Tuesday, September 18, 2007

HIllary Clinton really is a Socialist

Check out this story:

<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6>

Here is the quote from Hillary Clinton that bothers me the most from this story:

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

Yep, she is a Socialist.

Mike Sylvester

9 comments:

Parson said...

It's going to be bad if she becomes President and does that. I get great medical insurance were I work. Last thing I want is the company to do away with that and have to use some government insurance that will probably be worse then any HMO.

Sam DiFilippo said...

When Mitt Romney was in Indy for a GOP function last month they asked him what he thought about Clinton's policies and he said, "It's out with Adam Smith and in with Karl Marx,"
Her viewpoints are soiled with frightening ideas, socialist, communist, democrat, whatever, she's nuts.

Robert Enders said...

Would they be required to refuse to hire me if I did not have insurance? How could they expect me to have insurance if I did not already have a job?

Jeff Pruitt said...

Parson,

Hillary's plan doesn't cause you to have government insurance - please read the plan before buying into this meme.

Sam,
There's more similarities between Clinton's plan and Romney's Massachusetts plan than there are differences. If Romney weren't the plastic candidate then he would point out that Clinton's plan is really just an extension of his and that he actually has experience passing healthcare legislation...

Fr. Fozy Bear said...

I just cant vote for Clinton much similar to the same reason that I wont vote for Tom Henry.

Anonymous said...

Free (as in beer) medicare works very well in may countries (France, Austria e.t.c) and does not work well in many other countries (UK, Canada, Sweden). So the devil is in details. Some government run businesses (USPS?) work well here and some are not (Amtrak), but so do private businesses.

Our current system where doctors may financially benefit from patient getting worse can be corrupting. Doctors incentives are to avoid liabilities, getting paid more, having a good customer skills, not making his/her patient getting better. Therefore taking away wrong incentives, as doctors ability to determine charges is a good thing for the patients' health.

As the current system cannot persist due to its increasing costs, it needs to be changed pretty soon. However once wrongful incentives are removed, I am not sure the ethics could be restored back right away. But the numbers can be changed and Mrs. Clinton is right on this one.

Robert Enders said...

Asking the US government, the same organization that brought you the $600 toilet seat and the Vietnam War, to lower costs and restore ethics to the health care system seems like the wrong approach. It's like asking Rosie O'Donnell for diet tips, or asking Dan Quayle to check your spelling.

The one advantage that the government has over any private entity is that the government doesn't have to worry about liability. You cannot sue the government without its permission. So good luck trying to collect when a federal employee amputates the wrong limb.

Phil Marx said...

Franklin Roosevelt's response to the Great Depression was to create jobs and pay for them with taxes. There are differing opinions about whether this was right or wrong, necessary or unnecessary, constitutional or unconstitutional, etc. But it is hard to argue against the fact that this (along with many of FDR's other programs) could be classified as Socialism.

Hillary Clinton's response to the uninsured problem is simply to order people to get insurance (and pay for it themselves). This is tantamount to FDR responding to the lack of jobs by ordering people to get a job. Clinton's proposal is not Socialism, and to call it that, I imagine, would offend many Socialists.

Robert Enders makes a good point that needs to be explored. If you don't carry auto insurance, you're not allowed to drive. What happens if you don't have health insurance. You're not allowed to work? That wouldn't solve anything, and would actually make matters worse.

Gloria said...

I have not had decent health insurance in years. I had a very difficult time getting just a crappy job about seven months ago. How on earth am I supposed to get a job when I'm supposed to show proof of health insurance first? Especially since I am not considered a "healthy" female? Sure, I could go to the state of Indiana and get coverage, but at the rate of probably $400 a month, if not more. Where will I get the money for that?

There is no perfect health care program. But...

It doesn't have to be a disaster. If government changes and does away with waste and stupidity, they could have a health care system that would save lives. Government DOESN'T have to suck.
A government run health care system DOESN'T have to suck.

If my parents didn't have Medicare, they would have been stuck with unbelieveable bills. I was thankful, and I'm sure THEY were thankful they had Medicare.

And as for socialism, aren't free schools, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security socialism? Do away with all of these programs and see what sort of riots you'll have. Not everyone is able to care for themselves, unfortunately. If I were wealthy enough, I wouldn't have to worry about insurance and actually wouldn't bother with it. It's all a racket, and even if you have coverage, it doesn't mean you are "taken care of."

I pay taxes, and I personally think I'm entitled to a little bit of service from the government. If I give money to a beggar, I don't expect anything, except a good feeling from helping someone who may need it. Some could argue the government is a beggar, but they do provide roads and services. And when I need service, I expect to get it.