Why Conservatives Oppose Universal Healthcare
This item from the Carpetbagger Report is over a month old but still very timely.
In a recent issue of National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry explained how Republicans can avert electoral disaster and get back on track. Conservative writers offer advice columns like these periodically, but this one included a concession we usually don’t see in print.
The plain truth is that the [Republican] party faces a cataclysm, a rout that would give Democrats control of the White House and enhanced majorities in the House and the Senate. That defeat would, in turn, guarantee the confirmation of a couple of young, liberal Supreme Court nominees, putting the goal of moving the Court in a more constitutionalist direction out of reach for another generation. It would probably also mean a national health-insurance program that would irrevocably expand government involvement in the economy and American life, and itself make voters less likely to turn toward conservatism in the future. (emphasis added)
Apparently even William Kristol concurred:
…Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party…
87 Responses to “Why Conservatives Oppose Universal Healthcare”
cosmoetica-
“Half Past:
<'i>You are exhibiting the classic extremist mode of using exceptions to define a rule. I just ripped a guy named Somebody on another thread for doing so with definitions of words.”
Okay, that's the funniest thing I've read today. Thanks for the word classic. Discussions should be civil and not about ego and “ripping” people. Which “rule” are you speaking of, and how many “exceptions” would it take for you to have your definition? You cannot have statistics without factual data. Sure, stats are sometimes used in a what-if format, but they are also used in necessary problem-solving.
“That you would even, in jest, use a term like 'success story' for a 5k a year ins, premium, shows you are out of touch w reality and working class needs. That is, technically, gouging.”
Some pay twice as much as you because they choose to, and are also working class. Why wouldn't I understand that? If this is a burden to you, then you should have that Medicare option that is suitable for your family. But that doesn't mean we need to create one health care system that everyone has to adhere to. BTW, it's illegal in Canada for citizens to purchase private insurance. Are you ready for that kind of clamp-down?
“C'mon. It was Cigna's beancounters.”
Fine, but you are missing the point that a Medicare system or Universal, government controlled system will not guarantee the end of these occurrences, because there will always be “beancounters”. Again, just because you don't read about it in a newspaper as a public example, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
“Definitions of words?”
Statistics
Pronunciation:
st?-?tis-tiks
Function:
noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology:
German Statistik study of political facts and figures, from New Latin statisticus of politics, from Latin status state
Date:
1770
1 : a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data 2 : a collection of quantitative data.
“Jim: As I showed, you are correct. Even assuming HPM's #s are correct, they are still equal or better to most private plans.”
Again, these are not my numbers, but that of Jay Lehr, Ph.D. and Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec who's article you call “cherrypicking” (About a whole country?) and the “exception to said rule”.
cosmoetica-
“Half Past:
<'i>You are exhibiting the classic extremist mode of using exceptions to define a rule. I just ripped a guy named Somebody on another thread for doing so with definitions of words.”
Okay, that's the funniest thing I've read today. Thanks for the word classic. Discussions should be civil and not about ego and “ripping” people. Which “rule” are you speaking of, and how many “exceptions” would it take for you to have your definition? You cannot have statistics without factual data. Sure, stats are sometimes used in a what-if format, but they are also used in necessary problem-solving.
“That you would even, in jest, use a term like 'success story' for a 5k a year ins, premium, shows you are out of touch w reality and working class needs. That is, technically, gouging.”
Some pay twice as much as you because they choose to, and are also working class. Why wouldn't I understand that? If this is a burden to you, then you should have that Medicare option that is suitable for your family. But that doesn't mean we need to create one health care system that everyone has to adhere to. BTW, it's illegal in Canada for citizens to purchase private insurance. Are you ready for that kind of clamp-down?
“C'mon. It was Cigna's beancounters.”
Fine, but you are missing the point that a Medicare system or Universal, government controlled system will not guarantee the end of these occurrences, because there will always be “beancounters”. Again, just because you don't read about it in a newspaper as a public example, doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
“Definitions of words?”
