Hillary Clinton - Why?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I am just curious if there is anyone on this board that supports and actually plans on voting for this candidate. I ask because I find her and her views reprehensible. I think that based on her history and her current positions she is the person most likely to erode our personal freedoms. She is pro-CODEX, likely to try and repeal the 2nd amendment, and is part of the crowd that wants to jail people for not submitting to vaccines. These are just some of the many reasons. Are people really this stupid? “Hey I recognize her name and stuff”

So sorry if I just called a supporter stupid but I am interested to hear what the possible reasons could be that someone would support her.[/quote]

I’m voting for her because she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary (she claimed this) and in honor of his climbing Mt. Everest. Trouble is he did that 3 years after she was born. I don’t know how to resolve that but she’s my candidate, for sure.

62

[quote]pookie wrote:

If you dilute sarcasm too much, it doesn’t read sarcastic anymore.

[/quote]

I know. I don’t blame anyone for missing my subtle sarcasm from time to time. I also like to present arguments from different perspectives for the purpose of academic debate. Debating is a great way to acquire and hone knowledge, which is far more important than my own personal opinions on a subject.

63

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
storey420 wrote:

But you voted for the chimp right? You didn’t see a problem there, did you?

[/quote]

Huh? The chimp? Not sure what you mean. If you mean I voted for Dubya, then no, you are incorrect. I exercised my right as an American to waste my vote and actually believe that you have a choice outside of the two parties that everyone else wastes their vote on.

64

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
pookie wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
I could never vote for someone who offers universal health care. Too few see the great evil that will come of it.

Yeah, you should see what an evil, unliveable hellish shithole Canada has become with universal health care!

Everywhere you see healthy people with nice teeth and good vision. It’s atrocious. You can’t even tell who’s poor or rich just by looking at their smile anymore! How’s that normal or fair?

We’re full of old people who take forever to die and invaded by babies who manage to survive their births at an alarming rate.

There’s a reason Nature prefers a 10% infantile mortality rate and a 45 years lifespan! All those viruses and diseases that took billions of years to evolve, and we hardly catch any! How abnormal is that?!?

Your dead babies, sickly poor and abandoned, mutilated crazy war veterans don’t know how good they have it. Unnecessary suffering is what life is all about.

Talk to me in thirty years Canadian. Universal health care justifies a plethora of evil. Universal health care will rightly justify smoking bans. Universal health care changes us from sovereign individuals to dollar signs. I’m in the business of advancing the species pookie. Getting us all health care is not worth the lessening of man. You seem very deficient in vision.

mike[/quote]

Universal healthcare will not work in the US because of the “money for nothing and chicks for free” attitude of most Americans. There is no way the current level of care provided to most Americans could be continued under a universal plan. The cost would be too high and the end result would be a rationing approach like Canada.

This is why Canadians come to the US. Not because their system is bad, but because it does not provide the same level of service to all people in the same time frame (i.e everything right now). So those Canadians who want services not covered in their area or services more quickly come to the US to pay for it.

And since Americans have a well developed sense of entitlement, no universal healthcare system would work in the US until people modified their expectations.

As for Hillary, she is an elitist that wants to take aware everyone else’s right to live life how they choose. She doesn’t want people who can afford to pay for healthcare to be able to buy it. She wants a two class system; the political leaders (the ruling class who don’t have to use the universal healthcare system), and everyone else (who must, by law, use the universal healthcare system).

Hillary is all about controlling the freedom of people outside the “ruling class”.

65

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
pookie wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
There is no way the current level of care provided to most Americans could be continued under a universal plan. The cost would be too high and the end result would be a rationing approach like Canada.

This is why Canadians come to the US. Not because their system is bad, but because it does not provide the same level of service to all people in the same time frame (i.e everything right now). So those Canadians who want services not covered in their area or services more quickly come to the US to pay for it.

And since Americans have a well developed sense of entitlement, no universal healthcare system would work in the US until people modified their expectations.

[/quote]

Sensible.
So we are all agreed, then. For medical care (not health care) we can’t have all three:
----access (universal availability, equality, no rationing, no waits)
----value (cheap)
----quality (however defined)

OK, America: Choose two.

