Clinton says health plan may garnish wages

Interesting conversation today with George Stephanopoulos.

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

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."

(more)

Let me add this, as pointed out by dannyinla in the comments section:

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."

She makes a good case that in order to have truly universal health coverage, there would have to be some sort of enforcement mechanism. Up until today, she has not been specific as to what those mechanisms may be.

Her comments today raises a couple of key questions:

1. Would Congress ever support a program that would call for garnishing the wages of those who won't buy insurance?

2. How will this comment play with the electorate, primary and general?

•  Folks wont buy it. Pure and simple.

  People are living paycheck to paycheck. Hillary starts talking about garnishing wages and her plan goes right out the window.

  by brooklynbadboy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:04:07 AM PDT

  •  And so does she

    by bumblebums on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:04:39 AM PDT

    •  I'm suprised she actually answered the question

      She had been dodging it forever.

      by turneresq on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:34:14 AM PDT

      •  I'd like to hear how Obama plans to have

        coverage too though.  How will he make it happen? His Harry & Louise style ads don't answer that question at all.

        by LionelEHutz on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:55:16 AM PDT

        •  Obama's Healthcare Plan

          Obama's Plan to Cover Uninsured Americans: Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress. The Obama plan will have the following features:

          Guaranteed eligibility. No American will be turned away from any insurance plan because of illness or pre-existing conditions.
          Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that offered through Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP), the plan members of Congress have. The plan will cover all essential medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health care.

          Affordable premiums, co-pays and deductibles.

          Subsidies. Individuals and families who do not qualify for Medicaid or SCHIP but still need financial assistance will receive an income-related federal subsidy to buy into the new public plan or purchase a private health care plan.

          Simplified paperwork and reined in health costs.

          Easy enrollment. The new public plan will be simple to enroll in and provide ready access to coverage.

          Portability and choice. Participants in the new public plan and the National Health Insurance Exchange (see below) will be able to move from job to job without changing or jeopardizing their health care coverage.

          Quality and efficiency. Participating insurance companies in the new public program will be required to report data to ensure that standards for quality, health information technology and administration are being met.

          National Health Insurance Exchange: The Obama plan will create a National Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a private insurance plan. The Exchange will act as a watchdog group and help reform the private insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage more affordable and accessible. Insurers would have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums that will not depend upon health status. The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as generous as the new public plan and have the same standards for quality and efficiency. The Exchange would evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including cost of services, public.

          Employer Contribution: Employers that do not offer or make a meaningful contribution to the cost of quality health coverage for their employees will be required to contribute a percentage of payroll toward the costs of the national plan. Small employers that meet certain revenue thresholds will be exempt.

          by Steven R on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:06:33 AM PDT

          •  And yet I read up on Obama's plan today

            including the 15 page pdf: http://www.barackobama.com/...

            And nowhere...I repeat, no. where. does he address the question of penalties for people who hadn't paid into the system who would need to access benefits. Obama would charge these folks penalties when they are sick and they need care.

            What the penalties are, whether they would involve a wage garnishment, whether there would be interest payments and whether ins co's could at that point charge higher premiums are all questions that Obama does not answer in his health care plan.

            by grannyhelen on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:19:23 AM PDT

            •  No teeth

              That's cuz his plan has no teeth (and no dental either!).

              This is softball way of saying that he won't mandate care.

              by demer on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:25:32 AM PDT

              •  And he won't mandate care.....

                Because he understands that many in the middle class can't afford anything else right now.

                THIS IS NOT THE TIME to impose a mandatory expense on the middle class.

                If she can manage to perform some magic that will reduce gas and energy costs, food costs as well as lead to an increase in wages, then maybe we can talk about that. BUT NOT NOW!

                by lrhoke on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:19:59 PM PDT

                •  No

                  People want health care - otherwise it wouldn't be a central issue for these same middle class people that you are claiming to represent. The reason they are living on the edge is because they pay so much for care with other costs.

                  by demer on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 07:30:32 PM PDT

            •  You want the Democratic party

              to be behind punishment for people who don't buy into the system? That'll play well in America. The GOP will have a field day with that.

              by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:43:20 AM PDT

              •  As I said above Social Security does the same

                Modern progressive politics strted with Social Security....and a new progressive Democratic era could begin with a successful healthcare plan....lack of universality could doom it to failure as many health care economists have noted.

                Lack of universality skews community rating and adverse selelction results ....that only would reenforce the idea that the government can do nothin well.

                I can't believe people don't realize how important doing health care right is.  Obama does it wrong.

                by debcoop on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:02:52 PM PDT

                •  To address the difference, SS is a govt run

                  program, and even if Hillary's plan would allow folks to sign up for the govt administered system the attack line is "putting money into the pockets of big insurance".

                  The difference is in regulation. Both Hillary and Barack speak somewhat to the notion of trying to maybe sort of move money away from profits and into health care, but the devil is in the regulation details.

                  The difference with Edwards was he was proposing a straight across-the-board cap on profits. Obama (see link above for his .pdf) is talking about capping profits for insurers in certain markets where they do not have a lot of competition but not capping in other markets. This may actually be easier for an insurer to challenge.

                  Both Hillary and Obama need to be more specific on how they plan to regulate the industry.

                  by grannyhelen on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:09:28 PM PDT

                •  Social security isn't the same thing at all.

                  That's already taken from your check and isn't handed to a private company on a monthly basis and people will get it (or are supposed to) back when they retire.

                  This issue will be ripe for the GOP to exploit in the GE and will be dead even if she wins.

                  by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:15:41 PM PDT

                  •  Amen. The analogy to SS seems specious.

                    Instead, I'd say the retirement analogy to the Clinton (Edwards) plan would go something like this: We know we can't a gov't-administered program passed (i.e., a program like single payer or today's SS) so instead we'll mandate that everyone pay a stock broker to invest a certain amount each year.

                    by skeptica on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:36:01 PM PDT

                    •  Yep. That seems more like it.

                      by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM PDT

                •  Mandates Are Regressive, Unlike Social Security

                  The health insurance mandate is extremely regressive.

                  Let us look at the problem like this. Suppose that, all other things being equal, there is person A earning $100 K a year and person B earning $30 K a year. Suppose the health insurance policies cost $3600 a year.

                  If there is no subsidy, person A pays 3.6% of his annual income to health insurance, while person B pays 12% of his income. Now that is extremely regressive, and keep in mind that health insurance isn't the only medical expenditure both would have to pay (if they need care). Now even if we consider a subsidy, where person A subsidizes half of person B's insurance. Person A now pays $5400 a year, which is 5.4 % of his salary, while person B pays 6% of his salary, which is STILL regressive.

                  The problem with the mandate is that it doesn't require a (flat or progressive) floor percentage of health care expenditure. If everyone is required to spend 5% of his entire income on health insurance, that that's a different story. But since health insurance costs the same amount a year for all (again, assuming that all people have the same health conditions), mandating people to buy an insurnace policy is the same as mandating people to pay a fixed amount and is completely regressive (even if subsidized).

                  by sesquioxide on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:27:55 PM PDT

                  •  SS is regressive as well you know

                    SS deductions cease once you make over $98,000. If you make $50,000, you pay SS taxes on 100% of your income. If you make $200,000, you pay SS taxes on 49% of your income.

                    by Yalin on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:16:24 PM PDT

                    •  Not Exactly

                      Strictly speaking, the taxation itself is. But since the benefits payouts from social security does depend on the income, I don't consider as such that social security is regressive.

                      This is not the same in the healthcare mandate. The "benefits" one gets from the policy is the same no matter the income. One doesn't get more (or wouldn't hope to get more, since that requires getting sick) if one is poor.

                      by sesquioxide on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:37:59 PM PDT

                      •  eh?

                        George W. Bush gets SS paycheck every month despite being part of one of the wealthiest families in the nation.

                        I'm not sure there's a cutoff with the benefits. Imo there should be. If you make more than a certain amount or have more than a certain threshold in terms of assets in retirement, you should not get SS benefits.

                        I don't think someone like George W. Bush or Warren Buffett or any other wealthy person should get SS.

                        SS should be returned to what it was when it was first created, i.e., a safety net. It was never meant to be a retirement fund, which is how it's used today.

                        Sorry about the tangent, but I couldn't resist. :)

                        by Yalin on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:33:38 PM PDT

              •  Bottom line: Dems should not be attacking

                mandates if they want universal health care. Because it's either going to be a front-end mandate (Hillary) or a back-end mandate (Obama).

                There is simply no other way to deal with adverse selection and free riders.

                And yes, none of that part of the conversation on universal health care is going to be "popular". But at least Clinton's being somewhat straight up on this part of things. I have yet to see Obama really clarify his remarks on "penalties".

                by grannyhelen on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:03:27 PM PDT

                •  Yes, Granny

                  Worse still, he's undermining the idea the very idea of universal health care by attacking Hillary's plan. Hmmm...such cynicism from the candidate of change.

                  by pmcmscot on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:06:14 PM PDT

                  •  So wrong

                    So many ways.

