Hillary the Helper

The only thing I have to contribute is this:

Hillary Clinton is a very intelligent, well-educated woman, much as we dislike her. Bill Clinton just forgot to point out that she will mostly use her gifts for evil. I can't imagine why, I'm sure he knows better than anyone else how evil she really is. :barf:
 
Everyone already has the option of premier health care in the USA... One provider is BLUECROSS! It just has to bought by the American family. I can't afford it but it is available. We, as a nation dern sure can't afford it without EXCESSIVE new taxes.
As for the OP... she is a SUPER BRILLIANT GENIUS but on the same level as Oppenheimer! Cept she wants to nuke us from within and she don't even realize it so that makes her STUPID!
Brent
 
Speaking to equating the military protecting the country and preventative medicine:

-First, it IS the responsibility of the Federal government to protect the nation as national security is a problem that's scope envelopes the nation. Th health of an individual is a problem that's scope extends to that individuals family/friends. A sick child, as tragic as that may be, isn't a national problem. The solution isn't found much past the scope of the problem. Warfare is a global problem, should the international community take care of the national security of the US? Health is a problem all Americans have to cope with, should the Federal Government take care f everyones individual but common needs?

-Second, the current system we operate under has problems for sure. But we still have longer life expectancies, much better cancer survival rates, and better quality of health care then those whose countries do have socialized medicine.

I appreciate that you are willing to pay higher taxes for health care for those without adequate care. I would suggest you apply that money locally as it would have a greater impact and address the problem within the scope of it's impact.

Senator Clinton isn't a leader, she's unstable, she is easily knocked off balance, and has a total of zero point zero years running anything. She hasn't been an executive on any level and has a propensity to be 'unaware' of criminal activity being performed for her benefit. Shrewed yes, genius....not even close.
 
So much of Hilary's support is based upon her so-called expertise and positions on health care. She had a shot at revising the health care system in 1993 and fortunately did not succeed in creating a gigantic government system that would have left us with higher cost, lower quality care and a loss of choice in our health care decisions. The reality is that her plans have little to do with improving health care, they are all about increased government control of our lives. The current health system in the U.S.A. is flawed but still delivers the highest quality care to the vast majority of citizens, and is the envy of the world. Health care is a unique service, with a literally insatiable demand that cannot ever be satisfied. Since most Americans receive good health care, and the rest can get emergency care at no cost, we should be careful before we tamper with the system. And for those who want the government to run the health care system, point out for me other systems that the government runs that are the models of efficiency and equity that socialists are always promising. Hilary started out as an avowed Marxist and socialist, and I have never heard her renounce those beginnings. As much as I dislike some of the leading Republicans, I would support any of them over a Hilary Clinton or her ilk to become the leader of this country.
 
Bruxley, I think you hit the crux of the argument. I think that health should be considered a national responsibility. In recent history, human rights have been an area of big change. Strikes against civilians in war, once quite common, are now outlawed and even collateral damage is frowned upon. Precision missiles and bombs have made that possible. People are free to practice whatever religion they want in many countries. Legal slavery has been ended and Jim Crow laws have been overthrown in the United States. We've gotten some of the big ones out of the way.

I get the feeling that one day, people will look back at this time and think what barbarians we were for letting people go without medical treatment that could have saved their lives. I think that in time, proper medical care will be viewed as a human right.

Other people don't agree and think that health is an individual or family problem, and I don't know if any amount of arguing will reconcile those two viewpoints. I guess the purpose of a democracy is to sort it all out.

Also, the United States ranks 45th in life expectancy, behind a slew of countries with socialized health insurance including Canada and Sweden. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2102rank.html We are 41st in infant mortality rate, behind many of the same countries. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2091rank.html
(we are listed at #180, but the list is in descending order.)

Merry Christmas,
Hector
 
Looking at raw numbers can be misleading. many people who don't have health insurance, choose not to. Where are those numbers? Does abortion figure into infant mortality rates? Also we have many folks here that don't take care of themselves, how do we force them to be healthy?

My basic problem with government run healthcare comes from my observation of government run anything. I think it's naive at best to assume more government involment will make it run more efficiently. What socialization does is to drag everything down to the lowest common denominator.

