NationStates Jolt Archive

Dear Friends,
I and many of you have strong feelings about Sen. Hillary Clinton. We must help this proud woman in her quest to become president. If you would like to help raise funds for Hillary Clinton's run for president click here (http://clinton.senate.gov/).

It's a waste of time. She can never win. First of all, she has the Clinton name. A large number of people won't vote for her just because she's Hillary. Secondly, there are still plenty of people who won't vote for a woman. If she runs she'll only hurt the Democrat party.

I know that. click the link anyway.

Actually since you only posted twice. I would suggest that the link might be a problem. Check the Mods warnings on links if you guys dont believe me.

Seems you made a mistake with the link there, pal. I was kind enough to fix it for you.

Oh, and pull anything like that again and you might find your time on this forum cut short.

It's unsettling how willing the American public is to tolerate rampant nepotism even in our highest government offices. First a former president's son is elected, and now we're talking about electing a former president's wife? This is supposed to be a democracy, remember?

I'd vote for her, I think she's hot!

The president is predominantly useless. Congress and the supreme court have the real power. Appointments aren't as meaningful as people think congress reviews them to weed out any wackos and then the justices do as they please not in many cases not representative of the president who appointed them. Congress can pass any laws they please within the bounds of the constitution so long as they have a working majority. It takes a very strong person to make any difference as president. After all the Fed controls the economy, what does that leave the president? International handshaking.

I actually saw Chelsea Clinton from about 20 ft away. She wasnt so hot. Dont think mama is hot either. Bill was definately smoking the green grass when he hooked up with her.
I would never vote for her either. Would vote for Kerry before I voted for her. Hell would have to freeze over before I voted for Kerry.

I liked Liberman.

you know vote Liberman choose the chosen

Spanked!

you think so?

I liked Liberman.

you know vote Liberman choose the chosen

See this is why Liberman cant get the nomination. He is a good man. Problem is that he is Jewish. Now I have nothing against the Jews. Yet this is his problem with getting nominated. Just a fact.

Definetly, but that's no excuse for asses like Kerry, Edwards, and Bush being our only choices.

The president is predominantly useless. Congress and the supreme court have the real power. Appointments aren't as meaningful as people think congress reviews them to weed out any wackos and then the justices do as they please not in many cases not representative of the president who appointed them. Congress can pass any laws they please within the bounds of the constitution so long as they have a working majority. It takes a very strong person to make any difference as president. After all the Fed controls the economy, what does that leave the president? International handshaking. Ever heard of a veto? The President represents our government's entire executive branch, and has the authority to override the decisions of our country's legislative bodies. It's not a ceremonial office.

I'll see your Rich White Woman and raise you an African American Woman fromm a poor/disenfranchised background...

How about CONDI ? (http://www.americansforrice.com/) :p

His veto is useless if congress has a 3/4 vote. So a weak president is powerless, and therefore it takes a person like Jefferson, Lincoln, either Roosevelt, Regan, and so forth to make the office of president anything more than a ceremonial yes man blown to an fro by the tides of time. A weak president is merely a scape goat for the fed or congress or the pentagon.

I'll see your Rich White Woman and raise you an African American Woman fromm a poor/disenfranchised background...

How about CONDI ? (http://www.americansforrice.com/) :p That's a good idea, let's elect one of Bush's henchmen so we can prepetuate a deceitful authoritarian administration that wants to curtail Americans' civil liberties. It'll piss off the French so it must be a good idea!

I'd support Rice '08. Seems like a step in a new direction at the very least.

Rice has the same problems as Hillary, and one more to boot. She's detested by a large segment of the population (for taking part in the bush administration), she's a woman, and she's black. I agree that discriminating against women and blacks is wrong, but many people don't share my opinions. I hope the republicans do nominate her. It would ensure a democrat victory.

His veto is useless if congress has a 3/4 vote. So a weak president is powerless, and therefore it takes a person like Jefferson, Lincoln, either Roosevelt, Regan, and so forth to make the office of president anything more than a ceremonial yes man blown to an fro by the tides of time. A weak president is merely a scape goat for the fed or congress or the pentagon. That's a big IF considering we live in a bipartisan state with legislative bodies that are, more often than not, polarized. The American voters invest unconditional executive authority in a single office, and I don't think it's an issue that should be taken lightly.

That's a good idea, let's elect one of Bush's henchmen so we can prepetuate a deceitful authoritarian administration that wants to curtail Americans' civil liberties. It'll piss off the French so it must be a good idea! :headbang:

That's Henchwoman to you, you booze-ridden anarcho-liberal schweinkopf commie! :eek: ;) :D

That's a big IF considering we live in a bipartisan state with legislative bodies that are, more often than not, polarized. The American voters invest unconditional executive authority in a single office, and I don't think it's an issue that should be taken lightly.


