English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Which of the 2008 presidential candidates are for universal free health care (read: social medicine)? The United State's system is beyond broken. I think this has become my number one issue these days...

As an added bonues, if I could find a candidate whose views line up with some of my others, that would be great. Are there any that want social medicine, are ANTI-GUN CONTROL (pro-2nd ammendment), and ANTI-IRAQ WAR? Thanks!

2007-11-12 17:14:54 · 6 answers · asked by Jonathan S 1 in Politics & Government Elections

6 answers

I don't believe so, you might want to try a Third Party though. That's where you'll find what you want

Why in God's name is Universal Health care(a big mistake I must add) your most important issue, when there's Immigration issues, and you know, the War on Terror and War in Iraq as well as Iran on the horizon, not to mention the Economy.

2007-11-12 17:22:27 · answer #1 · answered by KreigerUSA 3 · 3 1

Well you're looking for someone that on one hand supports the Constitution, while on the other hand throws it, and the words of the Fouding Fathers, aside by utterly abusing the General Welfare clause (not that the federal gov hasn't already done this repeatedly).
I don't know of such a conflicted candidate off the top of my head.
You may want to check http://www.ontheissues.org to see if there happens to be one in either of the big two parties, but you may want to look at third parties.
Although the election for President is pretty much locked on bipartisanship until such time as the entire country realizes that the Dem and Rep parties are pretty much the same and decides to collectively flock to some other party. But I don't see that happening any time soon.

2007-11-12 17:56:19 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

All the Dems have some degree of universal coverage planned.

As for the first answer - Hillary could not get a very different plan passed while Bill was president because the Republicans in congress would not allow it to go to vote.

2007-11-12 17:35:27 · answer #3 · answered by Sageandscholar 7 · 0 1

i ought to ought to vote not one of the above. yet, gun to my head with those 3 selections i ought to vote for McCain. i imagine he's the a lot less of those 3 evils. through ways, you're a good looking lady.

2016-10-24 03:35:48 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

None of the above.
Hillary would like us to THINK she is for it.
But, i'll bet if she is elected, it never gets anywhere. She tried to get it in force before, and her husband was President of the United States, and STILL she couldn't get it passed.

2007-11-12 17:22:09 · answer #5 · answered by TedEx 7 · 1 1

Doesn't really matter, because the President does not make the laws--Congress and the Senate does. The President can purpose and support legislation, sign it to law or veto it--but they do not make the law. Their job is to administer the law.

2007-11-12 17:28:49 · answer #6 · answered by Enoch J 2 · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers