Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

[ursi]

Source: Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone."


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

---

One way or the other, something needs to do done. I realize her plan is just a concept in this discussion but what about people making minimum wage who are trying to pay rent, food, heat, gas with less than $900. a month take home? I guess two full time jobs without insurance might cover it? I don't know. Things are getting tough all over and with "RECESSION" either on the way, around the corner or at our doorstep already ...I don't know what we are all going to do in this country to address the needs.

[HeraldSquare212]

1. It'd be nice if we knew what she meant by 'affordable' nt

[leftchick]

6. it means

as long as Big Pharma and Insurance make Big Profits. There is a reason she sought their input in her "plan". There is something terribly wrong with a country that profits off of people's lives.

[polpilot]

72. Sorry kids, no food in the 'frig this month...

my check was taken for health care. Great idea.

[pnwmom]

91. This is fear-mongering, the kind of thing Rethugs do.

HRC has been committed to helping poor families all her life. She isn't going to do anything that will hurt them. The progressive income tax doesn't hurt them, and neither will this.

But universal health insurance has to have a universal mandate or it simply won't work. Part of the reason the Medicare system isn't working is that the costs aren't being spread to the entire population, including younger people. Also, providers can continue to raise their charges on the rest of the uninsured population with no consequences. If everyone is insured, and the system regulates ALL insurers and providers, then charges can be reined in -- insurers won't be able to cherry pick and no one will be able to price gouge.

Paul Krugman, the very progressive Princeton economist, has written at length about why any insurance plan must have a universal mandate. Hillary's can and will be developed so as not to be one more burden on the poor -- those people who are now either putting off care and waiting till they end up in the hospital emergency rooms. We can do much better for them, and for all Americans.

[polpilot]

103. Hillary said 'garnish the wages of workers' maybe I'm...

'truth-mongering?'

[pnwmom]

108. She didn't say "all" workers. She's left it very open exactly how it will

be done, but there is every reason, based on her Senate record and career of working for poor families, to believe that this won't be an additional burden for the families that are barely making it now.

[polpilot]

113. Hillary's results of 'working for poor families' include...

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Please fill in. This is the results of 35 years of 'work'.

[pnwmom]

166. She worked against the bankruptcy bill when her husband was President.

He ended up vetoing it. Later, she voted for a compromise bill in the Senate, then opposed it after it was altered in a way that hurt women getting child support.

She worked to bring universal health care to this country but was stopped by the Republican Congress. She'll be in a very different position with a Democratic Congress.

She has been a consistent and strong advocate of a woman's right to control her own body. And she has been a consistent and strong advocate of women's and children's rights being a part of HUMAN RIGHTS, including making a statement before the UN in defiance of the Bush administration.

For the rest, you can do your own research. I'm not going to fill in your little chart. You give away your own misogyny when you put the word "work" in quotes.

[AllyCat]

161. Just like the (moral) bankrupty bill? That was really working for the poor, no?

[pnwmom]

165. Which bankruptcy bill? She opposed more than one.

And voted in favor of one that didn't pass; then changed her position to oppose it when it was altered in a way that hurt women getting child support payments.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-and-the-bankruptcy-law/

Obama, by the way, has received more contributions from banking interests than she has.

[Mozcram]

116. THANK YOU!

Americans for Thinking before you Decide

[AllyCat]

160. Of course universal "insurance" has to have a mandate.

Universal healthcare does not. And that's the problem. Keeping the insurance companies in the loop makes it so that garnished wages go right into the pockets of her big campaign donors.

And I disagree that the progressive income tax doesn't hurt poor people.

There are always people who are going to be on that cusp of being able to "afford" and "choosing not to buy". Where that line is...who can say? But I'm sure it will err on the side of making sure Big Pharma and the insurance companies continue to make a mint off of the suffering of others. I can't imagine the insurance companies are going to go for this either if they don't get to continue business as usual (denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, not covering things recommended by MDs, taking premiums for years and then ducking out of paying big claims because someone didn't dot the Is and cross the Ts on their applications).

[pnwmom]

170. Single payer isn't an option now. Get over it.

We only have the choice between Obama's plan, which won't cover millions of people, and HRC's, which will cover everyone. The liberal economist at Princeton, Paul Krugman, has examined the plans and says that HRC's and Edwards were economically feasible because of the mandate. Obama's plan was not.

Both HRC's and Edwards plans had a government (non-private insurer) option, and both candidates acknowledged that that option might be chosen by so many people that the private companies wouldn't be able to compete. Eventually this could lead to a de-facto single payer system.

[AllyCat]

236. Right, it's not on the table anymore with either of these 2 candidates

I'm not going to "get over it". I'm going to continue to work and fight for reasonable coverage for all Americans that doesn't penalize them for not having the money to do it. If we can all buy into this "government plan", why not just start with that and leave out Big Pharma and the insurance cos?

[MadHound]

167. Yes, but mandating that one have X amount of for profit health insurance,

Is simply letting corporate health care make even more obscene profits. If you are going to have mandatory universal health care, then you also must make it non-profit and single payer. Otherwise you are handing the insurance industry a monopoly with which to suck America dry.

This is especially disturbing in light of the fact that it will encourage corporate America to drop health insurance as an employment benefit.

This is just one more reason not to vote for Hillary.

[pnwmom]

173. Hillary is not mandating X profit for health insurance.

She'll be allowing the government plan to compete against the private insurers, and has acknowledged that it's likely the government plan will achieve significant savings and the private insurers will lose the competition. And it's not a problem for her if this puts the private health insurance companies out of business.

There is nothing about Obama's plan which is better for consumers than HRC's, and hers has the advantage that it will cover everybody and is economically feasible. I like Obama, but I wish he was pushing a plan more like HRC's and Edwards.

[MadHound]

186. Hillary's plan hasn't very many specifics to it

The cutoff line could be such that while the poor will be covered, the middle class will be screwed. In fact looking at Hillary's plan, this looks like a certainty. Like I also said, it will also encourage employers to drop health insurance as a benefit, again screwing the middle class. Furthermore, Hillary has speculated that having insurance would be a prerequisite for getting a job. And finally, part of this plan includes a nice hefty payoff to the insurance industry with our tax dollars

This is not a good plan, this is nothing more than the way that Hillary is going to pay back her corporate masters in the insurance agency. The only active candidate getting more insurance money is Mitt, which means that Hillary has a lot of favors to pay back.

I'm not impressed with Obama's plan either, but I think that mandating health insurance for all is going to wind up screwing us all.

[pnwmom]

189. Paul Krugman, the liberal economist at Princeton, has written about

why Edwards and Clinton's plans would work, and why Obama's wouldn't. I trust him on this more than I do the individual campaigns.

[MadHound]

193. That's OK, I have my own in-house economist,

My wife, and I think that I trust her more than somebody who not only has a definitive partisan bent, but who was also part of the Reagan White house and served as an Enron adviser. My wife has just as much education and doesn't have the same biases as Krugman.

[pnwmom]

197. Krugman has a long career as a liberal economist and academic.

One year as a token liberal on Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors didn't change that.

But I'd love to hear your wife's take on how we could have an economically viable health insurance policy that allowed people to stay out of the system until they thought they needed it.

[raebrek]

232. If a plan like this were implemented I have to think

that they would end up making a very inexpensive plan available for people that don't want insurance but have to have it because it is mandated. A plan that would satisfy the mandate but not give any actual insurance converge of any use. I don't like any of the plans I have read about either.

Raebrek!!!

[creeksneakers2]

100. That isn't going to happen

The policies will be subsidized so everyone can afford them.

[eridani]

168. With what? The money she intends to continue pissing away on the military?

[avrdream]

125. So what do you do when those same kids get sick?

Think it through.

[pnwmom]

237. Wrong. Anyone who wants to will be able to avoid private insurers

and sign up for a government run plan like Medicare. The private insurers may well have trouble competing on a cost basis with the govt. plan, since the private insurers will want their profit. So both HRC and Edwards (whose plan was quite similar) acknowledged that this might drive the private insurers out of business -- and result eventually in single payer for all.

[sallyseven]

2. Medicare is paid for by

garnishing SS payments. Is that a sin? If you had Universal Health care it has to be paid buy someone. We would all have to contribute. Wages is the easiest method of payment. People who refuse to get health care when it is offered deserve no health care at all . No emergency room care nothing at all. People without health care now can't help it but when it is universal they will be covered. Your paying now for those who don't have health care. Your insurance rates go up and the hospitals must pay for it.

[Kitsune]

5. The difference is that SS payments don't go to private corporations.

I, for one, would happily pay a tax for guaranteed single-payer healthcare, but am very much against being forced to purchase insurance from a private corporation that will cut corners and deny claims to pad their bottom line.

[OzarkDem]

14. Clinton's plan offers a choice between govt and private plans

If you don't want to subsidize private insurance then buy into a government plan.

Why are Obama supporters lying about Clinton's plan?

[Guaranteed]

156. No, it doesn't. It offers a choice between government POOLING- into private insurance-

and employees' own private plans.

