Hillary Clinton announces draft of her health care program.

[Technosoul]

Hillary Rodham Clinton Unveils Health Care Plan - Yahoo! News

Well, it seems the news media did most of the debating for you people, as republicans and democratic rivils voice their objections to the H.C. plan.

hmm. The H.C.H.C. (Hillary Clinton Health Care) plan is the same as what taxpayers provide for Congress with our taxmoney.

The artical did not note her reasoning for making health insurance mandatory, a policy simular to mandatory car insurance.

[Clarence]

looks like health INSURANCE would be mandatory yet I see nowhere a madate on actual health CARE

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Clarence looks like health INSURANCE would be mandatory yet I see nowhere a madate on actual health CARE

Right, if you do not like Doctors, let's say for religious reasons, you do not have to seek medical attention. If you were involved in a car accident and were rushed to a hospital by paramedics the costs for that would be coverd because you are insured. If you already had AIDs you could not be rejected by insurance companies, due to the mandate.

John Edwards is the only one who wants 'madatory check ups' for people.

Our collages are cranking out lots of doctors, so I doubt if shortages will be a problem (waiting times), but the plan might call for expanding - building more hospitials and places for to get treatments. Lots of qualified doctors in other countries also would love to come and work here in the USA if we put up a "help wanted" sign.

Every canidate she would debate (if they are members of Congress or the Senate) already have such insurance which is paid for by tax money. So how can they gripe if the rest of us have such insurance?
And you get to pick from a slection of coverages - not just "assigned one" that might be no good.

Right now I am stuck with some sort of medicare insurance which is mandatory and deducted from my SS check, but I cannot deduct the cost from the taxes collected out of my SS check. Her "affordable" plan would make that possible. I am not a doctor-addict and so at least I might break even-steven.

[HelioPrime]

HillaryCare 2.0
-lol I love it

Clinton’s proposal, which reportedly would cost the government about $110 billion a year
-She says people can keep their existing coverage. So does this mean this 110 billion is an addition to the money we already put into medicare? Where's this money going to come from?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul Well, it seems the news media did most of the debating for you people, as republicans and democratic rivils voice their objections to the H.C. plan.

Yeah right, and it ended with ... "Hillary Dismisses Her Opponents Critisism", because she can't debate the merrits of her system because 99% is illegal in this country.


I know that's not important to your side in this debate, but it does go a long way towards explaining why you guys are her fans. Obviously you suffer the same disconnect from reality.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: HelioPrime HillaryCare 2.0 -lol I love it Clinton’s proposal, which reportedly would cost the government about $110 billion a year -She says people can keep their existing coverage. So does this mean this 110 billion is an addition to the money we already put into medicare? Where's this money going to come from?

The link to the news story I provided states how she intends to fund it.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Yeah right, and it ended with ... "Hillary Dismisses Her Opponents Critisism", because she can't debate the merrits of her system because 99% is illegal in this country. I know that's not important to your side in this debate, but it does go a long way towards explaining why you guys are her fans. Obviously you suffer the same disconnect from reality.

That was a qoute of an opinon of the person writing the news story. Not a qoute from HIllary Clinton.

She will be forced to debate her plan with other canidates now that it is put in writing. No way she can avoid such debate as she now must defend it in such future debates.

If her plan is unlawful then it is unlawful for people in Congress, the Senate, or even the President, to have such coverage paid for by taxes.
As Edwards already pointed out (see news story - link for details).

As you know Ron Paul's wife is currently getting medical treatment covered by insurence. What kind of insurance does he have and are the taxpayers funding her treatments under that insurance policy? If he has one of the insurance plans which other federal employees have should we "pull the plug" on her treatments because it is illegal and claimed to be unconsitutional?

Or does Ron Pual have his own private insurance that is different then the ones used by others in the Federal government?

Congress cannot say her plan is illegal without admitting that their own insurance policies are illegal. Aha.. will they do that in REALITY? I doubt it.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Technosoul As you know Ron Paul's wife is currently getting medical treatment covered by insurence. What kind of insurance does he have and are the taxpayers funding her treatments under that insurance policy? If he has one of the insurance plans which other federal employees have should we "pull the plug" on her treatments because it is illegal and claimed to be unconsitutional? Or does Ron Pual have his own private insurance that is different then the ones used by others in the Federal government? Congress cannot say her plan is illegal without admitting that their own insurance policies are illegal. Aha.. will they do that in REALITY? I doubt it.

