Obama supporters;Does you candidate not know there's a difference between Liability & Socialized Hillarycare?

Question

In recent speeches, Democrat Presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama has attempted to use the fact that STATES require drivers to purchase LIABILITY INSURANCE as a precondition for driving as some form of president for his claim to force the American people to pay into a FEDERAL SOCILIZED HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

Putting aside the fact that the government is not know for its efficiency or domestic problem solving ability (Liberals, you do remember that your “War on Poverty”, run by the government, lead to skyrocketing taxes which subsequently drove small businesses out of business and caused poverty to worsen, right???), doesn’t Hussein Obama realize that there is a difference between LIABILITY INSURANCE and Socialized Hillarycare???

The liability insurance that most states require drivers to obtain does not protect the driver themselves, but anyone that driver might accidentally injure in an auto accident.

Thus, while drivers are required to obtain this liability insurance to cover any damages they might inflict, they are free to take out as much, or as little insurance on their own vehicle as they choose.

Socialized Health Insurance, such as what Hussein Obama is proposing would FORCE American citizens to pay the government to provide them with far less insurance then they could obtain from private insurers for the same amount of money.

Since no state currently FORCES drivers take out insurance on their own vehicles, wouldn’t the precedent set by the state auto insurance laws be that the government CAN’T FORCE us to buy into any Inefficient Socialized Government-Run Health Insurance Plan???

BY THE WAY; I thought that these same Democrats who are currently seeking to deny me he right to choose my own health insurance, claim to be “Pro-Choice”. Does the Liberal claim of being “Pro-Choice” only extend to the murder of children???

A Link to Obama's recent attempt to use liability insurance as a precedent to force his Socilized Health Care System onto American Citizens.

http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/08/23/news/local/doc46cd0c1a98d56178195513.txt

Answer 1

Lets also note many Americans (especially New Yorkers) can choose NOT to own a vehicle.........and therefore are not subject to pay for insurance they don't need or want. Why would we accept a FORCED PROGRAM? Many Americans don't want insurance because they believe they are healthy and can pay as they go. It is their money / assets they are gambling with should a catastrophic medical event take place. I believe adults are capable of weighing the risks of being unisured. (And those who can't afford insurance get MEDICAID!) No one in this country is denied HEALTH CARE REGARDLESS OF INCOME OR ABILITY TO PAY!!!

Answer 2

There is little difference, there are strong parallels. Both are insurance, both protect citizens, both are compulsory. Even if you were correct about mandatory auto insurance protecting only other drivers, the collective effect is that everyone is protected. It's only a technicality that you're buying insurance for property and physical damage to others if all the other people in the state are buying insurance which will cover damages to you. Think about it.

Obama's plan would cover people who are uninsured, and would not affect your "right to choose". It is not the same as Hillary's plan.

Some simple advice: When we take our opinions from opinion makers and pundits, not only do we get incorrect facts from them, but it's really not much different than taking what our parents say as the final word. Broaden your reading.

Answer 3

Is ENGLISH taught in American schools anymore ? Can Americans read or write anymore?
Does anyone in here know that there is a "CHECK SPELLING" button available ?
Oh, my bad, I forgot that it's now, - ---------- - "EBONICS" & "SPANISH" that our children must learn.