why should the public vote for hillary?

quote:
Originally posted by pba:
why should america vote for hillary? They should not vote for Hillary!! One Clinton is enough! just like it should have been with Bush and his Monkey.


I thought one BUSH was enough... but noooooooooooo, we got stuck with another one... and in about 2012 or 2016, then we will probably be looking at Jeb running... wow... we really NEED that too! NOT! lol
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
To keep it simple for you, I'll be brief.

Socialism is when the control and distribution of wealth and property is held by the community or government. Money is taken from those who have it and distributed to those who don't. (Tax hikes for the rich and more welfare for the poor sound familiar?) It's also when goods and services are shared and operated by the community and/or government instead of private people or business. Hillary Clinton wants to socialize health care and make it the responsibility of the government so that everyone can get it for free. This is simply a bad idea.

An example of a private hospital is Vanderbilt. An example of a government operated hospital is Walter Reed. Now, say you are seriously hurt and you are being taken for treatment. The ambulance drive asks which hospital do you want to go to. Are you going to pick Vanderbilt or Walter Reed? If Hillary Clinton had her way and socialized health care, you wouldn't be asked nor would you have a choice. You would be heading for Walter Reed, the federal government run hospital.
Not a good example, for one thing Walter Reed is the right hospital for Traumatic injuries. It treats war injuries. Second it's an Army Hospital. If you're not in the Army you don't go there.
Allow me to ask this question: "If the company you work for pays 250 dollars per month for your health coverage, and we go a socialized system that cost your employer 200 dollars a month in additional taxes, how much money does your employer loose by having the federal system?

The problem with ALL the arguments about the tax costs of a National Health Care Plan; NONE OF THEM ADDRESS THE COST WE ARE NOW PAYING. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that the one plan replaces and eliminates the cost of the other?

Health Insurance is PRIVATIZED COMMUNISM. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED. You Can't Collect if you Can't pay the Premiums, and YOU DON'T GET A REFUND OF YOUR PREMIUMS FOR STAYING HEALTHY.
quote:
Not a good example, for one thing Walter Reed is the right hospital for Traumatic injuries. It treats war injuries. Second it's an Army Hospital. If you're not in the Army you don't go there.
Allow me to ask this question: "If the company you work for pays 250 dollars per month for your health coverage, and we go a socialized system that cost your employer 200 dollars a month in additional taxes, how much money does your employer loose by having the federal system?

The problem with ALL the arguments about the tax costs of a National Health Care Plan; NONE OF THEM ADDRESS THE COST WE ARE NOW PAYING. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that the one plan replaces and eliminates the cost of the other?

Health Insurance is PRIVATIZED COMMUNISM. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED. You Can't Collect if you Can't pay the Premiums, and YOU DON'T GET A REFUND OF YOUR PREMIUMS FOR STAYING HEALTHY.


Walter Reed is a government run hospital, it's a great example. Let the government run our health care system, this is what you get. Yes, our health care system has problems as it is now. To simply throw up our hands and say "Here politicans, we can't handle this anymore so you do it for us." is a recipe for disaster. I think most Americans are smart enough to realise this and will not support Hillary.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Not a good example, for one thing Walter Reed is the right hospital for Traumatic injuries. It treats war injuries. Second it's an Army Hospital. If you're not in the Army you don't go there.
Allow me to ask this question: "If the company you work for pays 250 dollars per month for your health coverage, and we go a socialized system that cost your employer 200 dollars a month in additional taxes, how much money does your employer loose by having the federal system?

The problem with ALL the arguments about the tax costs of a National Health Care Plan; NONE OF THEM ADDRESS THE COST WE ARE NOW PAYING. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that the one plan replaces and eliminates the cost of the other?

Health Insurance is PRIVATIZED COMMUNISM. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED. You Can't Collect if you Can't pay the Premiums, and YOU DON'T GET A REFUND OF YOUR PREMIUMS FOR STAYING HEALTHY.


