FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Americans Only: Will You Vote For Clinton Anyway?






Will You Vote For Hillary Simply Because She Is (Supposedly) a Female?
Yes
25%
 25%  [ 5 ]
No
75%
 75%  [ 15 ]
Total Votes : 20

Billy Hill
She's not running for President to be a leader. She's running so she can have power.

She has never run anything successfully in her life. Including a marriage.

She wants to socialize medicine.

She will increase taxes like you've never seen.

She won't tell you what she really thinks about driver's licenses for illegal aliens (until its too late).

She's changed her view of the war more than John Kerry.

She wants government to control every aspect of life for you. (Remember when she said she's got a million plans for the US but we can't afford them all? She wasn't joking!)

She has to use scripted questions at debates and public speaking events.

She lets her husband walk all over her.

But she's a female. Will you vote for her on that alone?
whitehole
I wouldn't vote for her if someone gave me $10,000. All of your reason's are accurate and I don't see why people think she would make their country or their lives better in any way.

I think she will further the Bush agenda and socialize this country worse than it already is. She is one of the biggest pork spenders in the senate and I have yet to hear someone who thinks she is great based on her past merit.

And I'm a registered democrat!
AftershockVibe
Hooray! Partisan politics!
*sigh*

This is just a thinly disguised attack on Hillary Clinton, in fact I'd go so far to say you're just trolling. We'll see if the mods agree.

I am from the UK so really don't care very much. I do however disagree that her husband walks all over her. She is a very intelligent woman and could quite easily have gone the "I'm an independent woman" route to further her career instead of the route she took.

I also wish people wouldn't support political parties in the same way they support football teams.
Billy Hill
AftershockVibe wrote:
I am from the UK


You're not welcome in this thread. It's for Americans. (You might have missed that in the title) Unless you're voting in the elections here... Wink
Liu
Billy Hill wrote:
AftershockVibe wrote:
I am from the UK


You're not welcome in this thread. It's for Americans. (You might have missed that in the title) Unless you're voting in the elections here... Wink

Although they may have not the right to have a vote, they do however are allowed to express their opinions. Foreign allies of how they perceive our political figures are important.
mathiaus
Billy Hill wrote:
AftershockVibe wrote:
I am from the UK


You're not welcome in this thread. It's for Americans. (You might have missed that in the title) Unless you're voting in the elections here... Wink

Everyone is welcome in every thread at Frihost! Rules apply to languages you can post in, but there are no rules regarding your nationality allowing you to post in a thread in or not Exclamation


I'm not replying to anything else though because I tend to rant and go off-topic etc Razz
Philou
Billy Hill wrote:
AftershockVibe wrote:
I am from the UK


You're not welcome in this thread. It's for Americans. (You might have missed that in the title) Unless you're voting in the elections here... Wink

Dude, don't be so uptight.. ASVibe is not even talking about who he or she would vote for, but criticises the way you brought it up.

Your "this-is-MY-place-and-therefor-I-am-right" attitude makes me wonder... would you allow an immigrant person to participate here, or is it for "(white and pure) americans only". I didn't like the way it sounded, and your first message clearly stated your obvious right-wing positions. I'm just hoping these don't slip, as it would be easy, towards some fascistic redneck patriot kind of crap.

Peace.
Srs2388
politics always get to arguments Very Happy
I'm not really into politics. But I couldn't see myself voting for her. I don't think she would make a very good person to lead a country.
Philou
Oh and, for the "political" portion of this thread :

I wouldn't vote for her either. In fact, I wouldn't vote for anyone.

Come to think of it, voting is like signing a white cheque to the person you voted for. Once elected, they can do what they want for a few years. And anyway, are human beings so dumb that we can't think for ourselves and organize the society in a way that allows us to think and take decisions collectivly. I mean, some control on our lives?
dimg
first of all i never vote, and secondly i can see alot of people voteing for her because she is a women. Just emagine if she went on opera and talk about womens issues *shutters*
tidruG
I don't really see the point of this thread.
It appears to simply be a con's dig at a dem presidential hopeful.
However, it appears to have got some decent replies, so I'll keep it open unless someone else reports it.

