I'm listening and watching Hillary Clinton speak on Health Care Reform. This was Thursday with a panel asking her questions. I can't believe it but she ACTUALLY said that medicare is not a goverment-run healthcare system. She went on to say that with Medicare there are choices......you get to choose your doctor, hospital, medicines, etc. I guess she thinks that makes it not goverment run??? Strange statement.

She also totally ignored the problems in Medicare----like people NOT really having a choice of doctors. I know, because I've seen it with my own eyes with my parents and in-laws. A large percentage of doctors do NOT accept Medicare patients and that's a FACT she doesn't address.

She 'plans' to "change the way insurance companies run their business." So, if you work for an insurance company.....watch out for Hillary.

She also admits that the SCHIP legislation by Dems is, in fact, an expansion of the original intent of the program and she supports it.

Is this someone that you would want running the country????? God help us if she gets the presidency.

If you know anything about the Veteran's Administration-----you will know how bad government-run health-care would be. My father-in-law contacted the V.A. 2 weeks ago to get a physical required by another government-run program.....and he was told it takes up to a month or more to get an appointment. Talking to the VA is like talking to a stonewall.

AND Hillary wants to bring the SAME in the form of a NATIONAL healthcare system.

One dangerous woman......

You'd better stand up and be counted now-----before it's too late.

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

I heard her say that a few months ago, too. I had the same reaction. What the hell? But maybe she means that the doctors don't work for the government and you aren't going to a government run clinic or hospital to get care. They are all private enterprises. So, in essence, the government is not running the system. Unlike the VA, for exmaple, where it is indeed fully government run.

But the single payer and setter of reimbursement rates is the government. And extending that to the entire system would be a disaster.

__________________
Some days it's not even worth chewing through the restraints.

I just can't believe she's allowed to get away with those kinds of statements without someone challenging her. The liberal panel is too busy kissing her butt to actually put her on the spot or ask an intelligent follow-up question.

IF Medicare is not government-run----then STOP forcing people to give it to the gov't right out of their checks. There's where we have no choice. I doubt she's that dumb on the issue. I think she just thinks everybody else is dumb enough to believe what she says.

__________________
"If the President simply adds a couple of Republican solutions to a trillion dollar health care package that the American people don't support, it isn't bi-partisan. It's political cover," Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va.)

Medicare is a strange animal. Parts of it are just a "payment mechanism", but other parts, are a lot more than that.

Here's where I draw the line: the government does not have the Power to make medical decisions on my behalf.

That is downright freakin' un-Constitutional, and I don't care what anyone says or what kind of excuses they come up with, it just won't happen when it comes to me and my family.

I mean, I have a big problem with Hillary-care, so much so that I might even move out of the country if that's my only choice. I'm serious - I have other options in that regard, but I do have some rather serious heallth issues at the moment, and I'll be a monkey's uncle if I'm going to put my life in the hands of the government - that just ain't gonna happen.

Or let's say, it'll happen over "my dead body" (one way or the other)....

Yep. But if they try that, once again it'll be un-Constitutional. The government can not coerce doctors - I mean, it's bad enough that they try to stop 'em from treating patients "in certain ways", 'cause in a lot of those cases they haven't shown anything resembling "proof", they haven't met their burder of proof -

You see, these Powers, have to be enumerated. That's what it says in the Tenth Amendment. (And since we're dealing with doctors, which are licensed by States, the Ninth also comes into play).

Now do you see what I've been talking about, JP? I mean, you "get it" now, right? 'Cause now this affects you directly, just like it started to affect me directly a little while ago -

So now you see why I'm interested in this stuff, right? 'Cause I mean, this is really where the issue lies, with all these entitlements and such - the "service" part of it, is entirely constitutional and fine, but the "coercion" part of it is not, that part is a Power of government, and as such it must be specifically enumerated or it doesn't exist.

Screw the insurance companies. Most of 'em are just gigantic scams anyway. Yeah, I'm sorry for the employees, but they'll find other jobs. Maybe Hillary will even pay to "re-train" them....

Yeah, but so what? I mean, this whole thing over SCHIP, actually has nothing do to with SCHIP. It's about using SCHIP as a club against the President, and he doesn't like it so he's trying to fight back by veto'ing it, and yadda yadda - the whole thing is just stupid. And it angers me 'cause they're playing stupid partisan games with children's lives. I mean, yeah, the Dems are just as bad, but the Reps are just as bad, know what I'm sayin'?

Well, JP, you gotta look at this in perspective, right? I mean, our current Weasel-In-Chief, is costing us 3 billion a week for this Iraq thing. So if the new Weasel-In-Chief stops all that, she might have enough money to pay for the first.... you know..... "month" of Hillary-care or something....

A month is actually "not bad" for a physical. That's about how long it would take me, to get one, with my private doctor. I mean, he's a busy dude, right? If I just call and say "physical", they'll put me at the end of the queue. If I call and pretend like I'm dying or something, they'll say, "come right over". And I'm sure it's the same way at the VA. You just gotta know how to talk to these "federal" types.... same BS with the IRS, they got the same crap going on, there's just a certain way you gotta "stroke" those folks to get 'em to do what you want -

I would only vote for Hillary as a last resort, like if she were running against George W Bush or something.