                    He is attacking forcing people to deal with the death merchant insurance bandits.

                    Not universal heath care.

                    Attacking Hillary's plan puts the blame of the current mess squarely where it belongs.

                    Hillary fans need to claim what you do to deflect the obvious conflict of interest Hillary has talking about universal heath care when she has taken so much money from the insurance industry Obama and Edwards warn about.

                    by Number5 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:16:47 PM PDT

                    •  Wow, that's a bizarre response

                      Clinton's plan would offer a public health insurance program to compete with private insurers. No one needs to choose private insurance. Obama's plan relies on private insurers just as much as Clinton's. I was going to ask you to show me otherwise, but I don't want to put you through the contortions you will need for your response.

                      What's amazing to me is that when Obama attacks Clinton's plan, he is NOT coming from the point of view of supporting single-payer, as you are. He is attacking it from the right, rejecting the idea that we should have to pay more to give everyone access to health care. Bob Johnson has fallen into this rhetorical trap, and now once again the Democrats are trying to surrender before they even fight the battle with Republicans. Pre-emptive compromise only means you start from a weaker position, because the other side will start extracting concessions from the position that should have been the final result.

                      My hope is that Obama is saying this stuff because he thinks it will help him in the general election, and then will try to govern from a view more like Edwards and Clinton. And if it is what he's doing, I wish he would do it smarter and not attack the idea of paying for universal health care (oh, the horror of garnished wages!!!).

                      But if this isn't merely a tactic geared toward getting him elected in the general, Number5, you are going to be deeply disappointed in president Obama.

                      by jd in nyc on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:46:23 PM PDT

                      •  HRC's plan will cause her to lose the general

                        election and if she manages to squeak through it will be doomed in Congress and will screw the party. There's no way that Americans are going to accept  the country forcing everyone to buy insurance under threat of punishment.

                        by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:22:45 PM PDT

                    •  First off, I'm not a "Hillary fan"

                      but I think the health care plan is her strength and Obama's weakness.

                      Hillary's plan allows folks to sign up for the govt plan. Obama allows folks to sign up for another govt run plan that is "similar to the one Congress has".

                      Both plans need to deal with adverse selection if you're going to allow everyone to sign up (something that is morally right to do). Hillary does it on the front end by mandating. From what I can tell Obama wants to do this on the back end with "penalties" for folks who enroll "late" (what both "penalties" and "late" mean is something I have yet to see him give any details on).

                      Both Hillary and Obama speak about the need to regulate. Neither of them are specific.

                      However, the recent mailer Obama sent out doesn't help the cause of universal health care, and could come back to haunt him if he tries to pass a plan that includes "penalties".

                      by grannyhelen on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:48:18 PM PDT

                      •  How doesn't it help?

                        by Number5 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:50:46 PM PDT

                        •  Because the same mailer could be done

                          against him in the general. Easily.

                          As I mentioned to Bob below: single, pregnant woman. Caption, "She needs help. Barack Obama wants to make her pay." And then the attack on paying penalties for folks who didn't opt in until it was too "late".

                          Any of these attacks is an attack against universal health care itself, and imo is not something Dems should do.

                          by grannyhelen on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:26:21 PM PDT

                  •  It's not UHC. It's forced insurance.

                    What's undermining the idea of UHC is pretending that forced insurance is the same thing.

                    by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:17:24 PM PDT

                    •  So the Swiss don't have universal health care?

                      Gosh, that's not what I see when I'm in Zürich.

                      Don't get me wrong -- I'd prefer single payer.  But, if we aren't going to get to that point, then let's at least move forward.  There are successful UHC systems based on insurance, and if we can get there, then we're already ahead of the game.

                      by demimondian on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:19:58 PM PDT

                      •  If you define universal as

                        everybody has it but don't care how then sure. I'm guessing a lot of people are going to be surprised when they learn they're going to be forced by the feds to pay either the feds more of their cash or a private company rather than the feds putting their  tax dollars to work.

                        There's no reason to force people to pay the insurance industry unless it's simply a payoff. Single-payer can be implemented now.

                        by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:27:24 PM PDT

                        •  no one is forcing this

                          Did you miss the part in the plans of Clinton and Obama where they will create a public insurer similar to Medicare to give everyone the option of not taking private insurance?

                          by jd in nyc on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:48:46 PM PDT

                          •  But you still have to pay the public insurer

                            right? Or is that going to be funded by tax dollars?