I didn't say it should be taken lightly, I meant to illustrate that we should be more concerned with who we elect to legislative offices.

That's a good idea, let's elect one of Bush's henchmen so we can prepetuate a deceitful authoritarian administration that wants to curtail Americans' civil liberties. It'll piss off the French so it must be a good idea!


Ooh scary tax cuts stealing your liberties? Boohoo send the money back.
Ok you're obviously talking about the patriot act, which is obviously bullshit, but noone made congress pass that crap.

By the way, thus far most foreign dignitaries including those in France are quite taken with Ms. Rice.

Ooh scary tax cuts stealing your liberties? Boohoo send the money back.
Ok you're obviously talking about the patriot act, which is obviously bullshit, but noone made congress pass that crap.

By the way, thus far most foreign dignitaries including those in France are quite taken with Ms. Rice. You're right, that American public didn't draft the Patriot Act, and it didn't pass it. The Republican and Democratic Representatives in Congress acted in collusion without any regard for the rights of the American people. Further evidence that our government is becoming increasingly distanced from the interests of the people they're supposed to represent. As for my tax cuts - I'm not seeing any of that money since I don't make six figures, and I'd much rather see that money put into social services so we could get on the track towards free education and first class healthcare anyways. The tax cut is just a way of putting more money into yuppies' pockets so they can buy more 'stuff', and reward Bush with political favors in return for nourishing their material lusts.

the tax cut primarily effects the middle class, married people, families with children, and people wishing to leave land or money to their children when they die.

the tax cut primarily effects the middle class, married people, families with children, and people wishing to leave land or money to their children when they die.
Not really true. It primarily effects the wealthy. Particularly the inheritance tax. There were already laws on the books to protect small businesses and farms. The inheritance tax cut was mainly to sheild wealthy families so their kids wouldn't have to get real jobs.

I'd vote for her, I think she's hot!

Even with her fat ankles?

That's a good idea, let's elect one of Bush's henchmen so we can prepetuate a deceitful authoritarian administration that wants to curtail Americans' civil liberties. It'll piss off the French so it must be a good idea!

here we go again.... :rolleyes:

What is it with liberals and perpetually spreading lies about the Bush administration? The only ones wanting to curtail civil liberties are the democrats, they want to do away with our right to bear arms, they want to sign our sovereinty out to some mumbo jumbo international court and they want to sign up to this Kyoto bullshit.

What have the democRATS done for minorities in the last 40 years? NOTHING! It was the republicans who abolished slavery and passed the civil rights bills, OVER 'RAT attempts to filibuster.

They nominated a communist traitor for president, and now they want the ultra left wing Marxist radical Hillary Clinton? No way, if that happens, we're gonna need Lee Harvey Oswald again. Remember what Hillary said last year? "We're gonna take things away from you for the common good", translation: we will punish hard working people and give the cash to all welfare leeches and illegal aliens crawling past our borders.

Not really true. It primarily effects the wealthy. Particularly the inheritance tax. There were already laws on the books to protect small businesses and farms. The inheritance tax cut was mainly to sheild wealthy families so their kids wouldn't have to get real jobs.

bullshit, IF YOU DON'T PAY TAX YOU CANNOT GET A TAX CUT.

The less tax revenue the federal government has the better it is, than the democrat congressthieves cannot waste it all on their favorite scams to deceive and defraud the taxpayer.

But no, according to the RATS (for those not up to date in terminology, RATS is short for democRATS) it's better to tax those who work hard and keep the economy going so you can give free money to all sorts of leeches who will then vote for a RAT candidate.

here we go again.... :rolleyes:

What is it with liberals and perpetually spreading lies about the Bush administration? The only ones wanting to curtail civil liberties are the democrats, they want to do away with our right to bear arms, they want to sign our sovereinty out to some mumbo jumbo international court and they want to sign up to this Kyoto bullshit.

What have the democRATS done for minorities in the last 40 years? NOTHING! It was the republicans who abolished slavery and passed the civil rights bills, OVER 'RAT attempts to filibuster.

They nominated a communist traitor for president, and now they want the ultra left wing Marxist radical Hillary Clinton? No way, if that happens, we're gonna need Lee Harvey Oswald again. Remember what Hillary said last year? "We're gonna take things away from you for the common good", translation: we will punish hard working people and give the cash to all welfare leeches and illegal aliens crawling past our borders. Why would I defend the Democrats? They squandered campaign funding during the presidential election to smash grassroots political movements and third party campaigns. And even worse, they co-engineered the invasion of Iraq and passed the Patriot Act, and as far as I can tell, they're as responsible for America's state of affairs as the Republicans.

bullshit, IF YOU DON'T PAY TAX YOU CANNOT GET A TAX CUT.