Also, you cannot prevent others from replying in this thread. If you want only Americans to answer a thread like this, please find a site which has only American members, or create your own site, and then apply these rules.
ocalhoun
dimg wrote:
. Just emagine if she went on opera and talk about womens issues *shutters*

Taking pictures there? Or perhaps you meant shudders...
(Sorry, but I couldn't resist that)
tidruG wrote:
I am quite surprised that this thread hasn't been reported yet. It appears to be nothing but right-wing propaganda and unnecessary political mileage scavenging. This kind of post would be perfectly alright on a right-wing-exclusive site where you can all get together and go "liberal-bashing".


No more liberal-bashing than some threads here have been conservative-bashing.
Personally I think it is great to get the negative aspects of all the candidates out in the open BEFORE the election.
If I had known that Bush was formerly on the board of directors of a large drug company and planned to implement a Medicare prescription drug benefit, I wouldn't have voted for him.

Oh, and nice edit there!
missdixy
I still believe she's got nothing on Obama...
polly-gone
Obama is gonna win the democratic parties votes. I do have a good slogan for her though: "Hilary Clinton: The only woman in D.C. NOT having sex with her husband!"

-Nick Smile Smile Smile

P.S. If this is violating TOS, will a mod just edit it for me? Thanks. I Don't think it is against anything!
standready
Vote for her? NOT! I am not against having a woman as President. After watching her tap dance around questions during the debates (just like her hubby) and talk out of both sides of her mouth (again, like hubby), NO way.
Have I made up my mind as to who I feel will be the best for our country? Nope!
Afaceinthematrix
No way... If she gets elected I'm moving out of the country (no joke).
polly-gone
I say, if she wins, we should take over Canada! They have had it too good too long!
furtasacra
I don't like Hill at all, but I'd love to get Bill back in the White House.
Jaan
I agree, this guy's a troll.

Pointless thread.

we will see come election time.
Billy Hill
Jaan wrote:
I agree, this guy's a troll.

Pointless thread.


So pointless that you couldn't keep from commenting on it yourself.

Quote:
we will see come election time


Laughing Laughing :pwnt: Laughing

BTW, LoLing again at Hitlery staging more scripted questions, Very Happy
riv_
Philou wrote:
Oh and, for the "political" portion of this thread :

I wouldn't vote for her either. In fact, I wouldn't vote for anyone.

Come to think of it, voting is like signing a white cheque to the person you voted for. Once elected, they can do what they want for a few years. And anyway, are human beings so dumb that we can't think for ourselves and organize the society in a way that allows us to think and take decisions collectivly. I mean, some control on our lives?


Good analogy.
But doesn't that mean that NOT voting is a bit like signing a blank cheque to no-one in particular. At least if you vote you get to decide which corrupt representative gets free reign!
Really, I guess democracy isn't all it's cracked up to be.

But perhaps, I shouldn't say so here, since I'm a Canadian, and wasn't invited.
Alaskacameradude
You couldn't pay me enough to vote for her either. I'd prefer either of her democratic challengers to beat her, but it looks like she might win the democratic primary. If she does, i'm voting republican, there is just no way I could support her. As an aside, if she does win, I think that would mean that two families (Bush and Clinton) would have controlled our country FOREVER. Didn't we originally go to war for our independence from this sort of thing???
Thundercloud
here is what I think:

NO

NO

NO

oh did I say NO.

everything she believes goes against the Bible. I am a baptist and I believe that she will hurt the US severely. oh please do not start talking about religion now just giving you the reason why she is not getting my vote.

besides I am not old enough. only will be 17 and 10 months
ankitdatashn
Hi all, Well I can't even think of voting as I am a resident of india!!.

