2007-10-30 09:34:21 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
Not until he forgets all those things his mother taught him about telling the truth.
2007-10-30 09:38:10 · answer #1 · answered by You are all, weirdos. 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Why would he. Socialism equals Communism equals failure. Look at England their people are flying to India to get health care because the wait is too long and private without insurance is too much. Canada's own Parliament members travel to the USA for treatment because they would be dead before the test for cancer was done. Canada uses the USA hospitals for overflow because they can't afford to budget new one. You want the US run healthcare it's called the VA and we all know there are glowing reports on how well that is run. Oh, Oh, CUBA, let's see Michael Moore go and get treatment in the real Cuban hospital not the communist parties hospital but the SICKO one where if you don't have loved ones you will die of starvation and neglect.
2007-11-01 13:25:27 · answer #2 · answered by Texan~to_the-Max 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who has more socialized healthcare than elected officials. They have the very best & it doesn't cost them one thin dime. If Guiliani is elected president will he refuse his free healthcare? I don't think so! Whether you are a democrat or republican read between the line of all these candidates. I wouldn't vote for Guilani or Clinton. Guiliani is more of bush! does anybody want more of that? Clinton is Corporate America. Do we need more of that?
2007-10-30 16:53:46 · answer #3 · answered by peepers98 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When it stops begin accurate. It has to do with medicine. It's a health plan and here we typically treat people with medicine. And it's Social. It's the very pinnacle of a social program.
2007-10-30 16:48:05 · answer #4 · answered by Darth Scorn 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No.
The"Yankee Flipper" is just an idiot.
Look where he put The NYC Disaster Control Center. The Trade Center. After it had been bombed once, and against the advice of his security advisers.
2007-10-30 16:54:20 · answer #5 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no because that is precisely what it is. there is no need beyond socialist intent to insure a family making 80 thou a year when they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves. its a pork barrel giveaway designed to imply the clintons have some type of credibility which they clearly dont. i have a much less polite name for it but im sure if i shared it with you some out of contol liberal would report it so i wont, that name too would be accurate.
2007-10-30 17:31:12 · answer #6 · answered by koalatcomics 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Dude, that's what it is. You can give it a rosy named like "Universal Healthcare", but in the end it's taking everyone's money, combining it and giving somewhat equal treatment to everyone. It's not fair because the monetary contributions are anything but equal, and those that pay more are probably taking care of themselves already.
2007-10-30 16:44:27 · answer #7 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Why? That's what it is. To the tune of 120 billion a year, minimum, straight out of the pockets of working people to support those who won't work. Pretty much the definition of socialism: Take away from one group and give it to another. The forced redistribution of resources. (Please note: "forced")
2007-10-30 16:43:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
um....what part of her health plan ISN'T "socialized medicine." I really don't understand how she can propose ideas for government funded health care and you think describing it as "socialized medicine" is erroneous....so to answer your question, I guess he will stop when she comes up with ideas that aren't "socialized"....
2007-10-30 16:41:28 · answer #9 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck its got to be a duck!
2007-10-30 16:46:31 · answer #10 · answered by Mogollon Dude 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