american freedom insurance

Your children's freedom and a living wage job or cheap Chinese made merchandise and Wal-Mart?

Cradle to grave management of the world's population is the goal of the globalists like George Bush and Bill and Hillary Clinton. Also lets not forget their bosses, the really pretty people such as, the principle shareholders of Wal-Mart, major American oil companies, the insurance and speculation rackets and certainly the Bank. And it would seam a larger percentage of people than ever just don't get it. If you get what you pay for why have WMT customers been investing their savings in the largest communist military expansion in history, today's Peoples Liberation Army of COMMUNIST China? American consumers NEVER were presented with Soviet made merchandise in American stores and you still cant buy a Cuban cigar legally but on Wal-Mart's behalf, acting as their private lawyer while president of the United States, Bill Clinton normalized trade with freedoms enemy, COMMUNIST China in 1994. The party leadership in China has invested the America's middle classes savings in arms to aim at us

One has nothing to do with the other. What WalMart does is insignificant in my and my childrens' lives.

Exactly how much of WalMart's sales come from products manufactured in China?

Americans are slowly loosing our freedom to choose?

We can't smoke any where.
We have to have car insurance.
We can't have health insurance if we're gay. or co-habitating in a heterosexual relationship.
We can't get married if we're gay.

Our rights to make private, personal choices is in question.

Why is this happening?
private health insurance coverage is even more expensive that group coverage…I hope God is in charge somewhere- He's not as judgemental as some the people who think they're doing His work.
doing the right thing? by whose standards?

the answer to your question is:This is the result of 2% of the people[read" big buisness"] dictating the world,and economic structure of our country.In my opinion it will be stopped when more of you" START QUESTIONG AUTHORITY" THE FAULT LIES WITH GREED.

Poverty is the true robber of freedom?

Many people like to say socialized medicine robs an americans freedom, that we should be able to choose if we pay for healthcare. When a person finds themselves on hard times, and cannot see a doctor when they need one, or worse, their children cannot. Or even worse, when they find the insurance does not cover what they need, even though they have been paying so long and so much. I feel this is a greater robber of freedom than having to pay into socialized medicine. I think every person should have the right to medicine, I think thats freedom. What are your thoughts?
If you disagree with me, do you believe that education should not be socialized either? why, or why not?

People should have choice. That is where tax credits to those that can not afford insurance would be good. A health insurance system maybe like Switzerland's where insurance companies are limited to the amount of profit they are able to make on base policies, they are allowed adjust profits on additional coverage. I think a system like this is likely a good blend while giving people freedom of choice, giving people the opportunity to adequately insure themselves and not create a huge healthcare arm of the government sucking up tax dollars.

I believe the same thing should be done for education. Choice is what drives excellence. When choice is removed excellence usually suffers, human nature, people need to be motivated, losing business is a good motivator.

Can somebody tell me what right Hillary Clinton thinks she has to require everybody to have health insurance?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070917/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_health_care

She has NO right, even as president to MAKE every American have health insurance. It's an individual choice to have it.

This is a free country, and the beauty of freedom is that we can do things that others may not agree with. But to REQUIRE and make people do stuff, is not free.

If it's my choice to not have insurance and pay cash to doctors, it's MY CHOICE.

That's the beauty of America.

Screw this, can't people see the socialism and communism developing.

Vote for Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

By the way, I don't have health insurance and neither does my family.

We pay @ cash doctors.

Health care is not a human right guaranteed by our constitution. Let the FREE MARKET and competitive markets bring the cost of health insurance down.

This is insane and socialistic. It is not freedom. What's going to happen to those who will not pay for insurance? Jail?
EDIT, and no I can't afford it.

I don't even have 100 bucks in the bank.

I would rather it be my own butt, than kill freedoms by REQUIRED big government programs that are unconstitutional.

Congress shall write no law.

SHE A SOCIALIST, Thats what they do, THATS ALL THEY DO, kinda like a terminator

Individual Freedom vs. Government Control?

Individual Freedom vs. Government Control

Congress faces a critical question this week: Will U.S. health care be government-run, or will Americans be given the freedom to obtain their insurance plans and medical care from private firms? The next U.S. president will likely answer this question, but the resolution to the current debate about SCHIP — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a state and federal government partnership for insuring poor children — that is roiling Washington, D.C., will preview the answer.

