It's important to read Hillary's plan - and not succumb to the 'media' interpretation. If one is satisfied with their own health plan - they do not HAVE TO participate in one that the government offers. The plan is complex - but not socialistic. We've had enough of governance by fear. The American people are intelligent. There are too many Americans without adequate health coverage. This is not acceptable for the supposedly wealthiest nation in the world. If there is someone else with a better plan - let's hear it. We need improvement in our treatment of our citizens in the area of health care.

But the group we are conversing with are so anti Hillary that it is difficult to even have an open debate on the concept of every American child having health insurance. These same "conservatives" will not blink at Congress' salery increases or their socialized healthcare. They will offer excuses why it is an okay plan for military types but not for other citizens. They will never question huge war expenditures, because it's, well, war, even if it was discretionary and pre-emptive. I do think that the entire first world can't be wrong and we alone have it "right."

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

but you are DEAD wrong about not blinking at Congressional Pay raises. I am outraged each time the congress passes another pay raise. However, unless every LIBERAL in Congress voted against it then the LIBERALS are just a bunch of hipocrits. Congress's healthcare is provided by their employer the United States Government. Why is that any different than working American's company providing it for them?

Actually yes, the rest of the entire first world can have it wrong and Us be right. Just because a majority believes something, doesn't make it right. For centuries, most everyone thought the world was flat, but we know they were wrong now don't we?

Points well taken.

Kevin "Hack" King

Here is a great question for you Kevin: If the war money was going to fund the plan, why the need to rescind the tax cut?

Fact is, the Democrats in this country think rich people are not paying their share. Her plan calls for tax breaks for the poor and increases for people making $250,000 a year. This is buying votes. A promise of something free (or paid for by others) is a great tactic to be elected. If anyone agrees that the “rich” don't pay their share, speak up, I dare you.

Hilary also wants to reduce drug company benefits by lowering prices, importing medicines, and reducing the time it takes to make a drug generic. Tell me, if the drug companies make less money, how is the incentive to create new drugs affected?

The growing divide between the parties is due to mentality. The Democrats have an entitlement mentality. They have this image in their rotten heads of rich white guys smoking cigars and counting their money they never worked for. It's the rich hard working people of this country that make it so great. Imagine for one second that we ALL had the Democrat mentality, who would foot the bill?

"The Democrats have an entitlement mentality. They have this image in their rotten heads of rich white guys smoking cigars and counting their money they never worked for. It's the rich hard working people of this country that make it so great."

Let us speak of rotten: Rotten to the core. We are living under leadership which scared Americans into voting for them. Leadership which politicized fear and spoke of mushroom clouds and of how they were the only ones who could keep us safe. We have watched this "leadership" spend billions upon billions on the war, federal government, and YOU have been silent! But NOW, Hillary Clinton is to be feared? You are making a joke of yourself. Yes, the rich folks who brought us Enron are the heart and soul of this country, and to hades with those poor hard working hourly wagers out there. Concerned citizen, when your party of bathroom antics is handed its buttocks in the comming elections, come back to this post for a hint of how your party lost its way. I agree with Greenspan on that point. AND YOU ARE LIVING PROOF!

Kevin "Hack" King

Typical, group all rich people in with Enron execs. The hard working Americans that are the heart and soul of this county are people like the owners of Partners Pizza, people that care about the community and give back while (gasp) making a profit! Another good example is Truitt Cathy, a “rich” guy who worked to make a successful business. These people WORKED to earn every dollar and put up with liberals like you who want to take it all away in an effort to make life more FAIR for people less fortunate.

What a joke, avoid the healthcare issue and scream cry about Bush. Try answering my questions and keep on topic.

I'll type more slowly and clearly so you can smell what I'm cooking.

I mentioned that we are spending far more in Iraq than any Universal Healthcare plan currently proposed will cost. I pointed out that one day the will of Americans will be heeded and we will cease major combat operations in Iraq (again). The war in Iraq, I dare say, has not caused a financial apocolypse, has it? So whow would less money spent on insuring America's kids and uninsured cause this socialist economic catastrophe? Why do military officers who make far above a "living wage" have taxpayer funded healthcare. Why do rich politicians have their healthcare paid by our tax dollars? Why are you okay with that?

I'm not sure where Chick Fillet comes into this, but you were the one who placed a person's worth as a citizen in dollars and cents, right? In your equation, companies who charged the US military millions of dollars to ship washers, nuts, and bolts, are the backbone of our economy simply because they are rich. Congressman Cunningham was rich. Ken Lay is rich. Senator Craig is rich. I do not put their value in dollars and cents.
You are set in your disdain for Hillary for what you think might happen. I doubt anything a conservative tries to predict these days because of what actually HAS happened. There is a reason countries don't cut taxes in time of war. Your guys have run up bills that our kid's kid's kids will be paying. Our federal budget deficit (aside from national debt) is at a record high. Forgive me for not taking your predictions seriously. Enough threats of gloom and doom have turned your party into the party that cried wolf, all while leaving your flocks untended. We'll see eachother at the polls.