                            by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:56:05 PM PDT

                            •  sure, just like Medicare

                              There will probably be a combination of general tax contributions and health care/insurance contributions (let's call that the individual's share of the premium). Those earning less will have smaller premium contributions...how much less we don't know because no one has provided details.

                              But really, why does it matter? The average citizen is going to entirely pay for their healthcare. That's how it has to be, or we're just going to keep getting deeper in debt. Whether your payment comes in the form of general taxes or a specific contribution separately identified as going for health care, doesn't matter. A dollar is a dollar.

                              That's why the reform of the health care system (fragmented providers, substandard care, perverse incentives, etc.) is so hugely important, because over 90% of the savings are going to come from here, not from savings in insurance administration. Well, the debate will change soon enough.

                              by jd in nyc on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:13:30 PM PDT

                              •  So I would still pay a premium and taxes?

                                No. That's not acceptable, it's not going to fly with American and it's not how it has to be.

                                We can stop blowing things up and save some money that way and pay for health care for everyone.

                                by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:18:51 PM PDT

                                •  Then Obama's plan is unacceptable.

                                  Actually, the only plan that is acceptable to you under the criteria you just set would be the Republicans.

                                  Hillary's plan is better, Obama's is lacking and unworkable.

                                  by GunLovinDem on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:44:31 PM PDT

                                •  You're really confused

                                  One thing you don't know is that many countries have a system like this, in which they contribute to health care costs through general tax revenue and they also contribute through specific taxes or premiums dedicated to health care coverage/access. Most countries with universal health care, in fact, probably have a system like this.

                                  And as I just pointed out, we already do this. It's called Medicare. You say paying two ways won't fly with Americans, but it's already flying with us.

                                  One thing that you may be conflating: just because I'm paying in two different ways doesn't mean I'm paying twice as much. I will be paying half of the cost through each part of the system, for the same total.

                                  The average American spends $7,000 a year on health care (actually, 10% spend 50% of the money in any given year, but let's simplify by dealing with averages). Right now, a typical person might contribute $1,000 to public programs through income taxes and Medicare deductions, pay $2,000 in premiums, get $3,000 paid by their employer (which reduces their wages) and pay $1,000 out of pocket.

                                  We have a mixed system, and we're going to continue to have a mixed system. I think we can be nearly certain of that.

                                  I totally agree that we should pay for more of it by spending less on defense, by the way.

                                  by jd in nyc on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:17:11 PM PDT

                      •  yes, and the successful programs

                        that use private insurers as a delivery mechanism heavily regulate the insurers... capped profits, capped user payments, regulations on what's covered.

                        Do you really believe that this is a credible outcome for a HillaryCare program designed in cooperation with the insurance industry?

                        by alizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:21:17 PM PDT

                  •  no, he's undermining the idea of

                    private-sector junk health insurance paid for out of our personal pockets.

                    In the meantime, why don't you explain to the parents of the late Nataline Sarkisyan who was 'murdered by spreadsheet' by CIGNA the equivalence of health insurance and health care.

                    by alizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:17:24 PM PDT

                •  It's not UHC unless it's single-payer

                  it's just forced insurance. It's a great way to lose a general election though.

                  by JayGR on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:16:43 PM PDT

                •  tell that to the Australians

                  From Crooked Timber

                  The argument for mandates is basically that without them you have adverse selection effects. I don’t particularly think those will be huge. In Australia we still had insurance levels of 70-80. That was with a pretty good level of public provision of emergency care, so you didn’t have to worry about needing health insurance if you were in a car wreck. And it was with a system of GPs where (at the time) the uninsured were charged about as much for a doctor’s visit as I now pay in my co-pay. Had the health options for the uninsured then in Australia been as bad as they are now in America, a huge percentage of people would have been insured. As it was, the system still more or less worked, at least compared to anything the U.S. has seen.

                  Even if there were adverse selection effects, it isn’t clear what the downside will be. Ezra links to this 3 page Urban Institute report that comes out for mandates, and seems to say the downsides are that we’ll need more government financing. I think anyone who thinks we’ll get a better U.S. health system without some extra government financing is basically living in a fairy tale, so I’m not at all sure why this is a problem. Perhaps mandates are supposed to be politically easier to sell than tax rises, but this seems nonsensical. Given the hideously unbalanced state of the U.S. tax system, we can quite justly have tax raises that cost the vast majority of people not one penny. It’s impossible to have health care mandates that do that.

                  by alizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:14:39 PM PDT

                •  There is another way to deal

                  with adverse selection. Don't select!

                  Provide health care for everyone -- no exceptions, no conditions, no premiums.

