Where does it end with the government telling us how to spend our money? Now, it's Hillary:?

Question

Below, Hillary says how health insurance will be paid for those still uninsured.

Can any of you guess how the businesses will pass on the cost?

And when she says the wealthy should help defray the cost...anyone want to guess what the definition of "wealthy" is?



She called for a requirement for businesses to obtain insurance for employees, and said the wealthy should pay higher taxes to help defray the cost for those less able to pay for it. She put the government's cost at $110 billion a year.

"Perhaps more than anybody else I know just how hard this fight will be," said the New York senator.

Dismissing the inevitable Republican criticism, Clinton admonished the crowd. "I know my Republican opponents will try to equate health care for all Americans with government-run health care. Don't let them fool us again. This is not government-run

the brain...I like the country, but if I loved socialism, I'd leave it and live in France. Maybe it would be easier for the socialists to leave?

Answer 1

Newsflash - there aren't enough millionaires in the US to fund all the things cloaked socialists like Hillary Clinton want to ram down our throats.

Gov't go home - I don't need your stinkin' healthcare badges.

The 110 billion price tag is a joke, and the joke is on YOU.

Answer 2

Adam B, Libertarianism isn't a bad thing in the Republican Party. The Libertarian Party is filled with disgruntled Republicans. Back to the question, Ron Paul was kept out because he represented a policy that was very traditional and very wise that was based on advice of the Founders of America, like no entanglements in foreign alliances, no central banks that was strongly advised by Jefferson, no "big brother" control that Benjamin Franklin opposed, and no laws that were are mentioned in the Constitution. The media is very biased, and only appeal themselves to politicians that violate the Constitution, and those who screw the people. Not too forget, Ron Paul is an economist, he likely knew were going to enter a heavy recession since 2002, and has advocated a foreign policy where we don't send men into quagmires like Iraq, not to go to war so military companies grow filthy rich, and a society that is based on sound money like gold/silver, a society where States have more rights, and the government should remain small and transparent.

Answer 3

As a small business owner, we couldn't buy health insurance for our employees without cutting their wages. Which do you think my crew of single guys would take? Essentially these guys see a doctor maybe once a year unless it is work related injuries (which we already pay for 100%). Cut into their living expenses, ie. beer money, I don't think so.
It costs us roughly $300.00 each a month for the insurance to cover each employee at work. In our state it costs about the same for personal health insurance. Her plan would double our current expense and force us out of biz.
Democrats have always "taken" from the rich and "given" to the poor. In the meantime watch your tax bill grow. Now, don't get me wrong I like Hillary just fine for a candidate, maybe even president. The whole healthcare issue needs to be cleaned up at the insurance provider level and should be fair for everyone. I hear that had I bought my personal health plan in Alabama I'd be paying 40% less than I do. So what is so different about a mammogram in Alabama that it costs less? So before we get to universal healthcare how about universal pricing on services and policies.
I don't put a lot of faith in campaign promises.

Answer 4

It's mighty funny to me that companies hate the increasing health care costs, but refuse to back any plan that eliminates their health care costs, but raises their taxes a couple of percent. Let's see: health care costs or an increase in taxes? I'll pay the taxes and save some money.

Answer 5

We, the taxpayers are already paying for the uninsured. When they get care and cannot pay, the cost is passed on to those who can. A plan that insures coverage for all would actually be cheaper for everyone.

Answer 6

Here is my view point on national health care and taking from the rich.

The first problem is the rich people think of taking from is those who own million dollar or billion dollar corporations. I highly doubt these are the people who will be taxed for they are constantly lobbying politicians and can afford full time staff that would figure out loopholes in the tax code so they can pay less money.

So who are these so called rich we will be taking money from? Small time business owners and highly paid working class people (such as doctors.). Since we as the average working citizen wants to stick it to the "rich" these guys suffer. These people who can do well, but are definitely not rich by any standard. The reason they will get stuck with the higher bill is because they are not as politically connected or able to hire full time staff (aka not able to fend for themselves against our government.) or have the time themselves to research and learn the tax code. So they deal with the nightmare of red tape and higher taxes just by trying to make a better living for them selves. I am a big fan of small business for these people are the ones who create new jobs, even in this slump of our current economy. The big boys are the ones who are firing, these people are hiring, I know cause I work for a small business and been hired by small business many times when work else where just could not be found. Why would we want to punish people who create jobs? So that is one reason I am against it for the reason of a higher tax bill.

Second reason is my experience and my family's experience when it comes to getting any thing from the government. I just went through trying to get my unemployment and was denied 3 times and it was a paper work nightmare just to get to that point (I have family that works in the unemployment office and they read my appeal that I should have gotten it for I said all the right things, just goes to show you.). My father just reached the age he qualifies for his retirement from the Navy. He gotten the run around big time when he 1st applied for it. They gave him the wrong numbers that wouldn't work, addresses where the offices were closed and all sorts of BS. It took him months to get his retirement (even through this man served 20 years of his youth to our nation) and still he is not getting the full retirement he deserves. They are surprisingly efficient when it comes to taking something from you, but are the exact opposite when you are trying to get something from them and seems like they try to do everything they can to prevent you from getting it. This has been the case whenever I had to get something I needed or wanted from the government, and I would hate to see what would happen if I was dependent on the goverment for my health care and trying to get them to treat me if I was dying of cancer.

Then there is the problem of time delays. Sure you will get free health care, but now instead of waiting in a doctor's office in line full of people, now you are waiting in line that is a nation long to get treatment. I read the Canadian papers and the problem is people have actually DIED while waiting for approval from the goverment for treatment for their problems.
If we are to nationalize health care, the solution to this problem MUST BE ADDRESSED before making it a standard national policy.

As for Hillary, she is the wife of a traitor (Clinton took bribes from the Chinese when he was president.) anti-gun, anti-military (the boys in uniform despised Clinton for the insane policies they tried to shove down their throat.) pro passing more inane laws and for higher taxes and we complain about what Bush does now unconstitutionally, you should look up Clinton's record of unwarranted ease dropping. I am not voting for her.

Answer 7

She scares me more than any other candidate ever could.

Answer 8

if you don't like this country, leave it.