Walter Reed is a government run hospital, it's a great example. Let the government run our health care system, this is what you get. Yes, our health care system has problems as it is now. To simply throw up our hands and say "Here politicans, we can't handle this anymore so you do it for us." is a recipe for disaster. I think most Americans are smart enough to realise this and will not support Hillary.
Walter Reed was "Privatized." And is the perfect example of the reason for keeping government operations under government supervision.
quote:
Originally posted by RollTide66:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Americans with common sense won't vote for her. She doesn't stand a chance.
Please specify the common sense issues that Hillary Clinton is off the mark on?
Does she want to see you keep more of the money you earn? Yes, in fact, she wants to take the insurance premiums you pay away from the million dollar a year MBA's who make medical decisions, and put it into HEALTH services. (that's what national health insurance does.) That's just common sense, UNLESS you are a million a year HMO manager. She wants to take a portion of the money you make for the owner of your company, and put it into care and education for your children while you work to feed and clothe them.
That is just plain common sense.
She wants to take some of the value you produce at a job that was once held or developed by a now retired worker to assure that he has enough to eat, and wear, and a roof over his head that YOU could be proud of.
Common sense says that you should not spend your life making someone else prosperous, and die of starvation when he says, "What have you done for me lately?"


You have pointed out my biggest problem with Mrs. Clinton, she wants to TAKE somebody elses money than give it to another person. I'm a hard working American who will probably never be millionare. A real American doesn't take what doesn't belong to them. The money I earn or the money the millionare makes doesn't belong to the government nor to another individual. It is my and their right to choose to do what we want with out money. Do we not live in a free Society? Taking money from me or anyone without giving me a direct choice, doesn't seem free or right to me. I donate what I can to charity. My life would be a lot easier if the government would TAKE a little less from me and other individuals.
Insurance, a voluntary contribution to a Private Company that uses your Money to Pay the Hospital and Medical bills of people who are to sick to work, until they run out of money to pay their insurance premiums with.
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
It wasn't even the best 8 years in my life much less "the best eight years in our country's history
It was not the best 8 years in our country's history. It was just a far sight better than the last 6 years in our country's history.
quote:
Walter Reed was "Privatized." And is the perfect example of the reason for keeping government operations under government supervision.


Prove that Walter Reed was privatized. From what I've read, it was operated by the U.S. Army which answers to the Federal Government. That's far from privatized, it's more of an example of what happens when the government is in control. Just look at the simple process of paying taxes and the nice people at the IRS. Relinquishing power of our health care system to the government would create a whole new bureaucracy and is simply a dumb idea. It's basic common sense which brings me back to the original subject. People with common sense will not vote for Hillary.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Walter Reed was "Privatized." And is the perfect example of the reason for keeping government operations under government supervision.


Prove that Walter Reed was privatized. From what I've read, it was operated by the U.S. Army which answers to the Federal Government. That's far from privatized, it's more of an example of what happens when the government is in control. Just look at the simple process of paying taxes and the nice people at the IRS. Relinquishing power of our health care system to the government would create a whole new bureaucracy and is simply a dumb idea. It's basic common sense which brings me back to the original subject. People with common sense will not vote for Hillary.
Walter Reed had a contingent of military personnel who were charged with maintaining the buildings, grounds, kitchens and services. Those troops have been replaced by contractors who hire civilians. That is the meaning of Privatization.
quote:
Walter Reed had a contingent of military personnel who were charged with maintaining the buildings, grounds, kitchens and services. Those troops have been replaced by contractors who hire civilians. That is the meaning of Privatization.


Wrong. Hiring a civilian contractor does not mean the entire hospital is suddenly privately owned. If Walter Reed is privately owned, why did the Secretary of the Army have to resign? Very simple, because it's a federally operated facility just like other VA hospitals. They receive federal money, they do not rely on profits to operate like a private hospital.

So once again, yes Walter Reed is a government run facility and is an example of what will happen with socialized health care. Vanderbilt is a private facility and is an example of keeping the power of health care in the private sector. Socialising health care is not the solution.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Walter Reed had a contingent of military personnel who were charged with maintaining the buildings, grounds, kitchens and services. Those troops have been replaced by contractors who hire civilians. That is the meaning of Privatization.


