In which I explain my problem with Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan.

[Occam Bandage]

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.

[dkf]

1. Hillary Clinton will lose to John McCain on this issue alone.

[sandnsea]

2. That's precisely right

It is like saying child support is universally paid because it's mandated. How ridiculous.

[ThatPoetGuy]

3. Did I read this part correctly?

"people are uncovered oh noes in Obama's plan"

It looks like you're mocking the millions of poor people who will be denied medical coverage in Obama's plan.

[Occam Bandage]

4. Nobody will be "denied" medical coverage under Obama's plan, any more than they will be

under Clinton's. Nobody who seeks coverage will fail to acquire it.

[ThatPoetGuy]

6. So what were you saying...

with your "oh noes"?

"people are uncovered oh noes in Obama's plan"

That sounds like contempt.

And yes, if Hillary becomes President, there will be a perceptual problem. We can thank Barack Obama for creating it.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Yep, that was contempt - contempt for the intellectually dishonest

who claim that Obama is denying coverage for people. Frankly, the people who don't want to be covered will attempt to remain uncovered under both Obama and Clinton. See OP for why I believe Clinton's plan is inadequate.

Blaming Obama? That's a hell of a stretch. People on the right don't like nanny-statism, and people on the left don't like government-sponsored corporatism. Obama created neither of these problems; Clinton walked right into this briar patch on her own.

[ThatPoetGuy]

8. "intellectually dishonest"

Hmm, let's see -- "people are uncovered oh noes in Obama's plan"

no, that's not contempt for the intellectually dishonest. That's contempt for the people who won't have access to medical care under his plan.

Claiming it's contempt for the intellectually dishonest -- now THAT'S dishonest.

---

I'm an Edwards supporter and I haven't made up my mind yet about what I'm going to do. It was an article in Time or Newsweek last year that made me an Edwards supporter. There was a lot in the article, but one thing struck me in particular.

Edwards had a supporter with him. A miner. This guy had been born mute. In his thirties, an operation became available that could have fixed his palate and allowed him to speak. But he couldn't afford the operation, because being mute prevented him from earning much money. He couldn't even work his way up to a supervisory position in the mine.

So years went by, and he still couldn't speak. And years turned into decades.

When he was in his fifties, a nonprofit group at a state fair became aware of his problem, and they fixed it for free.

This man was mute for fifty years. Because he couldn't afford a five thousand dollar operation.

It's horrible that this happens in America, but it does. Obama's plan -- and Obama's supporters, like yourself -- have shown no interest in helping people like that guy. Poor people are uncovered, "oh noes," they don't really matter anyway.

[Occam Bandage]

9. LIke I said: nobody is denied coverage under Obama's plan. Nobody. His assistance for the poor

is identical to Clinton's. If you aren't covered, it's because you refuse to be covered--and Hillary's mandates won't do shit about that.

[ThatPoetGuy]

11. You seriously don't see anything wrong with mocking people who are poor and sick?

That's what you did in your OP.

Oh noes, they won't have coverage.

"The fact of the matter is, I do provide universal health care," said Obama. It was just another lie. Even his own, paid defenders say his plan will cover "98%" of Americans -- that statistic is deliberate deception, like everything else Obama has said on this subject. Covering 98% of Americans will leave six million poor people without coverage. 98% sounds a lot better than six million poor people left out.

(Six million poor people without any guarantee of health coverage -- oh noes, right?)

If the debates right now were between Hillary and Edwards, they'd both be talking about how much better all our lives will be if we had universal health care. Instead we have Barack Obama lying about his own plan and keeping the discussion on "mandates" rather than universal health care. It was his decision to defend his policy by mouthing these right-wing talking points. He's a divider, not a uniter. He brings fear, not hope.

[Occam Bandage]

12. I can only now assume that your failure to understand is deliberate.

The poor and sick are exactly as covered under Obama and Clinton--under both, health care costs the same, and is equally available to all. Clinton simply makes the coverage mandatory.

I was mocking the idiots like you who pretend that isn't the case.

[ThatPoetGuy]

14. I have to wonder if all Obama supporters are sociopaths.

Mocking the poor and the sick is repellent. And yes, that's what you did in your OP. You mocked the poor and the sick.

"people are uncovered oh noes"

As of yet, I haven't seen anything from an Obama supporter that suggests they are in any way more decent than Bush supporters.

[Occam Bandage]

16. Utter dishonesty. I suppose this is all you have.

:eyes:

Clearly wasn't mocking the poor or the sick. Mocking people like you.

[dsc]

5. The money presumedly would be given to the government

not insurance companies. The people who refused to enroll would be enrolled in the government plan. The 'fines' would be no different at all in what we have now. Go to the hospital uninsured and pay the bill, if you can't get your wages garnished.

[Bluenorthwest]

10. Obama is not honest about his plan, or is at least confusing

He says it is voluntary, but also that everyone will volunteer and that those who do not would be 'gaming the system' if they wait for a medcal need to arise before signing up. He said at the last debate that those 'gaming the system' would be fined or perhaps billed for back premiums. So it is voluntary, but if you don't volunteer you are a cheat and will pay for that. Which means it is mandatory.
Those who do not volunteer will be punished. That is not voluntary.
His plan lets people put it off a bit, but at some point it is buy or pay back premiums or fines, acording to Obama at the Kodak. So what is the huge difference between the two things, as you see it Obama supporters? I don't see much difference.
Also, can Obama make it so I don't have to buy auto insurance until I have a claim? Or is insurance always purchased in advance of need?

[paulk]

13. well, Obama has been told by his advisors that calling it a

"mandate" is political suicide. So you call it something else, like - "voluntary until you get hurt, then you have to pay for it"

Until then, you and your supporters make sure that calling it a mandate is political suicide.


--------------------

[Barack_America]

15. She didn't just say mandate, she said, "going after people's wages"...

"Going after"?

Oh Hillary, are you trying to drive the independents away? That has to be one of the most foolish things she has ever said. There are better ways to phrase that, such as, "requesting that people set aside a certain amount of money for their healthcare".

But, "going after people's wages"? I can almost hear the cash registers in the Midwest ringing up the frantic ammunition purchases.

Shit.


(Dupe of one of my posts from another thread. Perhaps it fits better in this thread.)

[Occam Bandage]

17. It was perhaps inarticulate of her, yes.

But I think that garnishment is a valid solution when you have mandates. The problem, I believe, is in the mandates. Either we should have single-payer, or we should go with Obama's plan. Clinton's Frankenstein-thing is simply unenforceable.