                  Of course it does have to be paid for. But you already have a structure in place for collecting money from people in at least rough proportion to their ability to pay. You wouldn't need any new bureaucracy. There's a whole branch of government already set up to collect it -- and they're pretty damm good at their jobs, too. It may even be the only government department Bush hasn't stacked with incompetents.

                  Why yes, I'm talking about income tax. It's the only sensible way to pay for government-run health insurance.

                  by Canadian Reader on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:00:05 PM PDT

            •  from what I understand

              And I don't have a link...I saw this in an interview.

              Obama said that there would be folks who would try to game the system and there would be penalties for them when they did sign up for insurance (am assuming it would be in the form of some sort of catch up premium). He's never said, to my knowledge, that he would penalize someone who chose not to be insured at all. I mean, isn't being uninsured penalty enough?

              by eltee on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:59:34 PM PDT

              •  He said "penalties"

                and has yet to clarify what that means, to my knowledge.

                by grannyhelen on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:27:30 PM PDT

          •  single payer or bust

            big O gets my vote anyway, but we should just get the Congress to pass a national single payer plan. I doubt a Dem pres will veto such.

            by World Patriot on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:16:59 PM PDT

            •  Then it will be bust

              don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

              First get everyone covered and then push to make the needed improvements.

              If we push for single payer now, it will go down in blazing defeat and millions will remain uninsured for years to come.

              by swaydo intellectual on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:50:48 PM PDT

              •  DoneThat

                How right you are!. I worked with Ted Kennedy back in the 70's on getting universal health care and it was defeated by the criticisms and attacks of the perfectionists that wouldn't have anything other than the Canadian system. The old and getting older story of people who can afford their own health care spoling it for those who can't. That's the "radical" approach. How uncaring for the less well off....

                by mgrivas4 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:51:06 PM PDT

              •  if you think insurance mandates are a "good" idea

                check out how they're failing in the bi-partisan trainwreck which is MA 'universal' health care.

                by alizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:22:46 PM PDT

              •  i will happily accept a compromise plan

                on the way. But we need to throw the insurance industry under the bus ASAP.

                by World Patriot on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:01:13 PM PDT

        •  Enough w/ the Harry and Louise

          That is completely bogus and contrived.

          Nice that after the Clintons were called out for their rightwing tactics against Barack - direct mail in NH, racebaiting, etc. - that they think the answer is to turn around and accuse him of doing what they've been doing.

          Look, if I eat enough acid, there's a good chance I'll see purple dragons dancing in my bowl of Fruity Pebbles.  But that doesn't make it so.

          And just because some people are trying to argue that Obama's flyer referenced a TV political ad from the '90s, doesn't mean it's there.  It's not.

          It's bullshit.  It's a lie.  It's a complete fairy tale of a controversy.

          Frankly, Barack's plan makes far more sense.  First, he's using a system already in place by extending the coverage provided to Senators and Representatives, etc.  Second, he's directly addressing the major problem with our health care system - COST - by offering subsidized insurance coverage.

          If you can afford coverage but choose not to have it, then why should you be forced to purchase it?  What does that solve?

          And Hillary's plan will force people into a system and punish them for not participating.  There's no way you sell that to the American public.

          by jaywillie on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:57:35 PM PDT

          •  I think Obama needs to

            pull that flyer and update it . . . Hillary promises to garnish your wages is true and it's fair.

            by alizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:24:09 PM PDT

      •  The funniest part is that she didn't LOL

        George pushed the question 3 times and at the end she barely acknowledged the necessity to possibly garnish wages.  reminds me of her Bob Johnson doubletalk in South Carolina...

        This is something John Edwards was upfront about...

        U can see the tape here: 3:00 Minute Mark

        by Steven R on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:59:34 AM PDT

        •  "garnishing wages" = RW talking point

          for all we wail and moan about the cost of healthcare, the fact is that we, the American taxpayers, are going to have to pay for it one way or the other; we are paying for it now - overpaying for it, to be precise.

          Under our current dysfunctional Healthcare scheme, we pay too much for too little.  We could be getting more for less under under a rational system.  

          Nevertheless, even a sensible and sane plan will require funding.  To say that workers' wages will be "garnished" is to obscure the point.  Actually, the phrase is being used to hit a nerve in people and rally the opposition.  "Garnish wages" will soon become a mantra that will only serve the interest of the health insurance corporations, who reap obscene profits every day that we dither about taking prudent action.