And anyway I just hate polititions as they do anything just for their own sake.

Bill clinton did for himself( you all know what he did), and yahh now hillary clinton has chance to take her revenge from billy in his style!!
nilsmo
Billy Hill wrote:
She's not running for President to be a leader. She's running so she can have power.

This is as big or bigger an issue for all other candidates running. Clinton is not special in that regard.

Quote:
She has never run anything successfully in her life. Including a marriage.

She's been running a successful campaign.

Quote:
She wants to socialize medicine.

Health care badly needs to be "socialized" in the US. It's just cheaper and more effective overall that way. Look at the successes of that in Sweden, Canada or pick any other industrialized first world country except the US.

With the word "socialize" you're in a way implying "communism" bla bla bla which Americans hate. However, we have a socialized police force and schools. That seems to work. Imagine private firefighters. If it saved them money, they would let houses burn down. Free healthcare would lower costs immensely and lower everyone's stress. I hope people are not just seeing "socialize" and thinking "evil!"

Quote:
She will increase taxes like you've never seen.

Bush increased the deficit like you've never seen. Earmarks in the budget have mostly been caused by Republicans the last 7 years. How about saving billions of dollars by eliminated such wasteful programs? How about saving us billions of dollars by getting out of Iraq? How about raising taxes so the government's budget doesn't die? How about raising taxes to keep Americans from dying because of being sick?

Quote:
She's changed her view of the war more than John Kerry.

...instead of staying stubbornly short-sighted and thinking we will have "VICTORY!" in Iraq.

Quote:
She wants government to control every aspect of life for you. (Remember when she said she's got a million plans for the US but we can't afford them all? She wasn't joking!)

Not true at all.

Quote:
She has to use scripted questions at debates and public speaking events.

Every candidate has extensive scripts.

Quote:
She lets her husband walk all over her.

Flamebait. And I'll imagine that [insert other candidate] has a wife who doesn't get walked on. Laughing This is like washer woman gossip.

Although Clinton may not be my favorite candidate, I advise people against not voting for Clinton because of invalid reasons (it seems you've been fed propaganda almost).

Also, answering the thread's question, no.
Billy Hill
nilsmo wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:
She's not running for President to be a leader. She's running so she can have power.

This is as big or bigger an issue for all other candidates running. Clinton is not special in that regard.


There are several conservative and independents that are in it to be President.
Quote:

Quote:
She has never run anything successfully in her life. Including a marriage.

She's been running a successful campaign.
No she hasn't. She's dropping in polls rapidly, and what the polls don't tell you is that they're not asking republicans. She's already lost half of the Democratic voters, and likely all but a tiny fraction of the Republican voters. How is that a successful campaign? Even if it IS successful, does that qualify her to run the world's most powerful nation and the biggest enterprise ever known by man? No.

Quote:
Quote:
She wants to socialize medicine.

Health care badly needs to be "socialized" in the US. It's just cheaper and more effective overall that way. Look at the successes of that in Sweden, Canada or pick any other industrialized first world country except the US.


Success in Sweden, Canada, England? Sure you jest! There are THOUSANDS of people in those countries coming to the US to use our health care system because it's the best in the world. It ain't perfect, but nobody BUT NOBODY, goes without health care here. Even illegals!!!

There are plenty of links that show what socialist systems do to a society, rather than what they actually provide for their people. You pick and choose the touchy-feely emotional frills, while ignoring the resulting impact.

Quote:
Quote:
She will increase taxes like you've never seen.

Bush increased the deficit like you've never seen. Earmarks in the budget have mostly been caused by Republicans the last 7 years. How about saving billions of dollars by eliminated such wasteful programs? How about saving us billions of dollars by getting out of Iraq? How about raising taxes so the government's budget doesn't die? How about raising taxes to keep Americans from dying because of being sick?


Wrong again. There are record increases in revenue for local AND federal government as a result of the tax cuts. Not to mention all time low unemployment. Even in the face of 100 dollar a barrel oil, a weak dollar and high gold prices are great for this country. Hell, I'm doing better now than ever before!