The less tax revenue the federal government has the better it is, than the democrat congressthieves cannot waste it all on their favorite scams to deceive and defraud the taxpayer.

But no, according to the RATS (for those not up to date in terminology, RATS is short for democRATS) it's better to tax those who work hard and keep the economy going so you can give free money to all sorts of leeches who will then vote for a RAT candidate.
Yes, but the rich pay a far lower rate of taxes than they did before. This in a time when the government needs more money to fund the reconstruction of Iraq and Afghanistan as well as provide for homeland defense here in the states. Also, the middle class and working poor are the engine that drive the economy. Their buying power and their hard work is what keeps the stores in business and the factories running. What do they get? A tax cut that won't cover immunizations for their kids, fewer government services, and less security. Meanwhile the rich get more money to sock away so their kids won't have to ever break a sweat. The US public got robbed.

I'm not sure where you are hearing this but it isn't exactly the whole story. Not only rich people are affected by inheretance tax. Not only that but my family has benifited from the tax cut and we aren't rich. Also every teacher I have has benifited and they are by no means wealthy.

The way I see it putting money back in the hands of consumers always helps the economy and therefore the society.


Tourt reform would be the way to bring about cheaper health care, not throwing federal dollars at the problem. Trial lawyers rape doctors over utter nonsence and then insurance rises for the doctor, who in order to maintain a certain level of quality must raise costs. The same is true with drug companies. Frivelous lawsuits are responsible for the lack of affordable health care.

Tourt reform would be the way to bring about cheaper health care, not throwing federal dollars at the problem. Trial lawyers rape doctors over utter nonsence and then insurance rises for the doctor, who in order to maintain a certain level of quality must raise costs. The same is true with drug companies. Frivelous lawsuits are responsible for the lack of affordable health care.

hear hear, it's time that those leechlike trial lawyers like John Edwards are stopped dead in their tracks.

Frivelous lawsuits are responsible for the lack of affordable health care. No, the problem is that our privitized healthcare system prevents the people that can't afford insurance from getting medical treatment without breaking the bank. Americans seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that good health should be a luxury.

I'm not sure where you are hearing this but it isn't exactly the whole story. Not only rich people are affected by inheretance tax. Not only that but my family has benifited from the tax cut and we aren't rich. Also every teacher I have has benifited and they are by no means wealthy.

The way I see it putting money back in the hands of consumers always helps the economy and therefore the society.


Tourt reform would be the way to bring about cheaper health care, not throwing federal dollars at the problem. Trial lawyers rape doctors over utter nonsence and then insurance rises for the doctor, who in order to maintain a certain level of quality must raise costs. The same is true with drug companies. Frivelous lawsuits are responsible for the lack of affordable health care.
There were already laws on the books to keep small businesses and farms from being destroyed by inheritance tax, and it was a progressive tax. The less you made, the less you paid. Any benefit a poor or middle class person got from bush's antics was small and inconsequencial.

Tort reform may lower health care costs, it may not. It will, however, mean that a person who loses a limb, or is otherwise crippled by malpractice will only be able to get 250k for his loss. If he's out of a job because of his injuries, tough shit. Doesn't sound fair to me.

No, the problem is that our privitized healthcare system prevents the people that can't afford insurance from getting medical treatment without breaking the bank. Americans seem perfectly comfortable with the idea that good health should be a luxury.

actually anyone who can't afford insurance can always go to public hospitals.. besides.. why is health insurance so damaned expensive.. because medical treatment is expensive, because doctor practice defensive medicie and pay outragous medical liability insurance to protect themselves from abulence chasers like Edwards.... so what was your point again ?

actually anyone who can't afford insurance can always go to public hospitals.. besides.. why is health insurance so damaned expensive.. because medical treatment is expensive, because doctor practice defensive medicie and pay outragous medical liability insurance to protect themselves from abulence chasers like Edwards.... so what was your point again ?
Only for emergency treatment. Normal preventative care, or treatment for chronic illness is not free. Why can Canada and most of Western Europe have government subsidized healthcare, and we can't? We do have the biggest GDP, one would think we could pull it off.

I for one can't await for dear hiliary to run for president.. becuase there maybe at best a 20% chance of her winning... hell probably less then that... Sure she sounds great to liberal states like NY and California.. but she has no clout or appeal accross the rest of the country. She is far too liberal for this country and in no way will represent the "new" democratic party which the democrats are looking to build taking a step to the right to come back into the main stream..

As far as im concerned, we only benifit from Hiliary running.. it will simply mean 4 more years of republican control ~_^.

