Island Dog Island Dog

Hillary: Universal Health Care for Everyone!

▼

Hillary: Universal Health Care for Everyone!

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=nation_world&id=5151141
from JoeUser Forums
Yesterday on ABC's Good Morning America Hillary Clinton attended a staged town hall meeting filled with selected members, and obvious supporters. During her "meeting" Hillary pledged the following:

"We're going to have universal health care when I'm president - there's no doubt about that. We're going to get it done," the New York senator and front-runner for the 2008 nomination said.

Of course Hillary was largely unchallenged by the host Robin Miller, and was never asked any tough questions that Hillary might have to actually answer like how she intends to pay for all this? But this is what the 2008 Presidential election will look like for democrats......a clean pass from the media.
democrat
14,000 views 55 replies
Reply #51 from JoeUser Forums Top
talk about disputed. these claims have never been properly substiantiated in my view. and whether you want to dispute the 47 million by a few mil is moot to me. if it's 10 million, if it's 1 million,,,i would want to find a way to get them the care they deserve.


With that we can go back to the discussion that it's not the governments responsibility to provide health care. 


4) on the other hand, it is improper to try to create a postion she hasn't taken by taking quotes out of context and speculating the worst possible case scenarios and presenting them as if they were facts. that is shoddy and irresponsible writing in my view and it needed to be pointed out.


Hillary clearly stated she wants some sort of universal health care if she's elected.  Now you can nitpick the details all you want but she clearly stated it. 

" We're going to have universal health care when I'm president. There's no doubt about that. We're going to get it done."
Reply #52 from JoeUser Forums Top
no , she doesn't necessarily. show me her plan that endorses "nationalized healthcare"


Right, that is our term for Universal Health care. just like HC I. (yea right)

these claims have never been properly substiantiated in my view.


Bingo! In your view - i.e. Opinion. Dont let the facts get in your way however.
Multiplicity - Control multiple PCs using one keyboard and mouse
Reply #53 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sean,

Hang on...you say you're a Libertarian, yet you rely on DNC talking points. PLEASE don't do this.

Now...what you advocate for is AFFORDABLE health care coverage that is AVAILABLE to all Americans. I'm still not an advocate for it; however, I must protest that you are arguing for something entirely DIFFERENT from the proposed UNIVERSAL health care.

UNIVERSAL, by it's very definition, means that EVERYONE has it. Which means you would HAVE to make it a criminal act not to have coverage. The only way to achieve 100% coverage is by making criminals of the noncompliant. Otherwise, there will always be a percentage of uninsured.

I'm going to point something out to you that you may want to consider, Sean. As Libertarians, it does not serve the party well if we rely too heavily on "talking points" from the big two, as you are doing here. Now I will admit to doing that from time to time as well, so I'm not singling you out here, but doesn't it strike you that someone from a party that claims to be different from the "big two" should be offering solutions distinct from the "big two"? I think Americans would be far more likely to embrace your more moderate position of available health care than the DNC's proposal of universal health care. Even though I don't even side with you there, I find it far less totalitarian.

Just a thought.
Reply #54 from JoeUser Forums Top

gid, i know what you are saying and the definition you cite, but i have never seen an example of anyone in any nation being jailed for not buying into a health care plan. if i am wrong, and there are those "political refugees" out there. therefore i don't think the definition is accurate. tho it does make for good rhetoric.

Sean. As Libertarians, it does not serve the party well if we rely too heavily on "talking points" from the big two, as you are doing here.


well, actually, as i pointed out, i am not trying to imply even that i support her plan or anyone else's. if i gave that impression or mis-spoke, i apologize. she doesn't have one, and i haven't endorsed anyone's in the bigger picture.

she is, and i think genuinely, trying to get a consensus of good ideas. perhaps her definition of a good idea is different than mine, that remains to be seen. but i have to agree with the premise of doing that. i believe that we will get nowhere in this country with ANY plan that garners "51%" or any slight majority. in order for anything to actually work, we're gonna need a much bigger majority to make it work. otherwise, any plan will merely be sabatoged by it's detractors whenever given the opportunity and it wil become "just another big government program."

but your point is well taken. but it is common for people to take my "fighting for the underdog" or just wanting a "fair playingfield" is often misconstrued as "defending " the libs or cons or reps or dems or whatever...i can understand that.

and i tend to put a high value on personal liberties and it finds me in their camp more often than with the right, at least online. while i know you consider some of the GOP's issues more relevant in your priorities, which puts ya with the GOP more often than not. so, both of us find ourselves rubbing elbows with the people we refuse to actually align ourselves with, for various reasons, all too often. but in our system, i think we would both have to concede that working with the 2 bigs often yields more results than trying to crash the party from the outside. hell, a 3rd party hasn't been able to get into a debate since like 92.

I think Americans would be far more likely to embrace your more moderate position of available health care than the DNC's proposal of universal health care. Even though I don't even side with you there, I find it far less totalitarian.


and again, i think in the end, if anything real does get done, it will be a more "moderate" plan than most of the pre-election rhetoric would suggest.

one side note,,,funny, i'm one of those people that everyone who is on the right thinks i'm liberal, and everyone on the left finds me conservative. but that's more common "offline" where people see more of who i am than gets put on display here.

Reply #55 from JoeUser Forums Top
Hillary clearly stated she wants some sort of universal health care if she's elected. Now you can nitpick the details all you want but she clearly stated it.


she also clearly stated that there is a difference between universal care and "nationalized care." the latter is how everyone who hates her defines it, ignoring what she has said and sticking withtheir "1/2 truth."

With that we can go back to the discussion that it's not the governments responsibility to provide health care.


and we'll go round and round and end up disagreeing again...what would be the point other than just to start a fight? i think we have enough on our plate here.