[pnwmom]

190. Not true. It offers the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

The government plans will compete with the private plans and if the private insurers can't make enough profit to suit them, they will get out of the business. HRC and Edwards both recognized that this would be a likely effect of their plans down the road, and that their plans might well lead to universal single payer as private insurers drop out of the business..

[JeanGrey]

209. Private insurers aren't going to drop out. Hill will see to that.

[nodehopper]

218. this is interesting

I remember this being in JE's plan, but I did not realize HC was on board with that. Can you link to it, please, I'd like to read more about it--if this is the case, I just might go vote for her tomorrow (I'm in MA).

[closeupready]

19. That's the thing. Watch premiums rise, coverable claims diminish, etc.

Very predictable developments lie in wait if this plan is adopted.

[pnwmom]

191. HRC's plan, like Edwards, will allow people to by-pass private insurers

and choose a government run plan instead. You should familiarize yourself with at least the basics.

She will give all people the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

[George II]

36. And the bare "concept" of Clinton's plan calls for the payments to go to private corporations???

[pnwmom]

109. No, it doesn't. It will allow people to choose between government and

private insurers, from a range of 250 plans. People will have the same choices as members of Congress have given themselves.

[George II]

115. Thanks, I didn't think so but....

Posters here (notably the one I responded to) gleefully post false information that could be damaging to a candidate, not unlike the tactic of Karl Rove and the radical right.

[stevietheman]

128. All sides are playing politics, as they should...

it's called "democracy". Get over it.

[George II]

129. There are right ways and wrong ways to "play politics"

Don't tell me to "get over it", Karl!

[Telly Savalas]

163. People using mendacity as a tool to play politics is a big part of the reason

our democracy has been getting such suck-ass results.

And I'm sure Senator Obama would agree.

[pnwmom]

176. Posting lies is despicable, even if it is protected by freedom of speech. n/t

[Guaranteed]

158. No, the "gleeful" ones are right. See my other posts.

All she's talking about doing is pooling government employees for enrollment in private insurance.

It's the same thing.

[pnwmom]

180. Not true, and your other posts are wrong, too.

She will give all people the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.
Available: No discrimination. The insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.
Reliable: It's portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.


If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

Small businesses are the engine of new job growth in the U.S. economy but face bigger challenges when it comes to providing health care for their employees. Hillary would give tax credits to small businesses that provide health care to their workers to help defray their coverage costs. This will make small businesses more competitive and help create good jobs with health benefits that will stay here in the US.

Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium. And like other things that you buy, they will have to compete for your business based on quality and price. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose their jobs, they won't lose their coverage.

[sentelle]

215. as i see it

The failures of this plan are as follows
1. Who are 'working' people?
2. What does affordable mean? Is it like Romney-care in mass?
3. What mechanism holds the rate down?
4. What keeps the healthcare system from being overwhelmed?

Right now, there is no incentive for docs or insurers to keep costs or premiums down. Also there is no incentive for doctors to convince others to stay healthy.

Doctors push pills to manage illness rather than cures. How do we stop this?

How do we convince a nation of stupid Americans to eat healthy, exercise, and take care of themselves?

[Guaranteed]

157. I'm sorry, you're incorrect. A "government plan" that you speak of

would not involve giving our money to insurance companies. All of her plans, even the government pooling plan, do exactly that.

[pnwmom]

181. Not true. You should try reading her plan.

She's offering a Medicare-type option or options.

She will give all people the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

[eridani]

169. That is bullshit. Why do you think private insurers offer congresscritters such nice deals?

Might it have something to do with the fact that they make laws affecting insurance companies? What if they are forced to accept lots of chronically sick people? What do you think will happen to the premiums?

[pnwmom]

184. HRC is planning to force the private insurers to compete with

the government run plans. If the government plans achieve the savings that they should (by eliminating the profit factor), then the private health insurance companies are going to lose the competition. That will be one route -- albeit an indirect route -- to an eventual single-payer, government run system. Edwards had the same basic proposal, by the way.

The private insurers are going to have to accept all people, they won't be able to cherry pick. If they can't keep their premiums low enough to compete with the government plans on that basis, then they'll have to get out of the business.

And no one will miss them.

[eridani]

188. Private plans will compete by denying claims

That's how they compete now, and it won't change if we are forced to subsidize them. Private insurers are paying Clinton and Obama precisely because they intend to insist on cherrypicking, no matter what their beneficiaries say on the campaign trail.

[pnwmom]

194. Then customers will desert the private insurers for the government run plans

and eventually the private insurers will find themselves out of the health insurance business.

No one will be forced to subsidize the private insurers. Both Edwards and Clinton have recognized that their government run options may eventually put private insurers out of business.

[eridani]

196. Bullshit. They will do nothing of the sort if they don't get expensively sick

And most people will never, ever get expensively sick. They will keep their private insurance simply out of inertia, which will continue to suck health care dollars away from public plans. You will never get fucked over like the people in SiCKO unless you get really sick. Most people won't have that happen to them. In any given year, half the population has NO HEALTH CARE EXPENSES WHATSOEVER!

[pnwmom]

198. "Most people will never, ever get expensively sick."

That's a laugh.

[eridani]

201. It is the absolute truth. Look it up.

In every single age demographic, 20% of the population accounts for 80% of the costs. That's why we have to cut out private insurance and share the ristk.

[pnwmom]

205. The fact that many people have no medical costs in a year's time

doesn't mean that they won't get very sick or badly hurt in an accident in another year. You're thinking that it's the same 20% of the population that consistently accounts for most of the costs. It isn't. And everybody dies, eventually, and the last few months of care also account for a huge chunk of costs.

None of us are exempt from the risks -- even you. That's why we need to have universal health care and share the risk.

HRC's plan doesn't cut out private insurance, but that option isn't out there anymore. Obama's doesn't either, and Edwards was just like Clinton's. Both Edwards' and Clinton's plans allow people to sign up for government plans that will compete on a cost basis with the private insurers -- which could well drive the private insurers out of the health care business.

[eridani]

207. Actually, it is mostly the same 20%

If a lot of sick people sign up for government plans, the private insurers behind them will quickly make the rates unaffordable. As long as most people don't get expensively sick, private insurers will continue to drain the pool of health care dollars.

[pnwmom]

208. You don't understand how the plans will work. There won't be

private insurers "behind" the government plan, waiting to take their profit. There will be government run, Medicare-like plans (not run by private insurers) which will COMPETE with private insurers. The government plans won't be trying to make a profit, which will put the private insurers at a competitive disadvantage. That is fine with Clinton (as it was with Edwards) and she's acknowledged that it could be a step toward universal single-payer (if the private insurers drop out because too many customers desert them for the government plans).

You're in for a rude awakening someday when you or a loved one ends up in the hospital with a serious accident or illness. You'll think back and realize how callous and naive you were.

[eridani]

212. Where will the funding come from for the public plans?

All plans including private insurance guarantee that health care dollars will be diverted away from public plans, which will be second rate plans for sick people only. The callous and naive people are the ones who persist in thinking that any system allowing for profit insurancea to continue to exist can possibly work. I know all about serious illness, having gone hungry as a kid because my parents couldn't get insurance at any price and everything was out of pocket.

Customers will not desert private insurance as long as they stay healthy, as it is the line of least resistance to keep doing what they have been doing all along. We already have Medicare Advantage competing with regular Medicare, and it is causing an unbelievable amount of damage. Most people will never get expensively sick, and so will have no motive to change.

[pnwmom]

213. You keep repeating, without any data, your belief that most people

will never get expensively sick. It must be important to you to feel that you're in that group. But no one can know ahead of time, no matter how virtuous and careful a life they lead, what sort of health catastrophe could happen to them in the future.

The funding for the public plans will come from the same place as the private plans -- people, or their employers, will pay premiums based on a small percentage of their income. Medicare isn't a "second rate plan" and it won't become one if more people are allowed to join.

It's the private plans that will have trouble competing, not the public, because they will not be allowed to cherry pick their insured, and will have to accept people regardless of preexisting conditions. Then they will have to COMPETE on prices with the public plans -- and yet still make a profit.

Personally, I would be happy to be able to enroll in the same range of plans that Congress people have available to them.

[eridani]

225. Not true. The private Medicare Advantage has wreaked havoc on traditional Medicare

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm

See above for the small percent of the total population that accounts for most health care costs.

[pnwmom]

228. Interesting article. And here is the part you overlooked or misunderstood.

"The researchers concluded that there is a substantial leveling of expenses across a population when looking over several years or more compared to just a single year.

"An acute episode of pneumonia or a motor vehicle accident might lead to an expensive hospitalization for an otherwise healthy person, who might be in the top 1 percent for just that year but have few expenses in subsequent years. Similarly, many people have chronic conditions, such as diabetes and asthma, which are fairly expensive to treat on an ongoing basis for the rest of their lives, but in most years will not put them at the very top of health care spenders. However, each year some of those with chronic conditions will have acute episodes or complications requiring a hospitalization or other more expensive treatment.


__________

In other words, the people in the top few percent, whose health care costs are highest, are NOT mostly the same people every year. Therefore, "there is a substantial leveling of expenses across a population" over a period of years.

The one group that is most likely to have persistently higher costs, of course, is the elderly. And, barring sudden death, most of us will face high health costs in the last months of our lives.