Although health care is a crucial issue for the electorate; traditionally, presidential candidates have avoided any but the blandest generalities. Health care is the third rail of politics. Its complexity, size, and multiple, committed stakeholders scare away most would-be saviors.

Yet, the underlying debate is simple: It is all about who will manage and control the health-care sector that comprises one-seventh of our economy. Will individual Americans have the freedom to make their own choices? Or, will we trust government bureaucrats, lawyers, and politicians to make those decisions for them? Our future health-care system will be shaped by how we answer these simple questions.

Let’s be clear: The SCHIP battle is not about whether to insure poor children. The debate is about how to insure them: Via the government or private insurers? This debate has not only pitted Democrats against Republicans but has also sundered the Republican coalition. Some Democrats wanted SCHIP expanded by $50 billion dollars so that even families earning about $81,000 a year who have eligible children were included. (The 2005 U.S. median household income was $46,000.) A resolution with the Republicans who hold minority leadership roles led to a compromise, costing only $35 billion, which allowed coverage for those earning up to $60,000.

A fundamental problem with this compromise is that the same amount of coverage for children within SCHIP costs $1,000 more per child than under private insurance. A group of forward-thinking Republicans led by U.S. Senator Richard Burr (R., N.C.) and others has an entirely different idea of how to provide insurance: they want to cash out eligible people and enable them to use this money to buy health insurance from private insurers in a tax-protected way. Count the president in too. He has pledged to veto legislation that permits expansion of the present program.

None of the combatants’ are supported by an unblemished array of evidence. The Democrats support the expansion of SCHIP by lauding the universal coverage and substantially lower costs of single-payer, government-run systems, like the U.K.’s and Canada’s. Yes; but costs are controlled by rationing health care to the sick. More than 20,000 Brits would not have died from cancer in the U.S. Onerous waiting lists have caused illegal, for-profit health-service centers to proliferate in Canada. These rogue establishments are so well-accepted that the head of one became the president of the Canadian Medical Association. Nor do single-payer systems achieve equality of access or health status — the powerful, assertive, litigious, and connected go to the head of the line.

In the U.S., the government-controlled Medicaid program has achieved its low costs per person by stringent limits on provider prices. As many as 40 percent of doctors refuse to see Medicaid enrollees, leading to reduced health care quality. Physicians who accept Medicaid often shift their un-reimbursed costs to the privately insured. A system totally paid by the government would shut down this escape hatch, exacerbating the current shortage of primary care doctors.

But the group of Republicans who support private insurance acknowledge that they cannot laud health insurance as a model industry. The massive bureaucracies patients all-too-often encounter when they attempt to obtain the medical services they paid for are not merely frustrating, they sometimes kill. Free-market Republicans claim that the problem with the U.S. insurance firms arises from their lack of accountability. Agents, such as governments and employers, use our money to buy health plans. The agents’ incentives — simplicity and cost control — are not well aligned with our needs for responsiveness.

Senators Richard Burr (R., N.C.), Bob Corker (R., Tenn.) and others want to refigure the tax code so that we could buy health insurance with tax-sheltered money, a right currently reserved solely for our employers. If we purchased our own health insurance with tax-protected funds, we could keep these arrogant behemoths in check, just as we do in the other sectors of the American economy. The Swiss universal-coverage, consumer-driven system requires people, not employers or governments, to buy health insurance. (The poor primarily receive funds to purchase insurance just like everybody else.) This consumer control enables the Swiss to enjoy an excellent quality of care without the social inequality of single-payer countries at costs that are a third lower than ours.

SCHIP is not merely a debate about yet another mystifying government program. It is all about free-market principles versus government mandates. Giving taxpayers the freedom to choose and buy their own health care would unleash powerful market forces that have been subdued by third-party bureaucracies for the last 60 years. In every area of our economy, market forces have transformed rare, costly products and services like cars and computers into common products and services. We can make health care cheaper, better, and more widely available, if Congress can muster the vision and courage to act.

