Hillary - free healthcare!
I'm glad she came out and said this. I might be wrong, but I think most Americans can see that this will increase their taxes through the roof.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.
"People are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick," says Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Clinton unveiled her "American Health Choices Plan," during a high-profile speech at a hospital in the key campaign state of Iowa, surrounded by supporters, American flags and campaign banners.
"Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick.
"I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for change.
"It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who accomplishes that goal finally for our country."
A Clinton adviser compares the plan's so-called "individual mandate" -- which requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according to The Associated Press. Watch Clinton outline her health care proposal ?
Under the plan, federal subsidies would be provided for those who are not able to afford insurance, and large businesses would be expected to provide or help pay for their employees' insurance.
Clinton said her plan would not require small businesses to take part, but will offer tax credits to encourage them to do so.
About 46.6 million people in the United States were without health care insurance in 2005, including 8.3 million children, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released last year.
Don't Miss
Election Center 2008
Edwards knocks Clinton on health care cash
"I know my Republican opponents will try to equate this plan with government-run health care. Well don't let them fool you again," Clinton said, explaining that her plan would allow participants to "keep the doctors you know and trust" while it would expand "personal choice" and keep costs down.
Clinton's package would also require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums.
Under Clinton's plan, Americans would be offered the same health care benefits of private health care plans offered to Congress through the federal employee benefits program as well as a public program similar to Medicare.
Americans satisfied with their current coverage will be allowed to keep it, the Clinton campaign said.
To help pay for the plan, Clinton would also eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 and limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.
In her plan, Clinton said families would receive tax credits to help pay for coverage. The tax credit would be designed to limit the premiums to a percentage of a family's income.
Clinton's announcement marks her return to the health care game, nearly a decade and a half after her first foray. As first lady, Clinton spearheaded the Clinton administration's attempt to overhaul the country's health care system in 1993 and 1994.
But critics attacked the Clintons' plan as socialized medicine, and it was killed by opposition from congressional Republicans and many in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. It was Clinton's biggest political defeat.
Now Clinton is the third of the front-running Democratic White House hopefuls to formally unveil her plan, following Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards.
Supporters defend Clinton by saying that she has already made parts of her proposals public, and she often speaks out publicly about her health care plans.
Clinton's Democratic rivals wasted no time in reminding voters of her timing.
"I commend Senator Clinton for her health care proposal," said Obama in a statement. "It's similar to the one I put forth last spring, though my universal health care plan would go further in reducing the punishing cost of health care than any other proposal that's been offered in this campaign."
Edwards, speaking Monday to the Laborers' International Union of North America in Chicago, Illinois, echoed Obama.
"I'm glad that, today, the architect of the 1993 plan has another care proposal -- and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I'm flattered," said Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina. "The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' I learned a very different lesson from decades of fighting powerful interests -- you can never join 'em, you just have to beat 'em."
Edwards' proposal would cut off health care for the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid 2009, if a universal health care plan for all Americans has not been passed by then.
Clinton's Democratic rival, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, used her past attempts at health care reform in criticizing Clinton's proposal.
"The mismanagement of the effort in 1993 and 1994 has set back our ability to move toward universal health care immeasurably," Dodd said in a statement. "We've known what the problems have been for nearly 15 years and what the solutions could be. What's been missing is leadership that knows how to bring people together and get the job done."
Clinton also took hits from GOP presidential hopefuls, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose criticism sounded like a movie review.
"If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love HillaryCare 2.0," said the Giuliani statement. "Senator Clinton's latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy -- in short, a prescription for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax hikes to pay for it all."
Another Republican White House hopeful, Mitt Romney, accused Clinton of taking "her inspiration from European bureaucracies."
"Instead we should take our inspiration from the American people," said the former Massachusetts governor. "Hers is a plan which I think underscores the fact that she fundamentally does not believe in markets and in the states. And I believe that our inspiration should come from American families."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/17/health.care/index.html
DES MOINES, Iowa (CNN) -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton announced a $110 billion health care reform plan Monday that would require all Americans to have health insurance.
"People are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick," says Sen. Hillary Clinton.
Clinton unveiled her "American Health Choices Plan," during a high-profile speech at a hospital in the key campaign state of Iowa, surrounded by supporters, American flags and campaign banners.
"Here in America people are dying because they couldn't get the care they needed when they were sick.
"I'm here today because I believe it is long past time that this nation had an answer," Clinton said. "I believe America is ready for change.