Statistics
Pronunciation:
st?-?tis-tiks
Function:
noun plural but singular or plural in construction
Etymology:
German Statistik study of political facts and figures, from New Latin statisticus of politics, from Latin status state
Date:
1770
1 : a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data 2 : a collection of quantitative data.
“Jim: As I showed, you are correct. Even assuming HPM's #s are correct, they are still equal or better to most private plans.”
Again, these are not my numbers, but that of Jay Lehr, Ph.D. and Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec who's article you call “cherrypicking” (About a whole country?) and the “exception to said rule”.
'Which “rule” are you speaking of, and how many “exceptions” would it take for you to have your definition? '
That would be the 5k a year premium in Canada as if that's the rule, as Jim stated. The exceptions would have to outnumber the rule, to supplant the rule, or 50% + 1.
'Some pay twice as much as you because they choose to, and are also working class.'
Not in this nation. Do you even know what the working class is? A family making 25-30K, pre-tax, could afford no rent nor food w a 10k premium. Again the exceptional defense.
'Fine, but you are missing the point that a Medicare system or Universal, government controlled system will not guarantee the end of these occurrences, because there will always be “beancounters”.'
Politicians are cowards. Which politico would dare let a death in his district go forward- see Terri Schiavo. And, again, because you claim something does not make it so.
'1 : a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data 2 : a collection of quantitative data. '
Notice the plural forms used in the definition. Here is what I stated: 'The cost of my own ins. is not a stat, but a reality. I have not indexed it to other company's premiums, etc.' Note, I spoke simply of one fact, not indexing it against others. R-E-A=D-I-N-G. Some consider it fundamental.
'Again, these are not my numbers, but that of Jay Lehr, Ph.D. and Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec '
So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.
'Which “rule” are you speaking of, and how many “exceptions” would it take for you to have your definition? '
That would be the 5k a year premium in Canada as if that's the rule, as Jim stated. The exceptions would have to outnumber the rule, to supplant the rule, or 50% + 1.
'Some pay twice as much as you because they choose to, and are also working class.'
Not in this nation. Do you even know what the working class is? A family making 25-30K, pre-tax, could afford no rent nor food w a 10k premium. Again the exceptional defense.
'Fine, but you are missing the point that a Medicare system or Universal, government controlled system will not guarantee the end of these occurrences, because there will always be “beancounters”.'
Politicians are cowards. Which politico would dare let a death in his district go forward- see Terri Schiavo. And, again, because you claim something does not make it so.
'1 : a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, and presentation of masses of numerical data 2 : a collection of quantitative data. '
Notice the plural forms used in the definition. Here is what I stated: 'The cost of my own ins. is not a stat, but a reality. I have not indexed it to other company's premiums, etc.' Note, I spoke simply of one fact, not indexing it against others. R-E-A=D-I-N-G. Some consider it fundamental.
'Again, these are not my numbers, but that of Jay Lehr, Ph.D. and Pierre Lemieux, an economist at The University of Quebec '
So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.
“Not in this nation. Do you even know what the working class is? A family making 25-30K, pre-tax, could afford no rent nor food w a 10k premium. Again the exceptional defense.”
In my book, working class includes everyone that works for a living. You are just another one of those bleeding hearts that reverts to condescending remarks to “win” an argument. Allow me to reduce myself to your tactics: You have a family income of $30,000 a year and expects others with a higher income to foot the bill for your welfare. If you really wanted to change your circumstances, you would change your mindset and change your own personal circumstance to enhance the life of you and your family. And don't give me that crap about how impossible it is as a working class parent. People that want more out of life set their minds to making it happen, and don't expect anything for “free”.
Politicians are cowards. Which politico would dare let a death in his district go forward- see Terri Schiavo. And, again, because you claim something does not make it so.
Nice generalization. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Yet, you want these “cowardly” politicians to work for you and give you what you want. Universal health insurance affects everyone and not just you, but I realize you are only thinking of your fact and what these “cowardly” politicians can get for you.
