FDR garnished people's wages

[MonkeyFunk]

and created Social Security, the most successful government program of all time.

[Kitsune]

1. FDR didn't garnish wages to hand said wages over to price-gouging insurance companies *nt*

[OhioChick]

4. Good Argument. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

6. No, he handed it over to the government

who has used SS as it's own personal slush fund.

If every person in this country has health insurance the price of health insurance will be forced down significantly.

Is it the best possible solution....no, but it's a start and we can't get single payer health care in this country right now.

[Kitsune]

9. "If everyone has health insurance the price will go down."

Yes, just like how if everyone has to buy gasoline, the price will go down.

Hillary's plan is nothing more than a colossal payout to the insurance companies that have bought her off.

[MonkeyFunk]

10. No

it's an attempt to address a serious problem.

You can scream all you want for government single-payer insurance for all Americans, but you're not going to get it.

Clinton is smart enough to know that, so she's trying to address the problem in a way that IS politically feasible.

[Kitsune]

14. Forcing me to pay a private company for health insurance is not addressing the problem.

They are still going to deny claims left and right because they will still be out to make the maximum profit possible.

[BlackVelvet04]

33. No, they won't be allowed to....

that's part of the program. They CAN'T exclude pre-existing conditions, they can't deny claims, they will be regulated.

[no name no slogan]

18. You don't start negotiating with an offer of what you'll settle for

You start out by asking for more than what you expect.

By starting the debate from the least acceptable option, you are effectively shutting out your ideal solution.

If you want a raise of $1.00 and hour, and can accept one of $.50 an hour, you don't start out asking for a raise of $.25 and hour, and hope you can get up to $.50 an hour.

[MonkeyFunk]

19. Not in this case

first, Clinton's plan isn't just a subset of single-payer. It's an entirely different paradigm. The plan needs to be thought out and explained. You don't just ask for single-payer, they say no, and then fall back to this. It's entirely different.

Second, as an electoral issue, she (or any other candidate) would lose pushing single-payer.

[no name no slogan]

25. No they wouldn't. American people WANT a government-sponsored single-payer plan

They do NOT want any more public/private schemes that give more money to insurance companies.

Unfortunately, most of our politicians are too afraid to ask for that, for risk of offending Corporate Insurance, who make huge contributions on both sides of the aisle.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

29. Through election-losing "mandates", nt

[BlackVelvet04]

11. oh bullshit. n/t

[mondo joe]

13. False analogy about gas. I don't know why you'd make it.

Increased use of gas decreases the supply.

Increased access to health care decreases the cost by preventing later, more expensive, interventions.

Gas has a finite supply. Health care not so.

[Kitsune]

15. I will admit it is not the best analogy.

I plead too much blood in my caffeine system at this early hour :P

However, increased access to healthcare is not going to cause premiums to go down. You're assuming that the insurance companies are, y'know, on the level. They're not. If the costs go down, they're just going to pocket the difference.

[mondo joe]

16. I don't assume premiums wll go down. There will need to be additional work done.

:-)

[BearSquirrel2]

42. The supply of health care is kinda fixed ...

Short term, the supply of health care is fixed. Long term, it is flexible as it is just an issue of how many people choose to work in the healthcare industry. Increased demand for health care providers will result in more jobs, higher wages and ultimately more health care providers.

Increased demand for a commodity results in higher prices. This results in increased efforts to harvest commodities. However, natural gas is ultimately a finite resource. We can mine more, pump more, but as we mine we find it gets harder and harder to get to and more expensive.

[no name no slogan]

21. Just ask MA. They've had to do it TWICE in two decades

In 1988, Dukakis enacted health insurance mandates that would supposedly make sure MA had "universal" health insurance.

It worked so well that Romney had to do the same thing, 18 years later. And still, there isn't universal coverage in MA, but there is a huge unfunded mandate.

More mandated "insurance" isn't the solution.

[MonkeyFunk]

23. what politically feasible solution

do you propose?

[no name no slogan]

32. HR 676

Take Medicare (a very efficient, popular government health care program) and expand it to cover everybody.

http://www.hr676.org

[MonkeyFunk]

39. And tell

people they have to give up their current insurance?

That's not politically feasible.

[no name no slogan]

45. How did they do it with SS, then?

It CAN be done. The question is, do our politicians have the will and courage to do it?

[BearSquirrel2]

43. SCHIP ...

I believe this was the purpose of SCHIP. Ramp of the program for a segment of the population which you can get people knocked out congress for voting against. Once the parents see how well or how poor the implementation is, they can decide whether they want it universally.

THIS IS WHY I believe that Republicans were so dead set against it. It's universal health care light and they know full well that citizens in foreign countries who have universal health care really like it. Likely we would do a good job with SCHIP as well.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

28. No need to compare with gas even, look at auto insurance.

Not cheaper because everyone has to have it. Mine goes up every year.

[Greyhound]

35. My brain almost split in two after reading that non sequitor.

"If every person in this country has health insurance the price of health insurance will be forced down significantly."
Kind of like darboy's thread/proposal to end world hunger. Just mandate that every body buy enough food.

