2007-09-20 10:10:10 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
If you read her book "It Takes a Village" and notice some of the socialist crap she writes, then yes, it would be an easy leap for that duplicitous hag.
2007-09-20 10:15:36 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Yes, of course, because (a) Hillary's plan is not only for universal coverage, but for "nationalized" medicine (meaning that the state takes over every doctor, hospital, etc.) and (b) "nationalized" medicine leads to the "nationalization" of all private property, constitution be damned, and (c) that must be true since since all of the other western democracies have "nationalized" health care and don't let their citizens have private property.
(Please note the sarcasm, and if you're going to make an honest criticism, make it honestly... don't use ridiculous distortions to make people fear legitimate policies up for legitimate debate.)
2007-09-20 10:16:24 · answer #2 · answered by Perdendosi 7 · 3⤊ 2⤋
Unlikely -- as opposed to national health care, which is allowed to be govt controlled under Article I Section 8 of the Constitution -- private property cannot be taken as easily (see the 5th Amendment, Takings Clause).
However, also remember that it was a Republican front-runner -- Mitt Romney as Gov of Mass -- that was the most recent political official to make health care a state issue. He promoted and signed into state law a requirement that every Mass resident have health insurance -- and was subject to criminal penalties if they did not.
As much as I disapprove of what Hillary is proposing, it is still less draconian that what Romney has already done.
2007-09-20 10:20:13 · answer #3 · answered by coragryph 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
no, most nations have national health care. and msot nations have private property. one has nothing to do with the other
2007-09-20 13:55:23 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The liberal justices on the Supreme Court already did that for the most part. Kelo v. City of New London
2007-09-20 10:19:30 · answer #5 · answered by reaganite27 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell definite, do you think of the BO-crats will quit with nationalizing wellness care...the government owns over 30% of the land mass interior the u . s . and wager what, it particularly is loaded with national gas and oil. yet interior the interest of shortage, BO and agency can not enable us to drill.......united states of america of america replaced into screwed whilst BO replaced into elected through the "dumb-down I what it now and that i want somebody else to pay" technology.
2016-10-19 05:55:52 · answer #6 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
Communist Health Care is just the First-Step toward becoming the "North Korea Of The West".
The Democrat Party has been working on a Communist Takeover since the 60's.
(Some since the 30's.)
2007-09-20 10:17:12 · answer #7 · answered by wolf 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋
I think health care would be horrible if it were nationalized. It would be like going to the DMV for your health problems.
2007-09-20 10:17:12 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
No.
Her second stage of nationalizing crud is to make chubby men wear bras.
2007-09-20 10:17:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
You need to get a grip on your paranoia, Chicken Little.
2007-09-20 10:33:24 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