          As an Obama supporter, I am impressed with Clinton's honesty on this issue.

          by Rick Winrod on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:30:00 AM PDT

          •  No

            Dipping into citizen’s pockets to give their money to private insurance corporations equals right wing corporate arse kissing behavior. Further more advocating, or trying to do same equals arrogant fascist behavior as well. Sell your soap somewhere else, I'm not buying it or mandated corporate run insurance policies.

            Buy a mirror and do some checking before you acuse others of right wing talkin points and or behavior.

            by Bobjack23 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:49:26 AM PDT

            •  if you're not buying it, don't expect someone

              else to pick up the tab for you when you need it.

              by Rick Winrod on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:34:38 PM PDT

              •  I don't this deal

                about saying people without health insurance are getting medical care for free. Everybody I know who works without health insurance still has to pay their doctor bills. My niece is using her tax refund to pay an emergency visit she had when she collapsed at work. The reason for the collapse wasn't job related, it was another medical condition so her employer didn't cover it. So she owes and is paying over 1200 dollars to the hospital.

                by jennybravo on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:48:04 PM PDT

              •  how does that differ

                from the status quo?

                by alizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:25:03 PM PDT

              •  That is pure malarkey and...

                ...completely unrelated to the issue of compelling a citizen to buy something, any damned thing, from a private corporation. Why don't you corporate fascists take a long walk off a short pier, and get the hell out of the Democrat Party and go over to the Republican Party where you belong, and take Hillary with you.

                Either opt for government run not for profit health insurance for everyone paid or by all who can afford it and supplemented from the general fund if necessary or leave the health care mess alone as you’re just going to make it worse and make the corporate insurance HMOs fatter as they commit multiple murders for profit.

                Also...

                Why do you consider you fellow citizens so stupid you can talk down to them?  Trust me your not clever enough or important enough to do that

                by Bobjack23 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 05:16:57 PM PDT

            •  Yes

              Medicare garnishes wages right now. So does social security. Bob Johnson's diary and this whole attack on Clinton has focused on whether we should garnish wages to support universal health care, NOT whether we should do it specifically for private health insurance as opposed to public.

              Your fight should be about choosing single payer rather than multi payer UHC. To go on the attack against a Democrat for garnishing wages is a really bad idea, because whatever system we have we will have to garnish wages to pay for it. Congratulations in helping to undermine single payer.

              by jd in nyc on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:53:55 PM PDT

              •  Would you rather float this madness

                to Independents and watch another election go down the drain?

                We cannot afford another failed healthcare plan, bottom line.  And the plan to force the bulk of the population to purchase private health insurance doesn't even have a Dem majority, much less support from Independents and non-insane Republicans.

                Floating a plan mandating purchase of private insurance products is the quickest damn road to shutting the entire conversation down!

                We have to use common sense here, we can't afford another failure.

                by GN1927 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:21:27 PM PDT

                •  crazy like a fox, I guess

                  Look, universal coverage polls very well, as does increasing taxes to pay for it. Even among independents and Republicans.

                  The part that doesn't have a majority among Democrats is the multi-payer part (though few are as emphatic as the norm on dKos). Not the paying for it part. What Obama is attacking is the paying for it part, which is why he's undermining UHC of any kind.

                  Honest UHC is a winner for Democrats, but short-sightedness and fear don't allow you to see that.

                  by jd in nyc on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 06:02:06 PM PDT

      •  She tried desperately to dodge it again

        She didn't answer the first or second time Stephanopoulos asked the question, and she only slipped that in very quickly in the middle of her answer the third time he asked it, couching it in such a way as to sound as inoffensive as possible:  "there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."  She had already said "automatic enrollment" twice, which sounds almost magical, but Stephanopoulos was pushing her hard on fines vs. garnishing wages.
           I'd have to tip my hat to Stephanopoulos on this one, he pressed hard for a substantive answer on an important policy issue, and he finally got one.

        by twcollier on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:09:29 AM PDT

      •  Stephanopolous wouldn't drop it--he forced her to

        answer.  

        by St Louis Woman on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:39:00 PM PDT

    •  But when does she go out the window?

      If it's in the General Election, we all go out the window with her.
        Hundred year war in Iraq anyone?

      by elwior on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:04:07 AM PDT

      •  The window of opportunity is open now

        by bumblebums on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM PDT

      •  before the Democratic National Convention

        Even low-information voters aren't batshit enough to vote to have their own wages garnished.

        Assuming that Obama's campaign people are competent (a very reasonable assumption). . . stick a fork in Hillary, she's done and doesn't know it yet.

        by alizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:27:24 PM PDT

    •  Stupid is as Stupid does. Sorry nonstarter, nt.

      by jdmorg on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:29:09 AM PDT

    •  This is what is done with Social Security

      Is Social Security and Medicare by the way....a non progressive thing to do?