Besides Guliani might run.. then justice can be shelled out when he spanks her in the campegin field as he would of done when she was running for senator in NY

This is the funniest thread in at least a day.

His point is that he thinks the government knows better than privates citizens how we should live and spend our money.

Only for emergency treatment. Normal preventative care, or treatment for chronic illness is not free. Why can Canada and most of Western Europe have government subsidized healthcare, and we can't? We do have the biggest GDP, one would think we could pull it off.

Healthcare like France ? sure France has the greatest healthcare system inthe world.. but can't afford it.. not enough tax dollars to pay for all that greatness, and now they are being pressured by the EU to privitize it.. god forbid.

And Canada, why can they afford it ? I assume its because they use their buying power to get massive price cuts from US pharmaceutical companies buying medications at a fraction of the price we pay. Americans pay for all of the break through medications developed... what great medical break throughs have come from Canadian pharmaceuticals in the past 20 years i wonder... nothing worth speaking of.

Besides the fact I , and most americans are not prepared to wave good by to 60% of our pay check to pay for the kind of cost which will be nessesary to sustain a universal healthcare system.

actually anyone who can't afford insurance can always go to public hospitals.. besides.. why is health insurance so damaned expensive.. because medical treatment is expensive, because doctor practice defensive medicie and pay outragous medical liability insurance to protect themselves from abulence chasers like Edwards.... so what was your point again ? America has PRIVATE healthcare. Corporations own and manage most hospitals in America. The reason that health insurance is so expensive is because when somebody goes to the hospital for medical attention, if they aren't insured and can't afford to pay their medical bills, the hospital loses money and is forced to lay off nurses and doctors to cut costs, and insurance premiums rise. That's why healthcare is so expensive. Lawsuits are only a part of the problem.

Healthcare like France ? sure France has the greatest healthcare system inthe world.. but can't afford it.. not enough tax dollars to pay for all that greatness, and now they are being pressured by the EU to privitize it.. god forbid.

And Canada, why can they afford it ? I assume its because they use their buying power to get massive price cuts from US pharmisutical companies buying medications at a fraction of the price we pay. Americans pay for all of the break through medications developed... what great medical break throughs have come from Canadian pharimsuticals in the past 20 years i wonder... nothing worth speaking of.

Besides the fact I , and most americans are not prepared to wave good by to 60% of our pay check to pay for the kind of cost which will be nessesary to sustain a universal healthcare system.
60%? You must be high. It wouldn't take nearly that much to subsidize healthcare. All you have to do is establish a non-profit HMO that would be paid for by tax dollars. If one can't get insurance through their employer, for a small monthly fee (which could be waved if the person is very poor) they get health coverage. They get regular doctor's visits and prescription coverage so that they can stay healthy and not become a burden to hospitals by letting conditions go untreated until they need expensive emergency treatment.

America has PRIVATE healthcare. Corporations own and manage most hospitals in America. The reason that health insurance is so expensive is because when somebody goes to the hospital for medical attention, if they aren't insured and can't afford to pay their medical bills, the hospital loses money and is forced to lay off nurses and doctors to cut costs, and insurance premiums rise. That's why healthcare is so expensive. Lawsuits are only a part of the problem.

actually no... private hospitals are not required to admit people if they dont have health insurance.. thats why there is public hospitals... youll see a far greater connection between medical liablity insurnace rates which doctors have to pay out to the price of their medical practices then you will uninsured people effecting privatily owned hospitals...

Dear Friends,
I and many of you have strong feelings about Sen. Hillary Clinton. We must help this proud woman in her quest to become president. If you would like to help raise funds for Hillary Clinton's run for president click here (http://clinton.senate.gov/).

I for one will do everything I can to make sure this woman doesn't get elected. BTW: This'll be the 1st election that I can vote in.

actually no... private hospitals are not required to admit people if they dont have health insurance.. thats why there is public hospitals... youll see a far greater connection between medical liablity insurnace rates which doctors have to pay out to the price of their medical practices then you will uninsured people effecting privatily owned hospitals... Actually yes... all hospitals are private. By law they are required to administer emergency medical attention to all patients.

60%? You must be high. It wouldn't take nearly that much to subsidize healthcare. All you have to do is establish a non-profit HMO that would be paid for by tax dollars. If one can't get insurance through their employer, for a small monthly fee (which could be waved if the person is very poor) they get health coverage. They get regular doctor's visits and prescription coverage so that they can stay healthy and not become a burden to hospitals by letting conditions go untreated until they need expensive emergency treatment.

first of all.. what do you call medicare ? secondly, we already pay out upwards of 20% in taxes and we dont get any of these things through medicare... what your talkinga bout is very similar to Kerrys plan to reform medicare which would have cost this country of upward of 2 trillion more annually. Im just wondering where you think all that money will come from ? taxes would have to go up... substantially.. maybe not 60%... but to support everyone in the country ?

