Got into an argument with a relative just now

[Cleita]

about universal health care.

I was told my ideas were shockingly socialistic. Duh Oh! :eyes:

So I guess this is how the world is according to her. Is socialism a dirty word? She researches really well, she says. First she came up with the Canadian health care system is shit. People have to wait forever for surgery. When I told her it was propaganda and lies, the only surgery the Canadians wait for is elective surgery just like we do, she said that I didn’t know what I was talking about. I said I would show her my research if she would open her mind to it.

“Oh but you aren’t going to get anything but quacks on the internet,” she said. :mad:

Quacks like the New York Times, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Chronicle and the Los Angeles Times, not to mention sources like Canada Health, the OECD, the PNHP etc., etc.
:nuke: :nuke: :nuke:

Well guys to boil it down to this. This is what we are up against.

Socialized medicine according to her means that we are going to get inferior health care. I guess no health care at all is preferable to basic health care so a few can have wonderful health care.

Being she is first generation Irish American and visits there occasionally, I said that even a little country like Ireland can take care of everyone as well as their poor. She replied that the poor on welfare barely scrape by. I guess it’s better for old people in wheelchairs to beg for food at the local supermarket, like they are in my neighborhood, than be given enough to scrape by.

I don’t understand the mentality. I don’t. I was told to shut up, that she didn’t appreciate the fact that every time she came by that I got so argumentive. Well, excuse me but don’t bring up shit that I am very concerned and militant about!

:argh:

[bluestateguy]

1. Hmmm

Everytime a student of mine says something like "that's socialism!" in class I gently reply, "OK, maybe it is and maybe it isn't, but tell me why that makes it a bad idea". Some people in this country seem to think that simply labeling an idea as "socialistic" is grounds for shutting down all debate, as if any socialist idea cannot even be considered in the United States.

[MikeG]

5. FDR adopted most of Norman Thomas' 1932 socialist platform.

Guess that makes him a socialist too.

[Cleita]

6. Yes, you have it right there.

I mean I was drenched in the evils of communism in my school days and I subsequently found it was all BS, but why are these words being expunged of their propagandistic connotations in the classroom?

[TrustingDog]

10. Us 'socialist' countries, at least in the northern hemisphere...

like Canada and much of Europe, haven't got the snot bombed out of us like all those brown people south of the equator and elsewhere.

socialism = communism. ha!

the most dangerous thing for the ultra capitalist money grubbing cloven hooved bastards stash-stuffing fucks is a healthy society. And to me a healthy society is socialism.... you get your basic needs and you also get your basic opportunities to capitalize.

but no... they want it allllllll.

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. Oh you evil dirty commie!!!!

Good for you!!!

:thumbsup:

[Cleita]

15. Thanks!

[greatauntoftriplets]

19. You're welcome!

As the old cheer goes:

Rah rah re,
Kick 'em in the knee
Rah rah ras,
Kick 'em in the ass...

[Skittles]

3. I WILL KICK HER ASS CLEITA

JUST TELL ME WHEN

[Cleita]

8. Anytime.

It's a skinny ass too because she's always dieting to be fashionable.

[MikeG]

4. They once called Medicare socialized medicine.

To them, anything which isn't out and out laissez faire capitalism is socialism.

[Cleita]

7. What's so weird is that she's not a Republican.

She's a wishy washy Dem and her husband belongs to a union.

[progressivebydesign]

31. If her husband belongs to a union..

.. then she obviously has never had to worry about health insurance. I envy her.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

45. To them, a stuffed platypus is socialist

becvause it won't move by its own and attack poor people.

[gmoney]

9. It's all a cover for selfishness and greed...

For some reason, she'd rather pay thousands in insurance premiums for her coverage than shift the same amount to taxes so that EVERYONE can have coverage.

Or maybe she's under the impression that she's getting "free" coverage through her (or her spouse's) employer. The way things are going, that won't last...

Kucinich was right... we're PAYING for universal health care, but with all the profiteering and administrative waste, we're not getting it.

[Cleita]

11. That's exactly it.

She said that she and her husband had health care for life through his union. To which I said rather unkindly that I guess now that you've got yours, the hell with everone else. Things deteriorated after that.

[Cerridwen]

18. And therein lies the problem

Hi.