So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.
What you really wish is that I were not just taking your word for it rather than respecting the opinions of an Economist and a Ph.D.
“Not in this nation. Do you even know what the working class is? A family making 25-30K, pre-tax, could afford no rent nor food w a 10k premium. Again the exceptional defense.”
In my book, working class includes everyone that works for a living. You are just another one of those bleeding hearts that reverts to condescending remarks to “win” an argument. Allow me to reduce myself to your tactics: You have a family income of $30,000 a year and expects others with a higher income to foot the bill for your welfare. If you really wanted to change your circumstances, you would change your mindset and change your own personal circumstance to enhance the life of you and your family. And don't give me that crap about how impossible it is as a working class parent. People that want more out of life set their minds to making it happen, and don't expect anything for “free”.
Politicians are cowards. Which politico would dare let a death in his district go forward- see Terri Schiavo. And, again, because you claim something does not make it so.
Nice generalization. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Yet, you want these “cowardly” politicians to work for you and give you what you want. Universal health insurance affects everyone and not just you, but I realize you are only thinking of your fact and what these “cowardly” politicians can get for you.
So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.
What you really wish is that I were not just taking your word for it rather than respecting the opinions of an Economist and a Ph.D.
'In my book, working class includes everyone that works for a living.'
So, CEOs are working class?
'You are just another one of those bleeding hearts that reverts to condescending remarks to “win” an argument.'
Me a bleeding heart? That's news. Or are you just immature, and revert to namecalling when losing an argument?
'Allow me to reduce myself to your tactics: You have a family income of $30,000 a year and expects others with a higher income to foot the bill for your welfare. If you really wanted to change your circumstances, you would change your mindset and change your own personal circumstance to enhance the life of you and your family. And don't give me that crap about how impossible it is as a working class parent. People that want more out of life set their minds to making it happen, and don't expect anything for “free”.'
Again, an appeal to the most exceptional fallacy of all- the pull yourself up by your bootstraps ideal; save that for every person who does, there are 999 that don't, and the bulk of those who succeed do so via connections, shortcuts, and plain old luck. As for the ins., I expect every wage earner and employer to pay their fair share. I realize that the people at the top, who've benefitted the most from the economy- a free one that allows for classes, never want to chip in their fair share, but hey, evolutionary selfishness is a bitch.
'Nice generalization. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Yet, you want these “cowardly” politicians to work for you and give you what you want. Universal health insurance affects everyone and not just you, but I realize you are only thinking of your fact and what these “cowardly” politicians can get for you.'
I've survived nice w/o handouts. But universal health ins. is not a handout. All wage earners wd pay their way. The only thing universal wd do is lower costs via scale. It's really simple, if we're all in the boat then there's incentive to save costs, rather than a sea full of individual lifeboats. But, nice generalization and assumptions.
'What you really wish is that I were not just taking your word for it rather than respecting the opinions of an Economist and a Ph.D.'
You are a voice from the ether, and a none too bright one. I don't care a whit what floats your boat. But you still used an exceptional defense.
'In my book, working class includes everyone that works for a living.'
So, CEOs are working class?
'You are just another one of those bleeding hearts that reverts to condescending remarks to “win” an argument.'
Me a bleeding heart? That's news. Or are you just immature, and revert to namecalling when losing an argument?
'Allow me to reduce myself to your tactics: You have a family income of $30,000 a year and expects others with a higher income to foot the bill for your welfare. If you really wanted to change your circumstances, you would change your mindset and change your own personal circumstance to enhance the life of you and your family. And don't give me that crap about how impossible it is as a working class parent. People that want more out of life set their minds to making it happen, and don't expect anything for “free”.'
