Why is Hillary threatening Americans to buy health care plan?

Do you really agree with being forced by the federal government to buy something whether or not you need to buy it?

Cindy: stupid is someone who ignores someone's question by answering it

What amazes me is Hillary actually thinks she can railroadher plan trhrough Congress. The Democrats would support her but the Republicans don't like her. She runs high negative numbers in this Congress. If she wins, don't expect that health care plan she is touting to appear.

you make it sound so bad. how about the military, or the police or maybe public schooling. society is built on paying for things that you might not need yourself this is just another.

Absolutely not. I don't want the government anywhere near my health or my care.

Forcing people to buy something they don't want is communistic in nature, and I don't want any of it. Besides, if people cannot afford health care now, what makes her think they can afford to pay a hefty fine for not having it? It makes no sense, then again, nothing from Hillary-the-socialist ever does. She's just power hungry and wants the control, without any thought or regard for the people.

Hellooooooo She's made a deal with the health care companies... Duh.

If she cant get us to buy it, she'll take it out of our checks, and if we dont get checks, she'll FINE US...

She should talk about raising the minimal wage so we can afford this New Big Bill of ours

As with most candidates, promises made are not neccessarily promises she can keep.

Because only someone extremely foolish or gullible would voluntarily opt into another government sponsored pyramid scheme.

I think you should say "Why is Hillary taking care of Americans through her healthcare program?" You pretty well know that you can't force people to buy something they don't want. That will be a political suicide. She is confident that their is a safety net so everyone can enjoy healthcare. She is good so vote for her.

She is a communist!!!!!!!!! Redder then China!!!!!!!!! Redder then my face!!!!!!!!!

Obama wants to make it affordable for ppl ---she want to give it to everybody but at what cost ???? is she gonna penalize who do not pay ???

I don't know why she's is doing it, but I know I'm not going to sit by and do nothing about it.
Anyone but Hillary. Go Obama.

Obviously you don't understand managed care. Managed care gets rid of insurance companies that like to kick you out of the hospital 4 days after having open heart surgery. Managed care gives everyone free healthcare at a particular deductable level. Say you have to go to the ER. you can go anywhere you want, and with the standard plan you only have to pay 50% of the bill. Without the free health care, you pay 100% which can easily be $1500 for three stitches and an 8 hour wait. If you choose, you can by a lower deductable of 40, 30, 20...you see my point. The only people that don't like this idea are the people who make money off your misfortune; hospitals, insurance companies, and doctors. So now, what would your answer be.

if i can't afford it i don't want it

If you're young you consider it a threat if you're old it would be welcomed. If you're working and have insurance through your employer you can keep it, while benefiting from lower premiums and higher quality.

Because everyone needs health care.Some people just don't buy it because it is expensive, but well worth the cost.When these people get sick, they opt for free care or indigent care.That kind of thing costs us all money in the end, because prices are raised so the hospital or whoever can re-coup their money they spent taking care of someone like that.

I don't want anyone 'forcing' me to buy health care. If anyone hasn't had an opportunity to view Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko," you should. It really surprised me how much Hillary has done a complete 360 degree turn from loathing health care lobbyists, to now rubbing elbows and getting their support. If she is able to enforce mandatory health care coverage via paycheck, etc, then this would be highly undemocratic, and in favor of the health care companies' bottom line...Wicked!

Hitlerys plans can only be done by threatening the people and forcing them to comply, she is an angry cheated-on old hag

Dont worry about Cindy I have seen her answers lately, she is a femo-nazi man-hater. She has the right to express her garbage, even if it is wrong.

Star from me.

Because Hillary's ULTIMATE goal is complete governmental control of health care.
Look at SCHIP (1997) which she and Teddy Kennedy (I support Obama!) got through Congress.
Then look at the BS propaganda over the most funding of SCHIP where liars claimed Bush was trying to deny "poor kids" health care when he ONLY wanted to add $5BILLION to the funding. They wanted $35 BILLION because they wanted to include kids who in 85% of the cases were ALREADY PRIVATELY INSURED (oh, CRISIS!!!!) AND ADULTS through 25.

Her ultimate goal is CLEAR IF YOU READ HER WORKS.

Two things to THINK about (beyond the clear violation of the US Constitution):
Canadian doc on truth about UHC countries now:
"...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system鈥檚 problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. 鈥淭his is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,鈥?he fumed to the New York Times, 鈥渁nd in which humans can wait two to three years.鈥?br>
And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day鈥檚 clinic, for instance, handles workers鈥?compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital鈥檚 emergency room.

This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain鈥檚 government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party鈥攚hich originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as 鈥淎mericanization鈥濃€攏ow openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: 鈥淭he big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.鈥?Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain鈥檚 nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.

Sweden鈥檚 government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm鈥檚 primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city鈥檚 largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It鈥檚 important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual鈥攎arket reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_ca...

CALIFORNIA couldn't swing it!
"California Senate Panel Rejects Health Coverage Proposal
JESSE MCKINLEY AND KEVIN SACK
SAN FRANCISCO 鈥?In a blow to universal health care coverage in California and possibly to its prospects nationwide, a State Senate committee on Monday rejected a sweeping plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would have offered insurance to millions of uninsured residents.
The Senate Health Committee defeated the plan 7 to 1, with three abstentions, as Democrats and Republicans alike said they found it too nebulous and potentially too costly for a state facing a $14.5 billion deficit.
鈥淭his bill is not only not perfect, it is flawed,鈥?said State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, Democrat of Los Angeles and chairwoman of the committee, who voted against it.
...
But last Wednesday, as the California Senate committee heard testimony on the bill, Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers.
Shortly after the vote, Assemblyman Michael N. Villines of Fresno, the chamber鈥檚 Republican leader, praised it as a rejection of 鈥渁 massive government-run health care scheme.鈥?
On the Democratic side, there were concerns about the so-called 鈥渋ndividual mandate,鈥?which would have required all Californians to carry and pay for insurance, except those in economic hardship...."
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/200...
Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM