Killary to "force" enrollment into health care coverage

[MODU]

Can anyone really defend her and her idea for universal health care coverage any more? 

"Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay"

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."

(Cont...)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

This is the third thread on this.

[Bono]

This is the third thread on this.

That's because this is so revolting that everyone feels motivated to create a new one.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I agree that we should achieve universal coverage though largely voluntary means with assistance for those who can't afford it.  Read:  It should be available and affordable to everyone.

[MODU]

This is the third thread on this.

hahaha . . . yeah, I just saw that.  I even read down the first page and didn't see at least one other before posting.  Oh well.

[MODU]

I agree that we should achieve universal coverage though largely voluntary means with assistance for those who can't afford it.  Read:  It should be available and affordable to everyone.

Agreed, which means "stealing" it from those who elect to not sign up in a plan (which could be the case for many various reasons, including being covered by someone else ... not mentioned in the article).  I could choose no coverage right now from my company and still be covered through the military.  Is she going to take my money anyway?

[Wakie]

This is the same plan John Edwards endorsed as a candidate.


The easiest way for the government to "force" people to do something is to work it into the tax code.  As in since your company is spending money to provide you with healthcare (money which you should have the option to take for yourself) you can claim it as a deductable.

[opebo]

...I could choose no coverage right now from my company and still be covered through the military.  Is she going to take my money anyway?

I should certainly hope so.  I do dislike the generally right-leaning Hillary, but in this issue she's correct - we must force everyone with money into the universal health care system in order to get anything like reasonable care for the lower half.

[agcatter]

the generally right leaning Hillary

That's funny.

[John Dibble]

...I could choose no coverage right now from my company and still be covered through the military.  Is she going to take my money anyway?

I should certainly hope so.  I do dislike the generally right-leaning Hillary, but in this issue she's correct - we must force everyone with money into the universal health care system in order to get anything like reasonable care for the lower half.

I think you're misunderstanding a couple things.

1. Hillary's plan is mandatory health insurance. You might get a subsidy if you're lower income, but it's still mandatory that you purchase it. If you are in a low income bracket and for some reason you opt NOT to purchase health insurance, your wages would still be garnished. It has nothing to do with rich vs. poor - anyone without insurance would suffer penalties. Since people of higher incomes are likely to already have insurance, the majority of those who will suffer the penalties will probably be those with lower income.

2. MODU is saying he has care available to him through the military. If he opts not to get insurance through his company, there should be no reason for his wages to be garnished even if he opts out of insurance because he has care. The point is to ensure everyone has health care, but if the system is entirely based on mandatory insurance then those who have coverage and no insurance (if you have coverage, why would you need insurance?) would still get penalized. Thusly, if the point is simply to ensure everyone has care available then there's no point in penalizing those who have coverage but no insurance if all you really want is to ensure universal coverage.

[opebo]

1. Hillary's plan is mandatory health insurance. You might get a subsidy if you're lower income, but it's still mandatory that you purchase it. If you are in a low income bracket and for some reason you opt NOT to purchase health insurance, your wages would still be garnished. It has nothing to do with rich vs. poor - anyone without insurance would suffer penalties. Since people of higher incomes are likely to already have insurance, the majority of those who will suffer the penalties will probably be those with lower income.

Well, I must say it is disappointing that working class people will be forced to pay for this.  But perhaps it has some caveat that when one becomes too ill to work one is covered by government payments - this is basically the essential missing link in american 'health care'.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'd like to see MODU's excessive wages garnished to pay for other's health car.  But I certainly agree that this idea of forcing people to 'buy' 'private' health care is abominable.  Any health care system that allows private insurance to still exist is no improvement.

[John Dibble]

Well, I must say it is disappointing that working class people will be forced to pay for this.  But perhaps it has some caveat that when one becomes too ill to work one is covered by government payments - this is basically the essential missing link in american 'health care'.

Well, in theory if one becomes too ill to work one's insurance would kick in - that's the idea behind mandating it. Whether the insurance companies will always pay out is another matter altogether.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Rest assured, someone will be taxed for the subsidies that will be used to help those of lower income purchase insurance.

[politicaltipster]

Actually, compulsory health insurance makes sense (and was supported by none other than a former governor of MA). The reasoning goes that the government (whether federal, state or local) has to cover the costs of emergency care for the uninsured so it has a interest in people making sure that they stay healthy enough to keep out of ER. For example it is cheaper to force people to take out health insurance which will pay for the cost of diabetes drugs than it is to keep people in the county hospital overnight when they go into a coma.

[Wakie]

Actually, compulsory health insurance makes sense (and was supported by none other than a former governor of MA). The reasoning goes that the government (whether federal, state or local) has to cover the costs of emergency care for the uninsured so it has a interest in people making sure that they stay healthy enough to keep out of ER. For example it is cheaper to force people to take out health insurance which will pay for the cost of diabetes drugs than it is to keep people in the county hospital overnight when they go into a coma.

Yes but the knee jerk reaction of "your forcing me to do something" usually trumps the reasoned arguments on issues like this one.

[Verily]

Actually, compulsory health insurance makes sense (and was supported by none other than a former governor of MA). The reasoning goes that the government (whether federal, state or local) has to cover the costs of emergency care for the uninsured so it has a interest in people making sure that they stay healthy enough to keep out of ER. For example it is cheaper to force people to take out health insurance which will pay for the cost of diabetes drugs than it is to keep people in the county hospital overnight when they go into a coma.

Yes and no. Because no serious effort is being made to make health insurance affordable, many of the people who you describe may want to purchase health insurance to fulfill the mandate but still can't afford it; wage garnishing may not even be sufficient. In this case, these people will still not have health insurance even though it is required, will still be clogging up ER, and will be paying fines for not having something they can't afford.

[Lief 🗽]

Wage garnishing is sickeningly regressive. Rather than take away money from the working class to punish them for not having enough money to buy insurance, we can raise taxes on the rich and make healthcare more affordable.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A better idea would be to abandon the whole idea of an insurance based system.