[vivicaq]

Of the 2008 candidates who do you think will be in the best position to defend Healthcare as a whole?

[onlyhope]

clinton- not only is she extremely intelligent and well spoken but she's a woman! its about time people! i've heard her speak about the state of our healthcare system and she has some good ideas. she has been fighting for universal healthcare long before it was popular. the bottom line is doesn't everyone deserve healthcare?

[NRSKarenRN]

Added poll top 5 candidate names Democratic + Republican contenders

[Marie_LPN, RN]

I don't care if Clinton's a woman or not, i want the best qualified person for the job. And IMO that ain't Clinton.

[TeleRNer]

Originally Posted by Marie_LPN

I don't care if Clinton's a woman or not, i want the best qualified person for the job. And IMO that ain't Clinton.

I agree. You may want to check out Senator Chris Dodd (Dem)'s website, he too is a contender for President, however not on the above list!!??Senator Dodd has been endorsed by Bobby Kennedy Jr. ;-)

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by Marie_LPN

I don't care if Clinton's a woman or not, i want the best qualified person for the job. And IMO that ain't Clinton.

I agree . . voting for someone simply because they are female is irresponsible.

What does she believe? What are her plans for Iraq? What are her plans for healthcare? What are her plans for taxes?

Be specific - learn exactly what a person believes and thinks before you vote for them simply because they have boobs.

I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet but it definitely will NOT be Obama or Hillary . . . . they are both too liberal for me.

steph

[VivaLasViejas]

Originally Posted by stevielynn

I agree . . voting for someone simply because they are female is irresponsible.

What does she believe? What are her plans for Iraq? What are her plans for healthcare? What are her plans for taxes?

Be specific - learn exactly what a person believes and thinks before you vote for them simply because they have boobs.

I don't know who I'm going to vote for yet but it definitely will NOT be Obama or Hillary . . . . they are both too liberal for me.

steph

And I wonder about the poll question as well: What is meant by "defending healthcare"? Does this mean defending the status quo---in other words, 40+ million uninsured Americans and literally thousands of insurance schemes complicating the works for those of us fortunate enough to have access to health care? If so, you're going to vote for a solid conservative, like Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. But if you want fundamental change in the way health care is delivered and funded in this country, you'll want someone like John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich.

Me, I'm somewhere between the two extremes, so I don't hold out much hope for either party's ability to deal effectively with the uninsured and underinsured while keeping government bureaucracy out of health care. While I agree that the system desperately needs to be fixed, I harbor a healthy dose of suspicion when it comes to the sort of thing proposed by Edwards, and I'd almost rather not do anything than allow the Feds to start nosing into citizens' private health matters.
But, that's just me.

[Spidey's mom]

Originally Posted by mjlrn97

And I wonder about the poll question as well: What is meant by "defending healthcare"? Does this mean defending the status quo---in other words, 40+ million uninsured Americans and literally thousands of insurance schemes complicating the works for those of us fortunate enough to have access to health care? If so, you're going to vote for a solid conservative, like Fred Thompson or Newt Gingrich. But if you want fundamental change in the way health care is delivered and funded in this country, you'll want someone like John Edwards or Dennis Kucinich.

Me, I'm somewhere between the two extremes, so I don't hold out much hope for either party's ability to deal effectively with the uninsured and underinsured while keeping government bureaucracy out of health care. While I agree that the system desperately needs to be fixed, I harbor a healthy dose of suspicion when it comes to the sort of thing proposed by Edwards, and I'd almost rather not do anything than allow the Feds to start nosing into citizens' private health matters.
But, that's just me.

Yes, I thought about the term "defending healthcare" too. Whose definition of "defending" are we going by?

Some of us think healthcare will go to heck in an handbasket if universal coverage is put into effect and the government gets more of a hold on it. (We almost had to close our hospital for awhile waiting for the CA to pass the budget and give us our money). Edwards is scary because he wants to do even more than that.

This brings up an interesting memory, which I've shared before. Our speech teacher asked us a question.

Do you think parents should have to attend a parenting class prior to having children?

It was amazing. Which style of parenting classes? The class erupted into an uproar . .. .

steph

[VivaLasViejas]

Frankly, I think parents should have to have a LICENSE before they have children. After all, one must obtain a license in order to marry, perform many professional-level jobs, and even have a dog.........but any two poop-for-brains can make babies. And RAISE THEM!!!

The sad part is, I'm only half-kidding.

That said, I can just imagine the controversy such a proposal would engender. There are as many ways of rearing children as there are parents........what sort of parenting classes WOULD be required to obtain a hypothetical parenting license??
What a can of worms!!

And that brings us back to health care..................

[jlsRN]

I'm so sick of all politicians, I am totally disgusted with both political parties, ugh.