowed upon us. If we just ended this darn war we could spend that 38 some odd billion dollars per year on health care. Instead of sending all our money overseas for health care, we need to spend it on our own citizens. I was in the military, was injured in training and now owe over $35,000 in medical bills that our government won't help with. This is an outrage! It's time for America to take care of Americans.
2007-01-25 06:55:35 · answer #3 · answered by kartoonjunkie 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We do not need, as Democratic Sen. Barack Obama wants, public health care. That has failed in every country it has been tried in. Canada, Britain the list goes on and on. Mr. Obama is attempting to buy his way into office by promising “freebies” or at least the prospect of such to the potential constituency.
A note to Ms. Clinton: Don't even think about a socialized health care platform. If you really want to "do good" for the US Citizen find a way to end frivolous lawsuits, reign in the drug companies and increase the number of service providers.
2007-01-25 06:47:09 · answer #4 · answered by elmer c 2 · 2⤊ 2⤋
at the cost of alienating all working class Americans. it has become apparent that Ultra-Liberals in their gated communities are targeting the middle-class. universal health care won't happen without huge tax increases. most likely taking away our social security and current medicare programs. the poor have to realize that these bleeding heart liberals aren't looking out for them or any American. they are looking out for their asses on those seats of power. god help us in the coming years when Americans will be classified as either rich or poor.
2007-01-25 06:51:53 · answer #5 · answered by hussyman2003 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Canada runs at 3% overhead, U.S. runs at 15+ what don`t you get. Why don`t you believe the U.S. can do better then Canada or U.K. or Denmark or Germany or Japan or Switzerland. or Norway etc. The number one cause for bankruptcy's in the U.S. is medical bills. How does D help that. When I retire even the conservative economist say I will need $250,000 to $300,000 just for medical.
2007-01-25 06:57:46 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It would collapse as fast as the retirement funds would collapse under W proposals. What we need is the same health benefits for politicians as us. The same for retirement and pensions. Only than politicians will come up with creative and workable solution, because it will be their financial and health situation they will be fixing.
2007-01-25 06:50:19 · answer #7 · answered by EK 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Won't happen
Doctors without borders would come in like they do for the other 3rd world Nations and help.
Go big Red Go
2007-01-25 06:48:43 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It will be one more reason to raise taxes on the Middle class!!!
Those are the people who carry the burden of health care cost now. It will not change who pays it will only change how it is payed.
2007-01-25 06:50:25 · answer #9 · answered by mommy 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, Obama and Edwards are offering the same deal, so I guess there goes your three front-runners for the socialist - er, um, I mean DEMOCRAT party.
2007-01-25 06:44:24 · answer #10 · answered by I hate friggin' crybabies 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