66

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Universal healthcare will not work in the US because of the “money for nothing and chicks for free” attitude of most Americans. There is no way the current level of care provided to most Americans could be continued under a universal plan. The cost would be too high and the end result would be a rationing approach like Canada.

This is why Canadians come to the US. Not because their system is bad, but because it does not provide the same level of service to all people in the same time frame (i.e everything right now). So those Canadians who want services not covered in their area or services more quickly come to the US to pay for it.

And since Americans have a well developed sense of entitlement, no universal healthcare system would work in the US until people modified their expectations.

As for Hillary, she is an elitist that wants to take aware everyone else’s right to live life how they choose. She doesn’t want people who can afford to pay for healthcare to be able to buy it. She wants a two class system; the political leaders (the ruling class who don’t have to use the universal healthcare system), and everyone else (who must, by law, use the universal healthcare system).

Hillary is all about controlling the freedom of people outside the “ruling class”.[/quote]

So what you’re saying basically - and what mike and thunder also seem to allude to - is not that UHC won’t work in the US because a majority of Americans don’t want it; but rather that your bureaucracies are so corrupt and inefficient, and your citizens so irresponsible and entitled that it couldn’t work at all and would rapidly go bankrupt?

67

Food is far more important than healthcare. Furthermore, it is not proper that corporations make billions off of producing food, an essential commodity. I therefore propose that we nationalize food production, because gov’t is far more capable, honest, efficient, and so forth than corporations.

Look how well doing this turned out in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba…uh…wait a minute…

68

Hillary ‘cuts the cheese’ as well as anyone! She’s got my vote!!

http://my.break.com/content/view.aspx?ContentID=409285

69

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
pookie wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
There is no way the current level of care provided to most Americans could be continued under a universal plan. The cost would be too high and the end result would be a rationing approach like Canada.

This is why Canadians come to the US. Not because their system is bad, but because it does not provide the same level of service to all people in the same time frame (i.e everything right now). So those Canadians who want services not covered in their area or services more quickly come to the US to pay for it.

And since Americans have a well developed sense of entitlement, no universal healthcare system would work in the US until people modified their expectations.

Sensible.
So we are all agreed, then. For medical care (not health care) we can’t have all three:
----access (universal availability, equality, no rationing, no waits)
----value (cheap)
----quality (however defined)

OK, America: Choose two.

[/quote]

Yes, all three are not attainable in a socialized model because the cost of medical innovation is too high.

The problem overall is that innovation is driven by profit. The fact is that most of the medical innovation in the world comes from the US because there is the potential in our system to make a lot of money. So there are lots of companies and individuals willing to invest in medical research. Not so in Canada or other socialized healthcare markets.

What occurs is that the US makes the medical discoveries and the other socialist countries take advantage of it, when they can, without having to foot the very large cost of research.

If the US healthcare market became socialized the pace of medical innovation would drop dramatically causing a decline in all healthcare markets, not just the US. Canada would then have nowhere to get cutting-edge discoveries.

So the bottom line is money. Without money from the private section to drive innovation the US population would not be able to have the latest and greatest medical technologies. And even with the current technologies the cost would be too high to allow the same access to all in a timely manner.

And Pookie, that is why Canada has and does ration healthcare. You can pretend as if it doesn’t occur, but we all know if does. But if that is the norm and the expectation is to wait a year to have a total knee replacement, etc, then that is ok. But Americans are currently used to having the very latest technology and having it right now. That kind of cutting-edge care would not be supported by a socialized system and THAT is why Canadians come to the US for care.

70

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Food is far more important than healthcare. Furthermore, it is not proper that corporations make billions off of producing food, an essential commodity. I therefore propose that we nationalize food production, because gov’t is far more capable, honest, efficient, and so forth than corporations.

Look how well doing this turned out in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba…uh…wait a minute…[/quote]

That’s a pretty bad analogy.

Food is cheap. Furthermore, everyone can easily predict how much food they will need in advance.

With health care, some people never require any; others require a lot. Some of it can be had cheaply, some not.

You’re comparing a basic, continuous need, which can easily and cheaply be met to a mostly random need associated with a random price.

Anyone ever bought Food Insurance?

