Daily Kos

Garnish? Clinton is Out of Touch (Edited)

Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:21:50 AM PDT

with the economic realities of the American people.

Here's what Clinton said this morning on ABC that got me riled -

Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., this morning left open the possibility that, if elected, her government would garnish the wages of people who didn't comply with her health care plan. "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments," Clinton said in an appearance on "This Week with George Stephanopoulos".

Clinton went on to say, though, that such mechanisms would not include penalties. "They don't have to pay fines ... We want them to have insurance. We want it to be affordable. And what I have said is that there are a number of ways of doing that. Now, there's not just one way of getting to that."

Absolutely out of touch with the American people on healthcare.

Garnish their wages?

Christ.

As if people wouldn't buy adequate health insurance if they could afford it?

I'm trying not to start shouting here.

As if single working mothers don't need every penny they earn to feed and clothe their children?

As if fathers aren't using credit cards maxed out long ago to buy essentials like gasoline and school books and waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat to wonder if they are going to have a job tomorrow or the next month or the next?

As if grandparents aren't cashing in their pensions to pay for pain medication and heart medication and stroke rehabilitation therapy and to buy their grandchildren asthma medication and dental care?

It's all I can do to not start swearing here.

Garnish their wages?

What wages?

As if working America were just a bunch of slaggards, hoarding their lavish salaries, seeking medical care in urgent care clinics and emergency rooms and denying their children preventative care, acute care, dental care, and annual check ups at a regular pediatrician to buy luxury cars, second homes, expensive vacations, designer clothes, drugs, junk food, big screen t.v.'s?

Healthcare is not an "entitlement" or a luxury.

What wages?

In America today, Mrs. Clinton -

Teachers are working at Barnes & Noble in the evening.  Men and women are working two jobs to stay in their homes and feed themselves.  Seniors are pinching pennies, eating less and turning the lights out early to save money on utilities and food.  Children are going to school hungry.  Children are dying because of infected teeth and asthma attacks that go untreated until it is too late.

People are dying every day of cancer left untreated until too late or because they cannot afford the treatment that might save them or let them live more comfortably a little longer.

Garnish their wages?

How heartless. How out of touch.

Tags: Hilllary Clinton, Healthcare (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 165 comments

    •  It's A Term and Idea (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      mainefem, luckylizard

      That no one who has actually spent genuine time with normal folks would use. Clinton has lived in a bubble for the past 15 years and this stumble by her is a sign of that. Given all the other news going on I don't know if it'll get much play, but if she's the nominee McCain will beat her to a pulp with this.

    •  I understand you completely (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Patricia Taylor, mainefem

      I feel like screaming.

      The problem is that people have bought into the lie - yes, "lie" - that there are "free riders." People who can afford insurance, but don't buy it for some reason.

      Who exactly are these people? I have not seen any evidence to suggest these people exist, in any significant number.

      Do people really mean to say that all of us 47 million uninsured Americans are without insurance because we like it that way? What the hell kind of bullshit is that? I am uninsured because I can't afford it.

      What Hillary is saying to me is that because I cannot afford insurance, I am to be treated like a criminal and a tax cheat. It's regressive, right-wing crap.

      Our goal is to provide guaranteed health care to people who need it. It should NOT be to garnish people's wages for not being able to buy junk insurance.

      The health care debate at dKos has now degenerated into total farce. I commend you for trying to return reason and logic to the discussion.

      I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
      Neither is California High Speed Rail

      by eugene on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:31:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I have a serious question (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Patricia Taylor

      That nobody seems to have addressed yet. Both candidates have said that everyone will be paying premiums not based on prior health conditions. Having worked in a major insurance company, I know that their entire system for rating people is based on their prior health, age, sex, and risks such as drinking, smoking, drug use, etc.

      So, how will this system be revamped? Will the premiums still take into account other risk factors, besides health?

      I understand that this is a very heated issue, but there are, what I find to be, other legitimate questions that I have besides "How will it be paid for?"

      I also want to know how either candidate suggests we keep insurance companies from having any say in this issue. I can guarantee that private insurance companies will not want to provide health insurance because the risk will be too high, and so will the payout. Some major companies, including #1, will stop providing health insurance for this reason. So, will that mean that the government will provide the only health insurance coverage?

      My questions go a little beyond the scope of this diary, but I truly want to know if either candidate has addressed any of the issues and consequences of their plans (besides the object of money and that the result will be great).

      Can anybody provide me any links?

      "Since, then, we both wear masks, either let us both retain them or put them aside together." -The Man in the Iron Mask

      by L etudiante on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:30:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Obama Has Stated Several Times (0+ / 0-)

        that there will be negotiations and that they will be transparent.

        Here is aJanuary 17 article.  I heard him restate this idea in a recent debate, as well.

        Obama said Wednesday that negotiations on a new health care plan should be done on C-Span so people can see, for instance, the true positions of insurance and pharmaceutical companies.