Quote:

Quote:
She's changed her view of the war more than John Kerry.

...instead of staying stubbornly short-sighted and thinking we will have "VICTORY!" in Iraq.

We are winning in Iraq. Just because CNN isn't saying it doesn't mean it's not happening. How about all the other issues she's waffling on? Illegals, the war, oil independence, etc etc etc. She's telling what the current crowd wants to hear. Tomorrow, when she's with a different crowd, she'll have a different stance on the same issues.

Quote:
Quote:
She wants government to control every aspect of life for you. (Remember when she said she's got a million plans for the US but we can't afford them all? She wasn't joking!)

Not true at all.


Wow. Just wow. Have you ever, um, listened to her?

Quote:
Quote:
She has to use scripted questions at debates and public speaking events.

Every candidate has extensive scripts.


Um, no, they don't. Why do you think they made such a big deal about it. Why'd she denounce it herself? Yikes, dude. Blind faith.

Quote:
Quote:
She lets her husband walk all over her.

Flamebait. And I'll imagine that [insert other candidate] has a wife who doesn't get walked on. Laughing This is like washer woman gossip.


She let him cheat on her repeatedly. Openly. Publicly. Who else's spouse has done that?

Quote:
Although Clinton may not be my favorite candidate, I advise people against not voting for Clinton because of invalid reasons (it seems you've been fed propaganda almost).


Uh huh. Invalid? Sure, kid. All you have to do is watch her.
Blaster
If i could vote I would vote for Hilliary if she had the best to offer. But just because she is female doesn't make a difference to me. I would also vote for Obama if he had what was good to offer. Him and Hilliary seem to be the two favorited then in line probably Gulina.
nilsmo
Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
She wants to socialize medicine.

Health care badly needs to be "socialized" in the US. It's just cheaper and more effective overall that way. Look at the successes of that in Sweden, Canada or pick any other industrialized first world country except the US.


Success in Sweden, Canada, England? Sure you jest! There are THOUSANDS of people in those countries coming to the US to use our health care system because it's the best in the world. It ain't perfect, but nobody BUT NOBODY, goes without health care here. Even illegals!!!

There are plenty of links that show what socialist systems do to a society, rather than what they actually provide for their people. You pick and choose the touchy-feely emotional frills, while ignoring the resulting impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Let's look at spending:
Quote:
In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.

Interestingly, government spending in the US for health care is also higher, even though they do not have socialized medicine:
Quote:
The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.

Let's look at coverage/access:
Quote:
A peer-reviewed comparison study of health care access in the two countries published in 2006 concluded that U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines.

Let's look at the results of medical care: (I hope you read this)
Quote:
In 2007, Gordon H. Guyatt et al. conducted a meta-analysis, or systematic review, of all studies that compared health outcomes for similar conditions in Canada and the U.S., in Open Medicine, an open-access peer-reviewed Canadian medical journal. They concluded, "Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent." Guyatt identified 38 studies addressing conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies with the strongest statistical validity, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 were equivalent or mixed. Of 28 weaker studies, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 were equivalent or mixed. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada with a 5% advantage, but the results were weak and varied. The only consistent pattern was that Canadian patients fared better in kidney failure.[6]

Canadians are, overall, statistically healthier than Americans and show lower rates of many diseases such as various forms of cancer. On the other hand, evidence suggests that with respect to some illnesses (such as breast cancer), those who do get sick have a higher rate of cure in the U.S. than in Canada.[74]

In terms of population health, life expectancy in 2006 was about two and a half years longer in Canada, with Canadians living to an average of 79.9 years and Americans 77.5 years.[75] Infant and child mortality rates are also higher in the U.S.[75]. Some comparisons suggest that the American system underperforms Canada's system as well as those of other industrialized nations with universal coverage.