[eridani]

229. This does not change the fact that in any given year,

--your chances of getting expensively sick are only somewhat higher than the chances that your house will catch fire. That is why health care and fire protection must be PUBLIC GOODS, period.

[amborin]

223. the funding comes from ending the tax breaks to those making 250K and higher

[raebrek]

233. and then the private insurance companies

could lower their premiums because the really sick could switch to the government plan. It almost sounds like a big bone is being tossed to the private insurance companies.

Raebrek!!!

[JeanGrey]

211. Except if government care is substandard to private policies

which is happening in Canada and England and the same will happen here. Sure you can get the "cheap" government policy with the long waits and not so cutting edge but you can get better care if you can afford a private policy (psst. just how it's always been)

[JeanGrey]

210. Oh ROTFLMAO! We will have Congress' Health Plan

at hardly any cost? I'll buy tickets to that.

[cushla_machree]

132. Bingo!

This is why i cannot stand 'mandatory' enrollment ideas. Either, you are forcing ME to pay a private insurance company money, or you are subsidizing corporate profits by having public plans that help people 'purchase' health insurance. Why waste our money on a system that doesn't work?

[LiberalFighter]

139. Would you support single payer insurance?

And would you support health coverage being mandatory if it was already paid?

Eliminate the middle man (insurance companies) in health coverage.

Hmmm isn't that what Republicans and Libertarians demand? Eliminate the middle man.

[DissedByBush]

154. The middleman will always exist

<i>Eliminate the middle man (insurance companies) in health coverage.</i>

Now the middle man will be the government, the same government that can't account for billions in Iraq, is currently getting scammed for $33 billion (7.5%) every year in Medicare, and that handled Katrina so well. Politics will get into this and pork will be everywhere. Do you really think it'll be any cheaper? The main advantage will be that the various abuses, such as health insurance companies dropping people when they finally get really sick after 30 years of on-time payments, may stop.

I do have one big question that I would like to see addressed by any legislation enacting universal health care. Currently it is possible to sue your insurance company when they screw you over. Will we be able to sue the government?

[pnwmom]

199. It won't be the same government once we throw the bastards out.

The Bush administration has been using the departments of government as profit making centers for their cronies to a degree that would have been unimaginable in the past. This will end.

[DissedByBush]

203. It won't end

Pork, corruption and inefficiency existed since long before Bush, and it will exist long after. Bush is an amateur or he's very good at faking dumb. Tammany Hall, Teapot Dome, Credit Mobilier, star route fraud, Dan Rostenkowski et. al. with the congressional post office, Keating Five (which includes one of the current candidates), I could go on.

For this to end we first have to break the power of the parties, and that's not happening. You see what they're doing to Kucinich for rocking the boat too much. You see what the Republicans are doing to Ron Paul.

[pnwmom]

206. FEMA, for example, actually functioned under Clinton.

Bush has deliberately turned it into nothing but a profit center for Republicans.

The Democrats, on the other hand, actually believe that government can work for people. Either HRC or Obama will do their best to see that it does. If you're going to argue that our remaining candidates are as bad as the Rethugs, then I don't know what you're doing still on this board.

[DissedByBush]

221. Belief

"The Democrats, on the other hand, actually believe that government can work for people."

In theory, yes. But the current lot in power are for the most part full of pork and beholden to the entrenched profit power structure. Someone like Kucinich could have helped break them out of that, which is why he wasn't allowed to be the nominee, and Pelosi isn't even listening to him in the House.

"If you're going to argue that our remaining candidates are as bad as the Rethugs"

Not even close. I give Obama a small chance of achieving a change in government to efficiently work for the people. I don't expect anything out of Clinton. I expect things to get worse under the Republicans since they've learned what they can get away with, even while having a Democratic Congress.

[pnwmom]

187. You don't understand. The options will include government run plans

like Medicare -- you WON'T BE MANDATED to choose a private insurer, but you will have that option, if you think it offers rates and benefits that you prefer to the government plans.

There is every likelihood that the government plans are going to win out over the long run, because of the savings they will achieve due to eliminating the insurers' profit.

She will give all people the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

Small businesses are the engine of new job growth in the U.S. economy but face bigger challenges when it comes to providing health care for their employees. Hillary would give tax credits to small businesses that provide health care to their workers to help defray their coverage costs. This will make small businesses more competitive and help create good jobs with health benefits that will stay here in the US.

Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium. And like other things that you buy, they will have to compete for your business based on quality and price. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose their jobs, they won't lose their coverage.

[JDPriestly]

41. They do if you are registered for an HMO coverage.

[pnwmom]

96. Hillary's plan will let you choose a government run program.

The Congressional plans have more than 250 options. I'd be thrilled to have their choices.

Both she and Edwards realize that the government run plans they proposed are likely to pose stiff competition to the private insurers and that, in competition with those, the private companies may not survive. And that's perfectly fine with HRC.

[LiberalFighter]

143. Those options should be reduced to at most 5 for Congress.

[AllyCat]

162. Exactly. I'm with you Kitsune. n/t

[truedelphi]

47. Well I and the others protesting this live in

A country where the hedge fund managers pay 15% on their billions in terms of the tax rate table.

But the janitor also pays 15%. And the school teacher 22% to 28%. (Depending on who the teacher is married to, and other jobs worked etc.)

Let's see Hillary go after the hedge fund managers. Let's see her alter her cozy little relationship with these people.

When Bill CLinton was in office he dropped the tax on the wealthiest of incomes from 28% to 22%.

You give me an equitable and progressive taxation system and I won't whimper one bit about paying some of the costs of Universal Health Care.

But the middle income citizen is now paying the most taxes in the most regressive way of any citiazen on earth! (Yes, taxes in Europe are higher but many of those are due to VAT's, and with the taxes comes the health insurance.)

But I will still demand that it be Single Payer god damn it.

Not a penny should continue to go to those corrupt executives inthe insurance companies. These people have stressed us out while we are trying to work and take care of the very loved ones whom they deny deserved care. These executives have stonewalled us on policies that we hare paying hundreds of dolalrs a month on. And they have outright SLAUGHTERED many Americans.

They need to be cut out of the system, like any cancer would be cut out.

And Hillary, their gal pal, is not gonna be the one to do it.

[pokercat999]

52. If 15% is a fair income tax for multi-millionaire

hedge funders then a flat percentage of income would be fair for health care. Say 2% of your gross income if you make minimum wage that would be about $5.00 per week, if you make $50,000 per week it would be about $1000.00 per week. Seems fair to me. No need to concern ourselves with what is and isn't covered. If it is deemed necessary by your physician then it's covered, period! My guess is that the "tax" would have to be higher, maybe as high as 17%??? Anyone know?

[truedelphi]

73. Hillary herself said in the early 1990's that

Her plan would cost the "Averge family of four" who makes $ 24,000 a year ONLY $ 4,000.

Where the average family of four on that income would get that money I don't know.

The thing is, 15% is simply not a fair tax for the hedge fund managers.

The whole income tax needs to be re-structured. Go up to 35% for people whose discretionary income is in the tens of millions.

That's where the money is.

[SusanLarson]

90. She wants to make it mandatory? LOL

$4000 a year works out to be roughly $77 per week or $307 per month.

Lets look at your 24,000 a year family of 4. We will figure they get paid weekly for this, and that they have no state income tax which is a rarity.

24,000 a year is 461.53 a week.

With 3 exceptions they would pay the following taxes out of that.

10.58 federal income tax
28.61 FICA
6.69 Medicare

That leaves $415.65 a week after taxes, $1662.60 per month.

The average three bedroom house in my area goes for $750-$1200 a month Lets say $800 for a reasonable estimate.

That leaves 862.60 a month for bills

Lets say $200 a month food

$662.60

$70 a month for car insurance

$592.60

$100 for electric (low ball especially in winter)

$492.6

$50 gas and water

$442.6

$200 car payment

$242.6

$140 for gas ($35 per week)

$102.6

$70 expanded basic cable tv and broadband internet

$32.6

Lets say a $25 minimum credit card payment.

That leaves us with $7.60

Wheres that $307 susposed to come from? I didn't figure clothing, school supplies, medical and dental care, insurance co-pays.

And Hillary wants to make it mandatory?

[poisonivy]

97. First of all

if that was all I was making, I would not have cable or broadband internet because this is a luxury and not necessary for survival, so that saves me 70.00, I would not have a credit card so that saves me another 25.00, and at the income you are using that is below the federal poverty guidelines for a family of that size so they would qualify for low income housing, food stamps, and at least a state medical card for the kids.

So, lets see, no cable saves 70.00, food stamps saves 200.00 low income housing would save 800.00 (not really saves the full amount, section 8 housing goes on a sliding scale so lets say for arguments sake rent is 250.00 which is a savings of 550.00). That all equals approx 825.00 less than you budgeted out. More than likely I would not have a credit card so that is another 25.00 per month not going out.

[SusanLarson]

112. Cruel and inhuman

The conditions you describe are what we would call cruel and inhuman if you subjected someone in prison to them. It's clear you never had to live on 24,000 a year its' hard for one much less four.