[Karmadillo]

2. OMG!!! Can he still be impeached?????

nt

[MADem]

3. !!!

:rofl:

:thumbsup:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. I'll try to remember that when the GOP is running the attack ads about "MANDATORY HILLARYCARE!!1!"

Complete with clips of her talking about "automatic enrollment" "going after people's wages" and (from an earlier talk show appearance) "I can see a time when you have to prove you have health insurance to get a job."


No one needs yet another explanation of the rationale behind the mandate. The point is, we will lose the general election over this.

It's the "Death Tax" on steroids. To this day, I run into people who think that Uncle Sam is going to take 1/2 of the $50000 they want to leave to their grandkids.

[sandnsea]

7. He set a 1.5% tax

If Hillary set a small tax and sent everybody a 100% health care card, then she could talk about universal health care.

[MonkeyFunk]

8. The issue is that

the majority of Americans who currently have coverage are happy with that coverage, and don't want to change it.

She's trying to address the problem of people with no coverage.

[sandnsea]

34. Really??

Do tell.

The problem for people with no coverage is that it costs too freakin' much and subsidies for tax credits doesn't address that problem at all.

From one who actually has real subsidized health insurance, her plan SUCKS.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. Again

scream all you want for government-funded single-payer, but you're not gonna get it anytime soon.

In the meantime, this addresses the problem for a lot of people.

[MoonRiver]

12. Oh no, you're gonna take Obamaniacs down the cognitive dissonance hole!

:nuke:

[PassingFair]

17. A serving suggestion:

She just stepped in it BIG TIME.

Try THIS garnish:

[MonkeyFunk]

22. No she didn't

that's silly.

You think single-payer would be MORE popular? Forcing everyone in the country to give up their current insurance and go with a government plan? That's exceedingly naive.

Plus, people are going to pay one way or the other. I don't know why people here think single-payer comes for free.

[Occam Bandage]

20. And I would be perfectly happy with a tax-supported single-payer system.

[MonkeyFunk]

24. I would, too

but most Americans wouldn't.

[Occam Bandage]

36. My problem with Hillary's plan isn't in the garnishment of wages exactly.

I believe that coverage needs to be universal--not because people are uncovered oh noes in Obama's plan, but to ensure that the entire risk pool is paying into the system. However, I don't believe that Hillary's mandates are actually enforceable. Three problems:

1. Detection of noncompliance. Many uncovered are also self-employed, are contractors working for cash under the table, or are small-business employees. I haven't seen a proposed detection mechanism that catches these people *before* they show up at hospitals. Adding it as a line to tax returns, perhaps--but actually verifying the extent and validity of coverage for every return in America would be unfeasible, I think.

2. Retribution of noncompliance. Frankly, there has to be a punitive aspect; otherwise, there's no incentive not to remain uncovered. The problem is that this is going to lead to horror stories in which impoverished people are hit with crippling fines as the breadwinner is taken out of the workforce. It seems that there's no middle ground between "toothless" and "draconian" fines--and, in fact, I'd guess those two categories overlap in reality.

3. Forcible compliance. This is where the Republicans make their stand in Congress. As the great "garnish" flamewar shows, even Democrats are iffy on the idea of the government taking your wages to give to companies. Republicans? Eesh. Plus, this requires additional bureaucracy to keep tabs on each noncompliant worker--and when we get to the self-employed, and those paid in cash, we have similar issues. It's like child-support enforcement, only with far more people to be concerned about, and without a strong public moral pressure to enforce noncompliance.

I think mandates are a looming disaster, and threaten to torpedo the entire plan, half due to actual problems, and half due to perceptual problems.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

26. Me too!

They can garnish my wages for that any day! Hell, they don't even have to do that, considering that we already spend $8000 per capita on healthcare as it is. That money would easily provide single payer coverage to every adult and child in the U.S.

[Armstead]

27. Um, if Universal Health Care were like Social Security, it wouldn't be the issue

The fundamental purpose of Social Security is a universally funded safety net run by the government.

You know what happens whenever there are plans to privatize Social Security?

Unfortunately, mandated private health insurance (even with the so-called protections) is the equivalent of privatized Social Security.

[Bluerthanblue]

30. this answer says all that needs to be said on this issue.-

:hi:
Good Job Armstead- well said.

peace~

[MonkeyFunk]

31. So all the outrage here is NOT actually about mandates...

gotcha.

[Armstead]

37. For me it's about ridiculous mandates

There is only one way that mandates would make sense, which is as a tax such as Social Security and Medicare for a truly universal government-run healthcare system like Medicare.

Forcing people to buy private insurance is the worst of both the Nanny State and Corporatism.

[Indenturedebtor]

38. Um

Yeah it is. Mandates won't fly well in teh GE, and please see everything else said in this thread ;)

Oh and one little bit of infomation: Obama hasn't taken any money from Insurance companies. HRC has.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. and requiring everybody

to give up their current plans and join a government run plan is a political winner?

[Occam Bandage]

46. Single-payer coverage does not necessarily prohibit private coverage.

See Canada, for example.

[BootinUp]

44. That rat BASTARD!!!

lol.