Practically Speaking

Kyle, I'm confused. I don't believe that this is how a federally run health program would come down. Being on the up side of 65, I'm on Medicare. To participate in Medicare, I had to complete an application with the Feds. This in no way prohibits me from having private health care. It's just that I would have to do so on my own dime.

When Hillary and Bill lead the Leninists into Wisconsin with their national health care putsch, I don't see them attempting to prohibit you from buying your own. It's just that if you want their dime, you take their program.

While I wholeheartedly support the spirit of this bill, I don't see it having much effect when the Hillster's plan will be offered with little or no premiums and a cover most everything, while a private program will cost lotsa bucks and cover little or nothing.

Given that scenario, what is this legislation supposed to change for Wisconsinites?

Kyle's reply: Well, Elf, I guess you could just sit back and let it come, but Hillary has to be elected first! I am glad Ted and Leah are doing this. Why should we all HAVE to pay at the state level for something that we don't want and then if we want to keep our old insurance pay for that too? Healthy Wisconsin is not going away. I am sure it will be introduced again next session.

Maybe you do have to apply for Medicare, but every worker is already paying for it. Every check my husband receives has a deduction for it. Yet most people I know on Medicare must purchase a supplemental plan to the tune of $200ish / person or $500ish / couple per month.  Why would we want to mandate that same type of system in Wisconsin?

Rep. Vukmir directed me to a very informative piece, filled with interesting links, The right to buy a cure, from Right On by Patrick Mcllheran. Look at what has happened in Canada, where buying your own health insurance has been outlawed.  The naiveté of some of the comments that think Canada's system is preferable is interesting too. Look at what has happened in Massachusetts since they implemented a plan like Healthy Wisconsin: Health care costs are projected to rise 85%!

Maybe the amendment should be re-worded to say "government" instead of "state" sponsored.  I understand the word "state" can be used generically, but I'd like it to be very specific in order to protect us from the Democratic guillotine which is threatening us from both state and federal. The amendment should also seek a tax deduction for citizens that opt for private coverage. I think liberals assume this health coverage will be free. I'm hearing "low cost coverage" not "free coverage.  I think the liberal candidates are garnering a lot of votes from uninformed voters who think they are getting something for free.  Why are some citizens in favor of a Socialist system? Did they miss the history lesson on the USSR? (You know, the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics.)

Kyle's reply: Good points! As for the Socialist system, Hillary said it herself in her speech last night, "I see an America where prosperity is shared."