      I think the answer is self evidently no.

      by debcoop on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM PDT

      •  Social security is not taking ,

        forcibly, money out of my pockets and putting it into the pockets of a private industry with a demonstrated history of poor behavior.

        Let adults choose, and let a national plan compete with the private insurers.

        Pray tell me which plan has more of a chance to even get a popular mandate?

        by GN1927 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:24:03 PM PDT

        •  there is also a public plan option

          which under her lan would offer low cost effective insurance. But the low cost is totally dependent upon maintaining community rating and not allowing adverse sellction....for that the plan must be universal....And Obama's plan is not universal.

          lack of universality will doom the plan to failure.  Instead of a success for the Democratic party it will be a failure ...how do you think the public will respond when that happens?

          Obama's plan lacked courage.

          by debcoop on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:44:54 PM PDT

  •  a little more detail

    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."

    For those who cannot afford it or "live paycheck to paycheck", there will be subsidies.

    by dannyinla on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:06:05 AM PDT

    •  How does she decide what I can afford?

      Whats she gonna do, analyze the spending habits of people?

      Lets say she determines that if you are a single person making $50,000 a year, you can afford to buy health insurance. Under her plan, no matter if you live in new york where a single person making $40,000 is basically living paycheck to paycheck, she'd just go ahead and start garnishing. You think thats going to fly?

      Forget it.

      by brooklynbadboy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:11:49 AM PDT

      •  I don't think YOUR plan is going to fly.

        Her plan would not be so ridiculous.

        by dannyinla on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:14:26 AM PDT

        •  I actually don't care

          I don't even support Obama's plan because I don't think "universal" heatlhcare is a good thing. I'm very please with my healthcare because I make a lot of money.

          But I also think garnishing wages because people can't afford to meet the demand of her mandate is a horrible idea.

          by brooklynbadboy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:21:14 AM PDT

          •  You continue to misinterpret

            what she said on This Week. She did NOT say that she will garnish the wages of those who "can't afford" to pay.

            by dannyinla on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:22:57 AM PDT

            •  Define that

              Define "can't afford to pay".

              Where is that line - and how can you guarantee no one's going to fall into the trap.

              by zonk on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:52:46 AM PDT

              •  I have health insurance, I pay a combined

                $21,400 a year for two adults, one child, for insurance, deductibles, copays, and what is just plain supposedly covered, but denied.  

                I am worried sick if one of us gets cancer, diabetes, a stroke, etc., because we are a long way from Medicare, as even having insurance is no guarantee you won't be bankrupted and denied coverage.  

                by Do Tell on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:21:30 AM PDT

              •  As Brooklynbadbaoy

                But I also think garnishing wages because people can't afford to meet the demand of her mandate is a horrible idea.

                I was quoting him.

                by dannyinla on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:33:50 PM PDT

            •  I have health insurance

              but I cannot afford to use it.  I had out-patient surgury in July and am now being slammed with bills from at least 3 doctors, the lab, the hospital, etc.  Everyone wants to be paid ASAP.  The amounts not covered under my insurance plan are staggering.  We even purchased separate "Gap" and "Cancer" insurance policies but the Gap insurance doesn't really cover the huge gaps.  

              3 of my 5 kids do not have health insurance.  One of those is a 20 year old with mental disabilities. I applied for continued health insurance through my company based on his mental disabilities.  Of course they denied him.  One is a 23 year old cancer survivor who was dropped from our insurance when she graduated from college.  My 22 year old just graduated from college on December 15, 2007 and was also dropped from our health insurance policy.  She has asthma and other pre-existing conditions.

              Mandates are meaningless. Obama is the one who can get the other side of the aisle to work toward a reasonable solution.  

              by thefos on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:53:02 AM PDT

              •  Huh?

                Look at the plans. Hillary's plan does everything around pre-existing, etc that would benefit you in your situation AND requires that all be covered. That's universal health care.

                I am not even a Hillary supporter but can see how her plan would benefit you.

                Guess what also... If you think Republicans are going to sit down across the aisle and work with a Democratic president on resolving this issue - you're frickin crazy (mental health not covered in Obaam plan..) because they will be the minority party and will ensure (like in 1993/1994) that agitation around health insurance coverage gets them the House or Senate back in 2010.

                Seriously, any Obama supporters who think that there is a bipartisan solution to our health care crisis are crazy. This is a situation about POWER and as such to take power back requires a FIGHT not tea and cookies.

                by demer on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:31:44 AM PDT

                •  How?