The day that all my current and future health care needs are guaranteed never to cost more than a week’s groceries, I’ll support dismantling UHC.

'Til then, I’ll dismantle your silly arguments instead.

71

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Food is far more important than healthcare. Furthermore, it is not proper that corporations make billions off of producing food, an essential commodity. I therefore propose that we nationalize food production, because gov’t is far more capable, honest, efficient, and so forth than corporations.

Look how well doing this turned out in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba…uh…wait a minute…

That’s a pretty bad analogy.

Food is cheap. Furthermore, everyone can easily predict how much food they will need in advance.

With health care, some people never require any; others require a lot. Some of it can be had cheaply, some not.

You’re comparing a basic, continuous need, which can easily and cheaply be met to a mostly random need associated with a random price.

Anyone ever bought Food Insurance?

The day that all my current and future health care needs are guaranteed never to cost more than a week’s groceries, I’ll support dismantling UHC.

'Til then, I’ll dismantle your silly arguments instead.
[/quote]

The cost of food is relative to a person’s circumstance. A weekly grocery bill of $200 is horrendous to someone living on $25,000/year. To us, it’s nothing. Would the food be cheaper if someone (maybe a government?) had a monopoly on food?

Anyway, I noticed in your posts that you show no concern for the opinions of the doctors. What if the doctors don’t WANT to be your serfs? Brilliant doctors will be happy to forever take your orders, right Pookie? Right?

Like all socialists/collectivists, individuals don’t really matter to you, right? You’re happy to use a medical system supported by taxpayers who’re forced to pay your bills, whether they agree or not.

Good luck with you’re ‘civilised’ society, with its medical care at gunpoint.

LMAO!!!

72

[quote]Lorisco wrote:

But Americans are currently used to having the very latest technology and having it right now. That kind of cutting-edge care would not be supported by a socialized system and THAT is why Canadians come to the US for care.

[/quote]

That is why WEALTHY Canadians travel to the US. 40 million Americans cannot afford health insurance and are not used to getting the best medical technology right away. How many more are not used to getting the best medical technology right away because of miserly GMOs.

I’m not going quarrel about the system of innovation, but perhaps instead instead of saying, “Americans are used to this,” and, “Americans are used to that,” you should say, “Americans that matter are used to this,” and, “Americans that matter are used to that.”

73

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The cost of food is relative to a person’s circumstance. A weekly grocery bill of $200 is horrendous to someone living on $25,000/year. To us, it’s nothing. Would the food be cheaper if someone (maybe a government?) had a monopoly on food?[/quote]

Food needs are predictable. Health care needs are not.

UHC is not about making health care cheap; it’s about making it accessible to everyone.

As usual, you’re not only making bad metaphors, you’re making them about the wrong issues.

BTW, who’s your Food Insurance carrier?

Doctors are entirely free to practice anywhere they want. Name one country that has UHC and that forcibly retains its doctors.

Oh, right, you can’t.

Your firemen, policemen and entire army are “socialized” and run by the government. Are they serfs happy to take orders? Where’s your respect for a fireman’s right to ask what he wants as compensation before he comes and puts your house out?

Today’s really not your day, is it?

Sigh. Always the same retarded argument. If only you really believed it and went to live alone in a shack somewhere. Ted Kaczynski’s little hut should still be vacant, why don’t you move there and cut off all links with society?

Don’t want to? Then you agree, by living in society, that said society will collectively decide to put in place various laws, regulations, services, etc. and that the costs will be distributed among it’s members. Roads, utilities, police, etc. All things you can’t manage alone and that are immensely useful to a society. UHC is just another service. It is a modern invention though; I’m not sure the US is quite there yet.

[quote]Good luck with you’re ‘civilised’ society, with its medical care at gunpoint.

LMAO!!![/quote]

Good luck with yours and it’s fire control service and law and order services provided at gunpoint!!!

roflcopter.

74

[quote]pookie wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Food is far more important than healthcare. Furthermore, it is not proper that corporations make billions off of producing food, an essential commodity. I therefore propose that we nationalize food production, because gov’t is far more capable, honest, efficient, and so forth than corporations.