"It's time to provide quality affordable health care for every American," Clinton said. "And I intend to be the president who accomplishes that goal finally for our country."
A Clinton adviser compares the plan's so-called "individual mandate" -- which requires everyone to have health insurance -- to current rules in most states that require all drivers to purchase auto insurance, according to The Associated Press. Watch Clinton outline her health care proposal ?
Under the plan, federal subsidies would be provided for those who are not able to afford insurance, and large businesses would be expected to provide or help pay for their employees' insurance.
Clinton said her plan would not require small businesses to take part, but will offer tax credits to encourage them to do so.
About 46.6 million people in the United States were without health care insurance in 2005, including 8.3 million children, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report released last year.
Don't Miss
Election Center 2008
Edwards knocks Clinton on health care cash
"I know my Republican opponents will try to equate this plan with government-run health care. Well don't let them fool you again," Clinton said, explaining that her plan would allow participants to "keep the doctors you know and trust" while it would expand "personal choice" and keep costs down.
Clinton's package would also require insurers to provide coverage for anyone who applies for it and would also bar insurance companies from charging people with greater health care costs more for their premiums.
Under Clinton's plan, Americans would be offered the same health care benefits of private health care plans offered to Congress through the federal employee benefits program as well as a public program similar to Medicare.
Americans satisfied with their current coverage will be allowed to keep it, the Clinton campaign said.
To help pay for the plan, Clinton would also eliminate the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000 and limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.
In her plan, Clinton said families would receive tax credits to help pay for coverage. The tax credit would be designed to limit the premiums to a percentage of a family's income.
Clinton's announcement marks her return to the health care game, nearly a decade and a half after her first foray. As first lady, Clinton spearheaded the Clinton administration's attempt to overhaul the country's health care system in 1993 and 1994.
But critics attacked the Clintons' plan as socialized medicine, and it was killed by opposition from congressional Republicans and many in the medical and pharmaceutical industries. It was Clinton's biggest political defeat.
Now Clinton is the third of the front-running Democratic White House hopefuls to formally unveil her plan, following Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, and former Sen. John Edwards.
Supporters defend Clinton by saying that she has already made parts of her proposals public, and she often speaks out publicly about her health care plans.
Clinton's Democratic rivals wasted no time in reminding voters of her timing.
"I commend Senator Clinton for her health care proposal," said Obama in a statement. "It's similar to the one I put forth last spring, though my universal health care plan would go further in reducing the punishing cost of health care than any other proposal that's been offered in this campaign."
Edwards, speaking Monday to the Laborers' International Union of North America in Chicago, Illinois, echoed Obama.
"I'm glad that, today, the architect of the 1993 plan has another care proposal -- and if imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then I'm flattered," said Edwards, a former U.S. senator from North Carolina. "The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' I learned a very different lesson from decades of fighting powerful interests -- you can never join 'em, you just have to beat 'em."
Edwards' proposal would cut off health care for the president, Congress and all political appointees in mid 2009, if a universal health care plan for all Americans has not been passed by then.
Clinton's Democratic rival, Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, used her past attempts at health care reform in criticizing Clinton's proposal.
"The mismanagement of the effort in 1993 and 1994 has set back our ability to move toward universal health care immeasurably," Dodd said in a statement. "We've known what the problems have been for nearly 15 years and what the solutions could be. What's been missing is leadership that knows how to bring people together and get the job done."
Clinton also took hits from GOP presidential hopefuls, including former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whose criticism sounded like a movie review.
"If you liked Michael Moore's 'Sicko,' you're going to love HillaryCare 2.0," said the Giuliani statement. "Senator Clinton's latest health scheme includes more government mandates, expensive federal subsidies and more big bureaucracy -- in short, a prescription for an increase in wait times, a decrease in patient care and tax hikes to pay for it all."
Another Republican White House hopeful, Mitt Romney, accused Clinton of taking "her inspiration from European bureaucracies."
"Instead we should take our inspiration from the American people," said the former Massachusetts governor. "Hers is a plan which I think underscores the fact that she fundamentally does not believe in markets and in the states. And I believe that our inspiration should come from American families."
0
-
News Flash, Hillary...
People who're sick won't be able to get quality health care under your stupid, Utopian vision, either. Just ask the Canadians.0 -
Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it? I understand its very expensive, but should there be a program for people who cant afford new cars, to get new cars? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
News Flash, Hillary...