The United States seems definitely not to be the best health care system in any of these respects. I would argue that it's actually the worst system in the industrialized world. (Highest costs, worst life expectancies and infant mortality rates Sad ) Perhaps the most troubling assertion you make is that in the US every person has adequate health care. This is not true.

Also, just the fact that socialized health care has the word socialized in it does not mean it is bad. Firefighting, schooling and policing are socialized, and they provide necessary services (think human rights) to every person.
taytay
I sure hope she doesn't win.. Even if she, on some whim, has ANY good plans for America, we will lose SOO many people out of the military. And you know what she'll try to do? She'll try to make a low not allowing you to quit the military. Once your in, your in until your contract is done.

and if that fails, she'll instate the draft.

How can people not see how corrupt she is?! It drives me up the wall!
taytay
nilsmo wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
She wants to socialize medicine.

Health care badly needs to be "socialized" in the US. It's just cheaper and more effective overall that way. Look at the successes of that in Sweden, Canada or pick any other industrialized first world country except the US.


Success in Sweden, Canada, England? Sure you jest! There are THOUSANDS of people in those countries coming to the US to use our health care system because it's the best in the world. It ain't perfect, but nobody BUT NOBODY, goes without health care here. Even illegals!!!

There are plenty of links that show what socialist systems do to a society, rather than what they actually provide for their people. You pick and choose the touchy-feely emotional frills, while ignoring the resulting impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Let's look at spending:
Quote:
In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.

Interestingly, government spending in the US for health care is also higher, even though they do not have socialized medicine:
Quote:
The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.

Let's look at coverage/access:
Quote:
A peer-reviewed comparison study of health care access in the two countries published in 2006 concluded that U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines.

Let's look at the results of medical care: (I hope you read this)
Quote:
In 2007, Gordon H. Guyatt et al. conducted a meta-analysis, or systematic review, of all studies that compared health outcomes for similar conditions in Canada and the U.S., in Open Medicine, an open-access peer-reviewed Canadian medical journal. They concluded, "Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent." Guyatt identified 38 studies addressing conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies with the strongest statistical validity, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 were equivalent or mixed. Of 28 weaker studies, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 were equivalent or mixed. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada with a 5% advantage, but the results were weak and varied. The only consistent pattern was that Canadian patients fared better in kidney failure.[6]

Canadians are, overall, statistically healthier than Americans and show lower rates of many diseases such as various forms of cancer. On the other hand, evidence suggests that with respect to some illnesses (such as breast cancer), those who do get sick have a higher rate of cure in the U.S. than in Canada.[74]

In terms of population health, life expectancy in 2006 was about two and a half years longer in Canada, with Canadians living to an average of 79.9 years and Americans 77.5 years.[75] Infant and child mortality rates are also higher in the U.S.[75]. Some comparisons suggest that the American system underperforms Canada's system as well as those of other industrialized nations with universal coverage.

The United States seems definitely not to be the best health care system in any of these respects. I would argue that it's actually the worst system in the industrialized world. (Highest costs, worst life expectancies and infant mortality rates Sad ) Perhaps the most troubling assertion you make is that in the US every person has adequate health care. This is not true.

Also, just the fact that socialized health care has the word socialized in it does not mean it is bad. Firefighting, schooling and policing are socialized, and they provide necessary services (think human rights) to every person.


American's that are educated, and can sustain themselves, Are generally healthy people. The reason there's a high percentage of ill American's is because of the people that aren't educated, can't sustain themselves, and rely on the government for food, money, and everything else. how many unemployed people are there in my city alone? it's in the 6 digit area. And how many people work for the government to care for all these people? a few hundred. Some parent's struggle with 2-3 jobs to keep their kids healthy, fed and happy. I can't imagine the difficulty in helping hundreds of thousands of people you Don't know. Let alone if your going to calculate the whole country.

Stupid people cause the problems, smart people are forced to pick up the slack, and in the end everyone loses....