Look how well doing this turned out in the Soviet Union, China, Cuba…uh…wait a minute…

That’s a pretty bad analogy.

Food is cheap. Furthermore, everyone can easily predict how much food they will need in advance.

With health care, some people never require any; others require a lot. Some of it can be had cheaply, some not.

You’re comparing a basic, continuous need, which can easily and cheaply be met to a mostly random need associated with a random price.

Anyone ever bought Food Insurance?

The day that all my current and future health care needs are guaranteed never to cost more than a week’s groceries, I’ll support dismantling UHC.

'Til then, I’ll dismantle your silly arguments instead.
[/quote]

And why is food so cheap?

Do you want medicine to be as cheap as that someday?

Than you need competition and the constant small revolutions from below a market system provides.

Also, law enforcement services are by definition provided at gunpoint. Also, most mala in se today are committed by the government using this “law enforcement system”.

Your roflcopter would have crashed, had it ever left the ground.

75

[quote]orion wrote:
And why is food so cheap?[/quote]

You’re kidding, right?

It’d be nice.

Really?

The market system currently seems more interested in “inventing” new diseases it can then sell you expensive pills to treat.

Look up how many breakthroughs and “small revolutions” came from government funded research (much of it in the USA) vs. private research centers.

To a scientist doing research, it matters little if his check is coming from the government or from private investors. He does his research.

The problem with private investors is that eventually, most of them want to see something they can sell/offer/package to profit from. Long-term payoffs are not popular with them.

I love the free market as well as the next guy, but it’s not a solution to everything; nor is it the optimal solution to every problem.

76

[quote]pookie wrote:

Sigh. Always the same retarded argument. If only you really believed it and went to live alone in a shack somewhere. Ted Kaczynski’s little hut should still be vacant, why don’t you move there and cut off all links with society?

Don’t want to? Then you agree, by living in society, that said society will collectively decide to put in place various laws, regulations, services, etc. and that the costs will be distributed among it’s members. Roads, utilities, police, etc. All things you can’t manage alone and that are immensely useful to a society. UHC is just another service. It is a modern invention though; I’m not sure the US is quite there yet.

Good luck with you’re ‘civilised’ society, with its medical care at gunpoint.

LMAO!!!

Good luck with yours and it’s fire control service and law and order services provided at gunpoint!!!

roflcopter.[/quote]

Hmmm…Cuba? China? North Korea? “Yeah guys, this system sucks! Let’s just leave!” The Great Leader might take issue with that.

Also, like all collectivist/totalitarians, you cannot tell the difference between a society where everyone voluntarily lives there, and one where force/terror is the rule. I don’t like other people much either but I wouldn’t herd them all together and point a gun at them and say: “Now, work!!”

Your arguments are getting pretty desperate. You want the ‘free’ health care but want to be free. Your intuition tells you that these are contradictory. Oh well, you can live with that.

77

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Hmmm…Cuba? China? North Korea? “Yeah guys, this system sucks! Let’s just leave!” The Great Leader might take issue with that.[/quote]

You might have missed it, but we were generally discussing modern western countries offering UHC to their citizens; not totalitarian nations where everything is state provided.

Here, to help you, I’ll provide a handy list: Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Luxembourg, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. I believe most of these are considered “free countries”, so tell me which of these keeps their doctors forcibly.

[quote]Also, like all collectivist/totalitarians, you cannot tell the difference between a society where everyone voluntarily lives there, and one where force/terror is the rule. I don’t like other people much either but I wouldn’t herd them all together and point a gun at them and say: “Now, work!!”

Your arguments are getting pretty desperate. You want the ‘free’ health care but want to be free. Your intuition tells you that these are contradictory. Oh well, you can live with that.[/quote]

Apparently, my intuition has heard nothing of the sort. I note that your intuition has smartly told you to avoid mentioning those firemen and policemen.

So, tell me, Headhunty my dear, how does your intuition reconcile wanting to be free, but also wanting police and emergency fire services?

78

[quote]pookie wrote:
orion wrote:
And why is food so cheap?

You’re kidding, right?

Do you want medicine to be as cheap as that someday?

It’d be nice.

Than you need competition and the constant small revolutions from below a market system provides.

Really?

