It's not a government program; it's a unfunded mandate ;) But if this is socialism so is requiring drivers insure their vehicles, because it's essentially the same model. I gather that Hillary is proposing something similar. I don't like it, but I don't see how you get socialism out of it, unless you are just using socialist as an epithet for things you don't like.
Dana >So instead of taxing you and using the money to provide services, they >instead require you to spend money on s3ender providers? > >Aside from the semantics how is that really any different? > >-----Original Message----- >From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:16 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: Re: Quarterly Campaigning > >Not in Massachussetts it's not. They require you to buy it from a >private insurer. So may Hillary's campaign for all I know -- I remember >seeing that someone didn't like it because it kept health insurance >privately owned. > >>Huh? I don't understand. >> >>What doesn't imply what? >> >>Universtal Healthcare is a socialist program, it is a state owned and >run ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Upgrade to Adobe ColdFusion MX7 The most significant release in over 10 years. Upgrade & see new features. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion?sdid=RVJR Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:231903 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