Again, an appeal to the most exceptional fallacy of all- the pull yourself up by your bootstraps ideal; save that for every person who does, there are 999 that don't, and the bulk of those who succeed do so via connections, shortcuts, and plain old luck. As for the ins., I expect every wage earner and employer to pay their fair share. I realize that the people at the top, who've benefitted the most from the economy- a free one that allows for classes, never want to chip in their fair share, but hey, evolutionary selfishness is a bitch.
'Nice generalization. Has nothing to do with this discussion. Yet, you want these “cowardly” politicians to work for you and give you what you want. Universal health insurance affects everyone and not just you, but I realize you are only thinking of your fact and what these “cowardly” politicians can get for you.'
I've survived nice w/o handouts. But universal health ins. is not a handout. All wage earners wd pay their way. The only thing universal wd do is lower costs via scale. It's really simple, if we're all in the boat then there's incentive to save costs, rather than a sea full of individual lifeboats. But, nice generalization and assumptions.
'What you really wish is that I were not just taking your word for it rather than respecting the opinions of an Economist and a Ph.D.'
You are a voice from the ether, and a none too bright one. I don't care a whit what floats your boat. But you still used an exceptional defense.
HPM,
I googled Pierre Lemieux. Did you bother? His primary credential is not as an economist but as a conservative ideologue that basically despises his own government. But wait. The same is true of Jay Lehr, a fellow of the Heartland Institute. You probably do know exactly what they are. People who have academic credentials that have absolutely no bearing on anything they write, because whatever they learned in their studies has been completely subsumed to their conservative political philosophy. In other words, every last claim they make is highly questionable.
I also notice that you make a highly questionable statement. You utilize your cost after your employer has helped out a whole lot as your basis for comparison of insurance policies. But what would need to be compared is your cost plus your employers cost plus whatever amount your employer negotiated in terms of a discount. Only that would provide a valid comparison to those who have to pay for their own insurance, which is the situation that so many people find themselves in.
It is also noticeable that conservatives only speak of Canada and England, the two systems that have the greatest problems. They do not speak of France, Spain, Sweden or other countries that have systems that are working better. Or at least, the only times I've ever seen any mention of them is when referring to articles from the European versions of AEI or Cato, which do exist. There is no desire on the part of conservatives for honest conversations on this issue, or at least no desire on the part of those conservatives whose beliefs are limited to how it can't be done if the corporate insurers and hospitals can't do it.
HPM,
I googled Pierre Lemieux. Did you bother? His primary credential is not as an economist but as a conservative ideologue that basically despises his own government. But wait. The same is true of Jay Lehr, a fellow of the Heartland Institute. You probably do know exactly what they are. People who have academic credentials that have absolutely no bearing on anything they write, because whatever they learned in their studies has been completely subsumed to their conservative political philosophy. In other words, every last claim they make is highly questionable.
I also notice that you make a highly questionable statement. You utilize your cost after your employer has helped out a whole lot as your basis for comparison of insurance policies. But what would need to be compared is your cost plus your employers cost plus whatever amount your employer negotiated in terms of a discount. Only that would provide a valid comparison to those who have to pay for their own insurance, which is the situation that so many people find themselves in.
It is also noticeable that conservatives only speak of Canada and England, the two systems that have the greatest problems. They do not speak of France, Spain, Sweden or other countries that have systems that are working better. Or at least, the only times I've ever seen any mention of them is when referring to articles from the European versions of AEI or Cato, which do exist. There is no desire on the part of conservatives for honest conversations on this issue, or at least no desire on the part of those conservatives whose beliefs are limited to how it can't be done if the corporate insurers and hospitals can't do it.
cosmo-
“So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.”
Name calling? Tit for tat, I'd say. Yeah, I know the definition of bot ora bot.
My response to you is you are a bleeding heart, with just as much disdain for our government, namely one presidential candidate you refer to as a “hack”. Funny, how she seems to be the only one pushing for your lollypop, Universal Health care. As JS has mentioned this same disdain toward government about the author and the subject of his article. Would that attitude alone make your opinion less viable?
JS- Contrary to popular belief, conservatives are not evil people. Even as a libertarian, I can recognize that.