Wrong. Hiring a civilian contractor does not mean the entire hospital is suddenly privately owned. If Walter Reed is privately owned, why did the Secretary of the Army have to resign? Very simple, because it's a federally operated facility just like other VA hospitals. They receive federal money, they do not rely on profits to operate like a private hospital.

So once again, yes Walter Reed is a government run facility and is an example of what will happen with socialized health care. Vanderbilt is a private facility and is an example of keeping the power of health care in the private sector. Socialising health care is not the solution.
Walter Reed management is the Army Medical corps. They used to hire and manage all the maintenance workers. Now they hire contractors, and "inspect" the work. THAT IS PRIVATIZATION. Where the janitors and cooks and so on were government workers before, they are now employed by a contractor.
It is also privatization when the government sells a business, lock stock and barrel. But that is NOT what was changed at Walter Reed. Everyone at a VA hospital works for the Veterans Administration. They get a paycheck from the government, they are on the government payroll, or they are unpaid volunteers. At Army Hospitals a company, like Halliburton or Kellog Brown and Root gets the government check, and they hire and pay the people who do the work. That is Privatization. IT IS NOT NECESSARY to sell the whole operation to the highest bidder and then contract for the services.
As is common with extremists, you have taken a "partial Privatization" and denied that it is privatization because the overall management of the facility is still in Army hands.
http://www.aolelectionsblog.com/2007/03/18/plan-to-priv...eed-stopped-for-now/
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Walter Reed had a contingent of military personnel who were charged with maintaining the buildings, grounds, kitchens and services. Those troops have been replaced by contractors who hire civilians. That is the meaning of Privatization.


Wrong. Hiring a civilian contractor does not mean the entire hospital is suddenly privately owned. If Walter Reed is privately owned, why did the Secretary of the Army have to resign? Very simple, because it's a federally operated facility just like other VA hospitals. They receive federal money, they do not rely on profits to operate like a private hospital.

So once again, yes Walter Reed is a government run facility and is an example of what will happen with socialized health care. Vanderbilt is a private facility and is an example of keeping the power of health care in the private sector. Socialising health care is not the solution.



Just sit back in your rocking chair, kitchen chair or couch and then wonder what happened when TVA goes private, and the devastation this area will feel... Wise is going to follow suit... it is going to be a sad time for ALL of us, and our Power Bills will go through the roof...

ALL Gov't agencies are going private... heck, even at some of the major power generatiing plants, when you see "WHAT YOU THINK" to be the TVA Police, they are, in fact, non gun-carrying, priviate contractors who gets to wear the badge and work "Security"... that was the beginning of the end for TVA...
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Not a good example, for one thing Walter Reed is the right hospital for Traumatic injuries. It treats war injuries. Second it's an Army Hospital. If you're not in the Army you don't go there.
Allow me to ask this question: "If the company you work for pays 250 dollars per month for your health coverage, and we go a socialized system that cost your employer 200 dollars a month in additional taxes, how much money does your employer loose by having the federal system?

The problem with ALL the arguments about the tax costs of a National Health Care Plan; NONE OF THEM ADDRESS THE COST WE ARE NOW PAYING. How stupid do you have to be to not understand that the one plan replaces and eliminates the cost of the other?

Health Insurance is PRIVATIZED COMMUNISM. FROM EACH ACCORDING TO HIS ABILITY TO EACH ACCORDING TO HIS NEED. You Can't Collect if you Can't pay the Premiums, and YOU DON'T GET A REFUND OF YOUR PREMIUMS FOR STAYING HEALTHY.


Walter Reed is a government run hospital, it's a great example. Let the government run our health care system, this is what you get. Yes, our health care system has problems as it is now. To simply throw up our hands and say "Here politicans, we can't handle this anymore so you do it for us." is a recipe for disaster. I think most Americans are smart enough to realise this and will not support Hillary.



Not even CLOSE to being the same thing... no where in the ball park even.