I also call into question if a family of 4 making 24,000 a year would qualify for the public benefits you suggest as a valid option.

[poisonivy]

119. I have lived on less

MUCH less, but thats not the point here.

Ok I was wrong, the federal poverty guidelines for a family of 4 is 21,000. But the rest of my post still stands, if your making that little you would not have cable and broadband internet, would more than likely not have a credit card. How is considering broadband internet and cable considered inhumane?

I dont see where you consider anything I posted cruel or inhumaine but thats ok. Btw, as I said at the start of this post I have lived on less than that amount, lived in a rooming house for 50.00 a week, paid my child support, and guess what if I wanted to get online I would go to the local library. Did I like it? hell no, but I survived.

[truedelphi]

123. You know something, PoisonIvy when Insurance execs start to go

Without, I will agree with every friggin' thing you say.

And please don't give me that crap that they work hard. The ones I have known have spent ample time on the golf courses, with the secretary doing the work. But their cute little insider deals give them the right to their title ("I'll see that the 4200 employeess I manage here at Mega Insurance have only your hospital to go to as their choice, if you get me a seat on the Hospital Board of Directors."

[poisonivy]

131. Oh I agree

those in upper management do get away with too much, but, just because they do does not mean that those of us at the lower end of the ladder dont have to sacrifice luxuries just to get by. Does that make it right? hell no it doesnt, but, if anybody thinks that if Hillary or Obama get into the White House that things will change dramatically for those of us down here at the lower end living paycheck to paycheck they are sadly mistaken. I am sad to be this way but its the way I am and until I am proven wrong i will continue to feel this way. We had homelessness, poverty, struggling to make ends meet during Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2, it wont go away no matter who is in power, the ONLY way to make things change is for each person to do it for themselves.

[Oak2004]

220. There was very little homelessness under Carter

The explosion in homelessness occurred under Reagan. I know, I was one of Reagan's "pioneers" in mass homelessness.

[whathappened]

148. your forgetting 1 thing

your cheap ass budget sucks big time , we ownly have 1 shot in life , we are born and doomed to die , why and the hell should all these people do with out and eat shit and die , live your life to the fullest and let thesse rich ass hole pony up for the least among us , this dam country is going ass back word , we need to turn this shit around and get some help for the bottem end of the latter , fuck the top end , there is no shit head rich shit that needs 3 or 4 homes and shit up the yahoo in life well the poor just drag along and finally die

[happyslug]

164. But the "Standard of Need" is $637 for 2008.

Most states finance welfare at less than 100% of the standard of NEED NOT the poverty level. For those states that use the poverty level, no state that I know of gives ANY subsidy for anyone over 100% of the poverty level.

For example, my home state of Pennsylvania has the "Medically Needed only" "MNO" Program. To be eligible for it you MUST be below the following:
APPENDIX G
MONTHLY
MEDICALLY NEEDY INCOME LIMITS
(MNIL)

1 PERSON $408
2 PERSONS $442
3 PERSONS $467
4 PERSONS $567
5 PERSONS $675
6 PERSONS $758

The other medical program is the Non-money Payment plan (NMP) this covers people on SSI and Welfare. Limits are as follows:
1 Person $ 468
2 persons $ 751
3 persons $ 984
4 persons $1225
5 persons $1463
6 persons $1654
Each Additional Person $224

The actual regulations:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter181/chap181toc.html

NOTICE NONE OF THESE EXCEED THE STANDARD OF NEED OF $637 per month (This is also the SSI payment). Basically if you are on SSI you are one welfare Medical coverage. Pennsylvania is considered GENEROUS when it comes to welfare. The South income guideline is even less.

They are other programs (The Healthy Horizon program for the elderly is one) that uses higher cut off, but the above are the most common cut offs in Pennsylvania. Most states have even less programs AND uses lower numbers for eligibility (And Pennsylvania has NOT changed its numbers since 1990 except in regard to SSI, which goes up every year). CHIP is another program that uses higher guidelines.

My point is the Federal poverty level IS ABOVE the level where most states cut off assistance.

Side-note: They is a Federal Program to help hospitals built with federal aid to provide assistance to people who can NOT pay their bills. It helps people NOT eligible for Welfare but can NOT pay their hospital bill. but only kicks in AFTER the patient has run up the bill and been unable to pay the bill (Hill-Burton Act)

[truedelphi]

117. You have clearly never been there done that.

Except maybe as a college student.

First of all where I live, a phone pretty much requires cable. I can go with AT &T for $ 16 a month, but then if I make a few long distance calls which I need to do for my business, I would be spending $ 100 a month w/ AT & T.
So we have opted to go wth the full cable package for $ 100 a month, which includes internet - also needed for business.

If we just did the phone and the internet, we would pay $ 85.00 - the company throws in the TV cable for $ 15 which gives us entertainment- something I can't afford otherwise.

Second of all, If the family is getting 1663 dollars a month, and they get any money, any money at all extra, they won't qualify for anything. (As it is they are exactly at the optimal amount they can apply for any services at.)

Grandma sends one kid twenty bucks for a birthday, etc they qualify for nothing. California right now does insure kids - so this hypothetical family only has two members, the parents, not insured. (The CA program comes from Schrip program and cigarette taxes.)

Second of all, they probably won't get housing costs. You can sign up for Section 8 housing, but there are always waiting lists. SO maybe years from now they will get on.

They may get the $ 200 for food stamps. So you are asking them to go on Food Stamps so they have an extra two hundred to go to the new mandated health insurance. Why not just have the darn government pay the insurance.

But what you are suggesting is the old fashioned Democratic way.

Involve food stamp workers, I guess those people are not making a wage, welfare workers, they don't cost the government anything either, then give the applicant $ 200 in Food Stamps but take it back for the insurance.

Then let's be sure and keep the promise to the insurance executives that they get their 20% off the top of the government mandated health insurance programs - we can't have insurance execs going on Food Stamps can we?

IMHO Revamp the income tax code, tax the rich. Denmark has their entire Nation Single Payer Universal Plan on twelve pieces of paper.

[poisonivy]

136. Oh I was there,

This was back in the mid 90's up till about 2000. I was not a college student, I worked in a factory making seat frames for GM at a supplier making 9 bucks an hour. Take out child support and taxes, there was not a whole lot left for me. Usually under 100.00 a week unless I worked overtime. There was a phone in the boarding house for the residents to use, so no private phone.

I dont know the exact levels for funding as I never applied for them, I just survived and hoped things would turn out better for me. They did when my dad asked me to move back home to help out around the house and I eventually met my wife and got remarried. As far as section 8 housing, there are other programs, (or at least there were years ago when the church I went to owned a house that they would help homeless families out by letting them stay there untill they could get things together) and in the town I live in there is more section 8 housing than need because there are always empty apartments in the complex behind where I live. In bigger cities yea I can see the waiting list problem but I know that certain rental properties ie: houses also qualify under section 8 and a family can live there if the landlord is in the program.

My biggest thing in comparing this country to others is do they have the same population, the same layout as far as country and city living? I dont think you can compare Denmark to the US, and as far as taxing the rich, you can only tax them so much before they start either leaving, hiding their money more than they do now, or whatever other tricks they use before the effects start hitting those of us down here looking up.

Something needs to be done, but, I am not 100% convinced that a federal government ran health care program is the answer.

[raebrek]

234. You remind me of a time when I was in college long ago...

I worked part time and went to school. A time came when money was squeaky tight and I brought home $35.00 a week. It was only me living off of it and after talking to my land lady about it I got her to take the rent weekly. I paid $25.00 a week for rent and that left $10.00 for food. nothing else. I always pity the day my children complain about not having enough money. Then I will tell them that tale. I walked everywhere and I had lots of time to study. That was in the early 80's.

Raebrek!!!

[diane in sf]

121. You would have a credit card because you would have had to use it for crises

on that small income. And you'd end up owing more money than above every month. In fact if you were 4 people living on $24k a year you'd be badly in debt by now and hoping your income would go up.

[poisonivy]

138. Nobody HAS

to have a credit card, I did not have one, now the only ones I have are the ones my wife has. I still have no credit cards and do not want them. I survived this long without one and I am 41 years old, so I dont think I need one.

[truedelphi]

114. Great analysis. But you forgot this: That family

Can just quit going to Aspen in the summer, and the Riviera in the winter.<sarcasm meant>

[pnwmom]

195. Her plan now is nothing like the plan from the early 90's.

Those numbers you're throwing around have no connection to her plan.

[pnwmom]

110. HRC isn't proposing her old plan. She learned from her past mistakes.

Her plan now is virtually the same as Edwards, and she will make it affordable.

[mamameow]

69. source

please give source for your information regarding top rate 28% was dropped to 22%. was this individual or corporation taxes? i think info is full of shit, since i was part of that tax adjustment.

[truedelphi]

76. Two Friday's ago, Bill Moyer had someone on his show

And that guest had a book out. Bill Moyers said something to the effect that the book made him aware of many thing he wasn't aware of President Clinton doing.

the guest responded with the factoid that Buill Clinton had made the first drop in the income tax for the wealthy. From 28% (or maybe it was 29%) down to 22%.