I have no idea how Mrs. Paul manages her medical care.


However I do know it's disingenuous to attemp to blame Dr. Paul for anything health care related when he is inside the system your party built working to change the very things you would to blame him for.


So it angers you that Mrs. Paul could potentially be recieving medical care at the taxpayers expense? That's just about priceless. But then that bipartisan finger pointing routine always did make both sides look like blithering idiots.


You know that contempt that you just worked to post that drivel, well, that's how we feel about your candidate 24/7/365. ( But only because of her opinions, voting record, and allies. )

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley I have no idea how Mrs. Paul manages her medical care. However I do know it's disingenuous to attemp to blame Dr. Paul for anything health care related when he is inside the system your party built working to change the very things you would to blame him for. So it angers you that Mrs. Paul could potentially be recieving medical care at the taxpayers expense? That's just about priceless. But then that bipartisan finger pointing routine always did make both sides look like blithering idiots. You know that contempt that you just worked to post that drivel, well, that's how we feel about your candidate 24/7/365. ( But only because of her opinions, voting record, and allies. )

Wrong. I did not blame Ron Paul for anything in that post. I asked two questions. And I made a simple point "what is fair for the goose is fair for the geese". Does he still practice as a doctor? Or is his occupation that of a confused poltical person who dislikes the polices of his own party? A good doctor would care about patients and would want them to be able to recieve proper health care. All the people.

I sincerly hope his wife has a full recovery and I personally do not mind helping her out with taxes. Perhaps Ron Paul will do the same for others.

[bishop]

maybe it's just me, but i definitely don't sense ANY excitement about this great idea of hers - aside from her diehards.

just what we need, another establishment politician with bright ideas on how to make government even more bigger and bloated than it already is... why? because it's good for you.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: bishop maybe it's just me, but i definitely don't sense ANY excitement about this great idea of hers - aside from her diehards. just what we need, another establishment politician with bright ideas on how to make government even more bigger and bloated than it already is... why? because it's good for you.

I have not been watching the news but this does not seem to be a big surprise and everyone knew she would have a health care plan. And unlike in the past, her new plan has eliminated the part most people gripe about, and it they cannot gripe, then little excitement is generated.

The new plan allows choice. (you can keep your old policy if you wish).

The new plan " will not be a government run-system" she points out.

"There will be no new Bureaucary and no mandatory alliances" in her health care plan she said, which WAS the standard objection of critics in the past.

Due to experience in the past, this time she ironed out most of the objectional wrinkles ahead of time.

Opinion | A wiser, shrewder Hillary won't be fooled again | Seattle Times Newspaper

Her new plan is patterned after one introduced by Republicans, one that had been rejected by Bill Clinton in 1993. And that gives the plan an edge because it is not just a democratic idea, but has embraced ideas the Republican party originated.... a plan the brings borth parties together for a united agreement.

What Hillary Has Learned from '93 - TIME

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: bishop maybe it's just me, but i definitely don't sense ANY excitement about this great idea of hers - aside from her diehards. just what we need, another establishment politician with bright ideas on how to make government even more bigger and bloated than it already is... why? because it's good for you.

Even more disturbing is that I percieve she will rule just like her husband. When the constituency doesn't support her, she'll just Executive Order it, and it will become law.


Few things are so transparent as a bad politician.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Even more disturbing is that I percieve she will rule just like her husband. When the constituency doesn't support her, she'll just Executive Order it, and it will become law. Few things are so transparent as a bad politician.

It is up to YOUR canidate to address that duing a debate when the time comes, up to the media to ask such questions during interviews.

To pre-judge someone and to circulate unconfirmed fears does not get to the real facts, which fact must be anwered or responded to by Hillary Clinton. You are just spreading some gossip about your imaginary conspriracy which is probally not true. I feel confident that a plan of the magnitude will be sent to Congress and so forth, she is not the kind of person to pull another "Bush Bully" act on us.

[Osborn F Enready]

Technosoul said: I feel confident that a plan of the magnitude will be sent to Congress and so forth, she is not the kind of person to pull another "Bush Bully" act on us.

You know, I just can't let that "representation" of her character go on without retort.

To show a little of her hypocrisy, lack of integrity and open dishonesty....