The market system currently seems more interested in “inventing” new diseases it can then sell you expensive pills to treat.

Look up how many breakthroughs and “small revolutions” came from government funded research (much of it in the USA) vs. private research centers.

To a scientist doing research, it matters little if his check is coming from the government or from private investors. He does his research.

The problem with private investors is that eventually, most of them want to see something they can sell/offer/package to profit from. Long-term payoffs are not popular with them.

I love the free market as well as the next guy, but it’s not a solution to everything; nor is it the optimal solution to every problem.
[/quote]

First no, and second Nirvana fallacy.

Once upon a time 80% of all people worked in agriculture and even then they could only provide for 20% more because they worked for 16 hours a day, were constantly hungry and died at 40.

Crop rotation, iron plow bits, horses instead of oxens (30% increase in productivity!) were not developed by the ruling class.

Why would they invent something that challenges the status quo which will ultimately lead to their demise?

Then, of course Pharma companies bullshit like crazy. However they have competition to keep them in check.

Congress bullshits like crazy too, and at an abysmal approval rating they would have been replaced, had they any competition.

I want the bullshitters with checks and balances to their power and that means private companies that have to keep their customers satisfied.

It will always be though for poor people, no matter what.

Don`t pretend public health care could change that.

I live in such a system and some of my relatives are doctors.

Don´t try to bullshit me, I´ve been in the stalinist buildings and subjected to it socialist bureaucracy and I would have had to wait for months for necessary examinations without being properly connected and paying for private doctors.

Theoretically we are as good as Canada health care wise, practically we already start to rationize, which takes your faith out of your hands and makes low-level bureaucrats to masters over life and death.

79

[quote]Inner Hulk wrote:
Whenever I hear her talk it’s like a more eloquent George Bush. She’s a war mongering corporate whore disguised as a woman for the people. She can fucking blow me.[/quote]

Yes, I hate the way she has waffled on Iraq. Republicans are too right-wing and in-bed with Christian conservatives for me to ever vote for one of them. If Hillary is the Dem candidate I will vote for her (while pinching my nose closed).

The two-party system sucks and, at the presidential level, it’s too difficult for a third-party candidate to break through, so you almost always end up voting for the lesser of two evils. It would be SO NICE if we had two rounds of elections for the Presidency.

80

[quote]storey420 wrote:
I am just curious if there is anyone on this board that supports and actually plans on voting for this candidate. I ask because I find her and her views reprehensible. I think that based on her history and her current positions she is the person most likely to erode our personal freedoms. She is pro-CODEX, likely to try and repeal the 2nd amendment, and is part of the crowd that wants to jail people for not submitting to vaccines. These are just some of the many reasons. Are people really this stupid? “Hey I recognize her name and stuff”

So sorry if I just called a supporter stupid but I am interested to hear what the possible reasons could be that someone would support her.[/quote]

Hillary is supported by Rothschild money. Here’s an interview (partial) with one of them:

"L.G.: By the way, you may also have seen that Hillary reported an eye-popping $27 million raised in the third quarter, which was beyond expectations and far and away the most of anybody. How much of that can we credit you with?

L.R.: [Laughs.] I am�??full disclosure�??I’m always doing everything I possibly can for Hillary Clinton.

L.G.: Have you made a dollar commitment to the campaign? Have you said, “I’ll raise a million bucks” or something like that?

L.R.: I don’t really do that. I do everything that I can, and I have been waiting for this since Bill Clinton left office, frankly.

L.G.: It’ll be nice to come to Washington and save on hotel expenses again, won’t it?

L.R.: Well, I don’t know if that’ll be the case. I assume I’ll still be at the Four Seasons. It’ll be nice to know America is in the hands of someone with her character and her experience and her vision for where we’re going to take the country. It’s going to be a very exciting time. Even Europeans are excited.

L.G.: There’s a big fundraiser on October 17 in Washington, and you’re listed as one of the hosts-the National Women’s Finance Summit. Will you be there for that?

L.R.: Yes, yes, I will definitely be there for that."

http://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/the-world-according-to/2007/10/05/An-interview-with-Lady-de-Rothschild#page4

She’ll be our next president, as we move toward a Socialist world run by these people.