People who're sick won't be able to get quality health care under your stupid, Utopian vision, either. Just ask the Canadians.
beat me to it, don't forget the 6 month waiting plan to see a doctor for a check up0 -
Go Hillary go go go!! Hillary 2008!!! [:D] 0 -
I think you're wrong.
People are going to see "FREE HEALTH CARE" and they won't think about taxes. And, I'll almost guarantee you that Hillary will spin it so that it will either be a very small increase in taxes, or that the rich will pay for it (or, better yet, she'll take the money from oil company profits -- anyone remember that line?).
Most voters can't see past the end of their own noses.0 -
welcome to socialism...the first step before communism.
just think...once we get government run health care we will have to take steps to lower costs and since guns are the cause of so much health care costs naturally we will have to ban guns.0 -
Being made to have auto insurance if you want to drive a car is not the same thing as being made to have health insurance if you wish to live. So what are they going to do to me if I would rather keep my money and pay a doctor if and when I need him? They going to arrest me? 0 -
over 12,000,000 Illegals use our emergency rooms and hospitals without
paying a dime. First get rid of these then talk about health care funding for 12,000,000 Americans.0 -
quote: Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it?
That is about the stupidest thing I have ever read! Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying, basically, that poor people don't deserve health care? Bet you are young and don't have a family. Do you have ANY idea how much health insurance costs for a family? In my case, it is nearly $1300 PER FREAKING MONTH! And I ain't exactly poor, but try throwing that kind of bill on top of raising a family. Thankfully, my employer pays a percentage of it, but that is still a heck of a hit for a business to take! Lowering that Saturn would be a little further down on your list! [:D] Heck, we supposedly live in the greatest country in the world and a large chunk of people in this greatest country are one catastrophic illness or accident away from being totally bankrupt by the cost of health care in this country. And you can't place all the blame at the feet of the illegals. It goes straight to the top with Doctors and hospitals and health insurance lobbists all trying to get a huge piece of the pie, irregardless of what happens to the "little guy." I don't have the answer, and am really not sure Clinton or any other presidential candidate does either...but something HAS to be done. IMHO...the next revolution will come about because of the outrageous health care costs in this nation.0 -
quote:Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it? I understand its very expensive, but should there be a program for people who cant afford new cars, to get new cars?
Kind of like comparing apples and oranges. A person's health is a need and a car(yes even in this day and age) is a want or luxury. I have no problem when it's being used to help the family with a couple of kids who are busting their butts to get by. It's those people that just mooch off of the system that irk me. They don't try to get a job, etc. I work my a** off and I will be damned if they deserve a penny from me. Just my opinion though.
Jon0 -
quote:Originally posted by SuburbanNoize
Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it? I understand its very expensive, but should there be a program for people who cant afford new cars, to get new cars?
YES! IT'S YOU! You that needs to take an extra second, to think, before you go flappin your gator...
Jeff0 -
quote:Originally posted by joker5656
quote:Originally posted by Colonel Plink
News Flash, Hillary...
People who're sick won't be able to get quality health care under your stupid, Utopian vision, either. Just ask the Canadians.
beat me to it, don't forget the 6 month waiting plan to see a doctor for a check up
I don't think the National Health Care system in the U.K. is so bad. This is a C&P of an article by a Thomas K. Grose from The U.S. News & World Report on the system in England. Canada has the same system and I'm not 100% sure it works as well as Englands but I'll assume that it does.
_____________________________________________________________________
In England, as in the U.S., people may fear getting sick-but it's only the illness that worries them, not how to pay for the treatment. Like ALL other Western European Nations, Britain has a taxpayer funded health system. The National Health Service is hardly perfect; patients can't see a specialist on their own, and trying to find a dentist can give them a headache to go along with their toothache. But, by and large, the NHS delivers what it's supposed to: free health care coverage for all.
The system gets some impressive results. Britains infant mortality is lower, and it's life expectancy higher, than in the U.S. And, according to numerous studies, the $185 billion service also offers better value. Britain spends $2,546 per person each year on health care; the U.S. spends $6,102. Yet 16 percent of American adults under age 65 - 47 million people - remain uninsured.
There are trade offs, to be sure. Patients in London can expect to wait about 10 months for cataract surgery and nearly a year for a hip replacement - delays that cause some Britons to also purchase private coverage. But medical experts say thje NHS excels at both primary and trauma care. Appointments with GPs can be made quickly, and emergency doctors indergo the same rigorous training as in the U.S. In an emergency, says Sandra Dawson of the University of Cambridge, an expert on the NHS, "you'd be crazy" to opt for private treatment over the NHS. That's one reason that even the wealthy register with the service. And because the service uses it's vast size to force discounts from pharmaceutical makers, drugs are cheaper for the service and ultimately FREE to patients.