ANd of course, compounding the problem, President Bush continued with the tax cuts for the wealthier. From 22% down to 17 or 18%.

[truedelphi]

81. Here's the skinny on the guest that said that:

David Cay Johnston

With all the talk of change coming out of the campaigns, can we expect big money to lose its grip on Washington? Bill Moyers interviews NEW YORK TIMES investigative reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winner David Cay Johnston who says America's system has been rigged to benefit the super-rich.

Johnston is the best-selling author of PERFECTLY LEGAL: THE COVERT CAMPAIGN TO RIG OUR TAX SYSTEM TO BENEFIT THE SUPER RICH--AND CHEAT EVERYBODY ELSE. Johnston's latest book, FREE LUNCH: HOW THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS ENRICH THEMSELVES AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE AND STICK YOU WITH THE BILL, explores the power of lobbyists and wealthy donors to manipulate government policies such as regulation, taxes, and subsidies to enrich themselves at tax-payers' expense.


There are lots of problems with the government. I've spent my life exposing all sorts of problems with government. But government is fundamentally essential. Government is what creates for us civilization. We created this country so that we could be free, so that we could pursue our lives the way that we want to pursue them. And wealth is a byproduct of that. But the government is being turned into a vehicle not to ensure our liberties and create a level playing field but instead into a vehicle to take from the many to enrich the few.

David Cay Johnston
Born in San Francisco in 1948, David Cay Johnston began his journalism career in 1968 by talking his way into becoming the youngest reporter at the SAN JOSE MERCURY AND NEWS, where he covered local governments, student radicals, and land use. After a three-year stint as an investigative reporter with the DETROIT FREE PRESS, Johnston spent twelve years with the LOS ANGELES TIMES reporting national news, entertainment news, the Los Angeles Police Department and sundry other topics. Beginning in 1988, he reported on the casino industry for the PHILADELPHIA ENQUIRER and briefly served as assistant business editor before joining the NEW YORK TIMES to cover taxes, tax evasion, and the Internal Revenue Service.
Johnston won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting "for his penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms." He had previously been nominated in 2000 and in 2003 was again nominated both for Beat Reporting and National Reporting. That year, he also received recognition by Investigative Reporters and Editors with a Book of The Year award for PERFECTLY LEGAL.

In addition to his reporting, David Cay Johnston studied economics at the University of Chicago graduate school and at six other institutions, earning several years of college credits but no degree because he enrolled primarily in upper level and graduate level courses.

[pnwmom]

98. You're not going to get single payer universal from ANY President soon.

Hillary's plan takes an incremental approach -- people will have the OPTION of joining a government run plan -- but she recognizes that as more and more people do so (due to cost savings and benefits), the private insurers will face stiff competition and may wither away.

The current marginal tax rate on the highest incomes is not 22%. You are referring to the alternative minimum tax. My cousin is an accountant and she has MANY high-income clients who pay much more than that. When you add the top marginal rate (35%) to Social Security and state and local taxes, total income taxes can easily reach into the 40's.

[eridani]

171. Which is as stupid as having a bunch of private fire departments--

--with the "option" of buying into a public fire department. Any plan except single payer amounts to starving the public plan to subsidize private insurance.

[truedelphi]

183. I'm with you on that, eridani.

But then, I don't have to make up excuses on not giving this country citizen's what they need -
I'm not the ones running for office using tens of millions of dollars provided to me by the insurance industries of America.

[truedelphi]

182. It's sort of funny - we can get Congress to pass the Patriot Act overnight

Or go into "helping encourage George W's diplomatic efforts with Saddam Husein" overnight, but let's not allow the citizens of the USA to receive an item that is considered a human right (by most other nations at least.)

And all because of the horrible relationship between campaign financing and how it results in what and how an issue is voted on.

[truedelphi]

185. BTW I wasn't talking about a current highest tax.

I am talking about the sort of tax break that the mega rich have received from both Pres. Clinton and George Bush - the sort of people who don't even worry about Social Sec and its onerous effect on the average salary - because they make a thousand times the cut off point for Social security payments.

I am not talking about anyone whose salary is less than probably a half million or so.

[LiberalFighter]

142. If 15% is on the whole amount for hedge fund managers then maybe I would support that.

Why? Because there isn't one of us that pays a flat 15%, 22% or 28% on their income. Maybe it should be 20% for hedge fund managers.

When you do your taxes this year check the final percentage with your total income.

As to Single Payer. YES!

[DissedByBush]

155. The numbers don't look right

The average high school teacher makes $50,000 (I'm not even counting lower-paid elementary school).

Not counting any deductions, going as single, it's 18% for the teacher and 35% for the billionaire. The deductions will of course lower the percentage for the teacher, but it won't make a difference for the billionaire.

[truedelphi]

179. If the billionaire got his billions through

Managing a hedge fund, then he or she pays only 15%.

[DissedByBush]

202. I get it

The manager, yes there is a loophole in that.

[Terry_M]

87. Why don't we just

cut the huge insurance profits out of this and have a tax for government funded insurance... I mean this would be just like what Hillary plans except with leaving huge insurance industry profits intact.

[creeksneakers2]

105. Hillary has a government plan if one chooses it

If people are willing to pay more for private insurance what's the problem? We have people who choose to pay for private schools and they haven't destroyed the public school system.

[Demeter]

92. Medicare Is Paid for by Its Own Assessment (or Tax, to Use a Blunt Word)

And the tax comes from people who work for wages.

Universal health can can and should be paid out of general taxes--no special assessment, no bilking the lower classes. Make the wealthy pay into the commonwealth, or they won't get any profits.

[dysfunctional press]

172. try to learn the difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE...

they are NOT interchangeable.

[SKKY]

3. "Affordable" by what standards???

Affordable can mean a lot of different things, depending on who you ask.

[Maribelle]

4. That's OK with me. I'm pretty sick of my premiums being increased to pay for the uninsured.

Hillary the other day said health insurance premiums are like paying for car insurance.

Worse. Our's cost more than our 11-year-old monthly mortgage.

[shraby]

8. Health insurance premiums are NOT

like car insurance...if you smoosh your car, the insurance company fixes it. If you get sick, health insurance does not necessarily mean they will pay for your care.

[kcass1954]

11. Health insurance premiums are NOT like car insurance.

Owning a car is optional. If you choose to own one, you must obtain auto insurance.

I'm sick of my health insurance premiums being increased to pay for obscene salaries and bonuses. I have no problem helping out those who are not fortunate to have a decent employer-sponsored plan like I am.

[BearSquirrel2]

13. Like car insurance ...

Like car insurance ... Really ...

My 6 month auto insurance bill is about $270. When I lost my job I was paying about $250 per month on COBRA.

If I could get health insurance for $540 per year, I'd take it. Now if the government will administrate a health plan for that cost with reasonable co-pays and prescription coverage, I'll gladly fork out for it. But forcing me to give my money to private insurers ... that's a recipe for rate increases.

BTW, I do think there would be room for the health insurance industry to do some contracting. I think that internal competition is a good thing and we don't need to make things monolithic. Plus, It will always serve as a reminder to watch people who chose private providers constantly getting screwed by the insurance companies for insured procedures. The most important thing is to standardize the coding and billing procedures so health care providers can have more actual care providers rather than bean counters.

[1monster]

40. I'm about to become unisured. The insurance company is leaving the state.

Currently, I pay $537 per month to insure four people. I have a $2,500 deductible on each family member with NO family aggregate. (And believe me, it has been a very real struggle to pay that amount.)

The deal I was offered in replacement was for three people (my stepdaughter is turning 22 and will no longer be accepted on my family plan). The premium is $1,370 per month with a $3000 deductible and restrictions.

My husband's company does offer insurance for its employees. If I choose to get that insurance, the deductible will be lower, but the premium is over $1,000 per month.

Guess what? I can pay the premimus for insurance on two cars and my mortgage payment and have something around $800 left over for the premiums on health insurance from the one company and $450 left over from the employee health care premium.

We are attempting to find more reasonable coverage, but it isn't easy to find. I've been thinking about AARP (much as I hate that idea), but they won't cover my fifteen year old son. Healthy Kids is a joke, I'm told...

People are not uninsured by choice. They simply have no options to be insured.

Hillary's plan enriches the very people (corporations) who put us in the health care crises to begin with and will impoverish those who are already teetering on the razor's edge.

on edit: sentence structure got a little messed up.

[Cant trust em]

102. Driving a car is a privilege, health care should be a right

I've never really bought that argument that the two are the same thing.

[silverweb]

153. Where'd you get that idea?

That your premiums are "increased to pay for the inunsured"?

The uninsured are entirely on their own and your insurance company has nothing to do with them.

Your mortgage-sized premiums pay for executive perks and bonuses, and shareholder dividends, and that's about it. Decreased benefits and increased premiums benefits the company's bottom line and that's ALL they're concerned with.

[Cleita]

7. This is why we needed Edwards or Kucinich for President, yet

the power brokers have taken that choice from us before the majority of the country had a chance to vote in the primaries. It's business as usual and both Hillary and Obama have unworkable plans that will be shot down with even a Democratic majority in Congress. I hope that Conyers will push for passage of his bill HR 676 that had Kucinich as one of the cosponsors. It is a workable health care plan and they need to convince whoever is the Democratic president not to veto it.