The only person more dangerous than Hillary is George W Bush.

According to the polls indicating her lead stretching out more and more, it sure looks like she's being proven right. Any way we can get her in the White House and working for our future should be appreciated by all Americans.

At least 50% of Americans don't "appreciate" her. Furthermore, saying she's leading in the polls, at this point, is akin to saying she's the "least ugly duckling on the pond." Not to mention, these are just the primaries.

If she's already having to perform damage control on her campaign, just wait until she's elected in the primaries. Wave after wave of problems will come to her campaign.

There was a time that I thought she was a lock. However, from listening to other people, I'm starting to think that the Socialists will be better off propping Obama up there, instead of the Hildabeast.

Hillary = Demopublican victory.

Yeah, darn that Obama....

I wish he were older and (a little) more experienced -

Now that would be an interesting race - but with Hillary, everyone kinda knows what to expect, right?

So, I mean, yeah - she is the only horse in the race at this point, pretty much, for the Dems - I don't think even Al Gore could give her a serious challenge -

So now, the real question is, who are the Reps going to put up against her, 'cause you know, the religious right and social conservatives are "mad" about Giuliani and they're talking about bolting the party, and if that happens it'll almost certainly mean Hillary will win ('cause all the votes they'd pull would be from the Republicans) -

And that's kinda "typical" of these people, right? (I mean, can't see the forest for the trees, kinda thing - does stuff 'cause it's "right", not 'cause it's "practical" - usually ideological and hard-headed, morality usually rooted in religion, yadda yadda) - well, so, what are they going to do if Hillary gets elected, secede from the Union or something?

I just don't think they have the clout to do that - I mean, the landscape of the religious voter is changing even as we speak - suddenly a lot of religious moderates are emerging, who don't want anything to do with people like Perkins and so on - and some of them might even vote for Hillary.

I just don't trust these Dems though - it's like, the early signs are not encouraging - here they said they were going to do all this wonderful stuff, and they haven't done squat - in fact, it's even worse than that - now they're wasting taxpayer money bickering over stupid stuff that isn't going to make a (*)(*)(*)(*) bit of difference to anyone anywhere - instead of focusing on the priorities -

So yeah, I mean, same complaint I have with Bushie, right? Only, Hillary's probably a little more competent - but even that's a scary thought, in its own way.....

watch what the hillerytes trot out as the reason to support her: her strong poll numbers
what other virtues does she posses which should cause us to vote for her?
then you hear that obama seems great he is just unproven, needs more experience. the man proves his values and his intellect with every question he answers and each speech that he offers. pray tell us what life "experience" qualifies one for the office of president. dubya had it?

No, that's exactly the point - Bush did not have it, and look what happened.

"Competence" means the ability (and knowledge) to pull the government's strings. 'Cause you know, that's a complex organism, right?

So, like, Katrina would be the low-hanging fruit in terms of examples, right? I mean, that was a horrible crock-up, wasn't it? And the whole deal there, was a lack of co-ordination, and whose job is that? Why, the feds, of course.

So you know, ordinarily, someone like Chertoff should have been outright fired, on the spot, for his performance in that thing, but the trouble is, he was brand new, he'd only been on the job for a "little while", and he was still having problems with his uppity mid-level department heads, like that Brownie from FEMA.....

So for whatever reason, he managed to convince Bushie that it was all Brownie's fault, when in fact the record later showed that Brownie was absolutely correct in saying that Chertoff had completely dropped the ball, and while that's no excuse for Brownie, it does tend to highlight the problem with Bushie (in general), which is, that he can't implement - everything he touches turns to dog-poop, and he couldn't implement his way out of a paper bag, and all the rest of that stuff -

I mean, you see what I'm saying, right? So when it comes to something even more complicated, like foreign affairs, I'd say, yeah, definitely, some actual experience in that area, would be a good thing. I mean, a good character and a good mind aren't "enough" know what I'm sayin'?

'Cause that's like gettin' tossed into the pool with the big boys, those "world leaders" are all freakin' sharks, that's why they're the top dogs in the first place. So you get a guy like Bushie who can magically "look into Putin's soul" - I mean, is that pathetic or what? I mean, the man is the leader of the free world, right? And he's going to judge people by looking into their eyes? Hmm.... And this is the same guy who thinks God wants him to bring peace to the Middle East, right?

Anyway, so like, Bushie's dad, for instance, was ambassador to China (not exactly a "friendly" country, right?), and then after that, he was head of the CIA for a while - so that's what I'm talking about when I say "experience".

'Cause, what has Obama done? Nothing. He's been traipsing around with Dick Lugar for a while, that's all.

Nah, it ain't enough. I agree with you, Obama is a good man. He's got a great future if he keeps going the way he's going. I'd personally like to hear more "articulation" from him, and I'm hoping that'll happen during the remainder of the campaign.

Hillary's eight years as co-President and subsequent years as a senator taught her all the inner workings of the current system, as well as how to manage the financial necessities of camapaigning. Combining that with her life-long activism for social justice makes here the only candidate with the proper qualifications and experience to lead us past our acrhaic conservative obstructionsists and into our future as one-world citizens.

You folks need to accept facts as they are. There is no way Hillary Clinton will be denied her dream of becoming our next leader. It's simply inevitable.