A recent New York Times/CBS poll found that 60% of Americans are willing to pay more in taxes for universal coverage. Whether they want the Government to provide that coverasge is another story.
_____________________________________________________________________
This hardly sounds like the horror stories circulated by our Health Insurance corporations about the system in the U.K.
I don't think that those opposed to a National Health Care program have much to worry about. The insurance lobby has far too much influence in D.C. to let this come to pass. Remember Hillary and her old man campaigning under a phony platform built with a National Health Care system as its primary goal? Bill got elected with this as one of the focal points of the voters. When he took office Hillary presented a highly detailed 4,000 page "plan" for National Health Care, Congress quickly dismissed it as "too complicated", swept it out with the trash, and went about business as usual. Then, as now, it's merely campaign BS.
Don't believe anything any of them say, they're all politicians.[;)]0 -
quote:Originally posted by SuburbanNoize
Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it? I understand its very expensive, but should there be a program for people who cant afford new cars, to get new cars?
I think some of you are misunderstanding what SuburbanNoize is saying here. I just think he didn't word it right.
And, correct me if I'm wrong here...
I think he is saying that they don't deserve FREE healthcare. It isn't as if they don't deserve healthcare -- every one does, we even afford health care to those on Death Row (although why we do escapes me, but hey, we pay for it). At least this is how it comes across when he suggests that those who want new cars shouldn't be handed a new car just because they want it.
I made this argument several years ago with an idiot. Instead of cars, I suggested that We The People provide everyone with air conditioning. The idiot said that no American should be without air conditioning, that it is a life's necessity. I asked how people got along in life only 40 years ago when very few people had it and for thousands of years before that, and her response was that old people die in the heat (like that had something to do with the price of tea in China).
The fact is, the poor already get free health care. Nobody is denied service in the E.R. based upon ability to pay (that's federal law and in many cases, state law as well). Moreover, some of the poor are covered by Medicaid. On top of that, there are various free clinics around the country that provide services.
Sure, you don't get the same quality of service that those with insurance have, but you do get service. However, that's like saying it isn't fair that some people eat filet minon while others can't afford anything better than ground round.0 -
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
quote: Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it?
That is about the stupidest thing I have ever read! Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying, basically, that poor people don't deserve health care? Bet you are young and don't have a family. Do you have ANY idea how much health insurance costs for a family? In my case, it is nearly $1300 PER FREAKING MONTH! And I ain't exactly poor, but try throwing that kind of bill on top of raising a family. Thankfully, my employer pays a percentage of it, but that is still a heck of a hit for a business to take! Lowering that Saturn would be a little further down on your list! [:D] Heck, we supposedly live in the greatest country in the world and a large chunk of people in this greatest country are one catastrophic illness or accident away from being totally bankrupt by the cost of health care in this country. And you can't place all the blame at the feet of the illegals. It goes straight to the top with Doctors and hospitals and health insurance lobbists all trying to get a huge piece of the pie, irregardless of what happens to the "little guy." I don't have the answer, and am really not sure Clinton or any other presidential candidate does either...but something HAS to be done. IMHO...the next revolution will come about because of the outrageous health care costs in this nation.
DEAD CENTER!!!
I also agree that the "500K a year folks out there need to be payin taxes on every red fckuin CENT!
EXXON/MOBIL, paying taxes on $250.000 a year ,is a JOKE!!! And not a very funny one either. If EX/MO alone ,was made to pay taxes on their entire profit,THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of people could have ins.
Anyone saying dif. is ranting like a mad man!
If you're 22 years old, of course lowering your toyota is gonna seem better than paying $300.00 a month, for even the lousiest insurance.
Jeff0 -
quote:Originally posted by spanielsells
quote:Originally posted by SuburbanNoize
Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it? I understand its very expensive, but should there be a program for people who cant afford new cars, to get new cars?
I think some of you are misunderstanding what SuburbanNoize is saying here. I just think he didn't word it right.
And, correct me if I'm wrong here...
I think he is saying that they don't deserve FREE healthcare. It isn't as if they don't deserve healthcare -- every one does, we even afford health care to those on Death Row (although why we do escapes me, but hey, we pay for it). At least this is how it comes across when he suggests that those who want new cars shouldn't be handed a new car just because they want it.
