Clinton vows to bring Socialism/Communism to the US! (Universal Health Care)

[LorDiego01]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070326/...on_health_care

DES MOINES, Iowa - Democratic presidential hopeful
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Monday to create a universal health care system if elected, saying she "learned a lot" during the failed health care effort of her husband's presidency.

"We're going to have universal health care when I'm president — there's no doubt about that. We're going to get it done," the New York senator and front-runner for the 2008 nomination said.

Clinton focused on health care issues during an appearance on ABC's "Good Morning America" broadcast from the state where precinct caucuses will launch the presidential nominating season.

Asked how she could improve on her failed effort to reform health care during her husband's presidency, Clinton said pressure for change has built in the last decade and that would make tackling the issue easier.

"I believe the American people are going to make this an issue," said Clinton. "I believe we're in a better position today to do that than we were in '93 and '94. ... It's one of the reasons I'm running for president."

After the televised meeting, Clinton headed to a Des Moines elementary school to receive the endorsement of former Gov. Tom Vilsack and his wife, Christie.

"
Hillary Clinton has been tried and tested like no other candidate for president," Tom Vilsack said.

His wife added, "To me, this is not just an endorsement but a commitment."

Clinton said her relationship with the Vilsacks dates to her work in the 1970s with Christie Vilsack's late brother, lawyer Tom Bell.

"We will be crisscrossing Iowa and crisscrossing America," Clinton said.

In her earlier appearance, Clinton argued that health coverage has deteriorated over the last decade, and that's increased public pressure to act.

"The number of uninsured has grown," said Clinton. "It's hard to ignore the fact that nearly 47 million people don't have health insurance, but also because so many people with insurance have found it's difficult to get health care because the insurance companies deny you what you need."

Clinton opened her latest campaign swing with a live broadcast from the Science Center of Iowa, where she spoke to more than 200 activists at a town meeting about health care issues. It's an issue with which she is very familiar. After her husband won the White House in 1992, she headed an effort to put a universal health care system in place. That effort eventually collapsed under pressure in part from the insurance industry.

However, while Clinton said the issue continues to be a high priority for her, she has not offered up a specific plan. One questioner at the town hall meeting held up a copy of a DVD containing a detailed description of Democratic rival
John Edwards' plan for universal health care, asking Clinton if she will also offer specifics.

The reason she hasn't "set out a plan and said here's exactly what I will do," Clinton said, is that she wants to hear from voters what kind of plan they would favor.

"I want the ideas that people have," said Clinton. She said any health care plan must deal with the reality that there's a unique climate in the country.

"We are bigger and more diverse and people like their choice," said Clinton.

Edwards, a former North Carolina senator and 2004 Democratic runningmate, has said it's inevitable that taxes would have to go up to finance an expensive health care plan. Clinton disagreed.

"We've got to get the costs under control," said Clinton. "Why would we put more money into a dysfunctional system?"

Clinton sidestepped a question on whether she'd consider Vilsack as a potential runningmate should she win the nomination.

"I am a very big fan of Governor Vilsack," Clinton said, adding that he has "the kind of practical but visionary leadership we need in our country."

Vilsack was the first Democrat to formally enter the 2008 presidential race in November, but he dropped out last month citing the difficulty in raising the tens of millions of dollars necessary to mount a credible bid.

PLease, for the love of everything that is good and pure on this world, I pray that Americans can still tell whats socialism/communism in the upcomming elections.

[KeithPA]

Clinton = Socialism, so does Obama.

Can't say this is a suprises to me, the Dems (the notable ones I should say) are the new socialist party. Don't worry soon we'll have free health care and a camera watching every move we make

I remember reading an article right after the election on Yahoo. The title was "European Socialist eager to work with new democratic majority."

[LorDiego01]

I remember reading an article right after the election on Yahoo. The title was "European Socialist eager to work with new democratic majority."

I recall this as well. I think I just threw up in a mouth a little bit. Thanks for reminding me.

[ChamberedRound]

Originally Posted by DeltaII5

Clinton = Socialism, so does Obama.

Can't say this is a suprises to me, the Dems (the notable ones I should say) are the new socialist party. Don't worry soon we'll have free health care and a camera watching every move we make

I agree.

The Democrats in recent years have become more and more Socialist as they attempt to cater to their constituents with "cradle-to-grave" politics.

And to be fair, the Republicans, with the advent of the "Neo-Cons", increasingly push a totalitarian agenda under the guise of being conservative. IMHO, bigger government, more spending, and an aggressive foreign policy doesn't seem very conservative to me.