Okay, let's talk about Sweden:
Sweden's welfare state: Trouble ahead
Spain
Spain’s Citizens Assess Their Health Care System
“Satisfaction with health care system: Of citizens surveyed in seven
European nations, Spaniards express the next to lowest degree of satisfaction with their current health care system.”
And France. Now, France actually looks like the most feasible option that I would consider going with, because of how closely theirs resembles ours:
The French Lesson In Health Care
“That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation,, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.”
These specifics are much better than just saying “Universal Health Care” or “Medicare”.
cosmo-
“So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.”
Name calling? Tit for tat, I'd say. Yeah, I know the definition of bot ora bot.
My response to you is you are a bleeding heart, with just as much disdain for our government, namely one presidential candidate you refer to as a “hack”. Funny, how she seems to be the only one pushing for your lollypop, Universal Health care. As JS has mentioned this same disdain toward government about the author and the subject of his article. Would that attitude alone make your opinion less viable?
JS- Contrary to popular belief, conservatives are not evil people. Even as a libertarian, I can recognize that.
Okay, let's talk about Sweden:
Sweden's welfare state: Trouble ahead
Spain
Spain’s Citizens Assess Their Health Care System
“Satisfaction with health care system: Of citizens surveyed in seven
European nations, Spaniards express the next to lowest degree of satisfaction with their current health care system.”
And France. Now, France actually looks like the most feasible option that I would consider going with, because of how closely theirs resembles ours:
The French Lesson In Health Care
“That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation,, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.”
These specifics are much better than just saying “Universal Health Care” or “Medicare”.
cosmo-
“So, you are bot using the exceptional defense, but using it once removed. Ok, but it's still exceptionalism.”
Name calling? Tit for tat, I'd say. Yeah, I know the definition of bot ora bot.
My response to you is you are a bleeding heart, with just as much disdain for our government, namely one presidential candidate you refer to as a “hack”. Funny, how she seems to be the only one pushing for your lollypop, Universal Health care. As JS has mentioned this same disdain toward government about the author and the subject of his article. Would that attitude alone make your opinion less viable?
JS- Contrary to popular belief, conservatives are not evil people. Even as a libertarian, I can recognize that.
Okay, let's talk about Sweden:
Sweden's welfare state: Trouble ahead
Spain
Spain’s Citizens Assess Their Health Care System
“Satisfaction with health care system: Of citizens surveyed in seven
European nations, Spaniards express the next to lowest degree of satisfaction with their current health care system.”
And France. Now, France actually looks like the most feasible option that I would consider going with, because of how closely theirs resembles ours:
The French Lesson In Health Care
“That's not to say the French have solved all health-care riddles. Like every other nation,, France is wrestling with runaway health-care inflation. That has led to some hefty tax hikes, and France is now considering U.S.-style health-maintenance organization tactics to rein in costs. Still, some 65% of French citizens express satisfaction with their system, compared with 40% of U.S. residents. And France spends just 10.7% of its gross domestic product on health care, while the U.S. lays out 16%, more than any other nation.”
These specifics are much better than just saying “Universal Health Care” or “Medicare”.
HPM:
You are the one who started calling names, and when you refer to Universal healthcare as a lollipop you show you fundamentally do not understand that all pay.
Jim: One could tell from just the 'facts' and their defenses that there was nothing there, but good catch on the ideologue.
DLS & HPM: are you reposting older posts, because some posts are showing up now after later posts.
HPM:
You are the one who started calling names, and when you refer to Universal healthcare as a lollipop you show you fundamentally do not understand that all pay.
Jim: One could tell from just the 'facts' and their defenses that there was nothing there, but good catch on the ideologue.
DLS & HPM: are you reposting older posts, because some posts are showing up now after later posts.
HPM:
You are the one who started calling names, and when you refer to Universal healthcare as a lollipop you show you fundamentally do not understand that all pay.