I made this argument several years ago with an idiot. Instead of cars, I suggested that We The People provide everyone with air conditioning. The idiot said that no American should be without air conditioning, that it is a life's necessity. I asked how people got along in life only 40 years ago when very few people had it and for thousands of years before that, and her response was that old people die in the heat (like that had something to do with the price of tea in China).
The fact is, the poor already get free health care. Nobody is denied service in the E.R. based upon ability to pay (that's federal law and in many cases, state law as well). Moreover, some of the poor are covered by Medicaid. On top of that, there are various free clinics around the country that provide services.
Sure, you don't get the same quality of service that those with insurance have, but you do get service. However, that's like saying it isn't fair that some people eat filet minon while others can't afford anything better than ground round.
Exactly. And flappin my gator, what the hell is that?0 -
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
quote: Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it?
That is about the stupidest thing I have ever read! Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying, basically, that poor people don't deserve health care? Bet you are young and don't have a family. Do you have ANY idea how much health insurance costs for a family? In my case, it is nearly $1300 PER FREAKING MONTH! And I ain't exactly poor, but try throwing that kind of bill on top of raising a family. Thankfully, my employer pays a percentage of it, but that is still a heck of a hit for a business to take! Lowering that Saturn would be a little further down on your list! [:D] Heck, we supposedly live in the greatest country in the world and a large chunk of people in this greatest country are one catastrophic illness or accident away from being totally bankrupt by the cost of health care in this country. And you can't place all the blame at the feet of the illegals. It goes straight to the top with Doctors and hospitals and health insurance lobbists all trying to get a huge piece of the pie, irregardless of what happens to the "little guy." I don't have the answer, and am really not sure Clinton or any other presidential candidate does either...but something HAS to be done. IMHO...the next revolution will come about because of the outrageous health care costs in this nation.
I understand it costs a lot. I pay 250 a month just for myself. But i still dont understand why people who cant afford something, deserve to get it.0 -
"FREE"! There IS no free lunch - healthcare either. She can talk about Robin Hood economics but (as most everthing else) the middle class will end up footing the bill. 0 -
I asked how people got along in life only 40 years ago when very few people had it and for thousands of years before that,
It didn't cost a weeks pay, to have 7 stitches 40 years ago, did it?
Jeff0 -
Free health care would destroy companies that have a lot of talent that are only there for the health care!!!!
Like the one where I work!!!!0 -
quote:Originally posted by iluvguns
quote: Is it me, or do people wo cant afford healthcare, not deserve it?
That is about the stupidest thing I have ever read! Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying, basically, that poor people don't deserve health care? Bet you are young and don't have a family. Do you have ANY idea how much health insurance costs for a family? In my case, it is nearly $1300 PER FREAKING MONTH! And I ain't exactly poor, but try throwing that kind of bill on top of raising a family. Thankfully, my employer pays a percentage of it, but that is still a heck of a hit for a business to take! Lowering that Saturn would be a little further down on your list! [:D] Heck, we supposedly live in the greatest country in the world and a large chunk of people in this greatest country are one catastrophic illness or accident away from being totally bankrupt by the cost of health care in this country. And you can't place all the blame at the feet of the illegals. It goes straight to the top with Doctors and hospitals and health insurance lobbists all trying to get a huge piece of the pie, irregardless of what happens to the "little guy." I don't have the answer, and am really not sure Clinton or any other presidential candidate does either...but something HAS to be done. IMHO...the next revolution will come about because of the outrageous health care costs in this nation.
IluvGuns, i usually like reading your stuff on here, and this isnt a stab at you. But am i supposed to feel sorry for people that chose to have a family, and now have to reap the cost of raising and caring for that family?
quote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't you saying, basically, that poor people don't deserve health care?
I think i worded myself wrong here, poor people who are not trying to help themselves, deserve nothing. Now poor people who work, and want a better life, deserve SOME health care, why should they get the same care as I, when im paying for it?0 -
Hillary can burn in h&ll as far as I'm concerned. 0 -
quote:I don't think the National Health Care system in the U.K. is so bad.
The subjects in England definitely disagree with that.
And how do you construe 110 billion dolllars, into "free". Am I the idiot? No, it is Hillary and all the folks with their hands out.