And isn't this then insentive for companies to save on healthcare coverage.. why spend hundreds of thousands giving my employees coverage when the government will do it for them.

Actually yes... all hospitals are private. By law they are required to administer emergency medical attention to all patients.

no actually.. there is such a thing as publically own hospitals.. they are called county hospitals.. these hospitals are the ones required to accept all patients... you go to best hospital in your area that is priviatly owned.. tell them you have no means by which to cover your treatment... you'll be sent to that county hospital faster then you can "emergency room"

Even with her fat ankles?

They aren't fat, they are amply proportioned. Mind you if Condy ran against her I wouldn't know who to vote for. Both too hot for words.

first of all.. what do you call medicare ? secondly, we already pay out upwards of 20% in taxes and we dont get any of these things through medicare... what your talkinga bout is very similar to Kerrys plan to reform medicare which would have cost this country of upward of 2 trillion more annually. Im just wondering where you think all that money will come from ? taxes would have to go up... substantially.. maybe not 60%... but to support everyone in the country ?

And isn't this then insentive for companies to save on healthcare coverage.. why spend hundreds of thousands giving my employees coverage when the government will do it for them.
Only to support those without medical coverage. I worked for a long time with no medical coverage. I was hit with thousands of dollars in emergency room bills. It wasn't easy to pay them off. 25% of all people who go bankrupt do so because of medical bills. Wouldn't eliminating 25% of bankruptcies help the economy? Wouldn't a stronger economy lower the need for more taxes? Plus think of the savings that a healthy workforce would bring.

Also medicare isn't available to everyone who needs it. Those who opt for the government HMO would pay higher fees and copayments if they can afford it. This helps subsidize the system with less need for taxes. Employer healthcare need not disappear. The insurance companies aren't just going to roll over and die. They'll lower the rates that they charge businesses, trim their profit margins to compensate, and people will still take jobs with health coverage over jobs without because if they earn good money the government HMO would be more expensive to them than private healthcare insurance.

no actually.. there is such a thing as publically own hospitals.. they are called county hospitals.. these hospitals are the ones required to accept all patients... you go to best hospital in your area that is priviatly owned.. tell them you have no means by which to cover your treatment... you'll be sent to that county hospital faster then you can "emergency room" If I were bleeding to death in a hospital, in any hospital, w/o insurance, they would not show me the door. They'd treat me immediately and then hit me with a fat bill. Federal Law would require them to do so. The federal government doesn't fund or manage hospitals, and as far as I know, no states governments do either.

If I were bleeding to death in a hospital, in any hospital, w/o insurance, they would not show me the door. They'd treat me immediately and then hit me with a fat bill. Federal Law would require them to do so. The federal government doesn't fund or manage hospitals, and as far as I know, no states governments do either.

And, after they hit me with that fat bill, I show them I have a shit-job and no assets and they expense-off my care and divide it up between increased fees for those who CAN pay (sort of like a Govt, "single-payer" system - without taxing the plebes), and a "Charity care provided" tax break.

Has happened to me (my wife, who has a CHRONIC illness) 4 times since we have been married.

Now, somebody please tell me again how I don't have health care, or that I will be shuffled off to some fictional, sub-standard "county/public" hospital. I'll be glad to refute it again.

Hay I have an idea....

wait for it...

read a book you ignorant people. :D Then you wouldn't have to have silly arguments about what the law says and you'd know that any time the government tries to run a portion of our lives we lose freedom and take it hardcore form people that aren't accountable to anyone.

Actually yes... all hospitals are private. By law they are required to administer emergency medical attention to all patients.

Actually the original poster is right. If your unclear call a "private" hospital. Ask them if they admit people that cant pay with cash or insurance. All public hospitals are required to render services. Not private ones.

If I were bleeding to death in a hospital, in any hospital, w/o insurance, they would not show me the door. They'd treat me immediately and then hit me with a fat bill. Federal Law would require them to do so. The federal government doesn't fund or manage hospitals, and as far as I know, no states governments do either.

The Federal government is one of the biggest health providers. Medicaid and Medicare are two huge programs. Both of them are run by the Federal and State governments. Did you forget about military hospitals? They are all over the country and provide medical to military, military families, retired military, retired military families. Which is a hell of alot of people.

As far as the states. Havent you heard of county hospitals? They are all over. These are the hospitals that have to by law service you. Now private ones dont. Most likely you would get help at a private hospital. Very minimal and then you would get transfered to a county/military hospital.

