Klinton Outlines Legislative Priorities

[Sarge]

Freebies for everyone, illegals included

Free care

Free dental

Free blowjobs

All paid for by WalMart, and Sears, and GM, and Ford and..............

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/13/D8LCB6GO0.html

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday outlined an ambitious agenda of legislative priorities while continuing to deflect questions about her presumed presidential ambitions.

"I will look at the possibilities, but I ... haven't really had the time to talk to people about it," Clinton told a breakfast gathering hosted by the Association for a Better New York. "It's been a busy election season that worked out well, so I will think about it. I'm open to thoughts."

Clinton was returning to Washington on Monday to participate in a lame-duck session of Congress in which lawmakers will tackle several pieces of unfinished business before ceding control of both the Senate and House to Democrats early next year.

But the New York senator was clearly looking ahead to the next Congress, which she, like other Democrats, has vowed will operate on a more bipartisan basis than it had under Republican control.

"We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work with our Republican counterparts. Our country works best when we govern from the vital, dynamic center," she said.

Since cruising to re-election last week against a weak Republican challenger, Clinton has parried repeated questions about her political future. While she hasn't disclosed her plans, polls show her the clear front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, with a national infrastructure of strategists and advisers and at least $10 million in her campaign account.

"Before, I didn't have time to think _ I was too focused on what I was doing," she later told reporters. "I'm thrilled by the results, and now I'll have some time to think."

In her remarks, Clinton outlined a range of challenges she said Democrats would tackle in the coming months, such as trimming the federal deficit, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and improving the image of the United States abroad.

She also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care _ a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year.

"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."

[Mass_SkinsFan]

In other words she's looking to turn the United States into the next member of the European Union.

Great idea, *****.

[EersSkins05]

Quality health care for everybody sucks.

[DCsportsfan53]

Quality health care for everybody sucks.

seriously, people who can't afford it should just die.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Quality health care for everybody sucks.

seriously, people who can't afford it should just die.

And how is QUALITY going to occur under a socialized upside down pyramid scheme system?

[Beaudry]

And how is QUALITY going to occur under a socialized upside down pyramid scheme system?

Yeah, that is always the $1,000,000 question. Look around the rest of the world and you will see that the United States has the best QUALITY health care. How could we go about a national healthcare plan that wouldn't be such a wrech like Canada or France?

[RonJeremy]

Free blowjobs

:point2sky

Sweet...something good finally comes out of a political thread!

[Burgold]

Why does Karl Rove spell his name with a K?

http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=179427&highlight=karl+rove+spell

[@DCGoldPants]

I do find it funny that some folks get 6 years of actually being in control, and doing nothing. But still receive a big fat pass.

Then the others who could go a lot of different directions are already done before they started.

I imagine if they pull a shocker and do get things done. Nobody would be man enough to admit it.

[Predicto]

Yeah, that is always the $1,000,000 question. Look around the rest of the world and you will see that the United States has the best QUALITY health care. How could we go about a national healthcare plan that wouldn't be such a wrech like Canada or France?

Maybe by spending the 35 cents out of every health car dollar that goes to insurance companies and administrators on, I dunno, health care costs instead? :whoknows:

Our current system provides great quality for those who can afford it, but it is way, way overpriced for what it provides. It's just an ass-backward system run primarily for the benefit of the insurance and pharameceutical companies rahter than for the beneift of patients OR doctors. The lack of any health care coverage at all for so many millions is just the icing on the rotten cake.

I'd like to think that we can learn from the shortcomings of the Canadian system and make our own hybrid system, the best of theirs and the best of ours. I know that it probably is a pipe dream, however.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

There's always the option of doing nothing and ignoring the problem. I have comprehensive health care. Those that don't...well, tough. Get educated and get hired by a company that has a decent benefits package.

[EersSkins05]

Yeah, that is always the $1,000,000 question. Look around the rest of the world and you will see that the United States has the best QUALITY health care. How could we go about a national healthcare plan that wouldn't be such a wrech like Canada or France?

Through taxation.

And before you right wingers complain about more taxes, you might consider the boost to economic productivity that would result from less sick employees.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Through taxation.

And before you right wingers complain about more taxes, you might consider the boost to economic productivity that would result from less sick employees.

We are actually a very productive country even though there are many "sick" employees

Once again, its a demographic issue, just like social security and just like medicare

In order for any type of insurance to work, you need more healthy people in the system then sick people. Although with modern medicine there will never be more sick people then healthy people, the gap will close

Part of Hillarycare was also not covering the real real sick folks. I simply do not believe in a nation of our size, and with the cluster f health care is, that a single payer system will provide better quality

[Beaudry]

I'd like to think that we can learn from the shortcomings of the Canadian system and make our own hybrid system, the best of theirs and the best of ours. I know that it probably is a pipe dream, however.

Generalities aren't a real answer and they definately won't solve the problem. You think that putting healthcare in the hands of the government is going to reduce the paperwork and administrative costs?

I have no problem with nationalized health care if it works. I just don't see anybody come up with an actual plan since Hilary Clinton did in the 1990s.

[Mass_SkinsFan]

Through taxation.

And before you right wingers complain about more taxes, you might consider the boost to economic productivity that would result from less sick employees.

Sorry, so far as I'm concerned if it MY MONEY that's necessary to save them and I have anything to say about it, they better start looking into funeral arrangements.

The economy would be boosted even more when they're not draining society through different social programs.

[Predicto]

Generalities aren't a real answer and they definately won't solve the problem. You think that putting healthcare in the hands of the government is going to reduce the paperwork and administrative costs?

I have no problem with nationalized health care if it works. I just don't see anybody come up with an actual plan since Hilary Clinton did in the 1990s.