Next; If the estimated cost is 110 billion, then the actual cost will be more like 1.1 trillion. After all, it's the government. But it sure does buy alot of votes. Oh yea, that's why the founders maade entitlements un-Constitutional.0 -
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
I asked how people got along in life only 40 years ago when very few people had it and for thousands of years before that,
It didn't cost a weeks pay, to have 7 stitches 40 years ago, did it?
Jeff
You took my statement out of question. I was talking about air conditioning, not health insurance.0 -
I cannot afford Healthcare.
I do not have Healthcare.
I AM AGAINST NATIONAL HEALTH CARE!!!!
I will be forced to pay for what I can't afford right now, and will also be forced to pay for the Welfare population.
I think you should be responsible for yourself and your family. NOONE ELSE!!! If you get sick, why should I pay for your treatment. If I get sick, I don't expect you to pay for me.
I pay enough in taxes without this liberal bithc raising them through the roof!!0 -
quote:IluvGuns, i usually like reading your stuff on here, and this isnt a stab at you. But am i supposed to feel sorry for people that chose to have a family, and now have to reap the cost of raising and caring for that family?
And I thought the first thing you wrote was the stupidest thing I had ever read! [:D] You obviously don't have a family. If taking reasonable care of a family exceeds what a working guy can reasonably expect to earn, then something is wrong. Not everyone makes $100000 per year. Most, even the big part of the majority, don't, and never will. My wife and I together earn a combined $85000 per year. Way above average in America. What is happening, with health care especially, is that we are turning into a country of the have's and have-nots. The have's can pay out of pocket and not be hurt. The have-nots don't have to worry because they get their care for free. I am stuck in the middle. I don't "have" but have "too much" to be a have-not. Just a working stiff trying to provide for a family. THAT is where government is peeing in its basket. For too long they have pandered to the have-nots while keeping their buddies, the "have's", happy, and have forgotten about the majority. Wait until you have 2 kids and wife and you will be singing a different tune. Guarantee you won't have money to lower your Saturn, so better do it now! [:D]0 -
quote:Originally posted by fishkiller41
I asked how people got along in life only 40 years ago when very few people had it and for thousands of years before that,
It didn't cost a weeks pay, to have 7 stitches 40 years ago, did it?
Jeff
I called my mother and asked her what the total bill for my birth was. I was born in '48 and she said she couldn't remember exactly but was sure it was under $100! Hospital, doctor, everything.0 -
quote:I called my mother and asked her what the total bill for my birth was. I was born in '48 and she said she couldn't remember exactly but was sure it was under $100! Hospital, doctor, everything.
Mom gave me the bill for my birth on my birthday a few years ago. Grand total of $66.98! That was back in 1963!! I am scared to go pull the bill up for my son, who is 13, or my daughter who is 9. I will have to ask my wife when she gets home.0 -
Englands Nationalized health care:
I was listening to talk radio 3 or 4 days ago, and the gentleman was giving a first hand account of when his wife came down with breast cancer. He was saying it was not a problem because he was affluent and was self-insured and received immediate and good care for his wife. He pointed out that it would have been disastrous for them had they been in the nationalized health care system bececause she would have had to wait 6 months to begin treatments. It would have doomed her, but that is the wait time.
Anyway, here's something for you...
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=168220 -
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:I don't think the National Health Care system in the U.K. is so bad.
The subjects in England definitely disagree with that.
And how do you construe 110 billion dolllars, into "free". Am I the idiot?
Jpwolf,
Maybe I'm wrong here. Can you post a reliable and verifiable source(s) that supports your statement that the British subjects definitely disagree with my opinion? To put large sums in perspective, $110 billion is but a FEW months expenditure in the "War on Terrorism", and in the overall financial picture these days it's not all that much. I'm definitely NOT supporting Hillary here, just opining that the health care system in the U.K. and the rest of the developed European Nations is not near as bad as our American Health Insurance conglomerate would like us to believe. They are among the most profitable corporations on Earth.
Not that I consider the U.S. News & World Report THE last word on anything, or beyond a little "propagandizing", but I've read similar reports elsewhere. I posted that article because it was at hand.0 -
Jpwolf,
That's a big read there. There's evidently many conflicting reports on this and I guess the only way to get a reliable handle on the situation is to be a Brit that uses this system. Though I'm fortunate to be OK with my health care situation(which may change at any time?) I recognize that the system in the U.S. is far from perfect and MANY people, particularlly the elderly, suffer greatly because of the insane prices. There's no sign of improvement.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
55 comments