To get back on topic, Hillary's a fool. If one looks at all the nations which fund a socialist health care program, the cost to the state is astronomical and level of health care isn't all that great. In fact, some colleagues of mine who are citizens of these countries (in the US on Permanent Work Visas), mentioned in conversation that their families all have to purchase supplemental health insurance anyway, as the state health insurance alone isn't enough. If supplemental insurance is needed anyway (on top of almost 50% income taxes), then what's the point?

[dmg1969]

Oh...hooray! Hillary is going to take care of us all. That means that, with a chronic illness such as mine, I can wait for MONTHS to see a specialist or have surgery, if need be. Anyone who votes for her is insane!

Dave G.

[Archiver]

Certainly Hillary would fail just as badly as before. I hate her just as much as any freedom loving gun owner.
But, ALL Americans DESERVE adequate health care. PERIOD.
I'm not sure that a Universal Govt sponsored is any better. However, the private sector especially US Corporations certainly arent stepping up to the NEED. WalMart makes billions but pays minimum wage and has ZERO or LOUSY coverage for employees.
Unions are virtually useless in this day and age and they certainly dont properly represent their members so workers put up with teh lousy standard of living...paycheck to paycheck.



My wife actually left Teaching because our "share" of health care coverage would have been $350 a MONTH!
My wife now works for a German company and we have excellent benefits and a comparable salary. Her coverage is free and our son and I are just an additional $25 a month including prescriptions. Last fall they even paid $4000 dollars for my Lasic surgery!! They treat their employees as the valuable commodity they are and the company is successful.
And those salaries and benefits are COMPANY WIDE...not just some package for the upper eschelon as in many US Corporations!

Unless US companies learn to respect their workers, the road IS govt mandated Universal Health Care....that will probably be lousy anyway.

[KeithPA]

Originally Posted by ChamberedRound

I agree.

The Democrats in recent years have become more and more Socialist as they attempt to cater to their constituents with "cradle-to-grave" politics.

And to be fair, the Republicans, with the advent of the "Neo-Cons", increasingly push a totalitarian agenda under the guise of being conservative. IMHO, bigger government, more spending, and an aggressive foreign policy doesn't seem very conservative to me.

To get back on topic, Hillary's a fool. If one looks at all the nations which fund a socialist health care program, the cost to the state is astronomical and level of health care isn't all that great. In fact, some colleagues of mine who are citizens of these countries (in the US on Permanent Work Visas), mentioned in conversation that their families all have to purchase supplemental health insurance anyway, as the state health insurance alone isn't enough. If supplemental insurance is needed anyway (on top of almost 50% income taxes), then what's the point?

See this is where politics are very confusing. To me a NEO-Con is Ron Paul. He is a True Conservative.

Democrats (mainstream ones [Hilliary]) equal socialism.

Where Bush = Elitest
He may be a republican, but he spends money like there is no tomorrow. He invades a country because he wants to and makes up a reason. He is constantly untruthful. He also simply does whatever he wants, whether it be wiretaps, bankstatements, the war, contracts, etc. He also supports illegal immigration, which benefits companies, but hurts U.S. Workers. To me he isn't a republican, at least not a true one.

Labels seem confusing as well, especially when you involve the media. I notice that FOX simply supports 100% anything Bush says, but infact my true republicans disagree with Bush. That makes it confusing, because Fox is always called a "Neo-con" channel, when infact to me its more a "republican-elitest" channel"

Just my thoughts, maybe I'm crazy

[Agent Ronin]

Why is it whenever Hitlery makes another vow. I get all scared and deeply concerned for where this nation is going...

Name me one nation who has a socialist-democracy that actually works...


Maybe things like this will come back to haunt her...

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by DeltaII5

See this is where politics are very confusing. To me a NEO-Con is Ron Paul. He is a True Conservative.

but "neo" means "new", not "true".

the neo-cons are the "new conservatives"...which means they aren't traditional conservatives, but some new form (i.e., bastardization) thereof.

that's why g.w. and the like are "neo-cons"...because they aren't traditional conservatives...they are the new (big invasive government) "conservatives".

ron paul is a traditional (small uninvasive government) conservative.

[KeithPA]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

but "neo" means "new", not "true".

the neo-cons are the "new conservatives"...which means they aren't traditional conservatives, but some new form (i.e., bastardization) thereof.

that's why g.w. and the like are "neo-cons"...because they aren't traditional conservatives...they are the new (big invasive government) "conservatives".

ron paul is a traditional (small uninvasive government) conservative.

Thank you for that translation.

I never understood the wording partly due to the source that always mention it is national T.V. Which no one seems to know much of anything. I always thought that neo = ultra conservative, since I've seen that mention several times.