I'm betting she's scared to death that "socialized" medicine, that is, health care for all, will some how mean that her husband's union provided insurance will become crap.

It's not she's got hers so why care about the rest.

It's they've got theirs and don't want it ruined.

Plain old fashioned fear of losing what they already have.

Just my .02.

[IdaBriggs]

54. Very perceptive -- and wise. nt

[sandnsea]

12. Who's suggesting socialized medicine?

This is an area that just burns my butt. Now if you want to argue socialized medicine as a basic issue thing, that's fine and you have every right and good reason to do it. Absolutely no problem there.

BUT as it pertains to this election, nobody is suggesting socialized medicine. For the purposes of this election, it isn't even helpful to mention the words. I'm self-employed. I need affordable health insurance. Federal insurance is affordable. Can I buy some? To people like your relative, that's ALL you need to say. I've never met anybody who told me no.

That and maybe pulling catastrophic cases out of her employer's pool so that premiums will be reduced. I read a story about a guy working for a city in Louisiana, had cancer or something. HIS disease caused EVERYBODY'S premiums to go up. How horrible to be sick and know your friends and co-workers are struggling with THEIR premiums because of you. That doesn't change anything about how health care is delivered, it just helps spread the risk more fairly.

We need health care to change and as far as I'm concerned, if we have to shade the truth with people like your relatives in order to get it, we should.

[Cleita]

14. I'm too angry to argue this with you right now.

But until we get the insurance companies and Wall Street out of basic needs like health care, we are just going to have a big fat black hole of taxpayers money going into corporate coffers.

[sandnsea]

23. Win the battle, lose the war

Like I said, if you are arguing the issues with your relative, that's one thing. I'm not even interested in having that argument with you because that's not my point. Your points about insurance and health care are valid.

All I'm saying is that for the purposes of this election, it's not a helpful argument to make. And for the purposes of getting SOMETHING helpful to Americans, it's not a useful argument to make. You could say until we get corporate farms out of the food business, people will go hungry. Does that mean we stop the food stamps program? Don't keep people from getting help they need now by putting up ideological roadblocks.

[eridani]

51. You damned well couldn't buy any if you were actually sick

If you're healthy, the private insurers who back the feds will not mind adding you to their pristine relatively healthy risk pool. Taking care of catastrophic cases is the whole GODDAM POINT of insurance in the first place, and private insurance undermines it by the very fact of its existence.

The biggest, cheapest risk pool of all is THE WHOLE ENTIRE POPULATION of the country!

EVERYBODY IN, NOBODY OUT!

We are already paying for universal health care--we just aren't getting it. --Dennis Kucinich.

[Hippo_Tron]

52. EXACTLY, Kerry hasn't said anything about "socialized medicine"

Kerry has said that he wants to make healthcare AFFORDABLE for all Americans, meaning that they still pay for it. I love how the right skews the facts.

On the subject of socialized medicine, yea Dennis is right and we all know that and I think that John Kerry and Howard Dean both acknowledged that during the debates. What they also said, though, is that the simple fact is that their healthcare plans have a chance of passing congress, whereas Dennis' doesn't. It's a shame, but that's the way it is.

[Tight_rope]

13. Oh....the dumb and blind get dumber and more blind...

[Kanary]

16. Let me guess. Her "source" was Lush Rumballs?

Oh wait.....

"I was told to shut up,........"

That sounds familiar...... it was....... it was...... who's that SHUT UP guy again?

If I thought there was any hope with her, I'd even look up where Ireland is on the WHO list of countries for Health. It's probably ahead of the US, which should just frost her cookies really good.

However, I doubt there's any hope for this poor, misguided soul.

Sorry you had the misfortune to be related...... :hug:

After all, *I* appreciate all your efforts with the healthcare issue, and that matters more, right? :+

Kanary

[Cleita]

17. Yes, Kanary and I really did need those hugs.

You are right. Misfortune is really going to have to hit her on the kneecaps to wake her up.

[Kanary]

20. Agreed -- We *ALL* are needing hugs!

We're taking it from all directions, and we're all in need of some good, old-fashioned nurturing. :grouphug:

I say, on with the kneecap action, for the rest of 'em, the sooner the better. :hi:

Kanary

[Jade Fox]

21. Beating the dead horses of Communism and Socialism is a popular button..

pushing technique of the Neocons and Freeper nuts right now, one usually
employed by people who know nothing about either one in theory or
in practice.

Don't let her shut you up. She does not have some god-given right to be
comfortable with her ignorance and indifference to those who don't have what
she has. :thumbsup: :)

[Cleita]

22. I won't even go into what she said about illegals from across

the border using our health facilities.

[Kanary]

25. Just let her know it's not a problem, because Castro has offered to train

500 young people from US inner cities in medicine, so they can come back to the US and be effective drs for our neglected inner city citizens. So, it all evens out, right? :)

Actually, we LOVE to pat ourselves on the back, and get beeeg headlines for treating some poor charity case from another country so we can get applause for what goooood people we are. WE just want the headlines. Maybe that's what she's ticked about. Not enough gratitude.

Nebbamind that we're "giving" Iraq better healthcare than the US has..... maybe she *likes* that.

Kanary, looking for that kneecap stick......

[Mike Niendorff]

27. What they're doing is "shifting the debate" :

They can't defend their position on the merits, so they try and maneuver people into a completely different debate.

Specifically, they try and goad you into a debate over "communism" and "socialism" -- rather than debating about a specific policy or idea.

If you challenge their use of these terms, congratulations: you've lost, because you're now arguing about something completely different than before ("the definition of communism/socialism"), rather than focussing on the policy that the wingnut can't defend (and is trying to avoid discussing).

OTOH, if you accept their use of these terms, then they immediately cast you as a "defender of communism" or a "defender of socialism". And once they've succeeded in falsely casting you into that role, they figure they've eliminated the *need* to actually defend their own position, because, after all, you're just an evil person whose views can now be safely ignored.

In a nutshell:

In their minds, it's a win-win approach : either they get to dodge the issue, or you're an evil person that they don't have to listen to anyway.

I'd be interested in hearing anyone's ideas on how to respond to this RW bait-and-switch gambit.


MDN

[prolesunited]

24. If it's any consolation

I get in fights about politics with my family and they're all Dems as well. It's a big tent.

Nobody wants to argue with me anymore because I've got too many actual facts and talking points jangling around in my head from being on DU so long. My sister and I lock horns the most because she's older and always wants to be right. I find asking leading questions works best with her so she doesn't get defensive.

And if I were her, I wouldn't count on having such a sweet deal for long. The primary sticking point nowdays in union contract talks are insurance benefits. They cost so much, so the companies are going after them.

And sometimes, you just have to let it go. Politics are crucial, but family is family.

[Cleita]

26. Thanks all. You made me feel better!

:grouphug:

I have to go now. My computer is doing some weird stuff. I'd better go find out what.

[dorktv]

28. Actually most single payer systems (like Canada's) are

social capitalism. The only thing that the government does is disperse money to the states to pay the independant (for or non-profit) hospitals and doctors. As for long wait times for elective surgery, when you have limited resources like transfusion blood, you can have extremely long waits in the US. I have read of a lot of cases where you have months to wait while the blood for your surgery becomes availible.


And you can find a lot of books to support your theory. One of them is called:
Why the United States Does Not Have A National Health Program, Vicente Navarro, Editor. 1992

I used this book (amoung others) to create my single payer plan. It borrowed heavily from Jesse Jackson's plan created in 1988.

Perhaps next time, ask her to bring a book that shows her side of the argument (there are a few), as long as she reads your book. If she will not, tell her to stop coming by. You have a right to your opinion and to be treated civilly in your home.

[Cleita]

32. Thanks I will definitely try to find a copy of that book.

[dorktv]

53. you are welcomed. Good luck!

[AP]

29. Tell your friends that capitalism would work better if sickness weren't...

...a for-profit industry.

When there's so much money to made off of people not working, and not contributing 100% of their talents and abilities in the workplace, how can capitalism fire on all cylinders?

Making Americans healthier should be socialized so that the marketplace can make Americans happier and wealthier.

[progressivebydesign]

30. My friend in Belgium says their system is just fine...

.. she never seems to be waiting for anything. She has had medical issues over the past few years, and seems to get the care she needs. We must seem so backward to other countries... how dare we not care for our citizens?