Jim: One could tell from just the 'facts' and their defenses that there was nothing there, but good catch on the ideologue.
DLS & HPM: are you reposting older posts, because some posts are showing up now after later posts.
“and when you refer to Universal healthcare as a lollipop you show you fundamentally do not understand that all pay.”
My point there is that you called Hillary a hack, when she is very one offering this form of health care as part of her package if she gets elected. You also call all politicians cowards, rather than seeing them as individuals. Regardless of the exchange between you and I, a good portion of your argument is fueled by name-calling the very ones who might be able to help you.
“DLS & HPM: are you reposting older posts, because some posts are showing up now after later posts.” What do you mean here? Please explain.
Lastly, you never did say what you thought of France's health care system. I happen to think it's a good one.
“and when you refer to Universal healthcare as a lollipop you show you fundamentally do not understand that all pay.”
My point there is that you called Hillary a hack, when she is very one offering this form of health care as part of her package if she gets elected. You also call all politicians cowards, rather than seeing them as individuals. Regardless of the exchange between you and I, a good portion of your argument is fueled by name-calling the very ones who might be able to help you.
“DLS & HPM: are you reposting older posts, because some posts are showing up now after later posts.” What do you mean here? Please explain.
Lastly, you never did say what you thought of France's health care system. I happen to think it's a good one.
“and when you refer to Universal healthcare as a lollipop you show you fundamentally do not understand that all pay.”
My point there is that you called Hillary a hack, when she is very one offering this form of health care as part of her package if she gets elected. You also call all politicians cowards, rather than seeing them as individuals. Regardless of the exchange between you and I, a good portion of your argument is fueled by name-calling the very ones who might be able to help you.
“DLS & HPM: are you reposting older posts, because some posts are showing up now after later posts.” What do you mean here? Please explain.
Lastly, you never did say what you thought of France's health care system. I happen to think it's a good one.
'My point there is that you called Hillary a hack, when she is very one offering this form of health care as part of her package if she gets elected. You also call all politicians cowards, rather than seeing them as individuals. Regardless of the exchange between you and I, a good portion of your argument is fueled by name-calling the very ones who might be able to help you.'
Hill is a hack for many reasons, and all the Dems' healthcare plans are far above the nonsense the R's offer.
I call things as I see them, and I need no help re: healthcare, but many do. I care about them. It's called kindness and looking out for the commonweal, something too often forgotten in this materialistic selfish society.
'My point there is that you called Hillary a hack, when she is very one offering this form of health care as part of her package if she gets elected. You also call all politicians cowards, rather than seeing them as individuals. Regardless of the exchange between you and I, a good portion of your argument is fueled by name-calling the very ones who might be able to help you.'
Hill is a hack for many reasons, and all the Dems' healthcare plans are far above the nonsense the R's offer.
I call things as I see them, and I need no help re: healthcare, but many do. I care about them. It's called kindness and looking out for the commonweal, something too often forgotten in this materialistic selfish society.
'My point there is that you called Hillary a hack, when she is very one offering this form of health care as part of her package if she gets elected. You also call all politicians cowards, rather than seeing them as individuals. Regardless of the exchange between you and I, a good portion of your argument is fueled by name-calling the very ones who might be able to help you.'
Hill is a hack for many reasons, and all the Dems' healthcare plans are far above the nonsense the R's offer.
I call things as I see them, and I need no help re: healthcare, but many do. I care about them. It's called kindness and looking out for the commonweal, something too often forgotten in this materialistic selfish society.
Hey, T-Steel- can you fix this thread- a DLS comment from 4 days ago, and HPM's from yester, are at the bottom over later comments.
Hey, T-Steel- can you fix this thread- a DLS comment from 4 days ago, and HPM's from yester, are at the bottom over later comments.
Hey, T-Steel- can you fix this thread- a DLS comment from 4 days ago, and HPM's from yester, are at the bottom over later comments.