Food is more important that healthcare. Should that be a basic human right too? How about housing? Clothes? How about government run sex care while we are at it. I can see it now "Sorry sir, you gotta have Mable here, she has seniority".:barf:
 
But we still have longer life expectancies, much better cancer survival rates, and better quality of health care then those whose countries do have socialized medicine.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with everything you have said, but this statement is factually inaccurate. We do not have longer life expectancies than many countries with socialized medicine. Germany, Italy, Finland, Great Britain, Spain, Japan, Switzerland, Norway, Netherlands, New Zealand, Iceland, and probably some others have longer life expectancies than we do. Most if not all of these countries have medical systems considerably more "socialized" than ours.

Of course, that should not be misconstrued to mean that they live longer because of socialized medicine. The longer life expectancy is more likely related lifestyle and dietary differences.
 
I couldn't disagree more than with those members who feel healthcare is a fundamental right.

You should have to work and pay for your own healthcare costs.

Medical costs always have and always will cost an exhorbinant amount of money. Giving something that expensive for free, to those who do not work, is another form of welfare and shouldn't be allowed IMHO.

Now, if someone comes up with a cost effective plan to lessen the monetary impact of health plans for WORKING people - fine. However, I strongly disagree that healthcare should be free for everyone. It's just too darn expensive and is a privilege not a right IMHO.

Medical care is not a fundamental right of all citizens. It is a service that should be paid for IMHO.

People are already given free emergency healthcare when needed. That's enough IMHO.

Healthcare costs alone almost put GM (and other companies) out of business for Godsakes. It's just too expensive to make it free. (I know it won't be free for most of us but you get what I mean.)
 
Something needs to be done with healthcare. I agree with that.

But Hillary isn't the one to do it. Hillary's biggest problem is that she's neither liked nor trusted. She may be a genius, but she wasn't born with that likeability factor like Bill was. Which is why she runs around and does the fake laugh all of the time in an effort to seem like something other than a cold robot. The trust thing is a real problem, too. It's like she's constantly talking for a focus group; she flip flops, or says a lot of nothing to avoid offending anyone. And the planted questions -- was anyone surprised by those? :D

Oh yeah, and she hates guns. What she needs is a good photo-op showing her hunting, in a brand new hunting outfit, carrying a brand new rifle. Not a semiautomatic, of course; you don't "need" one of those for hunting. :rolleyes:
 
I'm a simple guy, with no legal background or anything but just a deep interest in the Constitution. As far as I can find in the Constitution, the duties of the President of the United States are explicitely listed in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.

The Presidential Oath of Office preceeds Article II, Section 2 reads thus:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Click to expand...

Nowhere in the above oath does is the mention that the POTUS is to be a babysitter. That presidents have taken it upon themselves to be the Executive Baby Sitter does not make it so.

The courts have ruled that government is not under obligation to protect us, be it from criminals, disease or our own stupidity based upon their assertion as it pertains to the police (a government agency) that they are not required to provide protection of citizens. If they were, then government would be liable for failing to do so and thus subject to suits against them. Personal preservation, be it from criminals, disease or our own stupidity is the responsibility of the individual, not the state.

I personally have a vested interest in making sure my hide is not punctured by any weapon, that any little critter trying to kill me with it's ability to spread disease doesn't happen and to educate myself so I won't be as stupid as I could be if I didn't make an attempt to educate myself.

I think I was born 200 years to late. I don't seem to fit into this nation's notion of what it requires to be a citizen. How many teets does the .gov have? I dunno.
 
Something needs to be done with healthcare. I agree with that.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The health care system is about as good as we can make it, given the expectations people have in the US, and the amount of government interference we currently have. The only thing that could make it better is less government regulation, and less socialization of the medical system by programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

Contrary to media reports, most uninsured patients still get adequate care, and they probably get better care than the residents of countries with socialized medicine.

The government needs to get out of the way and let the people, hospitals, doctors, charity, and the free market drive the system. Federal regulation and requirements drive up medical costs and do not impact survival. I have been a practicing physician for 15 yrs, and can personally attest to this truth.

If you really believe uninsured patients don't get the care they need, I have a quick and easy solution. Simply let doctors write off these patients bills, even at the low medicaid rate. If they would do this, doctors would love to treat the unisured, and in reality, it would have very little impact on the amount of taxes the government collects. It would be much cheaper than trying to fund a larger medicare/medicaid program.
 