When other countries chide Americans for being so unhealthy, they have to realize that most Americans do not have access to good health care, or preventive health care.

[Cleita]

33. Of course it is.

Look at all the testimonies even here on DU from Canadians and Brits about their health care systems.

[skygazer]

34. She'd better not be too complacent

about that health care through her husband's union. My union has contract talks coming up and the company is going to do its best to hack away at our health care benefits. You might have coverage "for life" one year and see it disappear the next. Look at social security. Look at medicare.

I had major surgery on my neck this past January because I had no idea if my insurance would cover it next year. It's no fun to have to make choices like that.

[BlackJack8324]

35. Socialism stinks but...

Usually what the Right calls socialism is not socialism. Using a progressive tax system to fund social services isn't socialism. I tell people I'm a Democratic capitalism meaning I support private property but regulated to serve the public interesting and using taxes to help fund a safety net for those left behind. Even Bush says he supports that.

[knitter4democracy]

36. They always freak out over the idea of "rationed healthcare"

The reality is that all healthcare is already rationed, and not just by HMOs. The market rations it, and not well or fairly. When all the Ob/Gyns leave a market (like Las Vegas) because of malpractice insurance costs, that's rationing. Only those with the money and time to go elsewhere will get the care they need. When doctors won't take on Medicaid patients, Blue Cross/Blue Shield patients, or other patients with crappy coverage (really, it's crappy payment for services already rendered), that's rationing. These people need to understand that we already have rationed health care but that it sucks. If we had a national health care plan, like my doctor hubby is working for, we'd all be better off, not worse.

[Cleita]

38. It's good that doctors are getting on board with this

because I think they will be the ones to effect change. It wasn't so ten years ago, but now that they have been stiffed right and left by the insurance companies and HMO's they can see that change is needed. Please ask your husband to stay involved.

[knitter4democracy]

48. Oh, he will!

He is working on the other doctors he knows and works with, let me tell ya! ;) More and more are sick and tired of this broken and awful system and realize we need to change everything. Bandaids don't work on a deep, serious wound, and just trying tort reform and adding more to Medicare/Medicaid won't work now.

You should hear him go off about his patients without any or enough insurance. He just rants and raves for hours on how he's trying just to get them basic care. He'd take more if he could, but the office he's in has limits (i.e. no Medicaid patients which really pissed him off) because they have such a high overhead.

[Cleita]

49. Is he familiar with this organization,

Physicians for a National Health Program?

http://www.pnhp.org/

They have so much good information for doctors as well as us lay people on it.

[knitter4democracy]

50. He's a member! Thanks! nt

[Green Lantern]

37. With some consideration

for changes within the last 25 years, any one who has served in the US military (AND their dependents) enjoyed universal, single payer health care. No question. Is that ironic or what? The 'capitalist 'troops fighting the commies used a "socialized" medicine model.

I saw a post here that noted that we already pay enough (between our contributions, employer contributions, co-pays, negotiated reductions etc) to cover the cost of health care. Probably very true. So why shouldn't we have it?

I think it is fear that keeps folks from wanting to start such a program. Our system has shifted the payer burdens more and more onto the populace without any corporate contributions, for everything under the sun, that folks are afraid to find yet another hand in the wallet.

We need to shift the tax burden back into an equitable basis, establish mandatory publicly financed elections to get lobbyists and power players out of the law making process, create universal health care, and regulate the corporations again to restore America. Let's start by dumping the twit and his thieving cronies.

No more Bushwa

[Cleita]

39. What it is, is the insurance and health care lobbyists.

They have hired PR firms to spread disinformation about the system in other countries, which turns out to be untrue. I was angry with my relative because she has bought the propaganda but refuses to look at my sources that debunk all of that.

[Green Lantern]

40. I know

It is terrible and very frustrating-they have talked people into a reversal of beliefs-that which is really good for you is - oops - now bad, and what you thought was bad for you is now good, moral and patriotic.

Shame on them.


Keep chipping away

[The Straight Story]

41. Localized Versus National?

Perhaps, like in politics, we should change the words to get things rolling. The word 'social', like it or not, seems to be a 'dirty' word to many people. They cannot seem to get past the word and look at the ideas.