[boricua79]

9. Big mistake

You don't force Americans to HAVE to pay for a health insurance program, ON TOP of having to pay our taxes for other wasteful, corporate-welfare expenditures.

It's time we started spending our tax dollars intelligently. We already have the revenue to begin a meaningful alternative energy program, national infrastructure repair, and universal, single-payer, government run health care plan. We ALREADY HAVE IT. We just keep wasting money on farm subsidies, imperial, bloated military budgets, corporate bailouts, etc.

This is even more insulting than NOT having a health care plan. I won't have my paycheck raided by the government, and I'm a pretty pro-government, "pay taxes for government services" type of guy.

[Auggie]

26. Yes -- could it cost us the election against the Republicans?

Providing it's Clinton vs. McCain?

[UALRBSofL]

29. Under Obama's plan it's a flat rate

Of $2,500 and you can opt out of that but don't get sick because you will be owing. And because I make a million dollars I only pay out $2,500 but if I made $50,000 I still pay out $2,500. This is the flat rate plan which you can opt out of. With Clinton's plan it's income based. No copay involved.

[demo dutch]

64. In every country that has universal healthcare, one pays either thru tax or premiums.My main concern

right now is with Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult. A further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work. Netherlands has the healthiest people on the planet, accoding to the WHO!

[boricua79]

95. I don't support either Obama or Clinton's plan

I support a fully tax paid system. The tax system should be progressive. That way, those that can afford it pay more for the greater good.

My contention still stands: we already have the revenue to fix our problems....but we keep wasting our precious resources on unnecessary things. It's like having a mortgage and blowing all your funds to cover it on strip clubs and Fast-food. After a while, once's wasteful habits come back to bite them. Not being able to wean ourselves of oil or fix our national infrastructure or pay for an intelligent health care plan are our consequences.

[NoodleyAppendage]

104. Keep on shilling...Clinton campaign staffer. Your "girl" f'ed up just admit it.

I'll be so glad when this election is over and you and your cadre of faux DU users go away.

J

[BearSquirrel2]

10. This individual mandate stuff is crap ...

These candidates are clearly taking their cues from the health insurance companies. The plan, force everyone to buy their overpriced plans. Make the health insurance fat cats even fatter.

Nothing will change until we go to a single payer system. You cannot force mothers working two jobs to buy health insurance when they can barely afford their rent, utilities, groceries and putting clothes on their kids' backs.

[creeksneakers2]

107. No

You'd be given the option of buying into a government plan.

[caseycoon]

12. K&R!

[meow2u3]

15. I don't like the idea of mandatory health insurance

any more than I like the idea of mandatory liability insurance for drivers. I think they should repeal any mandatory insurance laws. All it does is line the already fat wallets of the insurance industry.

[pokercat999]

55. My employer has mandatory health insurance. I have my

own very good coverage through my wife's employer but since my new employer enrolled me against my will (it's free) my good insurance will now become my secondary insurance causing me a good deal of grief filling out paperwork and keeping up with two companies. So far I haven't reported the new coverage to my old company and I may not. My lawyer said there were no legal consequences for the with holding of the information but that it may complicate things if they ever find out I have duel coverage.

[closeupready]

16. It's a bad idea, period. I'm just so disappointed in her and this proposal.

Shame on her.

[truedelphi]

84. Ditto. But I didn't expect anything more from her

I feel she's shameful but I can not say I am disappointed.

[ginchinchili]

17. At least she's talking about how to pay for her health care proposal.

We really need to bring down our debt. I haven't heard either candidate speak convincingly on this topic, but I trust Hillary to address it more than I do Obama. Much of Obama's core constituency is not going to be interested in balancing the budget much less lowering the debt.

[water]

18. What's the difference between this and taxes?

[Triana]

28. None. If you WANT a national healthcare system, it's a tax - you pay into it...

..everyone does, just like SS. If you DON'T want such a system - then keep what ya got.

Like it now? Didn't think so.

Anyone ever heard of the NHS? Better research that. What they have in Canada and France. Everyone has to pay in. Everyone is covered. I don't hear them whining so much.

[beezlebum]

46. wouldn't the difference be

that "this" means paying into private for-profit ins co.s?

[truedelphi]

86. You do not hear the whining because the middle income earner

Is not taxed to the bone the way they are here.
Our country lives in the most regressive taxation system on earth.

Pres. Clinton dropped certain 28% taxes on the rich down to 22%. (Didn't receive much press by the way.)

Bush continued the trend and dropped the taxes down to 18%.

A hedge fund manager pays 15%. So does a janitor.

A schoolteacher may end up paying 28%.

In Europe, and Great Britain and Canada, the tax systme is not regressive but progressive.

I am hoping tha Michael Moore's next movie is "TAXED TAXED TAXED - the death of the middle class."

[eridani]

174. They don't whine because they aren't supporting thugs whose reason for existence--

--is denying claims.

[nightrain]

20. Hilllary--keep working on healthcare...

No way would I pay some lousy private insurance company several thousands/year, even if I could afford to. How about SINGLE PAYOR universal coverage?????!!!!

Get real, both Obama and HRC, the reason so many of us don't have health insurance is BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD IT.

Hillary, if health care (insurance) is like car insurance, then have it cost it--mine's about $800/year. I could afford that. What we need is health care service, not insurance.

What we don't need is more transfer of funds to private insurance companies, particularly if it's mandatory.

[bluestateguy]

21. That should only be done as a last resort and only to people with incomes over a certain amount

We should not have a health care system that bosses people around.

[Lars39]

22. So what has to give if you are already paying all you can on medical

bills you've already racked up because you had no freakin' health insurance or had insurance but it had $5,000 deductibles per person for your family?

[Yavapai]

23. I remember when mandatory car insurance was debated in California.

We were told how much cheaper it was going to be when everyone was insured. BULLSHIT!

I guess this is why the insurance industry gave so much to the Clinton Campaign.

[ChazII]

50. That is what we wee told about car insurance

when it was mandated in Arizona.

Color me cynical.

[Triana]

24. for people making min wage trying to pay rent....etc...

...the cost is subsidized. That's what the subsidy is for.

Good fucking GOD - what she's proposing is akin to the NHS in France and the system in Canada - and guess what - THEY WORK!

The lamestream media is trying to scare everyone with this "Oh Hillary is gonna garnish our wages!" RIGHT-WING talking point boogeyman - and Obama is right behind them - pushing the same rightwingnut boogeyman talking point that "mandates are eeevil". If you want a NATIONAL healthcare system that WORKS - they are a MUST.

Get a CLUE people and stop whining and drinking the lamestream media propaganda kool-aid! Jeeze.

[eridani]

175. It is nothing like national health care. There is no money for subsidies--

--not with her bullshit support of the military industrial complex which is financing her campaign.

[Timmy5835]

25. NO new taxes are necessary

We are NOW spending around 5 billion dollars a month in Iraq. I don't think paying for universal health care with existing funds would be much of a problem.

[Triana]

31. Great point! And a much better use of that money! (n/t)

[Xithras]

67. Iraq is 100% debt spending.

There is no money for Iraq except that which has been borrowed. Why do you think the national debt has been skyrocketing lately?

I support UHC, but any universal care plan needs to be fully funded and not based on additional debt.

[OHdem10]

27. At the present time for people on Medicare the payment

is taken out of Social Security Check. If one wants to strain the
point this can be called garnishing. I have never heard anyone
complain about this.

[Triana]

30. EXACTLY! Thank you (n/t)

[DB1]

37. Medicare is an option folks. Hillarys idea is a mandate.

[peacock]

33. Only Republicans

[creeksneakers2]

43. My employer takes a deduction from my check for my health

care. Almost everybody contributes something already. Why should people who choose not to have insurance be allowed to avoid paying?

[beezlebum]

53. um...

it's not choosing to "not have health insurance." people aren't just avoiding paying b/c they don't wanna sacrifice their "extra" (HA) income

there is that part of the middle class who are falling through the cracks- they make too much money to qualify for assistance (and a mere $20 a month can place one in that category, as i've personally experienced), and yet they don't make enough money to afford health coverage.

i was in that boat for the better part of this past decade and it was a nightmare, especially when i got sick, and then again when i was diagnosed with a debilitating illness, but was told that medicaid would not help with therapies or surgeries that could stave off my disease and possibly save me from the blindness i am currently facing b/c i was not sick enough or poor enough to qualify.

no, it has never been about choosing to not have health coverage. and contrary to mrs. clinton's rhetoric, it is not like car insurance- i shudder to think of a human being, already shell shocked from years of not being able to see a doctor and worrying what would happen if there was an accident, having to choose between "liability" and "full coverage."

all this tells me is that hillary clinton and barack obama will do nothing for the healthcare crisis. big co's will continue to profit while people continue to suffer.

[creeksneakers2]

71. There are lots of people who have no choice now

but there wouldn't be under Hillary's plans. Policies would be subsidized so that everybody could afford and get health insurance. That leaves only those who can afford but still CHOOSE not to pay.