Fair enough. I admit I am not an expert in the area, and I do not know what plans are out there, so I have resorted to generalities.

I do think, however, that it is something that should be looked at. Since 1993, no one has even been allowed to discuss changes in the health care system without getting shouted down immediately by the "anti-Hillary" crowd. Meanwhile, the system we currently are using has gotten worse and worse, both in spiraling of costs and lessening of coverage.

[luckydevil]

Our healthcare system is such a mess. It some areas, the European version is less bureaucratic. People don't realize how much of a bureaucratic nightmare our current healthcare system is. It is not worth defending.*

* I am not defending socialized healthcare, I am in the we need to make it more free camp

[JohnLockesGhost]

Through taxation.

And before you right wingers complain about more taxes, you might consider the boost to economic productivity that would result from less sick employees.

What are we, a nation of sickoes? What kind of widespread, debilitating disease is a nationalized health care system to cure so much better than our current system as to increase our economic productivity? It seems to me productivity may be negatively affected by would-be productive citizens waiting around for routine surgeries instead of working. But, this happens most in socialized systems.

[Predicto]

What are we, a nation of sickoes? What kind of widespread, debilitating disease is a nationalized health care system to cure so much better than our current system as to increase our economic productivity? It seems to me productivity may be negatively affected by would-be productive citizens waiting around for routine surgeries instead of working. But, this happens most in socialized systems.

It happens in our system too. But it is an insurance company delaying the treatment rather than the government, while collecting a nice fat profit for the privilege of doing so.

[JohnLockesGhost]

I do find it funny that some folks get 6 years of actually being in control, and doing nothing. But still receive a big fat pass.

I've always been a fan of the government doing nothing. They mess up less that way.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Our healthcare system is such a mess. It some areas, the European version is less bureaucratic. People don't realize how much of a bureaucratic nightmare our current healthcare system is. It is not worth defending.*

* I am not defending socialized healthcare, I am in the we need to make it more free camp

It happens in our system too. But it is an insurance company delaying the treatment rather than the government, while collecting a nice fat profit for the privilege of doing so.

Both of you are absolutley correct in this regard

The current health care system in America is a disaster. And in the 8 months working in the health care field, I have discovered just how bad things are in terms of getting coverage even IF YOU HAVE INSURANCE

So those without insurance, or any type of medicaid are SOL

With that stated, going to a single payer system would be another disaster in itself, creating a riddiculously overwhelmed bueracracy. CMS already is a mess in dealing with Medicare, I cannot imagine how poorly run it would be if it ran our ENTIRE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM

[DjTj]

Our healthcare system is such a mess. It some areas, the European version is less bureaucratic. People don't realize how much of a bureaucratic nightmare our current healthcare system is. It is not worth defending.*

* I am not defending socialized healthcare, I am in the we need to make it more free camp

I think this is the most important point.

Our current healthcare system is not a free market system. In some ways, it is *more* regulated than the European single-payer systems. Even worse, we have many of the drawbacks of a government-controlled system (bureacracy, high administrative costs, low flexibility), and few of the benefits (uniformity, reliability, fairness). In probably the worst example of an upside-down pyramid scheme, the government has assumed the cost of caring for the elderly and the disabled through Medicare and Social Security, so we are paying their insurance rates as well as our own.

The status quo right now is pretty sucky whether you are in favor of a free market system or a government-run system. We are past due for some major reform.

[JohnLockesGhost]

Maybe by spending the 35 cents out of every health car dollar that goes to insurance companies and administrators on, I dunno, health care costs instead? :whoknows:

So you're arguing for a socialized system by saying the government is going to have less in overhead costs? Why do you think overhead costs for insurance companies are high in the first place? Can you say "regualtion."

Our current system provides great quality for those who can afford it, but it is way, way overpriced for what it provides. It's just an ass-backward system run primarily for the benefit of the insurance and pharameceutical companies rahter than for the beneift of patients OR doctors. The lack of any health care coverage at all for so many millions is just the icing on the rotten cake.

Don't know much about how doctors would react to socialization in this country, but when I studied the socialization of the Canadian system, they were vehemently opposed. Essentially, you're turning them into unwilling state employees, controlling their prices and clientele. I'd suspect the doctors in the US would have a similar reaction.

I'd like to think that we can learn from the shortcomings of the Canadian system and make our own hybrid system, the best of theirs and the best of ours. I know that it probably is a pipe dream, however.

We essentially have a hybrid system. The government pays for health care and mandates care. Also a reason it's such a mess.

[Predicto]

So you're arguing for a socialized system by saying the government is going to have less in overhead costs? Why do you think overhead costs for insurance companies are high in the first place? Can you say "regualtion."

No, I can say "profits." And what is more, I can say "the cost of an entire leeching middleman healthcare insurance industry that shouldn't even exist in the first place, at least not in this form."

Don't know much about how doctors would react to socialization in this country, but when I studied the socialization of the Canadian system, they were vehemently opposed. Essentially, you're turning them into unwilling state employees, controlling their prices and clientele. I'd suspect the doctors in the US would have a similar reaction.

You may be right. That is a consideration that weighs against using the exact Canadian system. I am not sure that the Canadian system is the only option.

We essentially have a hybrid system. The government pays for health care and mandates care. Also a reason it's such a mess.

There are other reasons. The aforementioned bloodsucking insurance companies being one. The lack of competition or normal economic incentives in the system being another.

[JohnLockesGhost]

There are other reasons. The aforementioned bloodsucking insurance companies being one. The lack of competition or normal economic incentives in the system being another.

Y'know, this kind of stuff is really what gets me upset at liberals. They setup these boogeymen like "Big Oil," "Transnational Corporations," and "bloodsucking insurance companies." Insurance companies are just independent actors in the Health Care morass.