Not all foreign countries understand an American's rage. They should live and work in America for a year or two. Maybe then they'll see it.

but thats just how it all looks to me >.>
Eyre
I refuse to vote for Hilary. I just don't get a very good feeling about her, and none of her arguments really appeal to me.
nilsmo
Quote:
Stupid people cause the problems, smart people are forced to pick up the slack, and in the end everyone loses....

With the US's current health care system, smart people must pick up the slack much more than in Canada. In Canada health care spending is a few times lower per person. That might be because when people get a little sick in the US, nobody helps, they get more sick, they get unemployed, they get labeled stupid and then they drain money from the nation. Plan B: Get a little sick, see a doctor, get healthy.

It saves tons of money for the middle class.

It saves lives.

It is not communism.

Quote:
Some parent's struggle with 2-3 jobs to keep their kids healthy, fed and happy. I can't imagine the difficulty in helping hundreds of thousands of people you Don't know. Let alone if your going to calculate the whole country.

Every other industrialized country manages it. The US is a big country, so it will be harder to implement here (especially with the US's system of states aka federalism). I guess then we'll just let our society get sicker and not build a better health care system since we "can't imagine the difficulty."
raine dragon
taytay wrote:
nilsmo wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
She wants to socialize medicine.

Health care badly needs to be "socialized" in the US. It's just cheaper and more effective overall that way. Look at the successes of that in Sweden, Canada or pick any other industrialized first world country except the US.


Success in Sweden, Canada, England? Sure you jest! There are THOUSANDS of people in those countries coming to the US to use our health care system because it's the best in the world. It ain't perfect, but nobody BUT NOBODY, goes without health care here. Even illegals!!!

There are plenty of links that show what socialist systems do to a society, rather than what they actually provide for their people. You pick and choose the touchy-feely emotional frills, while ignoring the resulting impact.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_and_American_health_care_systems_compared

Let's look at spending:
Quote:
In 2004, per-capita spending for health care in the U.S. was more than double that in Canada: in the U.S., it totaled US$6,096; in Canada, US$3,038.

Interestingly, government spending in the US for health care is also higher, even though they do not have socialized medicine:
Quote:
The U.S. government spends more per capita on health care than the government does in Canada. In 2004, the government of Canada spent $2,120 (in US dollars) per person on health care, while the United States government spent $2,724.

Let's look at coverage/access:
Quote:
A peer-reviewed comparison study of health care access in the two countries published in 2006 concluded that U.S. residents are one third less likely to have a regular medical doctor, one fourth more likely to have unmet health care needs, and are more than twice as likely to forgo needed medicines.

Let's look at the results of medical care: (I hope you read this)
Quote:
In 2007, Gordon H. Guyatt et al. conducted a meta-analysis, or systematic review, of all studies that compared health outcomes for similar conditions in Canada and the U.S., in Open Medicine, an open-access peer-reviewed Canadian medical journal. They concluded, "Available studies suggest that health outcomes may be superior in patients cared for in Canada versus the United States, but differences are not consistent." Guyatt identified 38 studies addressing conditions including cancer, coronary artery disease, chronic medical illnesses and surgical procedures. Of 10 studies with the strongest statistical validity, 5 favoured Canada, 2 favoured the United States, and 3 were equivalent or mixed. Of 28 weaker studies, 9 favoured Canada, 3 favoured the United States, and 16 were equivalent or mixed. Overall, results for mortality favoured Canada with a 5% advantage, but the results were weak and varied. The only consistent pattern was that Canadian patients fared better in kidney failure.[6]

Canadians are, overall, statistically healthier than Americans and show lower rates of many diseases such as various forms of cancer. On the other hand, evidence suggests that with respect to some illnesses (such as breast cancer), those who do get sick have a higher rate of cure in the U.S. than in Canada.[74]

In terms of population health, life expectancy in 2006 was about two and a half years longer in Canada, with Canadians living to an average of 79.9 years and Americans 77.5 years.[75] Infant and child mortality rates are also higher in the U.S.[75]. Some comparisons suggest that the American system underperforms Canada's system as well as those of other industrialized nations with universal coverage.

