The smoking gun: Democrats scramble to suppress leaks about actual objectives with he

http://doingmypart.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/10-reasons-national-health-care-is-wrong-for-america/

here is what can be found at that link...


10 reasons National Health Care is wrong for America
25 01 2008

As a naive young American a few months back, I thought National Health Care would be a great addition the the US. It would provide everyone with health care and no one would be left untreated. It would create thousands of jobs. But in hearing Ron Paul preach about his anti-National Health Care views, I decided to do some research. And I have several reasons against a Universal Health Care.

1. It is not the right of the government to provide health care. And in national health care systems, all citizens eventually become required to receive check-ups, medicine, and treatment. This can just make it easier for the government to control us through pills and shots full of mind-control sedatives.

2. Quality of care will plummet. With everyone eventually getting treatment, no one will get full attention and people will get pushed to the side.

3. Waiting time will sky-rocket. It is reported that in Canada it takes twice as long to get surgery than it does in America. If someone walks in with a bullet in their leg, they may have to wait sveral hours for treatment. This long waiting period will cause unnecessary deaths.

4. Canada can only afford National Health Care because of a, “trade surplus,” with America. This makes it impossible for the US to have National Health Care at all.

5. National Health Care eliminates the right of doctor-patient confidentiality.

6. America could only truly afford a National Health Care system through increased taxation. ” “The only way the government can give one American one dollar is to confiscate it first, under intimidation, threats, and coercion, from another American. In other words, for government to do good, it must first do evil. If a private person were to do the things that government does, he would be condemned as a common thief. The only difference is legality, and legality alone is no talisman for moral people. This reasoning explains why socialism is evil. It uses bad means (coercion) to achieve what are seen as good ends (helping people).” This quote also portrays how even more corrupt our government will be with a universal plan.

7. Everyone in the US can already receives trematode through free-clinics, emergency card-care, and community hospitals.

8. National Health care would just add to the amount of money government agencies are wasting to put America in debt.

9. National Health care would destroy hundreds or thousands of jobs because they would eventually eliminate private practises.

10. These are not theories. They are not guesses. All of these reasons are taken from and can be seen in other countries. Universal Health Care does not work.


http://doingmypart.wordpress.com/2008/01/25/10-reasons-national-health-care-is-wrong-for-america/

Nations who have national health care pay LESS than our tax dollars pay these for profit insurances and drug companies.

Wake up. The RICH don't want you to have the same health care at the same cost as the rest of the universal health care world. They lose profits over there.

BTW..we're talking WINDFALL profits....up 300% in a very short time under bush "privatizing" Medicare.

Aquapub's posts are always crap, and are always glaringly obvious in how crappy they are. I don't know much about this subject and i'm against government run health care for everyone, so the fact that i realize that Aquapub's arguments are complete bullshit is a testament to how bad they are.

What a complete and utter load of crap.

Nothing like a good scaremongering session to prey on the weak minded.

A National healthcare system is the absolute bare minimum a developed and civilised society should provide for it's citizens. Each Individual pays a small percentage of their wages to pay for it. Over hear it's called National Insurrance, this generally pays for your health care and pension in later life. because it is a percentage, everyone pays the same, relative to their income.

If your government spent say 15 -20 % of your Defence budget you could easily afford it. $515 Billion for 2009.

Military budget of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Happy to be corrected, as this is probably a very simplified way. but it does beg the question. Why so much on Defence?

[CENTER]Keep researching....ya' know, for a non-Paul....someone who knows....from personal-EXPERIENCE.

*

YouTube - Q&A: T.R. Reid[/CENTER]

How about the Republicans? The actual objectives of Iraq?
BBC NEWS | Business | Halliburton Iraq contract queried
Yes, let's give HALLIBURTON, of which Dick Cheney was once the leader of, a NO-BID CONTRACT to rebuild Iraq. Both sides have a lot of crap on them, but isn't the whole thing about money? The people support things morally because they don't make money off it, but obviously most politicians don't. I bet if a direct democracy were in effect, we'd all be supporting anything that benefits us most, also. Humans are naturally like that. Of course everyone wants to plug up holes of "actual objectives" because these "actual objectives" are usually related with money.

[CENTER]Hell....much like Daddy Bush running the Reagan Presiduncy.....[/CENTER]



[CENTER]......The DICK; Cheney was managing Lil' Dumbya's Presiduncy.

*****

Further Adventures Of The DICK

[/CENTER]

[CENTER]It's lookin' like the "reigns" (on their version o' "free-market capitalism") are gettin' SNAPPED!!!!! :thumbup:[/CENTER]



[CENTER]....Especially the Teabaggers.

YouTube - The Truth About the Teabaggers - PT. 1/2

(....Like any-other lynch-mob....)

*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntrrUzNiggQ&feature=fvw

*

Nope. Gotta stick with a Representative Democracy, myself.[/CENTER]

I hear a lot of talk, but not a lot of suggestions about how to deal with the problems. Doesn't anyone remember anymore that we are the power, not the government. Those people in Washington are our 'Elected' represenatives, which means they work for us. If you don't like what they're doing, fire them. You have that power.

For more, check this out:
Our Elected 'Employees' - Windows Live

[CENTER]That's what's going-on, presently....."firing" the other-guy's Representative.

Maybe we could use a (basic) litmus-test, before allowing anyone to vote.

You've gotta be literate, first.
*
YouTube - Teabaggers Untie[/CENTER]