HillaryCare 2.0 -- really worse sh*t, same container

[ProudDad]

"Clinton has not stated what the enforcement mechanism would be under her plan, and she has been evasive when responding to questions on this point. However, she recently said, after much prodding, that garnishing wages was a possibility, along with automatic enrollments or some measure through the tax system."

Way to go, Hil -- garnish peoples wages in order to pay back your friends in the health insurance mafia and big pharma...

Don't matter much though -- If hil's the Dem nominee, McCain wins...

[Tarc]

1. Wages are already "garnished" for social security and medicare

Stop bellyaching with the bullshit "IM IN UR PAYCHEKZ STEALING UR MONIES" pleas. The O-Bots have been trying to sell this for weeks now, but no one with a shred of common sense is buying it.

[Jed Dilligan]

3. Count me in as having not a shred of common sense.

If the country can pay 800 million a week for an unnecessary war, it doesn't need 100 a month from me to fund universal healthcare. It can obviously take it out of the money I already send in, once its priorities are in order.

But more critical in my mind than the premiums is the idea of having an individual account. Having any account with your name attached to it can lead to bankruptcy. You realize this, don't you? I don't want to have an account with any health insurance carrier.

[Tarc]

4. Trust me; you are counted there

[Jed Dilligan]

6. And you just got counted

as another domineering, spiteful Hillary supporter who attacks instead of debating reasonably.

:hi:

[truedelphi]

12. Some applause for your common sense! n/t

[tabatha]

5. Yes, BUT

not a penny of social security money goes to corporations.

That is a HUGE difference.

[eridani]

7. Social Security and Medicare funds don't go to private insurers

Big difference.

[bvar22]

10. There is a HUGE problem with your example.

When my wages are "garnished" for Social Security and MediCare, the proceeds go to a Single Payer Government Run "NON PROFIT" social program.

Hillary wants to "garnish" my wages and transfer the funds to the pockets of some of the richest CEOs in the World, the "FOR PROFIT" Health Insurance Industry (one of her largest contributors).

I DO have a BIG problem with this.
You should too.

[truedelphi]

13. Bravo bvar22

Some people don't want to get it.

The other argument I am sick of is the one that goes, "Well it has been broken so long that we can't expect to fix it overnight"

What that one really means from Hillary supporters is that when Bill and Hillary rounded up some staffers to work on campaign finance reform, it was too daunting a task, and so they transferred those workers over to the group handling NAFTA and that got passed quite quickly.

So now becaue we have campaign finance (As UNREFORMED as ever) we have to make sure that the nice folks at the top of the insurance food chain get their hundreds of millions of dollars each.

[SIMPLYB1980]

2. Hillary care.

Is that you Hanity?

[NastyRiffraff]

8. Some people can't resist using all the Republican talking points.

They just luv Hannity, Rush, Tucker, and Drudge.

[Armstead]

14. No Hillary is right wing in oppoising truly Public Universal Care

Idiotic attempts to paint critics of HillaryCare 2 as right-wingers is just stupid.

Hillary is bring pro-business and right wing by denying the clearest solution, which is a single-payer government plan.

I'm not going to defend Obama for being a chickenshit too. But AT LEAST he has the brains to recognize that mandates take the worst aspect of private care and make it more difficult to pass any kind of reforms.

[KaptBunnyPants]

9. This is the one issue that makes me like Hillary.

Her plan is very similar to Edwards in that it offers a public plan one can enroll in. I personally don't think private insurance can compete with a public plan, but if they can more power to them. And she would eliminate pre=existing conditions, which everyone with a sick relative can appreciate.

[progressive_realist]

11. Private insurance will be cheaper.

The private insurers still get to cherry-pick customers and will only take the ones who require minimal medical care. The government plan will end up with everyone who actually requires care, and therefore the costs per person will be higher. Freepers and wingnut economists will tout this cost disparity as further "proof" of the wondrous efficiency of the marketplace and privatized solutions. :crazy: + :dunce:

This is not meant to be an anti-Clinton statement. Obama's and Clinton's plans both have the same fatal flaw.