Actually the original poster is right. If your unclear call a "private" hospital. Ask them if they admit people that cant pay with cash or insurance. All public hospitals are required to render services. Not private ones.

At which point I sue them into oblivion. If by their actions, (turning me away) I am injured (or die when I otherwise wouldn't), they are liable.

Emergency rooms know that. No Government action necessary.

At which point I sue them into oblivion. If by their actions, (turning me away) I am injured (or die when I otherwise wouldn't), they are liable.

Emergency rooms know that. No Government action necessary.

Believe it or not there was actually a case in Washington State. This private hospital left someone outside because they were not insured and couldnt provide a form of payment. While this patient waited for an ambulance to pick them up to take them to the county hospital they died. The family sued and lost. There was no law Federal or State that forced them to provide aid. This was two years ago. There was huge public outcry. But that was a real deal. I know its bad but a real story. If I can find the story in the Newspaper archives I will post it for you all to read.

that would make you a parasite take it to canada

The Federal government is one of the biggest health providers. Medicaid and Medicare are two huge programs. Both of them are run by the Federal and State governments. Did you forget about military hospitals? They are all over the country and provide medical to military, military families, retired military, retired military families. Which is a hell of alot of people.

As far as the states. Havent you heard of county hospitals? They are all over. These are the hospitals that have to by law service you. Now private ones dont. Most likely you would get help at a private hospital. Very minimal and then you would get transfered to a county/military hospital. Military Hospitals are an exception, and they don't provide universal healthcare anyways - So why bother mentioning them? County Hospitals may be open to the public, but they aren't publically owned - they aren't owned by the federal government, and they aren't operated by doctors employed by the government. They are operated by companies, required to admit all patients by federal law, and recieve only minimal government subsidies. The government has NO free universal healthcare program.

Anyways - I was wrong about all hospitals being required to admit patients for emergency treatment. Though that wasn't the point of my argument.

that would make you a parasite take it to canada

Whrr? Reference please?

What have the democRATS done for minorities in the last 40 years? NOTHING! It was the republicans who abolished slavery and passed the civil rights bills, OVER 'RAT attempts to filibuster.


I would have passed the whole thing off as mindless dribble if it weren't for this little gem. Kid, if you're going to make historical referances, at least know your history. The Democrats as we know them today have their roots in the Republican party of the 19th and earily 20th century. Likewise, the Republicans of today have their roots in the Democratic party (also known as the Dixiecrats) if the same period. Anyone can tell you that Abraham Lincoln was an extreme liberal for his time. At the same time, Strom Thurmond (the man who attempted to fillibuster the civil rights act) was a hard core conservate. Now get this... Lincoln was a Republican, while Thurmond was a Democrat! Fascinating! The shift of the parties was gradual, however JFK's (who you apparently endorse the assassination of) seemed to tip the balance. In short, don't confuse the ideology with that name. The ideology of the modern Democratic party has done MUCH for our country (including the abolishment of slavery, universal sufferage, civil rights). I will give the conservatives one thing, they did manage to topple Communism by spending it to death. If I am missing anything, please enlighten me.

Military Hospitals are an exception, and they don't provide universal healthcare anyways - So why bother mentioning them? County Hospitals may be open to the public, but they aren't publically owned - they aren't owned by the federal government, and they aren't operated by doctors employed by the government. They are operated by companies, required to admit all patients by federal law, and recieve only minimal government subsidies. The government has NO free universal healthcare program.

Anyways - I was wrong about all hospitals being required to admit patients for emergency treatment. Though that wasn't the point of my argument.

Im not out to prove you wrong. Just want to point out the facts here. The state of Washington does run a healthcare plan. Here is the link

www.eoionline.org/HealthCare-bhpfactsheet0801.htm (http://www.eoionline.org/HealthCare-bhpfactsheet0801.htm)

Military Hospitals are an exception, and they don't provide universal healthcare anyways - So why bother mentioning them? County Hospitals may be open to the public, but they aren't publically owned - they aren't owned by the federal government, and they aren't operated by doctors employed by the government. They are operated by companies, required to admit all patients by federal law, and recieve only minimal government subsidies. The government has NO free universal healthcare program.

Anyways - I was wrong about all hospitals being required to admit patients for emergency treatment. Though that wasn't the point of my argument.