I don't think that having the government siphon off 50-75 cents on the dollar for administrative expenses is a way to get better health care. It may make health care availabie to everyone, but it will be rationed so everyone gets the same poor level of care (except the politicians running the system). I would rather keep what individual liberty and freedom I still have than to be dependent on the government for "free" healthcare or "free" toilet paper.
 
Let's take the philosophical aspect of the health care debate out for a moment and simply look at the entity being proposed to do this work.

The federal Government is, and always has been, ABYSMAL at taking care of individual needs. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the list continues. It's no wonder given that these are tasks assigned to an entity that is unable by nature to perform them.

From the New Deal forward, the vision of a Utopian society fails to bring forth fruit. The reason is simple. Human nature is to take the path of least resistance. To provide for capable people is to create more incapable people. To expect more from under achievers produces more achievers. The challenged rise and the unchallenged sink themselves.

It is not for government to provide prosperity, it is for Government to intentionally get out of the way of it.

Hillary isn't looking to be the great provider, she and other of her ilk are looking to be the great decider. Power, not piety are their ambition and pulling heartstrings is there means.
 
Any one seen the history documentaries where they do autopsy on long since dead folks? They describe untreated broken bones, bad teeth, and other maladies. I have long said that if they ever unearth my body in a few hundred years they will scratch their heads wondering how I got buried with "modern man" assuming I from several centuries previous. As uninsured as I am and too poor to afford private health care I do not expect others to provide my health care. It was my decision to drop out of school. I also made the decision to devastate my body with hobbies that brought on injury. My momma and daddy were perfect parents that showed me the right path but left it up to me to choose it. I chose to work menial jobs for the most part that did not lead to financial independence. So I screwed up! It ain't for my fellow citizen to pay for my mistakes! I despise warning labels as they are the life support for the terminally stupid. I failed to read alot of warnings my folks tried to pass on to me. I would rather die undiagnosed with cancer, heart disease or other deadly ailment, than stoop so low as to burden my fellow citizen who was wise enough to get an education and be financially prudent enough to be "wealthy". It is no one else's responsibility but my own to provide me with income, food, health, security, wisdom or anything else for that matter...
Brent
 
I have a very simple response to Hillary the Communist : Where in the Constitution does it give her the authority to nationalize anything, much less healthcare? Remember that pesky little 10th Ammendment?:D
 
Any one seen the history documentaries where they do autopsy on long since dead folks? They describe untreated broken bones, bad teeth, and other maladies. I have long said that if they ever unearth my body in a few hundred years they will scratch their heads wondering how I got buried with "modern man" assuming I from several centuries previous. As uninsured as I am and too poor to afford private health care I do not expect others to provide my health care. It was my decision to drop out of school. I also made the decision to devastate my body with hobbies that brought on injury. My momma and daddy were perfect parents that showed me the right path but left it up to me to choose it. I chose to work menial jobs for the most part that did not lead to financial independence. So I screwed up! It ain't for my fellow citizen to pay for my mistakes! I despise warning labels as they are the life support for the terminally stupid. I failed to read alot of warnings my folks tried to pass on to me. I would rather die undiagnosed with cancer, heart disease or other deadly ailment, than stoop so low as to burden my fellow citizen who was wise enough to get an education and be financially prudent enough to be "wealthy". It is no one else's responsibility but my own to provide me with income, food, health, security, wisdom or anything else for that matter...
Brent
Click to expand...


Alright Hogdogs, your last post earned huge points with me (not that you need them ;). Thank you for stepping up and saying what needs to be said.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
 
There is no doubt Hillary Clinton is an intelligent woman. That being said, misguided intelligence is far more dangerous than ignorance. Socialist/Marxist leanings are far too extreme for me. As for healthcare. I already pay 15% of my earnings into a government run system that will prove totally inadequate for me. Universal healthcare would probably end up costing another 20-25% of my income. That's 35% of my income going to the gov. even before I pay my local, state, and fed taxes! In that case I may not be able to afford a place to live or good food, but at least I'll be able to go to a doctor to be treated for malnutrition and exposure if I make an appointment 3 months in advance. Let's also not forget her stand on gun rights. If it were up to her we would have to give up every firearm we own. Just because she has backed off gun control doesn't mean a thing to me. I trust her about as far as I could throw her.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top