The United States seems definitely not to be the best health care system in any of these respects. I would argue that it's actually the worst system in the industrialized world. (Highest costs, worst life expectancies and infant mortality rates Sad ) Perhaps the most troubling assertion you make is that in the US every person has adequate health care. This is not true.

Also, just the fact that socialized health care has the word socialized in it does not mean it is bad. Firefighting, schooling and policing are socialized, and they provide necessary services (think human rights) to every person.


American's that are educated, and can sustain themselves, Are generally healthy people. The reason there's a high percentage of ill American's is because of the people that aren't educated, can't sustain themselves, and rely on the government for food, money, and everything else.


That's, quite honestly, a very flawed conclusion.
I have chronic low blood pressure. I see a cardiologist regularly and take 4, quite expensive pills a day. I'm not stupid (in fact according to the testing done by my school when I was a child I', in the top 2% of the population for IQ). I'm not uneducated (currently enrolled in a university), however, my income is too low for me to be able to afford to pay for that health care and have to rely on my parents insurance. It costs over $30,000 to go to my school every year. I can't work full time and go to school and do well at both. Am I then a 'problem'? because I'm not healthy and I can't sustain myself. Granted, in about a year I'll have my degree and most likely a decent job and I'll be able to sustain myself.. but I still won't be healthy.

On the flip side, there are plenty of people on the streets who are more able-bodied then I am.

Now, lets keep going from there:

Homeless people in the united states:
23% are veterans [x]
41% of the ones in the twin cities MN are employed full time. [x]

the current minimum wage, working a full time job, isn't enough to live off of. So, you have a family of 3, where the parents couldn't afford to go to college, and so are working minimum wage jobs, and supporting a child. They won't be able to care for that child if it gets ill. Because they can't afford it. Not because they are lazy bums, not because they rely on the government, but because they couldn't afford to get a college degree, or maybe they had to work to support their family when they were younger and couldn't even finish high school. Either way, here are two people working as hard as they can, and unable to make it. These are the people who really need affordable health care. This is the situation that such a thing would be designed for.

A dear friend of mine moved here from another country as a child. Her father had a heart attack and lost his job. Her mother's English isn't the best, and she is unwell. With her and her mother working full time, they couldn't support their family. These two ladies work very hard, and they are still below the poverty line, and they do get government health care help. She is mortified of it. But, they can't get by any other way. If health care had been more available, more affordable, her father, could have seen a doctor before he got to that point. Could have possible prevented it. But they couldn't afford health care even when he was working, and back then, they didn't qualify for health care assistance. If they had, they probably would have spent less on health care then they are now.
Donutey
I despise people arguing that socialized medicine is a bad thing, give me one reason why it's bad... Yes, it needs money to run it, but you can't argue the military or any other branch needs more money before healthcare.
Billy Hill
Suppose that you lived in a neighborhood and some in your neighborhood were poor and were in need of healthcare. Which is the best solution to taking care of the health of your neighbors, hiring a person to go from door to door and with a gun force them all to contribute, or to depend upon the charity of the neighbors to do it?

Now, before you jump off and say that the analogy is not fair or correct, please first answer which one would be best if the analogy was correct. Because if your assessment of the situation is wrong and in the end the analogy is correct, you will be beating yourself up for not being able to discern the truthfulness of the situation.

But, those will argue that taxing people is legal, and therefore it is moral. I say, that taxing people is only moral, (Golden Rule); if all of the people being taxed believe it is the right thing to do for the particular use of the tax money being “taken” as to the proper role of government. Others will argue that since the “outcome” is correct or desirable, then that trumps everything else.