“Hill is a hack for many reasons, and all the Dems' healthcare plans are far above the nonsense the R's offer.”
Okay, here is where you need to specify, rather than “all the Dems” and “nonsense the R's offer.” As I am not affected by said “nonsense”, you need to break it down more specifically if you are going to call it that. I'm am not lacking, but not part of the rich, either. Common welfare should be everyone's business to an extent, but not without a clear game plan that is fair to everyone.
I'm not a fan of Hillary's at all, but tell me what you mean by her being a hack, at least how that would interfere with the health plan she proposes?
“Hill is a hack for many reasons, and all the Dems' healthcare plans are far above the nonsense the R's offer.”
Okay, here is where you need to specify, rather than “all the Dems” and “nonsense the R's offer.” As I am not affected by said “nonsense”, you need to break it down more specifically if you are going to call it that. I'm am not lacking, but not part of the rich, either. Common welfare should be everyone's business to an extent, but not without a clear game plan that is fair to everyone.
I'm not a fan of Hillary's at all, but tell me what you mean by her being a hack, at least how that would interfere with the health plan she proposes?
“Hill is a hack for many reasons, and all the Dems' healthcare plans are far above the nonsense the R's offer.”
Okay, here is where you need to specify, rather than “all the Dems” and “nonsense the R's offer.” As I am not affected by said “nonsense”, you need to break it down more specifically if you are going to call it that. I'm am not lacking, but not part of the rich, either. Common welfare should be everyone's business to an extent, but not without a clear game plan that is fair to everyone.
I'm not a fan of Hillary's at all, but tell me what you mean by her being a hack, at least how that would interfere with the health plan she proposes?
'”all the Dems”' = all the D candidates for Prez.
'”nonsense the R's offer.”' = No changes or healthcare accounts that would not cover a fraction of typical med ins.
'but not without a clear game plan that is fair to everyone.' = Expand Medicare to all workers and citizens. All pay, all play= fair.
'but tell me what you mean by her being a hack, at least how that would interfere with the health plan she proposes?'
Hack = she has not a single new idea. She is not an innovator not a visionary, and when confronted- see 1993 healthcare or 2003 Iraq war, she folds her tent out of political convenience. She lacks vision, courage, and cares only for power. That is a hack.
'”all the Dems”' = all the D candidates for Prez.
'”nonsense the R's offer.”' = No changes or healthcare accounts that would not cover a fraction of typical med ins.
'but not without a clear game plan that is fair to everyone.' = Expand Medicare to all workers and citizens. All pay, all play= fair.
'but tell me what you mean by her being a hack, at least how that would interfere with the health plan she proposes?'
Hack = she has not a single new idea. She is not an innovator not a visionary, and when confronted- see 1993 healthcare or 2003 Iraq war, she folds her tent out of political convenience. She lacks vision, courage, and cares only for power. That is a hack.
'”all the Dems”' = all the D candidates for Prez.
'”nonsense the R's offer.”' = No changes or healthcare accounts that would not cover a fraction of typical med ins.
'but not without a clear game plan that is fair to everyone.' = Expand Medicare to all workers and citizens. All pay, all play= fair.
'but tell me what you mean by her being a hack, at least how that would interfere with the health plan she proposes?'
Hack = she has not a single new idea. She is not an innovator not a visionary, and when confronted- see 1993 healthcare or 2003 Iraq war, she folds her tent out of political convenience. She lacks vision, courage, and cares only for power. That is a hack.
'”nonsense the R's offer.”' = No changes or healthcare accounts that would not cover a fraction of typical med ins.
What do you think of Romney's plan?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health…
'”nonsense the R's offer.”' = No changes or healthcare accounts that would not cover a fraction of typical med ins.
What do you think of Romney's plan?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health…
'”nonsense the R's offer.”' = No changes or healthcare accounts that would not cover a fraction of typical med ins.
What do you think of Romney's plan?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health…
Or what about France?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opin…
Or what about France?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opin…
Or what about France?
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opin…