Hillarycare is not the answer - and Obamacare isn't much better

Little-Acorn

New member
You know a politician has a bad idea when her opponent pushes for something almost exactly like it... but then offers "You can get out of MY plan if you want to" as a saving grace!

--------------------------------------

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/StarParker/2008/02/11/hillarycare_is_not_the_answer

Hillarycare Is Not the Answer

by Star Parker
Monday, February 11, 2008

Suppose I tell you that the government will design a product and make you buy it. If you say no thanks, that's too bad. The government will decide what you need and what you will buy.

If you say you can't afford it, we'll send in government investigators to check, and if they conclude indeed you can't afford it, we'll tax your neighbors and make them subsidize you so you can pay for it.

We'll set up a government bureaucracy to monitor and make sure you're cooperating. If they discover you haven't made the purchase, they'll go to your employer and have your wages garnisheed.

Let's assume further that total spending for this government-designed and -mandated product accounts for about a fifth of the nation's total economy.

The former Soviet Union? Communist China?

No, this is the new Hillarycare. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., having once failed to explicitly nationalize the one-fifth of our economy going to health care, now wants to slip it past us by dressing it up in drag.

Her plan is to use a federal government mandate to force every American to buy health insurance. She claims it won't violate our freedom because if you already have a private plan that's OK. But a government alternative plan will be made available.

The government will regulate health care, define acceptable health insurance and force every American to buy a plan based on the government-established standard.

Her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, also wants vast government regulations and controls to define and price out health care. But Obama, who has the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate, grasps that, short of invoking a police state, it still must be up to consumers to decide to purchase health insurance.

This last point does not intimidate Clinton's Soviet-style affinities. When asked how purchase can be enforced, she told interviewer George Stephanopoulos, "We will have an enforcement mechanism. ... you know, going after people's wages."

Incredibly, Clinton calls her concept of government-mandated universal health coverage "a core Democratic value."

Indeed, we have a problem in the delivery of health care in our country. Costs are going up at twice the overall rate of inflation, with increasing burdens on working families.

Why have health-care costs gone out the roof when the prices of just about everything else have gone down? Because health care already has become a highly regulated, highly bureaucratized industry.
 
Well McCain-Care just sounds stupid and vaguely frightening, so we're in trouble.

:)

So I heard a guy speak recently who is head of Kaiser Permanente, a not-for-profit organization in health care that is big in California. I have no idea the guy's personal politics but he commented that not one of any of the politicians running, Democrat or Republican, had a health care plan that was viable and would do anything to help our current situation.

This is just one man's opinion but as the head of a large not for profit group I found it interesting.
 
So I heard a guy speak recently who is head of Kaiser Permanente, a not-for-profit organization in health care that is big in California. I have no idea the guy's personal politics but he commented that not one of any of the politicians running, Democrat or Republican, had a health care plan that was viable and would do anything to help our current situation.

This is just one man's opinion but as the head of a large not for profit group I found it interesting.
I had Kaiser here as my last HMO. I chose a different one this time because Kaiser was just too far away.
 
So I heard a guy speak recently who is head of Kaiser Permanente, a not-for-profit organization in health care that is big in California. I have no idea the guy's personal politics but he commented that not one of any of the politicians running, Democrat or Republican, had a health care plan that was viable and would do anything to help our current situation.

This is just one man's opinion but as the head of a large not for profit group I found it interesting.

Why do politicians keep telling us that government-supplied health care works better than any other, in the face of tons of evidence to the contrary?
 
Townhall = Puke!

Progress is slow but healthcare is essential if America is to move out of its current stagnation in employment opportunities and create a better vision of a just and fair society.
 
As long as there's any type of health insurance company involved you can forget about it being helpful and nothing different now. As long as there's one insurance company involved there's still room for corruption.
 
Yeah because all those debt payments are just going to magically go away.... :rolleyes: Once again there is so much evidence that if done the right way a government sponsored health care program can work. Once again look at Cuba, France, Britain, Canada. Give me a break.

It's much harder to change government than to change insurerer.
 
Yeah because all those debt payments are just going to magically go away.... :rolleyes: Once again there is so much evidence that if done the right way a government sponsored health care program can work. Once again look at Cuba, France, Britain, Canada. Give me a break.

France uses private insurers as part of their system. Cuba's healthcare is worse than ours. Britian's and Canada's is arguably worse than ours.
 
LOL! Now that's funny shit. I love the proof you provided. Oh wait. You didn't. At least in Cuba you get SEEN and get the help you need and the medicine doesn't cost a shit load. I suggest you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" but I know you won't because you already are biased and aren't interested in anything that says other wise. :rolleyes: Oh and don't forget Venezuela.

France uses private insurers as part of their system. Cuba's healthcare is worse than ours. Britian's and Canada's is arguably worse than ours.
 
LOL! Now that's funny shit. I love the proof you provided.

The counter-prove me if you don't believe me.


Oh wait. You didn't.

Witty.

At least in Cuba you get SEEN

Arguable.
and get the help you need and the medicine doesn't cost a shit load.

It doesn't cost anything in comparison to the fact that nobody in Cuba owns anything.

I suggest you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko"

Whenever I get the chance to pirate. You're point isn't original. I hear the "ZOMG go watch sick!" line all the time by people who are unable to defend their arguments properly. There are point for and against national healthcare, but citing Michael Moore as an unbiased, factual source is laughable.

BTW, there is a large health tourism industry in Cuba. Foreigners who come and pay generally get far better care than the average peon.

but I know you won't

Then why'd you recommend it?

because you already are biased


How am I biased? You do know I support single-payer health insurance don't you? But your point was just retarded.

and aren't interested in anything that says other wise.

About what?
 
LOL! Now that's funny shit. I love the proof you provided. Oh wait. You didn't. At least in Cuba you get SEEN and get the help you need and the medicine doesn't cost a shit load. I suggest you watch Michael Moore's "Sicko" but I know you won't because you already are biased and aren't interested in anything that says other wise. :rolleyes: Oh and don't forget Venezuela.
Don't forget Venezuela? You mean the place that now has shortages in basic comestibles? That can't feed their people with a crapload of oil? Yeah, that's the place I want to emulate. Your "proof" lacks in almost any area, the places you want for me to use as examples stink.
 
Back
Top