Is Hillary right.

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

http://wikiprotest.com/blog/index.php/category/hillary-clinton/

Hastert recalled:

I mentioned … to the first lady about medical savings accounts and just right away she said, “We can’t do that.”

And I said, “Well, why?”

And she said, “Well, there’s two reasons.”

And I said, “Well, what are they?”

[And she said] “The first reason is with the medical savings account, people have to act on their own and make their own decisions about health care. And they have to make sure that they get the inoculations and the preventative care that they need, and we just think that people will skip too much because in a medical savings account if you don’t spend it, you get to keep it or you can … accumulate it in a health care account.”

“We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won’t get the care for their children and themselves that they need. We think the government, by saying, ‘You have to make this schedule. You have to have your kids in for inoculations here, you have to do a pre-screening here, you have to do this’ — the government will make better decisions than the people will make, and people will be healthier because of it.”

I said, “Well, part of that’s an education process. People have to understand that [if] they behave in a certain way, they’re going to save money, [with the] preventive medicine issue — you get the pre-screenings, if you can inoculate your kids you save money on it. I mean, they’re not sick. You save money.”

She said, “No. We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.”

 

[Here We Go]

Man! That's pretty scary . . . . a Dictatorette!

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Man! That's pretty scary . . . . a Dictatorette!

Actually, I agree with her. Have you ever been in a state where automobile driver's insurance is not mandatory? People let it slide and then when there is an accident...we all pay.

We have mandatory education for children. Are you against that?

If we are ever to insure everyone it will have to be with some mandates. We can call them by other names, but they will be mandates.

There is no way a modern and rational society will allow people who forego choosing to pay health insurance to be denied medical treatment when in crisis. We need to make sure people understand that medical insurance is not only a right, but part of the agreement to belonging to society.

We all pay for things we do not use. We all pay for schools,even when we do not have kids. We all pay for public facilities like medical, police fire departments, schools...

 

[Here We Go]

Well, putting it that way, you got a point there.

 

[GaiusJuliusCaesarAugustus]

Well, putting it that way, you got a point there.

My point is that we need to listen to what candidates are saying and not what people who 'hate' them say they are saying. Many people I disagree with have said things I totally agree with and I know this because I listen. I view most people I disagree with as opponents and not enemies.

 

[Dr.Who]

Actually, I agree with her. Have you ever been in a state where automobile driver's insurance is not mandatory? People let it slide and then when there is an accident...we all pay.

We have mandatory education for children. Are you against that?

If we are ever to insure everyone it will have to be with some mandates. We can call them by other names, but they will be mandates.

There is no way a modern and rational society will allow people who forego choosing to pay health insurance to be denied medical treatment when in crisis. We need to make sure people understand that medical insurance is not only a right, but part of the agreement to belonging to society.

We all pay for things we do not use. We all pay for schools,even when we do not have kids. We all pay for public facilities like medical, police fire departments, schools...

Nevertheless the federal government is only allowed to do the things that the constution allows. Some of the things on that list are constiutionally allowed. some of the thigs that congress wants are not.

Now if the state governments want to write some of those things into their constitutions and do them then your arguement about agreeing to belong to a society might hold water. Moving from one state to another is at least marginally reasonable. Moving out of the US is so unreasonable that it is ludicurous to say that people agreed to be a part of society.

And what is one of the mot important part of contract law? The idea that a contract is voluntarily entered into. That is not true for the relationship between government and a person. Another part of contract law is that one can break a contract. That is also not a part of the relationship between gov and people. The social contract is no more than an analogy to describe the relationship between government and people and as an analogy it fails.

So what about the states responsiblity to ensure that people get innoculated and are healthy? Firstly it is not the states job to make sure that people treat themselves right. It is the states job to make sure that people treat others right. So what if innoculations really do protect people form being harmed by others (and for some of them the proof is not that good) then there are plenty of ways to see that people are innocculated that are less tyranical. And there are already some methods on the law books - like the laws that kids can't enroll in public school unless they are up to date on their innocculations.