"Sen. Hillary Clinton has topped all 2008 presidential contenders in total campaign contributions from members of the “health professionals” industry with more than $1.6 million. In fact, Clinton has brought in a total of $2,645,639 from the “health” sector."
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23080
More interesting info:
Clinton claims that we need a government takeover of the health care system because 47 million Americans remain uninsured. But that's a grossly misleading figure.
The Census Bureau's estimate of 47 million "uninsured" is based on a survey question that asks the respondents if they "were not covered by any type of health insurance at any time in that year."
In other words, if you're uninsured for a single day of the year, the government considers you "uninsured."
Second, the Census Bureau includes 10.2 million non-citizens in its estimate. Does Sen. Clinton intend to admit non-citizens into her plan?
Finally, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that 19 percent of those without health insurance earn more than triple the federal poverty level but choose to forego coverage. Kaiser also estimates that 25 percent of those without health coverage are eligible for Medicaid or SCHIP but have not signed up.
With scarce government resources, does it make sense to lavish subsidies on folks who make thousands more than the average U.S. family?
When all is said and done, only about 15 million Americans or 5 percent of the population are truly unable to obtain health insurance. And that doesn't mean they must do without medical care when they need it.
It hardly makes sense to jump to a government remedy in order to meet the exceptional needs of just 5 percent of the population when our current system delivers top-notch care to the other 95 percent and some significant level of protection to those who are uninsured.
The vast majority of Americans have coverage that gives them reasonably affordable access to the best health care system in the world. As the debate on Sen. Clinton's plan unfolds, voters should resist the imposition on America of a system that has already failed throughout the world.
2007-10-28 21:18:51 · 7 answers · asked by wider scope 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Government
http://www.experts-exchange.com/Other/Politics/Q_22862552.html
2007-10-28 21:19:33 · update #1
Any comments? Any thoughts?
2007-10-28 21:22:59 · update #2
Gigi, the Brits that I know feel exactly the same and have exactly the same complaints.
2007-10-28 21:35:58 · update #3
Any health care system run by the goverment will be like any other system run by the goverment like social security and welfare its a croc and there are so many things wrong with it its rediculous I wish we could have some half-way decent sane person just once run for president. I say if anyone votes for this crazy whore they should be stoned. How can you vote for someone who let her husband cheat on her in front of the whole country and didn't even divorce him, what a weak needy person.
2007-10-29 06:40:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ask the Canadians what they think about public health care. They hate it. No one can get the care that they need, and you wait on long lists to get a medical procedure done, and many people die while waiting. People in Canada what to buy their own insurance again, they hate public health care, because it does not take care of anyone correctly. I am not ready to give up good coverage for standing lines.
2007-10-29 04:32:09 · answer #2 · answered by gigi 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Actually Senator Clinton has never proposed a government take over of the health care system. Clinton's proposal is to assist everyone in obtaining health INSURANCE.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/americanhealthchoicesplan.pdf
2007-10-29 06:05:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sen Clinton is a socialist and a strong liberal. Her lack of experience is why she seems so disingenuous on just about everything she does.
If the American people put her in office, it will be the punishment they deserve. She is bad for America!
2007-10-29 04:25:27 · answer #4 · answered by Billy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Unless a seasoned actor, it is difficult to put inflection in one's voice during a recitation. Especially if you do not believe in what you're saying and you could give 2 sh*ts about the audience.
What she spews is just something one of her people wrote for her. I would imagine she never did any of the research herself.
No passion.
2007-10-29 07:00:50 · answer #5 · answered by DesignDiva1 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Any one who is delusional enough to claim to be from a rich area of Chicago helping day labor Mexicans who where picking tomato's in the middle of Chicago really means she must have been helping them pick pockets by stealing.
2007-10-29 07:26:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
she seems insincere because she is. she cares about money, power, and little else.
2007-10-29 06:20:00 · answer #7 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