Kevin "Hack" King

How does spending money we don't have make us better off??

Whether it is for war or health care, how are we better off spending money this country doesn't have?

Spending money you don't have either personally, or as a country with taxpayer money isn't ever good. Unless you know how to grow a money tree?? We don't have the money. We don't have it for the war, and we aren't likely to find money soon. Being deep, deep in debt is never good. Where is the money going to come from??

This is why I don't work overtime. When I choose to work overtime, just under half of it goes for taxes to pay for welfare, food stamps, and who knows what. Why should I work that hard to help someone else? Why should I work hard so that other people can sit back and not work at all?? I have been hit by the AMT for the last 3 yrs. and it really makes me mad. I just do the minimum of 40hrs. I don't want to work hard for someone else.

It is just a fact. Our government can not do anything efficiently. If any federal politician says that a program will cost $x, then you can count on it costing at least 3 times the original estimate. So, if you look at Sen Clinton's proposal or Sen Obama's you can get a taste of the cost.

The cost of this largesse may be somewhat offset from the funds currently used to support operations in Iraq, but the government just doesn't manage the books that way. If they need more money, they will just authorize the IRS to come and seize more of your money or property. The way that many of those inside the Beltway think is that it is their money that they allow you to keep, not the other way around.

Also, with the number of Baby Boomers either just retiring or coming close to reaching that milestone, the economy can not support the numbers. The younger generations will be out numbered by the Boomers and would require hefty tax increases to continue the welfare programs that are currently in place. That is, of course, unless those programs are fixed. That is to say unless pigs fly.

Cheers back at ya, Hack.

The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.

If the government can do nothing efficiently, why do you vote for anyone? Why give a daycare to people who hate kids? Why would I EVER vote for a group of men and women for government service who thinks government cannot function? The way conservatives have run this government, free from oversight, checks, or balances, they have proved government's inefficiency WHEN OPERATED BY CONSERVATIVES. However, comma, if we have a return to moderate leadership, moderates who work in bypartisan fashion with an underlying feeling that a nation of laws and open government is better than the wild west shoot from the hip approach, I suppose we may actually get back to that "of the people, by the people, for the people" thing.

Kevin "Hack" King

ps: As for that "National Healthcare will bankrupt us" title, I give no credit to off the cuff predictions (like "we'll be greeted as liberators.") Your guys have a very poor track record of crystal ball reading.

democrats? No one with even a modicum of intelligence would put those two terms together. Then you mention bypartisanship, that only exits in areas where it doesn't affect the power of one party or the other. You can have by-partisan nonbinding resolutions, or proclamations but for the most part...actual legislation with teeth is partisan, simply because the ideology of the parties involved are so radically different.

You asked the question "Why would I EVER vote for a group of men and women for government service who thinks government cannot function?"
I ask you one, what other choice do you have? To bring about real true change in the political process, there needs to be another serious party introduced into the equation. Many times people vote against a candidate rather than for one, or they vote for the lesser of two evils. Its just like a capitalist economy, true growth isn't realized until there is competiution in the market place.

P.S. Which democratic talking head did you get the crystal ball thing from?

As you must know I'm a news junkie and your guys have not done so good on predictions. My political solutions is "term limits" so people don't say what gets them reelected, but what makes sense. Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

But do you think they would ever vote to have less power? An incumbent has HUGE advantage in most any race in our House/Senate.

I agree with you Dawg. It would be an uphill fight. I was at a political meeting and heard the same question posed to Herman Cain.

I've not forgotten his response- "you need to remember that they are answerable to you, so don't ask, if need be, just tell them that term limits will be enforced on their next reelection campaign.

but how do we get to there? There are too many people out there that are disengaged from the political process. Sure they vote, but its not their vote, its the vote of their party, because that's what all the other party people are doing. What we really need is to have an informed voter one who looks at what a candidate has done or not done, whichever the case may be, and votes their concience accordingly.

Cynthia McKinney is a prime example of someone who has been elected in the past by people who have NO CLUE about the issues at hand. The masses voted for her for two reasons 1)she was a democrat and 2) she was black. Both are reasons that had nothing to do with why someone should have been elected to that seat.

they would be great. You could weed out all these lifetime politicians that are in Washington strictly for their own benefit. Congress might actually be able to get something done if they knew they only had a set amount of time to do it. But you would have to stagger the elections for the seats so there would always be someone in Congress that new what was going on.

New blood into the process every few years would certainly keep things moving. It might also prevent the special interest groups from having so much power if they knew they couldn;t get a guy elected and keep him there forever to do their bidding.

OK, I suspect that engagement will be over soon. Of course there are those that are employed by it. BTW, I'm still waiting for the peace dividend form the end of the cold war.

As for Clinton's plan, when she's in office (egad) she'll get us out of Iraq and then we'll transfer those funds to health care; right? Were will that money go?

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.