I'm very sorry to hear about the problems you have. I've said a prayer for you.

[flyarm]

32. Obama is touting his plan as universal helath care and it is not..

he promises stuff and it is nothing but bullshit to begin with...

The Edwards Effect


By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 1, 2008



If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals -- and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

It's hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system -- a k a Medicare for all -- but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans -- a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.

Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party's base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there's little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.




Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn't actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.


Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

[Alexander]

34. Who in their right mind would support this proposal?

Maybe someone in their "right" mind.

[DB1]

38. Nobody.

[demo dutch]

63. In every country that has universal healthcare, one pays either thru tax or premiums.My main concern

right now is with Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult. A further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work. Netherlands has the healthiest people on the planet, accoding to the WHO!

[George II]

35. Amazing...

Now people are attacking Clinton's concept of a health care plan based on ONE sentence in a Sunday morning interview? UNBELIEVABLE!!!

[DB1]

39. Words matter.... this election, sorry you are offended.

[George II]

49. Words matter?

An off-the-cuff response to a single question brings scrutiny in choosing perhaps the most powerful leader in the world?

[DB1]

51. Yes.

[George II]

94. No.

[PassingFair]

78. She stepped in it.

Maybe she can wipe it off before November.

I HOPE so.

[AngryOldDem]

230. You bet they do. n/t

[demo dutch]

60. In every country that has universal healthcare, one pays either thru tax or premiums.My main concern

right now is with Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult. A further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work. Netherlands has the healthiest people on the planet, accoding to the WHO!

[DB1]

68. They also pay 65% tax rate if I recall correctly. USA won't go for that.

Reality always raises it's ugly head here in the "homeland".

[truedelphi]

88. Maybe after Michael Moore's next film

"TAXED TAXED TAXED - how the average pay everything and the rich pay little"

We will get a more progressive income situation in this country.

[demo dutch]

151. You get what you pay for! I lived in both countries and healthcare works there!

[bluerum]

42. I saw Micheal Moore's Sicko this weekend for the first time. If France,

Canada and England can provide universal coverage for their citizens, why can't the United States?

This is a rhetorical question as I know why - health insurance and pharma industries have bought our politicians.

The big question will be, if citizens are forced to pay insurance companies for care, will the insurance companies stop refusing coverage because of expense? My sense is perhaps, for a while. Then they will slowly start cutting care to save money and fatten profits.

[creeksneakers2]

45. I think the people in those countries have to kick in something too.

[bluerum]

75. Of course they do - it's called taxes. I certainly did not mean to imply it

was free. Just that it is universal and administered by the government. The UK started their program 1948. I suspect that they have worked out a few of the bugs by now.

[fshrink]

44. Above a minimum, you earn, you pay for the pot.

Proportionally. It's just fair. What the fuck is so complicated or scary about that?

[Yuugal]

48. Here we go again

Those evil people who refuse to insure themselves will of course be minimum wage earners or people without a job. They will have their food money stolen to be given to ins companies and they still wont have health coverage because they can't afford the co-pay and deductibles. Its all a crock of shit to pay back the millions in campaign contributions she got from these crooks.

Then the fun part will come. Fines given to poor people for being poor, tickets/arrest for not "complying", wage "garnishments" to pay for CEO's hundred million dollar salaries.....

God help the poor immigrants. Signing up will be too risky and so will be getting sick.

[beezlebum]

56. scary

well said

[ohio2007]

54. tapping pay ? is that what they are going to call a health care TAX ?

nt

[demo dutch]

57. In every country that has universal healthcare, one pays either thru tax or premiums. My main

concern right now is with Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult. A further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work. Netherlands has the healthiest people on the planet, accoding to the WHO!

[high density]

58. That means she's raising your taxes!!

Sorry, but this ain't gunna fly.

[demo dutch]

61. In every country that has universal healthcare, one pays either thru tax or premiums.

[high density]

65. That may be true, but with a simpleton voting public like ours

she needs to keep any of this stuff on the down low until after she's elected. Otherwise it's just "The Democrats always raise your taxes" fodder for the Republicans. In fact, I think she's lucky this headline from the AP didn't say something like, "Clinton to impose taxes to pay for healthcare" or something like that.

[Robeson]

59. How about tapping into the Pentagon's budget....

...oh, I forgot, that sacrosanct.

[IndianaGreen]

89. Single Payer is affordable if we give up the idea of empire

and return to America's republican roots.

Hillary is a shill for the health care industry, and she will pursue empire with renewed vigor.

[BlueJac]

62. That sounds like GW BUSH..........

Keep fucking the people over and over again for hugh HMOs and corporation profits.. Universal health care for all is the only way.

Fucking idiots thinking that making a poor person pay for health insurance is a immoral value. We pay enough on wars and killing to cover ours sellves very easily.

This is a liberal site..........I have my doubts from all I have been reading.

No wonder I feel that I don't belong here.


More of the past is just more failure.

[demo dutch]

66. In every country that has universal healthcare, one pays either thru tax or premiums.My main concern

right now is with Obama’s rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he’s making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult. A further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Other countries — notably Switzerland and the Netherlands — already have such mandates. And guess what? They work. Netherlands has the healthiest people on the planet, accoding to the WHO!

[maximusveritas]

83. Stop plagiarizing Krugman

or at least give him some credit for that BS.

[demo dutch]

150. Not BS, I lived in both countries and Healthcare works there!

[KamaAina]

70. So if it ends up being a Clinton-Romney race...

...the difference would be that the Dem would garnish workers' pay, and the repuke would only fine them. Jebus H. Christ on a trailer hitch.

GOBAMA!!!

[Locrian]

74. corporate masters

What a windfall for the death care industry. A payback to her corporate masters for sure.

This is NOT about people contributing to the overall good - if that was true we would have single payer or non-profit gov regulated health care. This is about a guarantee stream of PROFITS for an industry.

[OHdem10]

77. Most of the comments sound as if they come from people who

have Health Insurance --- Just keep your Insurance and do what
you do now. I believe in most cases the employers deduct your
part of the Premium. Continue on and be happy.

This is for people who have no insurance and want to join the
Congressional plan. Just as the empoyers deduct for people
who have insurance--now Empoyers who do not offer Insurance
will be the collector for the Congressional Plan.

There is no such thing as free health care. In Canada they
collect for Health Care in your taxes. you pay a certain %
in your taxes for Health Care.

[truedelphi]

82. Canada does not have the regressive

Tax system that we have in the USA. Let's not compare apples to oranges.

In Canada, the hedge fund managers are paying far more than the 15% taxation rate that is faced here.

In Canada,if you have tens of millions of dollars of discretionarty income, you don't get off cheap.

We need re-structuring of the whole income tax.

[SusanLarson]

79. Just look at what happened with mandatory auto insurance.

It was promised that if everyone had to have insurance rates would be significant lower for everyone, if everyone had insurance; what we saw instead is that auto insurance rates have continued to go up and up and up with no end in sight.

What mandatory insurance does either health or auto is it lets the insurance companies gouge everyone. They know that with mandatory insurance that you realistically have no place to go. Yes they might lose your business to another gouging company, but they will likely gain just as many back who are dissatisfied with the other companies.


For profit companies MUST constantly increase their rates to generate higher and higher profits for their share holders. It's their sole purpose under the law. As long as for profit companies are involved your rates WILL continue to rise each and every year of your life.

Mandatory coverage is not the answer. Single payer is.

I will not vote for anyone who mandates that you purchase for-profit insurance coverage, Democrat or not. That includes Hillary...

[usregimechange]

80. This would cost us the general election, good thing we have Obama

[Onlooker]

85. And Obama will fine people

I don't think one is particularly worse than the other. I think the US garnishes wages right now when people refuse to pay their taxes. So, if we have a health tax, what do you expect?

That said, it would be curious to find out why this issue was originally posted since it's really just political. If the Clinton campaign was smarter, they would have put a meme that said Obama is going to fine people who don't have insurance.

[IndieLeft]

122. Obama's plan will not fine. Why?

It was in some of the debates. Why fine someone who can't afford the health plan? He believes that if they can't afford it then it has to be brought down so that people can afford it so that they will buy it. It makes sense that if you can't afford it and you get fined then it is enforcing penalty for not being able to afford it. How much sense does that make?

Obama wants to enforce transparency by showing health care meetings on CSPAN. Hillary parroted transparency but we know she has never been transparent about anything. She was called on the carpet about her secret closed door meetings.

This is why judgment is more affective than just experience. You want someone who is thinking this through with people and their conditions in mind.

[kerstin]

93. Did I take a turn to the right on the way to DU today?

:wtf:

[BlueJac]

135. Sorry.......

This looks like the new DU...............

Twilight zone, mirrors the rightwing "me society"

[Sarah Ibarruri]

99. What I want is for the tax schedule to be changed so the middle class get taxed less and the rich ..

more.

[TheCowsCameHome]

101. Garnish - now there's a less than pleasant word.

I don't like the smell of this...............

[ixion]

106. garnish my wages?

gee, I just found another reason why I really don't like Hillary Clinton.