People may well fear as well the government giving away health care as they will suppose that the government will start telling them (more) how to live their lifes since they are footing the bill. They put freedom above such a thing, so telling them what they can eat, smoke, etc and so forth does not appeal to a people who want to be free (not saying it is the case, but it is percieved as such).

Reform is needed, and people seem slow to change here. What is needed is better education and PR, and a good leader to promote and educate the people. There is too, a transference of experiences which promote fear - example, people go to the Bureua of Motor vehicles and wait forever just to get their plates. The see the government as slow and inefficient.

Our government was created by and for the people - and as such needs to work for us and do what is in our best interest while maintaining the freedoms we cherish. Healthcare should be a cornerstone of such a society, healthy people are more productive, less stressed, and more capable of defending the country (I mention that because the military offers broad healthcare for it's soldiers, and if they are given it why shouldn't we?).

Healthcare is an invesment in our country and our people. Much like paying for trash pickup, police, firefighters, et al, it is a way to collect a small amount from all for the benefit of all. Why not add doctors and hospitals to the roster of police stations and fire stations?

The difference of course, some will point out, is the local aspect. Local police, local taxes, and so forth. As such perhaps we could take the battle to a local level, get it implemented, show it works, and it will catch on. This could allow for more competition, more ideas (a plethora of local healthcare policies and legislation will help competing ideas and allow us to sift out the bad ones, and help us to zero in on which works best well).

MAYBE private will work better in some areas, that is fine. Each state and local area is different in population, problems, etc. Diversity is needed as the people and places are diverse anyways.

At any rate, just some thoughts from a 'newbie' - though I have been lurking here for years. I don't think that there is any one solution, taking it to the state level allows for many solutions. We could call it perhaps 'Medical services'. After all, we don't call police 'Socialized law enforcement' we just call it 'law enforcement'.

I have nothing against Nationalizing health care, just offering up ideas to hopefully get us moving in the right direction. Montana is different than California, and if we wish to compare (as some have, including myself) police/fire/et al to healthcare than perhaps we need to push for that on the local levels.

[Cleita]

42. Welcome to DU!

Funny, part of the argument was when I said that if it weren't for Medicare, a social government program, my husband would be dead because we wouldn't be able to afford his dialysis. She said that other working people had to pay for that. I pointed out to her that we both had worked all our lives paying into the Medicare program, and now we needed the benefits. They weren't exactly free and those people who are paying into it now should be able to use it when they need it. I don't think until that moment she didn't know it wasn't free because she had nothing to say afterwards.

[The Straight Story]

44. Health Care

She said that other working people had to pay for that.

I would rather pay for it than have someone suffering because I was too greedy to pay for it. Christians (of which I count myself, though I cannot live up to what the name implies) and jews have no problem giving 10% to the church to help out in missionary programs and the like. the idea is that pulling resources from the people can help many.

I don't mind giving part of what I make to the government so that they can do things which help us all (military, roads, and so forth) because it is an investment and (to me) the right thing to do.


It comes down to trust. * is in power now, do you trust him with your medical care? Kerry will be in power soon - do we trust him totally to deliver in the area of medical care? If we localize we can have more control over how things go. Nationally we are at the mercy of the masses (which can be fickle).

We can compare to Ireland, et al, but we are a much larger country. State by state would be better as we can better control and direct how things go. The more we nationalize, the more we will be at the mercy of people like * when they get into power. Take power away from them and focus it on the local level and the better off we can be (IMHO). 50 states which are like 50 countries but share a common thread held together by a federal government. In this sense I suppose one could call me a libertarian more than a democrat (though my family has deep roots in the democrat party from mayors to labor unions). I still vote democrat, but wish sometimes they would do things a bit differently (and perhaps our goal is to get dems to that point, otherwise there would be nothing to debate here I suppose).

The bigger we allow the feds to grow, the more power we give people like bush/rove/et al when they get into power. States are more like countries (When comparing to europe for example) and this allows us to have a broader vision which we can compare and hone to our broader needs. Federal health care can work for the entire US, but maybe the best way to get there is to make it work at the local level first.

I am open to ideas of course, but I think that turning things over to the feds can (in some cases, like when * is in power) focus too much power into the hands of the few. Localized medicine might work for now better than national.