I also heard on the News Today about Comcast going to contract out some of their departments to part--time/none benefit people... maybe THAT is why I am having such a hard time with them... ya think???? Well... it relates to the same thing... anyone here that works for Comcast will have a fit and say NO, that isn't going to happen, and that isn't your problem...

When in REALITY... it is, and no one will even KNOW until the day it is decided... I used Comcast as an Example here... because they are now getting the Dish's underbidding them at such a fast pace, that John Q. Public will probably at least listen to their sales pitich, which IS quite impressive, by the way...

Other companies, BIG ONES, are getting their affairs in order, to get rid of the long-term employees, hire part time ones with NO benefits...

I think Big Business FINALLY got Bush and Cheney's message... on EXACTLY how to make their money while dumping Americans all in one fell swoop...

Sad huh?
quote:
Not even CLOSE to being the same thing... no where in the ball park even.

I also heard on the News Today about Comcast going to contract out some of their departments to part--time/none benefit people... maybe THAT is why I am having such a hard time with them... ya think???? Well... it relates to the same thing... anyone here that works for Comcast will have a fit and say NO, that isn't going to happen, and that isn't your problem...

When in REALITY... it is, and no one will even KNOW until the day it is decided... I used Comcast as an Example here... because they are now getting the Dish's underbidding them at such a fast pace, that John Q. Public will probably at least listen to their sales pitich, which IS quite impressive, by the way...

Other companies, BIG ONES, are getting their affairs in order, to get rid of the long-term employees, hire part time ones with NO benefits...

I think Big Business FINALLY got Bush and Cheney's message... on EXACTLY how to make their money while dumping Americans all in one fell swoop...

Sad huh?


For EdKit, you can try to justify yourself as much as you want, the fact of the matter is Walter Reed is run and operated by the federal government. Hiring civilian labor does not mean that Walter Reed is suddenly privately owned. I know it's hard to admit when your wrong, but you're wasting your time here. You're wrong and completely off topic.

For Kindred, please re-post this. I don't understand what Comcast has to do with any of this and really didn't understand the post in general. Thanks.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Not even CLOSE to being the same thing... no where in the ball park even.

I also heard on the News Today about Comcast going to contract out some of their departments to part--time/none benefit people... maybe THAT is why I am having such a hard time with them... ya think???? Well... it relates to the same thing... anyone here that works for Comcast will have a fit and say NO, that isn't going to happen, and that isn't your problem...

When in REALITY... it is, and no one will even KNOW until the day it is decided... I used Comcast as an Example here... because they are now getting the Dish's underbidding them at such a fast pace, that John Q. Public will probably at least listen to their sales pitich, which IS quite impressive, by the way...

Other companies, BIG ONES, are getting their affairs in order, to get rid of the long-term employees, hire part time ones with NO benefits...

I think Big Business FINALLY got Bush and Cheney's message... on EXACTLY how to make their money while dumping Americans all in one fell swoop...

Sad huh?


For EdKit, you can try to justify yourself as much as you want, the fact of the matter is Walter Reed is run and operated by the federal government. Hiring civilian labor does not mean that Walter Reed is suddenly privately owned. I know it's hard to admit when your wrong, but you're wasting your time here. You're wrong and completely off topic.

For Kindred, please re-post this. I don't understand what Comcast has to do with any of this and really didn't understand the post in general. Thanks.
NashBama. YOU DON'T GET IT DO YOU. The Walter Reed system changed from GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES (CIVILIAN GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES) DOING THE MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE WORK TO GOVERNMENT CONTRACTORS, WHO HIRE THE EMPLOYEES. There was a Single Bidder for the Contracts, IAP Worldwide Is owned by a hedge fund. The Chairman of the Board of the Hedge Fund is former Treasury Secretary John Snow. The board of directors includes former Kellogg Brown and Root Executives. The outsourcing of "non military support jobs" is part of Donald Rumsfeld's planning.

You have my permission to keep kicking, but I am at least as obstinate as you, and I am better informed, and more experienced, In a fist fight you would win. This IS NOT A FIST FIGHT.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×