Here is another one showing how County hospitals get there funding. Normally through a tax district like this story illustrates. Tax district = Property owners. Property owners are you and I. So the public does pay for county hospitals after all.
www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=7408 (http://www.phxnews.com/fullstory.php?article=7408)

Im not out to prove you wrong. Just want to point out the facts here. The state of Washington does run a healthcare plan. Here is the link

www.eoionline.org/HealthCare-bhpfactsheet0801.htm (http://www.eoionline.org/HealthCare-bhpfactsheet0801.htm) I didn't realize Washington State had a public health plan, and it makes sense that I didn't. The city I live in is the medical hub of Eastern Washington, and our public county hospitals, which recieve state funds, are owned and operated privately by The Catholic Church. In my personal experiences, I've never seen a cent of state aid. In one instance I was rushed to the Emergency room, hooked up to a respirator and examined by doctors for half an hour, and I wound up with a 350$ medical bill.

And, after they hit me with that fat bill, I show them I have a shit-job and no assets and they expense-off my care and divide it up between increased fees for those who CAN pay (sort of like a Govt, "single-payer" system - without taxing the plebes), and a "Charity care provided" tax break.

Has happened to me (my wife, who has a CHRONIC illness) 4 times since we have been married.

Now, somebody please tell me again how I don't have health care, or that I will be shuffled off to some fictional, sub-standard "county/public" hospital. I'll be glad to refute it again.

BTW - I'm not proud of the above. I wish to hell I was able to pay for those without Charity... but that's what charity is all about. People VOLUNTEERING their money to help out a schmuck like me. If I have to choose between a dollar taken at gunpoint (taxes) from another poor (or rich) schmuck and a Volunteered handout, I'll take the handout any day.

I didn't realize Washington State had a public health plan, and it makes sense that I didn't. The city I live in is the medical hub of Eastern Washington, and our county hospitals are funded by the state, but owned and operated privately by The Catholic Church. In my personal experiences, I've never seen a cent of public funding. In one instance I was rushed to the Emergency room, hooked up to a respirator and examined by doctors for half an hour, and I wound up with a 350$ medical bill.

And if you can't pay it (even on a 0% interest plan), they will Charity it off for you. But for $350 ??? suck it up dude. Providence and Deaconess will cut you some slack (try a month's worth of inpatient and no job sometime), but jeez. (Yes, I used to live there.)

BTW - I'm not proud of the above. I wish to hell I was able to pay for those without Charity... but that's what charity is all about. People VOLUNTEERING their money to help out a schmuck like me. If I have to choose between a dollar taken at gunpoint (taxes) from another poor (or rich) schmuck and a Volunteered handout, I'll take the handout any day.

As a taxpayer and a poor schmuck with insurance. I dont mind personally helping someone survive. If I did you could seriously doubt my character.

I am a republican. But yet I do think something should be done about the healthcare system. Im not sure exactly what. But I dont think its ok the way it is.

Military Hospitals are an exception, and they don't provide universal healthcare anyways - So why bother mentioning them? County Hospitals may be open to the public, but they aren't publically owned - they aren't owned by the federal government, and they aren't operated by doctors employed by the government. They are operated by companies, required to admit all patients by federal law, and recieve only minimal government subsidies. The government has NO free universal healthcare program.

Anyways - I was wrong about all hospitals being required to admit patients for emergency treatment. Though that wasn't the point of my argument.

quite frankly.. it was.. it was the core of your argument... You were arguing that medical costs to individual people are inflated because hospitals who are required to take people who are uninsured have to bear the burden of their treatment. In reaction to this burden they have to lay off nurses and doctors and are forced to increase admission fees. After realizing you were mistaken that not all hospitals are required to admit uninsured paticents your orginal argument becomes moot because privitate hospitals (The fast majority of hospitals) are not required to take in people who are not insured.

And to the person who is lying on the floor bleeding to death... of course they wont throw you out on the street. Instead they will throw you in an ambulence and drive you 30 miles to the nearest county hospital, if you die on the way... pitty, should have been insured.

Like i said... the major reason why healthcare costs are so high is because of LITIGATION and DEFENSIVE MEDICAL PRACTICIES!! thank god for tourt reform

And if you can't pay it (even on a 0% interest plan), they will Charity it off for you. But for $350 ??? suck it up dude. Easy for you to say, I'm a college student with a part time job, and I only make 800$ a month.

I didn't realize Washington State had a public health plan, and it makes sense that I didn't. The city I live in is the medical hub of Eastern Washington, and our public county hospitals, which recieve state funds, are owned and operated privately by The Catholic Church. In my personal experiences, I've never seen a cent of state aid. In one instance I was rushed to the Emergency room, hooked up to a respirator and examined by doctors for half an hour, and I wound up with a 350$ medical bill.

... just wondering.. did u .. or did you not have medical insurance at the time ?

... just wondering.. did u .. or did you not have medical insurance at the time ? Of course not, I wouldn't have had to pay at all if I did. It's not as if I can afford insurance anyways.

If we elect another Clinton I will assonate her my self

But she’ll never win so I won’t have to go to prison, YEAH!!!!