The current system is ridicules….as insurance companies cut back what they are willing to pay for, they raise their rates. People die waiting to see if they qualify for a procedure they thought they paid for. How can this work if the point is profit…it's ridicules. You want to take care of the people or you want to make money, choose one. It use to be in this country you could pay for things on your own. Now they want to force everybody to pay the blood sucking insurers…that's not freedom, that the rich fat cats getting richer. I don't like the idea of insurance…I like the idea of taking care of my self, but with our great current system, I would have to shell out two years salary for an operation. This is wrong….

Why do liberals want to force me to get medical insurance?

I am a young adult that has the money to purchase insurance, but choose not to. If I would rather spend my money on digital cable, a cell phone, a nice car, etc. isn't that my right as an American? If I knowingly make the choice to use my money in other ways, like most young people without insurance do, what is the problem? That sounds like true person freedom to me.

I like your point. I always thought it was bad enough they want to force me to PAY for other people's health problems. But you're right, it's pretty bad to be forced to pay for something that you don't want.

Why not keep health care privatized and only treat people who have health insurance or can pay themselves?

That would lower the cost on taxpayers and those who pay fairly into the health insurance. Those who cannot afford will have to die or find a doctor willing to work for free. This would allow the most freedom and most capitalism – two bastions of American independence.
Chris I – Why should I have to pay because YOU got sick? As far as crime and natural disasters, those who can pay can hire private security. Let the free market decide.

“Countries are judged not by the economy, but how they treat their poor.”

Billery fails to tell us how she would force Americans to have Health Insurance why?

I feel like a vote for Billery will be a vote for government rule and a loss of freedoms. It is not the responsibility of the government to force people to do anything. I feel that Obama has the right idea. Make healthcare more affordable, don't force people have it. This is still America where we have the freedom of choice.
Under Billery's plan some people who chose not to have it in favor of paying cash for services would be forced to do something they don't want to.

Without a way to enforce her heathcare insurance requirement such a idea is completely worthless.

A law that penalized people for not getting health insurance would likely be found to be unconstitutional anyways. One can require people to pay taxes on their income to work, or auto insurance to drive, but one cannot require people to purchase insurance in order to breath air (although if such were made law the insurance companies would certainly do everything in their power to try to have it enforced and kept the law of the land…cause they care so much about all of us after all).

Such a plan is only going to make insurance companies alot richer (and end up with the insurance companies having even more power over our health care choices and our pocket books)….no wonder the insurance companies love this witch so much.

is American foreign policy rockin awesome or are you a freedom hating terrorist?

are multinationals the best thing since fried gold or are you a socialist sympethiser?
are oil companies your friends or are you
a granola chomping worm?
do you support a tax increase for mandatory health insurance or are you a gready poor person?

there you have it. answer wisely and you win a free trip to cuba.

lol..
your a new one.

I prefer individual person with independent thoughts that may come from my unique experiences and perceptions. I hate either or questions.

Why do we pay for Iraqi freedom, but not for American's Health Care?

We continue to spend billions on Iraqi freedom for over four years, but we do not allow Americans THE FREEDOM to "own" their own health care plans, to "own" their insurance plans, to "own their own energy sources, (which are a major terrorist target, and so should be govt trust owned)…. no, the US electorate are not allowed to own all these industries that had previously been "owned" by the citizens in government "trust". No, now, we allow priviate citizens to profit from the poorest people's money for energy, insurance, health care… and they have no charitable outlets for the poor. WHY CAN'T THE US CITIZENS ALL "POOL" THEIR MONEY AND PROVIDE THE BEST AND CHEAPEST INSURANCE FOR EVERYBODY???? It's called Universal Health Care and there should be NO PROFIT in it. It is always more efficient. So, there's the question, with one condition: don't try to argue my "parameters" ie, don't say "it wouldn't be cheaper"… just for this question assume my "paramenters" and answer. Thanks!

Ha, that's funny. I own my own health care and insurance plans. But you're here telling me that we don't have that freedom in this country. I guess what I'm going to do is beg to differ. Anybody can get health care in this country if they truly want it. I think you should do some more research before posting another uneducated question. There is a reason Americans recieve the best health care in the world.