On honesty:

“The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.” -Hillary Clinton, 1992 60 Minutes interview

“It is important that you do not say that you [are] calling because the campaign asked you to, but because you are outraged with what was said about her.” -campaign aide to Hillary Clinton, in a ca. 2000-Jul-19 bulk email asking the candidate's supporters to protest allegations that Clinton had once used the phrase “fucking Jew bastard” in anger

When New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth first broke the story in 1994, Hillary Clinton claimed that she had conducted the transactions herself after studying the market pages of the Wall Street Journal. This caused a good deal of mirth on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. "Buying iceskates one day, and entering the Olympics a day later," wrote Mark Powers, editor of The Journal of Futures Markets. The White House subsequently retreated step by step until it was acknowledged that Hillary Clinton's broker had exercised complete discretion in handling the day-to-day trades. excerpt from The Secret Life of Bill Clinton (1997), by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard:

"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?!" (From the book "The Survivor," by John Harris, p. 382 - Hillary in her 2000 Senate campaign

(Hint: Hillary has to keep trying to convince people she isn't a liar, because she is a liar. Some people don't have short memories, and some actually keep records.)

----

On Iraq:

"In the four years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." —Congressional Record, October 10, 2002 Senator Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.)

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York) September 13, 2001 WavSource: September 11 Terrorism 2

"No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Appearing on CNN's "Larry King Live" in April 2004, for instance, she was asked if she regretted her vote.

"I have said repeatedly that if I had known then what I know now, I never would have voted to give the president authority. And in the last debate, I said that, you know, it was a mistake to trust George Bush that he would do what he told all of us he would do." She went on to say of her vote: "Now, I do not think that that is a necessarily wrong judgment at the time. What was wrong is the way this president misused the authority that some of us here gave him." June 3, during a debate sponsored by CNN and New Hampshire's WMUR television, she both acknowledged a mistake but said she was not necessarily wrong.

"What does it all mean? Maybe nothing. But the senator seems to think it means something since she has chosen her words so carefully and tried to avoid using the words others would put in her mouth. And of course, linguistic legerdemain seems awfully familiar to anyone who covered Bill Clinton's presidency, when word parsing became a full-time occupation in Washington. ("I have never broken the laws of my country," he said to avoid admitting he smoked marijuana in London. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," he said to weave around admissions regarding his relationship with Monica Lewinsky.) What's striking, though, is that Hillary Clinton seems to have defused some of the heat once surrounding her 2002 vote. What last winter seemed like a critical vulnerability with the antiwar left that presumably would damage her prospects in the Democratic primary process has largely faded as an issue. Her latest regret passed by Sunday with little notice (one exception being a satirical web site that reported, tongue in cheek, that Clinton "now regrets having said she did not regret her Iraqi war authorization vote"). Perhaps that's because her shift has been more substantive. Clinton has changed her position on the war from the days when she said she would "reject a rigid timetable" for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Now she has voted a timetable for withdrawal. And the senator who for a long time did not regret voting to authorize the war recently sponsored legislation to deauthorize it." -- Peter Baker, on Hillary Clinton

-----

On her socialist/communist/populist agenda:

"Communist Party cadres should study the speeches of Hillary Clinton because she offers a very good example of the skills of propaganda." -Comrade Yu Quanyu, director of the Chinese Academy of Social Studies

"We just can't trust the American people to make those types of choices…. Government has to make those choices for people" (From the book "I've Always Been A Yankee Fan" by Thomas D. Kuiper, p 20 - Hillary to Rep. Dennis Hastert in 1993 discussing her expensive, disastrous taxpayer-funded health care plan)

"Many of you are well enough off that [President Bush's] tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to have to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." (Hillary to her fellow liberals in a speech in San Francisco; SFGate.com 6/28/2004.)

Hillary voted to go into Iraq, voted for the Patriot Act as well as the renewal of the Patriot Act, yet she later speaks out against the war and against the Patriot Act.



A book list on the agenda, treachery and lies of the Clintons.

David Horowitz and Richard Poe co-wrote "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party" (Thomas Nelson, 2006)

Amazon.com: The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party: Books: David Horowitz,Richard Poe

In "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Peter Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ralph Nader - among others.

Amazon.com: Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy: Books: Peter Schweizer

The Case Against Hillary Clinton:

Amazon.com: The Case Against Hillary Clinton: Books: Peggy Noonan

Madame Hillary, the Dark Road to the Whitehouse:

Amazon.com: Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House: Books: R. Emmett Tyrrell

Clinton and the flesh peddlers:
Johnny Chung on prostitution kingpin's White House connection
Inside the dark underworld of international crime, Ng Lapseng earned a reputation of being tough, smart and connected.