As a taxpayer and a poor schmuck with insurance. I dont mind personally helping someone survive. If I did you could seriously doubt my character.

I am a republican. But yet I do think something should be done about the healthcare system. Im not sure exactly what. But I dont think its ok the way it is.

As a taxpayer and a poor schmuck with insurance. I dont mind personally helping someone survive. If I did you could seriously doubt my character.

I am a republican. But yet I do think something should be done about the healthcare system. Im not sure exactly what. But I dont think its ok the way it is.

Since this has devolved from "Vote for your fav Gal" to Let's Talk Hilliary Care.. ;)

The problem is too longstanding to be resolved with a magic Government Wand. Seeing that it took 60 years of government interference to create it, I don't see how anybody will make it better in a "reasonable" amount of time.

A few salient points:

(1) "Health Insurance" was a (practical) non-entity until wage & price controls created the phenomena of "benefits". Until then, most people paid cash.
(2) With the real consumer costs hidden behind "co-pays" the unscrupulios (sp - bleah) were able to take advantage. "Take a little bit from everybody, and nobody notices..."
(3) Ditto 1 & 2 for University Educations & Medical Degrees, only the cost of those degrees translates directly back to increased (hidden) consumer costs so the Doctor can pay his/her school loans.
(4) As costs increase, Medical Insurance Claim costs increase, as do agressive attempts to recoup costs from (bad) doctors. Malpractice Insurance costs go Up, hidden once again behind "co-pays".
(5) Econ 101 and the Cost Spiral comes into play and stays in play until unsustainability (now) is acheived.

How do we fix it? There's no easy short term solution but:

(#1) Reduce Overhead Costs for Medical Care
(1a) Reduce Paperwork (read Government & Insurance BS)
(1b) Reduce Education Costs (Schools dedicated to educating DOCTORS not little Ward Churchils - save heap big money there)
(1c) Reduce Liability (E&O) costs by eliminating "pain & suffering" and developing a viable standard of compensatory relief. (Tort Reform)
(1d) Reduce Equipment Costs by eleminating "seperate but Joint responsibility" from the legal lexicon. Unless the damn retractor exploded in the thoratic cavity, you bloody well shouldn't be allowed to sue the retractor manufacturer for a doctor's incompetence.

Etc.

Of course not, I wouldn't have had to pay at all if I did. It's not as if I can afford insurance anyways.

u said ur a college student... most college students are still covered through their parents, or receive reduced insurance rates through the school healthcare system. Even if you were insured.. u know there is such a thing as a deductable... short of being impoverished to the point of living in a cardboard box.. u propoably will be paying SOMETHING out a trip to the hospital even though it would not be thousands of dollars.

350 dollars for a trip to the hospital quite frankly is rediculiously low. If thats the total cost for staying in the hospital i know plenty of people who will be willing to use those hospital facilities.

I think what many of you fail to realize is Hillary Clinton is actually not from planet Earth.

She's from planet suck. And on her homeworld people are just bad at everything.

And another thing, we (America) need to stop re-instating old people into power. Old people cling to decrepit morals and ideals. What about the young people, the Millenial children of the future? Hillary can only help by teaching a fresh, responsible, and drastically less corrupt leader with her spare time, not by furthering her repulsive career.

Just a thought :headbang:

Easy for you to say, I'm a college student with a part time job, and I only make 800$ a month.

I WAS a college student at the time. (Eastern, then GU - BGS program). That's why Providence Charitied off our case. Go talk to financial services and lay it out to them straight. That's what they do. But even still, for $350 I would have told them "How does "$35/mo for 10 mos sound?" If you can't come up with that, you have more personal problems than anyone has time for.

I think what many of you fail to realize is Hillary Clinton is actually not from planet Earth.

She's from planet suck. And on her homeworld people are just bad at everything.

And another thing, we (America) need to stop re-instating old people into power. Old people cling to decrepit morals and ideals. What about the young people, the Millenial children of the future? Hillary can only help by teaching a fresh, responsible, and drastically less corrupt leader with her spare time, not by furthering her repulsive career.

Just a thought :headbang:
Good Idea... though I'd opt for someone a little more pragmatic, realistic and individualist than a Millenial. Give me a cynical Xer any day. Between Holier-than-thou Boomers and Boomer-Trained Group-Think Millenials, this planet is in for a heap o-hurt... and Xers will have to BOHICA.

Read Strauss & Howe's Generations series.

Well I mean yeah of course. What you said. The Boomers really know how to throw a wrench in every government program.

Maybe in the future we will have the capability to teach inanimate objects to lead countries, instead of rich washouts.

I would vote for the mustard. Hell yeah mustard.