I got this in the mail. And I tore it to shreds.
Metaphorically.
I kept it in tact so I could share with all of you.
Click on them to make them bigger, perhaps you can read my handwriting, then.
Seriously, though. Universal health care is not a brilliant idea. It's not that I'm against people being taken care of, but I'm against making everyone pay for the people who don't get their own elsewhere... that's like... silly. So, I get mine from Company X, and you might get yours from Firm Y, but he can't afford either one of those (and yes, it's expensive) so we (who are already paying for our OWN health care are taxed to pay for HIS! Yay Socialism!
Oh, and have you heard of the waiting lists in Canada?
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Haha, Mrs. Clinton. That was a good try.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I don't really care about the health plans...I have trouble seeing either making it past congress...it's a stupid thing for presidents to argue over, since they have relatively little power over it. If they were running for Senate, it might make sense. Part of me hopes that it's just more of the populism they're both mired in...
I agree with you, though...but if I had to pick one, it would be Obama's...simply because it wouldn't make me do anything...and I wouldn't have to listen to Hillary brag.
Oh, and I don't support either plan, really. I think I'm actually ok with how things are now.
It might appear I'm arguing for Obama, but I'm actually just pointing out Hillary's folly...
http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide
/2008/issues/health.html
that, and the link mentioned at the bottom of the mailing (the one whereon I underlined "opinion") are both interesting, but it's always good to consider the source and try to figure out what is really being said. For example, the prices of the universal health care plans they both want to pass (but probably won't, as you said) both cost a crap load of money. Obama's was 102 billion dollars and Clinton's was 124 Billion dollars. Sure, it'll cover more people (compulsively), so you can say it costs less per person covered... But the prices are also being taken out of other people's pockets. Redistribution of assets? Animal Farm? I don't know.
the first card is gramaticaly incorrect. should be 'doesn't' instead of 'don't'
Soooo, here's how I see it! I dig freedom! You see, if the government controlled our health care, they'd want to control our health as well. How we live our lives.
They would do whatever it took to make it so they didn't ever have to heal us. (Pay for us to be treated) They would keep us healthy all the time! NO MORE COOKIES OR MCDONALD'S! GOVERNMENT ISSUED VITAMINS/DIETS! And you may think that is a bit out there, BUT! it's already happening!
Seat belt laws! The hospital has to treat folks even if they can't pay. So, if they are getting all banged up in car accidents and can't afford it, it comes out of the US of A's pocket! (It's only a matter of time before motorcycles will be outlawed!)
Sure, more people would be healthy with "free" health care. They'd live longer too, but they wouldn't be as free, as happy! I would like to keep the choice of "dead or not so dead" if it means I can ingest/play with whatever I want!
ps "FREE" my ABS! They should call it TAXED UP THE WAZOO/Less rights health care.
I think it should be one or the other. No regulation or total regulation. None of this middle of the road business where the government covers somethings and not other things and helps some people but not everyone. Either no regulations at all...so the free market can take its course and drive down prices, or pay for it all. Either way, right now we're in the middle where it's just too expensive.
You owned that second post card's face. Opinions aren't facts! I learned that in first grade in the unit called "facts and opinions."
Here is an interesting article about Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts: http://www.usatoday.com/money/
industries/health/2005-07-04-health-insurance-usat_x.htm
His plan focuses more on personal responsibility. It's different from (what I understand to be) Clinton's and Obama's plans. Theirs appear to make a bigger (and therefore more espensive) government-run health care plan. His plan is one that would, yes, tell people to get health care, but it wouldn't make everyone else pay for someone else's care, which I think is a brilliant idea. It lets people find their own and pay for their own. To encourage people to get health care (there are lots of firms from whom you can buy it) people without health care will suffer slowly increasing taxes. Basically people would be paying whether they got their own health care--either from their employer or on the open market (according to the article, 63% of firms offer health care to employees)--or if they opted out of getting health care for whatever reason. So why would they not just get it if they were going to have to pay anyway? The plan also would not change or amend Medicaid, but would get all truly eligible people to use it. Here, he's not making up more 124 billion dollar plans, but he's still getting everyone healthcare, and by using their own money. And for those who TRULY cannot pay for it, he's ensuring that they get the health care that's ALREADY offered to them. It's a smart plan I think, and I still am quite disappointed he dropped from the running--but I think it was perhaps for the best because if he hadn't, the Republicans would likely be in a situation similar to the Democrats at the moment with two candidates duking it out until we're out of states to hold Primaries!
This plan is now law in Massachusetts.
However, the plan he came up with is not perfect... but we don't live in a perfect world, and I'm slowly learning that not everyone has the same sense of personal responsibility that I have been taught to hold. Not everyone wants to have to take care of themselves, I guess. Some feel the government should take care of them. On the other hand, Man doesn't want to have to take care of everyone else, either...and others just don't want to care at all. Haha, now I've fallen over into Philosophy from Politics, so I'll leave that alone.
/LONG
Post a Comment