Connected? In 1994, the Macau millionaire and brothel owner visited the White House -- a visit captured in a personal photograph with President Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

AMPP: Engaging Red China: Journalistic item



There is much more on Hillary, the field is ripe for investigation of the facts after reading the hype being spewed about her.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready You know, I just can't let that "representation" of her character go on without retort. To show a little of her hypocrisy, lack of integrity and open dishonesty.... On honesty: (Hint: Hillary has to keep trying to convince people she isn't a liar, because she is a liar. Some people don't have short memories, and some actually keep records.) ---- On Iraq: ----- On her socialist/communist/populist agenda: Hillary voted to go into Iraq, voted for the Patriot Act as well as the renewal of the Patriot Act, yet she later speaks out against the war and against the Patriot Act. A book list on the agenda, treachery and lies of the Clintons. David Horowitz and Richard Poe co-wrote "The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and Sixties Radicals Siezed Control of the Democratic Party" (Thomas Nelson, 2006) Amazon.com: The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton, and Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party: Books: David Horowitz,Richard Poe In "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," Hoover Fellow Peter Schweizer reveals the glaring contradictions between the public stances and real-life behavior of prominent liberals including Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy, Al Franken, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Ralph Nader - among others. Amazon.com: Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy: Books: Peter Schweizer The Case Against Hillary Clinton: Amazon.com: The Case Against Hillary Clinton: Books: Peggy Noonan Madame Hillary, the Dark Road to the Whitehouse: Amazon.com: Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House: Books: R. Emmett Tyrrell Clinton and the flesh peddlers: Johnny Chung on prostitution kingpin's White House connection Inside the dark underworld of international crime, Ng Lapseng earned a reputation of being tough, smart and connected. Connected? In 1994, the Macau millionaire and brothel owner visited the White House -- a visit captured in a personal photograph with President Clinton and Hillary Clinton. AMPP: Engaging Red China: Journalistic item There is much more on Hillary, the field is ripe for investigation of the facts after reading the hype being spewed about her.

So you listed a bunch of gossip from untrustworthy conservative resources. Digging way back into the early 1990s but only finding a tiny tad of possible gossip to build your case on.

Conerning the the more current and actural qoutes she made... there is not a single lie in those qoutes, it is your slanted interpretaion of those qoutes that gives you that impression.

Attempting to force Hilliary Clinton, or her supporters, to remain on the defensive trying to prove that your deceptions are wrong is a neat political trick on your part. The old "offense is the best defense" plot.
But we are wise to those moves and will not be the victims of gossip and agressive negative advertising. It is your side that should duck for cover.

( as you represent the odd duck party).. HA!

But you tried, it did not work, so now go back and find another attack plan.

[Clarence]

techno...that's all I gotta say. Either Hillary comes real or not. Actually, I can't wait for Chelsea to run for office.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: Clarence techno...that's all I gotta say. Either Hillary comes real or not. Actually, I can't wait for Chelsea to run for office.

I could have gone over the post Enready made point by point in Defense of Hillary Clinton. Just like someone might go over the reasons Bush is having a war in Iraq, trying to make it all sound honky dorky. (right).

And of course no one would agree with the explainations if they are in fact supporting another canidate. And the post was a long one and would take a long time to answer.

I do not think Hillary is perfect and no doubt there are contradictions that can be pointed out, if you look real hard everyone has their faults and shortcomings. People will lie sometimes or fudge the truth a little. That is just human nature and unless you (they) are Popes no "confession" is needed.

The thing is I do not want to compare her faults with the faults of other canidates concerning truthfullness. On the other hand, I do not think she is proposing a (now documented) health plan just so when she is in office she will do the reverse. I think she will put the plan into affect unless Congress or the Senate can block the plan.

But let me give an example anyway. Canidate Ron Paul ( a decent fellow ) is not personally an advocate of gay marrages, but would not take actions to outlaw such activity because he said the Consitution does not allow a federal employee (elected offical) to interfer, being it is a state issue. His respect for the Consitution does not allow him to be true to his self, and his personal stand on religious morality. And perhaps if he really said what he thinks he would sound like Romney. That comes close to hypocrisy. If he believes that federal income taxes are unconsitutional but also pays his income taxes and that could be viewed as hypocrisy, "saying one thing and doing another thing", if someone used that as his "record" without explanning the finer details.