Thanks for the welcome! Hope I can contribute something to this forum.

[Cleita]

46. To tell the truth, it would be nice to consider states as

able to be self-sufficient, but the truth is that America as a whole needs rich states like California to support the rest. California in turn needs water and other resources to remain rich. Think about it.

[Sugarbleus]

43. They always call it socialized medicine. It doesn't have to be that

way. We can configure a system that takes the best from any country's health system you can name and shape it to fit our system of doing things. That's first.

Second, there's the "idea" that citizens don't want to "share" their tax dollars with others. HA, that's a scream because WE ALREADY DO!

We ALL SHARE OUR TAXES. We share/pool our taxes for things like:

POLICE, FIRE DEPTS, FORESTRY, LIBRARIES, COUNTY SERVICES, JUDGES, TEACHERS, UNIVERSITIES, COLLEGES, SCHOOLS, HIGHWAY PROJECTS, ARTS, BRIDGES, MILITARY, COAST GUARD, MASS TRANSIT in part, CITY SERVICES, WATER DEPTS, AIR QUALITY DEPTS, PARKS SERVICE, POSTAL SERVICE, RESEARCH/DEVELOPMENT OF PHARACEUTICALS AND OTHER SCIENCES,POLITICIANS, PRISONS, etc etc...fill in the blanks.

So, we can't tweek a system to help folks get adequate healthcare services at every level? Balderdash! Especially to avoid undetected migrating diseases that go undiagnosed and then spread through the population? Preventative medicine is WISE. It keeps people going and productive.

A healthcare delivery system CAN be forged that will not be a burden to the public anymore than any of the above services already are...it's just that drug makers and Health Insurance Companies (maybe a few doctors) worry they won't make as many BILLIONS in confiscatory costs from the public. Socialism is just an "alarmist" word they put out there.

If friends like yours don't want to share their taxes for healthcare then tell her we don't want to share ours with her to support her letter carrier or her local police...she and her friends can go start up a private police and mail service. :eyes:

WAKE UP YOU SOCIOPHOBES!!

[kodi]

47. shove this up her old wazoo

"Costs of Health Care Administration

in the United States and Canada

Steffie Woolhandler, M.D., M.P.H., Terry Campbell, M.H.A.,

and David U. Himmelstein, M.D."

http://som.ucdavis.edu/students/k30/methodsinclinicalresearch/costs%20of%20health%20care%20administration.pdf

results

In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada’s national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada’s private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent).

Providers’ administrative costs were far lower in Canada.

Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations’ figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.)

conclusions

The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.

<snip>

In 1999 U.S. private insurers retained $46.9 billion of the $401.2 billion they collected in premiums. Their average overhead (11.7 percent) exceeded that of Medicare (3.6 percent) and Medicaid (6.8 percent).

Overall, public and private insurance overhead totaled $72.0 billion — 5.9 percent of the total health care expenditures in the United States, or $259 per capita (Table 1).

The overhead costs of Canada’s provincial insurance plans totaled $311 million (1.3 percent) of the $23.5 billion they spent for physicians and hospital services. An additional $17 million was spent to administer federal government health plans. The overhead of Canadian private insurers averaged 13.2 percent of the $8.4 billion spent for private coverage.

Overall, insurance overhead accounted for 1.9 percent of Canadian health care spending, or $47 per capitaer gross income, or $33.1 billion."


you can down load the entire paper in pdf formate.



TELL YOUR FRIEND THAT THE COST SAVINGS ARE FOUND BY THE LOWER COSTS FOR OVERHEAD. THE HIGHER PRIVATE SECTOR'S OVERHEAD REFLECTS INCREASED BUREAUCRACY AND PROFIT OVER A SINGLE PAYER GOVERNMENT PROGRAM.

[neebob]

55. My mother would rather pay to obliterate all those bad countries

than pay for someone else's health care. Socialism. Welfare. Bad, bad, bad. You'd think she'd rethink it now that she's on a fixed income and sits around worrying about all the terrible things that could happen any minute. You'd think losing her health care would be one of them. You'd think she'd notice her retirement account is less than half the size it was when her hero, George W. Goodpersonbush (the W stands for Wonderful) took office - nope! He's fixing everything. All the bad stuff is the Clintons' fault.