A article on Canada's healthcare problems.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4618

Careful what you ask for, you might just get it. And in the long run, you might not like it too much.

 

For years in this country religion, specifically Christianity, has become deeply imbedded into our political and social thought. Being raised a Christian, I was taught to give of myself to others. In political and social contexts, in my opinion, this means giving of public funds (yes tax money) to those in need. My confusion and the point of this comment lies in the fact that as Americans, many of us are religious and believe in what our religions teach us- goodwill, humanity, etc. However this belief system is somehow overruled when we are asked to support a system that would undoubtedly help underpriveleged Americans.

For years in this country religion, specifically Christianity, has become deeply imbedded into our political and social thought. Being raised a Christian, I was taught to give of myself to others. In political and social contexts, in my opinion, this means giving of public funds (yes tax money) to those in need. My confusion and the point of this comment lies in the fact that as Americans, many of us are religious and believe in what our religions teach us- goodwill, humanity, etc. However this belief system is somehow overruled when we are asked to support a system that would undoubtedly help underpriveleged Americans.

 

I understand where you are. Perhaps its in the Bible (I certainly don't claim to be a scholar of the Bible), but I don't recall any teachings stating that the church has the right to take someone's property to redistribute to the poor. I've always felt that the back bone of Christianity was the freedom of choice, to make your own mind up if you were going to follow Jesus' teachings, to decide on your own if you were going to accept Jesus into your life. Being required to pay more taxes to help the poor seems to fly in the face with that line of thinking. I sincerely believe Peter would turn a deaf ear on anyone upon reaching the gates who said: "I know I showed the poor no compassion but I paid a lot in taxes against my free choice that went to the poor so let me in".

If you can make it (as you have) why can't anyone else? If you had lived on handouts, do you think you would have developed your work ethic (which, through your brief life story, I'd assume is incredible)?

 

I still work 6-7 Days a Week..... And yes being poor did make me the way I am.... We Lived on Food Stamps,

 

People Do Get Blessed!!!! :dancingpa

A article on Canada's healthcare problems.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4618

 

An opinion piece for capitalist magazine?

In Canada administrative costs are lower than the private system in the USA http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0815/is_10_28/ai_108994048

Here's a blog from a dual-citizen that gives insight into Canadian healthcare. http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/76032/

 

In Clinton's system they are going to offer a government plan to those who want it or don't have insurance. No one is going to force you to take it if you like the insurance that you have. If I work for an employer that doesn't offer benefits then you can buy the government plan. No one is forcing "socialism" on anyone.

An opinion piece for capitalist magazine?

In Canada administrative costs are lower than the private system in the USA http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0815/is_10_28/ai_108994048

Here's a blog from a dual-citizen that gives insight into Canadian healthcare. http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/76032/

 

In Clinton's system they are going to offer a government plan to those who want it or don't have insurance. No one is going to force you to take it if you like the insurance that you have. If I work for an employer that doesn't offer benefits then you can buy the government plan. No one is forcing "socialism" on anyone.

 

This is a slippery slope toward socialism. I do not want the government involved in my healthcare decisions period. It is a huge mistake and I am sincerely praying that this does not come to pass.

An opinion piece for capitalist magazine?

In Canada administrative costs are lower than the private system in the USA http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0815/is_10_28/ai_108994048

Here's a blog from a dual-citizen that gives insight into Canadian healthcare. http://www.alternet.org/healthwellness/76032/

 

In Clinton's system they are going to offer a government plan to those who want it or don't have insurance. No one is going to force you to take it if you like the insurance that you have. If I work for an employer that doesn't offer benefits then you can buy the government plan. No one is forcing "socialism" on anyone.

You should listen to Hillary a little closer. In order for Hillary's vision of universal health care to become a reality, an "enforcement mechanism" will be necessary to ensure that those who can afford health care coverage are compelled to pay for it. When asked about the possibility of using wage garnishment as an enforcement tool, she has refused to rule it out.

 

So, if Hillary gets her way, socialized medicine will be forced upon you whether you want it or not.

For years in this country religion, specifically Christianity, has become deeply imbedded into our political and social thought. Being raised a Christian, I was taught to give of myself to others. In political and social contexts, in my opinion, this means giving of public funds (yes tax money) to those in need. My confusion and the point of this comment lies in the fact that as Americans, many of us are religious and believe in what our religions teach us- goodwill, humanity, etc. However this belief system is somehow overruled when we are asked to support a system that would undoubtedly help underpriveleged Americans.

This should be a choice. Not mandatory. The quality of healthcare, especially advances in healthcare will go down dramatically in Hillary's system.

You should listen to Hillary a little closer. In order for Hillary's vision of universal health care to become a reality, an "enforcement mechanism" will be necessary to ensure that those who can afford health care coverage are compelled to pay for it. When asked about the possibility of using wage garnishment as an enforcement tool, she has refused to rule it out.

 

So, if Hillary gets her way, socialized medicine will be forced upon you whether you want it or not.

 

This is a very scary prospect. I don't think Obama's plan is much better either. I don't need the government micromanaging my life----particularly my healthcare.:scared:

The government is getting into your healthcare. If you have a plan you'll keep it. One of the myths about national healthcare is that you have no choice of physicians or anything like that. That is a myth.

The government is getting into your healthcare. If you have a plan you'll keep it. One of the myths about national healthcare is that you have no choice of physicians or anything like that. That is a myth.

Americans should have the choice of whether to carry insurance for themselves or not. Under Hillary's plan they will not have that choice and that is no myth. Sign up and pay or have the government garnish your wages or collect your share of the cost of universal socialized health care through the IRS.

Americans should have the choice of whether to carry insurance for themselves or not. Under Hillary's plan they will not have that choice and that is no myth. Sign up and pay or have the government garnish your wages or collect your share of the cost of universal socialized health care through the IRS.

 

No. Under Clinton's plan you will have a choice. If you have insurance you can keep it. If you don't then you buy a government plan or you'll go get your own insurance. We spend a lot of money on the uninsured as it is, if they remain uninsured then we'll continue to pay more. If you have insurance of your own then you don't need to worry about it.

No. Under Clinton's plan you will have a choice. If you have insurance you can keep it. If you don't then you buy a government plan or you'll go get your own insurance. We spend a lot of money on the uninsured as it is, if they remain uninsured then we'll continue to pay more. If you have insurance of your own then you don't need to worry about it.

No, under Clinton's plan you have no choice. If you can afford insurance you will be compelled to buy insurance. If you choose not to, Hillary will garnish your wages or sic the IRS on you.

 

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan

. "We

will

have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

 

Clinton went on to say, though, that such mechanisms would not include penalties. "They don't have to pay fines … We want them to have insurance. We want it to be affordable. And what I have said is that there are a number of ways of doing that. Now, there's not just one way of getting to that."

Sen. Clinton Weighs Garnishing Wages to Pay for Universal Health Care

After working for a medical provider I have seen first hand how government run medical plans (medicare, medicaid, tricare etc.) work. The providers are reimbursed peanuts while forced to file bushels of paperwork and to jump through hoops for the crumbs they release. If that's a preview of what government run health care would be like then I'm adamantly opposed to it.

No. Under Clinton's plan you will have a choice. If you have insurance you can keep it. If you don't then you buy a government plan or you'll go get your own insurance. We spend a lot of money on the uninsured as it is, if they remain uninsured then we'll continue to pay more. If you have insurance of your own then you don't need to worry about it.

 

 

At what level of government control and mandates would you draw the line and say this is too much?