People can change their minds and so something said in 1993 might have changed by the year 2007. That is not really being "two faced" because you must go by their latest opinon. People can learn and make corrections along the way.

After all, Hillary Clinton started off in politics as a Republican conservative, and she is now a Democratic moderate. You started off as a child and now you are an adult, that does not mean that you are now a hypocrit because in the past you were childlike, based on the factural records about your past.

People change, America has changed, lots of changes are happening in all aspects of exsistance.

New evidence, and as new facts come to light, a lot of people changed their minds about the war and the honesty of it's justification. That has nothing to do with political winds, or the polls. And that does not mean we are guilty because, for whatever reason, we were not aware of those facts before they came to light.

Here within this isolated forum I am the only one supporting Hillary Clinton, and we have about 4 or 5 people supporting Ron Paul, and perhaps one person in support of Thompson or the mainstream republican party. We did have one Obama supporter but I think they dropped out of these debates.

I do not want this forum to look like a blog with my nickname being the last one shown at every post, and I do not want to look like the one who is submitting the most new postings (of late). Normally I post about philosophy, entertainment, or I promote alternative thinking concerning religion. Or nature and the envionment. But this is election time and as a citizen I get active and focus on that drama. We would not even have a USA, nor the Consitution, if our founders like Tomas Jefferson, Madison, Patrick Henry, and the many others did not get active and speak their minds. We would still be "Little England". The muskets and the fighting was part of our liberation, but without all that talking that revolution would not have taken place. So here I am, talking and debating. After elections are over I will go back to posting about more interesting things.

[Osborn F Enready]

Techno said: So you listed a bunch of gossip from untrustworthy conservative resources.

Excuse me?

Comrade Yu Quanyu, director of the Chinese Academy of Social Studies is not, nor could be a "conservative", and he knows a commie who spreads propaganda when he sees one.

Techno said: Digging way back into the early 1990s but only finding a tiny tad of possible gossip to build your case on.

I could put together pages on pages of lies, quotes and historical "changes of position" by Hillary and Billary. They are communists, and they have provided a long list of history to review.

Techno said: Conerning the the more current and actural qoutes she made... there is not a single lie in those qoutes, it is your slanted interpretaion of those qoutes that gives you that impression.

Let the readers decide, I will. How can I put slant into other peoples quotes?

Techno said: Attempting to force Hilliary Clinton, or her supporters, to remain on the defensive trying to prove that your deceptions are wrong is a neat political trick on your part.

LOL, sure Techno. Hillary once again provided the fodder with which to judge her. She has a past, has a history, and has a supposedly "new" healthcare program, which is really just the OLD healthcare program, with new spin.

Lucky for her sheeple don't have memories. Too bad however, some of us do, and will continue to spill the ugly truth all over her lilly white platitudes of honesty, which are entirely fabricated.

Techno said: The old "offense is the best defense" plot.

I am only using her words, and words uttered by her fans against her, aside from some NEWS reporters and JOURNALISTS.

Hillary said: But we are wise to those moves and will not be the victims of gossip and agressive negative advertising. It is your side that should duck for cover.

Bring it.

Ron Paul is a pillar of integrity, and his voting record belies his intents, which is constitutionally limited government.

Techno said: ( as you represent the odd duck party).. HA!

Odd ducks, do you have something against them? Are you an elitist when it comes to ducks?

Hillary should run for office in China, or Russia, places where her communist agenda would be welcomed.

Techno said: But you tried, it did not work, so now go back and find another attack plan.

Oh, it worked. That is why you are floundering, and realizing you forgot about whitewater, the link between the Clintons campaign money and the prostitution rings, now Hsu.....

Just more of the same from Billary Clinton and his wife...... more corruption, more lies, more doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to get the power they so desperately seek.

[Clarence]

I'm most concerned about her stance on the war.

To clarify my one liner from earlier in the thread. It says we would have mandatory insurance but nowhere is healthcare garaunteed.

[Thanatos]

If we're going to have a President intent on sending us into debt, we might as well go bankrupt while trying to care for the sick instead of running out of money while blowing people up...

This would be much more cost-effective if it was possible to do as Sweden and Canada do and force the drug companies to negotiate for lower prices by using the fact that the U.S. as a whole represents a giant market that they can't afford to say no to. Alas, our government is essentially a wholly owned subsidiary of the pharmaceutical industry and Merck and Phizer all have those ad campaigns where they pretend they aren't rolling in dough and if such a plan was implemented they wouldn't be able to do R&D.