How do I get my share back?
2007-01-25 07:52:33 · 11 answers · asked by schooch 1 in Health ➔ General Health Care ➔ Other - General Health Care
- The Clinton Health Task Force vastly over-spent its budget of $100,000, eventually wasting $13.8 million of the taxpayers' money-- surely a metaphor for the entire Clinton Health Plan. (GAO Report)
- One way to get your share back would be a law suit. You will have to wait in line as there are still several other acts of litigation ongoing in this matter. Otherwise, you may consider pretending to write a book about it. This seems to have worked for both Hillary & Bill. Good luck.
2007-01-29 02:04:37 · answer #1 · answered by louisdous 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
2
2016-07-24 17:55:25 · answer #2 · answered by Precious 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What Hillary and her secret health care commission did find out is that nationalizing health care would not only be wholly unaffordable, but would increase services to the lowest financial tier patients by degrading the health care services of the highest. This type of degradation of the rewards of achievment is always a key factor when it comes to collectivist systems.
Don't think so?
Say you are a carpenter. You are not just any carpenter. You can slap up studs and hang a sheet of drywall plumb to the curvature of the earth with just a pencil and screw gun. Not only that. You can perform this service for an entire house in a day. You might call this guy 'Supercarpenter.'
Of course, it's a big job. Too much for one guy alone.
So, there is another nail bender on the job. He is well named due to his ability to slap up studs and hang drywall plumb to the curvature of the earth. Except that he needs a slide rule, a hammer, a crow bar, two screw guns, a laser level and an extra three minutes per sheet to do it.
Who should get paid more?
Obviously, Supercarpenter should take home more. He's the guy you want on your job site. The guy who will get it done good and fast, and let's face it, time is money. His premium service should come with a premium price.
The guy who works less efficiently should not get the premium pay - he costs more already due to his lesser abilities.
Right? Of course.
What if both carpenters are subjected to the collectivist mentality? They should both be paid the same.
Unfair, you say? No. This is fairness defined. We call this enforced collectivist fairness the carpenter's union.
HillaryCare would make our system just as fair. Those that can afford better will still circumvent the system, just as they do in England - oh wait - here, that would be a felony under HillaryCare.
Despite the long list of abysmal failures and dead people left in its wake, the collectivist mentality never really dies in the US due to the rich man's guilt of the wealthy american leftists. They think that they must do something to help those less fortunate than they are. Never mind that along with every government program, our good friend Unintended Consequences always shows his ugly head, both he and and his good friend 'Underestimated Costs.'
Gazillionaire do gooders like Hillary and Ted Kennedy will never have to patronize their grand government health care system. Politicians always exempt themselves from their own foolishness.
Darth Sidious
2007-01-25 08:40:34 · answer #3 · answered by the professional iconoclast 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would like to think not much. I feel she has studied this issue for years. When her husband was President, they tried to get the Universal Health Care. The problem is getting Congress to approve it. Of course, Congress doesn't pay into Social Security or Medicare. Members of Congress will get a huge pension that all of us regular folks could only dream of. Congress has been wasting our money for years and years. All of our hard earned money is long gone. I really think she does have a plan, it is just hard to get Congress to agree with it.
2007-01-25 08:13:16 · answer #4 · answered by Denise B 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary Clinton has had a background of actual threatening, mendacity, and jackbooting her way via politics, a coverage that has made her very unpopular with the two dems and republicans who've had to paintings together with her. i think of her powerbroking schemes reek of elitism masked below a delightful face of what maximum dems, for some reason, see as their saviour from Bush's policies. they do no longer comprehend that she is probable basically as undesirable, if no longer worse.
2016-11-27 01:40:01 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Throw the billions it cost for her husband lying under oath, his expensive hair cuts, their vacations, their clothes (don't tell me you can't buy a nice outfit at Target), etc, etc... I think that could have covered healthcare for quite a bit of people. To be fair, a lot of politicians spend American money on nonsense then they all act like they don't know what happened to the security of the common people.
2007-01-25 08:15:09 · answer #6 · answered by 2007 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Take Surveys Earn Cash - http://OnlineSurveys.uzaev.com/?IYNW
2016-07-07 23:10:03 · answer #7 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's no way to talk about your future President.
2007-01-27 02:41:15 · answer #8 · answered by pnn177 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
WELL ASK YOURSELF HOW MUCH MONEY DID BUSH SPEND ON A WAR THAT FOUND NO CHEMICALS BUT PLENTY OF MONEY FOR HALIBURTON. AT LEAST HER EFFORTS WERE HONEST.
2007-01-25 07:59:56 · answer #9 · answered by Keith 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
She did learn something! It's Miller Time, thanks America, from the Big Gal on top! Ha!
2007-01-25 08:00:47 · answer #10 · answered by Snaglefritz 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