                  How is this plan going to even be enacted?

                  Most of this country wants health care reform.

                  The majority of Dems, for God's sakes, won't support a plan which forces adults to purchase private health insurance.

                  The plan won't even pass the House, much less have any opportunity to benefit anyone.

                  This is candy for people who want to shut the whole healthcare reform conversation down in its entirety.

                  Private health insurance mandates won't pass Congress.

                  by GN1927 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:28:31 PM PDT

                  •  I think they WILL pass Congress

                    After all, MA ExtortionCare passed via a bi-partisan majority. Though they're putting off the enforcement (thousands in fines per non-complier) until after the next election.

                    It'll be a quid per quo for insurance industry support in the general election, I expect mandates to pass no matter who wins and within the first 60 days of a new Democratic government.

                    Think of this as a really funny way for incumbents to in effect, term-limit themselves out of office. Or for the Democratic Party to commit suicide. The tens of millions of families who don't make enough to find $2K/family member affordable but won't qualify under guidelines based on Federal Poverty level ($21.6K family of 4) for public care will remember to vote on Election Day.

                    by alizard on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 04:42:43 PM PDT

                •  doesn't have anything to do with

                  bipartisan.  It has to do with many PEOPLE CANNOT AFFORD ANY MORE MANDATORY EXPENSES RIGHT NOW!!!

                  Are you people so WEALTHY that you don't understand that millions of people are struggling to stay afloat right now????

                  by lrhoke on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:35:36 PM PDT

              •  To hell with the other side of the aisle. nt

                by Sura 109 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:12:22 PM PDT

            •  just because my income falls within

              a certain range doesn't mean that I can afford to pay for it. This isn't taking into account expenses, such as for family, having kids with autism, parents in nursing homes, child college expenses, the home mortgage issues...any number of things.

              It just isn't right to force someone to pay when they themselves should be the ones deciding.

              by mihan on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:20:29 PM PDT

              •  Do you already pay for health insurance? nt

                by dannyinla on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:35:39 PM PDT

                •  I'm on the Federal plan

                  so I pay about 25% of the premium cost, which quite honestly I still find to be too much. Even though I have one of the rare GREAT HMOs, I would pay a decent amount for co-pays and such.

                  Before I was a Federal employee I was a VA patient and paid nothing at all. I found it a rather interesting study on the benefits and pitfalls of single-payer insurance.

                  by mihan on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:04:52 PM PDT

          •  "I'm very pleased with my healthcare

            because I make a lot of money."

            That's the Obama healthcare plan, summed up in a very few words!  Thanks!

            People who are pleased with their health care shouldn't have to pay for those who can't afford it.  That's the essence of his plan.

            by Kevvboy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:33:04 AM PDT

            •  Remember what killed first Clinton plan?

              The single element that hurt her plan in the early 90's more than any other was the inability to refute concerns that it would be illegal to pay a doctor privately, i.e., pay outside of the system.  

              Just as John Edwards wasn't taking any of those homeless veterans living under bridges into his own home, there is a limit to the selflessness of the public in paying for healthcare.  

              by Lois on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 10:57:48 AM PDT

              •  Exactly why

                we need a system that covers everyone and does not allow rich kids to opt out.

                by Kevvboy on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM PDT

            •  awesome quote

              For real, nailed it there.

              Let them eat cake and shit...

              by demer on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:32:41 AM PDT

            •  You know that sounds soooo familar

              I'm very please with my healthcare because I make a lot of money.

              hmmm....what does that sound like?

              how about:

              People who are pleased with their childrens private schools shouldn't have to pay for other people's children public school.

              or this:

              People who are pleased with their individual retirement funds shouldn't have to pay into social security.

              or maybe this:

              People who are pleased with their personal security force shouldn't have to pay taxes for police departments for those who can't afford personal security.

              by Jiminy Cricket on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:52:18 AM PDT

              •  Another point I'd like to raise

                that is the crux of my concern.

                When Democrats start to accept the ideology - Government shouldn't force people to pay for programs that benefit everyone cause I don't need it - then that wedge sooner or later will be used to dismantle or stop other social safety nets and programs.

                BTW, that ideology - Government shouldn't force people to pay for programs that benefit everyone cause I don't need it - is the polar opposite of what the Democratic party has stood for.

                by Jiminy Cricket on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:43:23 PM PDT

                •  You just nailed the point home

                  Good job (from another Edwards' fan).

                  by vigilant meerkat on