[HEyHEY]

111. Hold up, does this mean universal healthcare provided by the government?

Cause, if so, that's fine - sort of. My issue is if she's gonna force you to buy from a private enterprise

[ursi]

227. that is exactly what I fear ...which private enterprise has given her $$$?

Aw, well, I've always said one good death-indusing epidemic will fix most of our healthcare issues and fights ...

[diane in sf]

118. Who's going to decide if someone can "afford" to buy health insurance.

People aren't buying it now because they can't afford it. Yeeeeeeeeshhh! This sounds like the toxic mimic of what a health care program should be or maybe it's Repug scare-mongering about her program...



edit for typo

[IndieLeft]

120. How does Clinton know who can afford her plan or not?

This is what roils me. To achieve her means she is going to enforce her will on people she has no clue can afford health care. How does Clinton know the conditions of a family? To make her point that everyone will have it, she is going to be an enforcer? That is not presidential. She expects people to go along without knowing what kind of condition the average family is in.

This is old world politics. This is why Obama is surging.

I caught on to her when she voted for the war, when she voted for the bankruptcy bill, when she voted for the kyle/lieberman amendment.

Obama for president. Yes we can!

[cottonseed]

159. Seems she having a harder and harder time selling her plan.

And this is supposedly what she's been working on her entire career.

[Tarc]

124. Funny how most WANT health care for all, UNLESS

they are called to make some sort of sacrifice or contribution. This is emblematic of Team Obama; self-centered, narcissistic and only giving a damn about themselves and about his rabid cult of personality.

Guess there was more to his pining away for Ronnie Reagan a few weeks back after all; he and his followers sure do embrace that "its all about me" attitude of the go-go-80's.

[IndieLeft]

133. Obama is self-centered? There is a "We" in Yes WE can

Clinton is stating that she would perhaps garnish wages? Are you just looking at Obama and not at what he says? If you don't like the way he looks don't knock his policies with what you believe he is like without giving us policy information. Give substance.

Here is substance for you. He didn't vote for the war. He didn't vote for the bankruptcy bill. He didn't vote for the Kyle/Lieberman amendment.

Clinton voted for all three. That's substance and fact.

Yes, WE can!!!

[nodehopper]

219. he, along with Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the spineless Dems

bent over and voted to fund the troops without a timeline for withdrawal. I am so sick of hearing of how committed to ending the war he is.

[Robeson]

200. I repeat: Why doesn't the Pentagon have to make a sacrifice?

[California Griz]

126. I think she may have just cost herself the nomination

This isn't going to play well.

[Quantess]

127. That's no good. (eom)

[electron_blue]

130. Mine is already being 'garnished' by my employer. I'm interested in the unintended

consequences of this.

[LiberalFighter]

134. You did read the part about applying only to workers who can afford health coverage?

Personally, I don't agree with Clinton's or Obama's plan. Rather, coverage should be provided by the government via taxes and insurance companies locked out of this plan. Along with the savings from bypassing the insurance companies the costs would be reduced on average for each person. Many businesses pay more as a result of spouses employed elsewhere. Those spouses may elect to use the insurance from the major employer therefore reducing business expenses at the spouse's place of employment.

[IndieLeft]

146. Still... how does she know what people can afford?

Is she looking at their income? Or does she even consider the cost a family can incur beyond an assess of their wages? It seems to me each family would make the assessment regarding what's affordable and what's not affordable...

[LiberalFighter]

152. That's why Single Payer is needed

[MountainLaurel]

226. That's my question

I worry this could end up like the mess that people trying to obtain certain kinds of government disability find themselves in, where they must divest themselves of all assets (including houses and cars), as a friend's father did in order to get government-funded long-term care. (He has MS and is completely bedridden.) Or, on paper it look like my husband and I could afford health insurance based on our wages and the fact that we have no dependents. But if we're talking the $900/month Mr. L's health insurance provider wanted in order to cover me, there's no way in hell.

[ursi]

147. LiberalFighter, I did see that part ...I am not saying this is right or wrong, not enough details

yet the MSM stands on sound bites to scare the crap out of everyone.

I worry about my own family members. I have one son who works on a ranch in Idaho. Makes about 7.50 an hour because he loves working with horses and cattle. No insurance. He ended up with infected tonsils a few months ago. No insurance, like I said. He's stuck paying for about $6,000. in emergency surgery and a 2 days stay in the hospital. That may not seem like a lot of money for a bill but he doesn't have a car loan at this time but drives a junker. He's one step away from a disaster if he gets sick again with the high payments he has to make to the hospital and surgeon for that visit.

I don't know how people make it these days sometimes. It's a big picture problem in this country.

[IndieLeft]

149. Amen

I'm glad your son is back on his feet. It is a problem and I'm hoping that who ever is the nominee on the Democratic side will be able to fix it but it definitely has to practical. It's like Rhandi Rhodes said, "Don't get sick". Because if you do, the bill is the knock out punch for most poor.

[someone else]

137. Whose checks does she tap to pay for illegal's coverage?

N/T

[Thothmes]

214. Every one's on April the 15th

[Baby Snooks]

140. A vote for Hillary is a vote for oligarchy

When are people going to wake up to the reality of Hillary Rodham Clinton? Her plan will serve only the interests of the health care industry. Not the American people.

If you vote for her and she becomes president I hope you remember you voted for her when you are sitting in the dark one night because you couldn't pay the light bill because of the "universal health care deduction" she had taken from your paycheck.

Of course if it happens in winter, if you catch pneumonia you will at least be able to get into a hospital because you will have insurance.

The only difference between oligarchy and communism is that in oligarchy the state is the corporation.

And she serves the state/corporation well.

[girl gone mad]

141. It will be hard for her to get elected..

on this platform.

[wildflowergardener]

144. car

I don't think comparing this to mandatory car insurance is a fair comparison. Last year I had someone hit me from behind. Car Insurance is mandatory in Missouri. This person, however had let their car insurance expire - and I am stuck with the situation that I can not afford to get my car fixed because I have to pay a $500 deductible. If she'd had insurance, her insurance would have paid to get my car fixed. I don't care whether people insure their own cars but it's important that they insure damage to other's cars because why should I have to pay for them hitting me.

The insurance company says they will try to collect my money for me, but I'm not holding my breath as I've not seen anything yet.

On the other hand with health insurance, someone else not getting health insurance isn't going to affect another person like not having car insurance will. I understand the point about getting costs down, but until we have some idea of how much the mandatory insurance will cost, I don't see how we can possibly make an informed decision to vote for someone who is going to mandate it.

Meg

[KoKo]

145. Absolutely...GARNISH THE WAGES...but I think this is OTT Spin...

:shrug:

[lynne]

177. She has shot herself in the foot with that statement -

- and has effectively lost the election should she win the nomination.

[JeanGrey]

178. Oh God help us all.......................This is NEVER GOING to

work as long as insurance companies and drug companies have profit.

[dawgman]

192. Here is a simple plan that doesn't screw anyone

How about we reduce "defense" (aka war department) spending by the amount necessary to insure every person in the country.

Simple and no one's wages need be garnished.

[OKthatsIT]

238. with HILLARY as PRESIDENT? That's a laugh.

What a joke..she has every intention of continuing our US defense and surveillence profiteering.

[loveangelc]

204. This must not happen.

[sarcasmo]

216. Corporate Whore, garnish your own pay.

Oh wait, you don't need anymore money.

[closeupready]

217. I don't understand how she can talk about garnishing wages when food, oil,taxes have all gone way up

over the last 8 years. Further, the dollar is plummeting in value. The American consumer has a bottomless pocket of cash. Who knew.

[primavera]

224. Not her problem

Typical repuke thinking: don't give any thought to how people are supposed to pay for stuff, just devise coersive measures to make 'em pay. People don't have jobs and are losing their homes? Well, toss 'em in the klink, that'll show those deadbeats. :eyes:

[amborin]

222. you're repeating rethug talking points

that's the kind of stuff the rethugs like to spew

fact is, without Clinton's plan---which insists that all participate---we'll all continue to pay higher and higher costs for health care, since the uninsured show up in the ER

having the uninsured in the ER not only costs way more, it also increases the wait times for the legitimately acutely ill, and puts extra burden on our facilities

[SoCalDem]

231. ANY plan will do that..

Just eliminate insurance companies, and make medicare for everyone..

Make hospitals non-profits..and mandate low cost for life-saving drugs (universal coverage MUST include drugs & I don't want my government getting ripped off)

Just copy Canada, dammit.. Their plan works..

[DainBramaged]

235. Wow you realize it's just a concept, but it's worthy of continued discussion?

Gee, could we be talking about the big

G

word

GARNISHMENT

?????? My goodness it doesn't stop. I thought you folks would move on to her crying or something else derogatory, but I guess you haven't beaten this dead horse enough yet.

Oh, and I'm sure she'll coerce Congress to see it her way over a year from now.:scared:

[AlphaCentauri]

239. "With her proposals for subsidies" Universal Insurance or Universal Health care?

The insurance companies must be counting the minutes to make everybody pay them for 80% health coverage. Instead of subsidizing insurance companies why not create a government run health care provider to compete with insurance companies.