Quote:
One immediate problem with public health care is with the funding. Those usually attracted to such a "free" system are the poor and the sick -- those least able to pay. A political solution is to force everybody to enroll in the system, which amounts to redistributing income towards participants with higher health risks or lower income. This is why the Canadian system is universal and compulsory.

Even if participation is compulsory in the sense that everyone has to pay a health insurance premium (through general or specific taxes), some individuals will be willing to pay a second time to purchase private insurance and obtain private care. If you want to avoid this double system, you do as in Canada: you legislate a monopoly for the public health insurance system.

This means that although complementary insurance (providing private or semi-private hospital rooms, ambulance services, etc.) is available on the market, sale of private insurance covering the basic insured services is forbidden by law. Even if a Canadian wants to purchase basic private insurance besides the public coverage, he cannot find a private company legally allowed to satisfy his demand.



Quote:
Public health expenditures in Quebec amount to 29 per cent of the provincial government budget. One-fifth of the revenues come from a wage tax of 3.22 per cent charged to employers and the rest comes from general taxes at the provincial and federal levels. It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan.


Quote:
The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs. The system is slow to adjust to changing demands and new technologies. For instance, day clinics and home care are underdeveloped as there exist basically only two types of general hospitals: the non-profit local hospital and the university hospital.


Quote:
Supporters of public health insurance reply that for all its inefficiencies, their system at least is more just. But even this isn't true.

Their conception of justice is based on the idea that certain goods like health (and education? and food? where do you stop?) should be made available to all through coercive redistribution by the state. If, on the contrary, we define justice in terms of liberty, then justice forbids coercing some (taxpayers, doctors, and nurses) into providing health services to others. Providing voluntarily for your neighbor in need may be morally good. Forcing your neighbor to help you is morally wrong.

Even if access to health services is a desirable objective, it is by no means clear that a socialized system is the answer. Without market rationing, queues form. There are ways to jump the queue, but they are not equally available to everyone.

In Quebec, you can be relatively sure not to wait six hours with your sick child in an emergency room if you know how to talk to the hospital director, or if one of your old classmates is a doctor, or if your children attend the same exclusive private school as your pediatrician's children. You may get good services if you deal with a medical clinic in the business district. And, of course, you will get excellent services if you fly to the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota or to some private hospital in Europe. The point is that these ways to jump the queue are pretty expensive for the typical lower middle class housewife, not to talk of the poor.
nilsmo
Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
Public health expenditures in Quebec amount to 29 per cent of the provincial government budget. One-fifth of the revenues come from a wage tax of 3.22 per cent charged to employers and the rest comes from general taxes at the provincial and federal levels. It costs $1,200 per year in taxes for each Quebec citizen to have access to the public health system. This means that the average two-child family pays close to $5,000 per year in public health insurance. This is much more expensive than the most comprehensive private health insurance plan.

In the United States, ironically we spend more money in taxes than in Canada to pay for health care. And at the same time we have to pay private insurance. In the end, the average American pays twice as much money on health care as the average Canadian.

Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
The monopoly of basic health insurance has led to a single, homogeneous public system of health care delivery. In such a public monopoly, bureaucratic uniformity and lack of entrepreneurship add to the costs.

But the US system has the most costs of any health care system in an industrialized country.

Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
If, on the contrary, we define justice in terms of liberty, then justice forbids coercing some (taxpayers, doctors, and nurses) into providing health services to others.


If "we define justice in terms of liberty" the same way your quote did, then every tax leveraged by the state is contrary to justice (since for each tax there is at least a few people in a large country that don't want to pay). It seems this type of justice favors anarchy. I find your quotes not really consistent with common sense.
Related topics
bush and condi talking...
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
2nd Language
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
FriHost's Music Genre
The Daily Guess A Number Game: Day 111
Rumsfield being investigated for War Crimes
Barrack HUSSEIN Obama
What would be our world like without crude oils?
Hilary Clinton to be next President of U.S.
If a black man becomes a US president
Ireland's no vote to the Lisbon Treaty
Vote for Hillary
Third Party
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.