        He criticized the attempt by Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., to provide universal health care during her husband's administration, arguing that negotiations were carried out in secret.

        There is this in the Chicago Tribune-

        Campaign officials said the proposal would require between $50 billion and $65 billion per year in new federal funds when fully phased in. That money would come from rolling back tax cuts given to the wealthiest Americans.

        Part of the cost comes from the up-front expense of overhauling medical records technology to cut costs and better manage care.

        In a brief interview after his speech, Obama said the cost of that new technology was a factors that brought him to the conclusion that taxes would have to be increased for some.

        "We started with the basic premise of what can we document as the actual savings on the front end," he said. "On the front-end, it's not enough."

        His proposal, for example, calls for investing $10 billion a year in information technology for the first five years, something he said will bring huge savings later.

        "There are going to be some initial investments, as more people are using health care services and some front-end investments are required for rural hospitals to buy computers, for example," he said.

        There is a brief overviewin his position paper on the issue.

        I'm short on time today or I'd research details a bit more.

        Basically, there is a plan to reduce and offset costs as well as negotiate with the involved corporate entities to provide coverage and services.

        Hope this helped a little bit.

  •  She said (3+ / 0-)

    watch the interview...she said "maybe" -- alomng with many other options.

    You'd think this place was red state the way people are mis characterizing and demagoguing UHC.

    •  I Saw What She Said (7+ / 0-)

      She said this-

      "We will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments."

      Senator Clinton is implying that the reason why Americans don't have insurance is because a number of them are unwilling to pay for it, even though they have jobs are could afford to do so.

      That her health plan will work because she will "go after" that money.

      That is just out of touch with the economic reality of working and poor America.

      •  Sorry, Pat... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        MediaFreeze, Clem Yeobright

        It's not out of touch.

        There are thousand of people eligible for Medicaid and they aren't signed up.

        Hillary is right on this to get people covered and to make the system truly universal and cost effective.

        It would force people who could pay to pay, if in fact she did go that route.

        Obama's plan is just expanded access...and will be watered down even more when the Republicans get in on it.

        You'll never sell me on this.

        •  Garnish is Trouble (3+ / 0-)

          I used to do payroll for a small company. You ever talk to someone who gets a paycheck that's a hundred buck light because it had money garnished from it? Not pleasant phone calls. Really bad politics.

        •  I Sit in A Cancer Support Group Each Week. (4+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          eugene, maineiac, mainefem, luckylizard

          My husband is a cancer survivor.

          I hear the stories of people who've lost their insurance because they got too sick to work and had to quit, or got fired, or they let their insurance lapse because they were too sick to take care of paperwork or because they couldn't afford payments.  Then they can't get new insurance or medications or treatment they need because they have a "pre-existing condition" that excludes them from care.

          I hear the stories of people who've lost everything - their jobs, their homes, their businesses, their families, their friends, because they got sick.

          I know people who are living hand to mouth, getting clinic care, growing credit card debt, eating poorly, hiding from creditors, because they have been sick and now they can't get jobs.

          I've seen people attending the clinics in the basement of NY cancer hospitals because they can get care there without insurance.

          My husband has a good job so he gets good care.  I know many other people who don't.

          I've met mothers with children with asthma, in Bridgeport and in Meriden and in New Haven, who bring their kids to the emergency room in the middle of the night when their baby girl or boy has an acute asthma attack.  Their children don't get daily care for their respiratory conditions because these women work jobs as cleaning women and sales clerks and at fast food restaurants or as baby sitters.  They don't have insurance, they don't have wages to garnish.

          In all the places I've lived, in all the people I've ever worked with or spoken too, I've never met a person who wouldn't buy insurance for themselves if they could afford it, in order to care for themselves or their children.

          And now DEMOCRATS are talking about FORCING PEOPLE TO PAY FOR INSURANCE OUT OF THEIR SHRINKING PAYCHECKS?

          How outrageous.

        •  Why aren't they signed up? (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          mainefem

          Why is your first assumption to treat them like criminals and cheaters?

          I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
          Neither is California High Speed Rail

          by eugene on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:32:18 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Economic reality and going naked (0+ / 0-)

        First you say that most people will sign up for affordable insurance at first opportunity, then you grieve for those who won't sign up for it, choosing to go bare.

        Which is it?

        You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

        by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:03:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No, she's not ... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        eleanora, Clem Yeobright

        In order for a universal health care system to work, you have to have it universally applied.  By letting people opt out of the system you greatly increase the cost, because the people who are paying are also using the system.

        If you have a problem with automatic enrollment or garnished wages then you have a problem with Social Security and Medicaid as well.

        Everyone who works (with some rare exceptions) is automatically enrolled in both, and has their wages tapped to pay for it.  There's no choice in the matter.

        Imagine if Social Security allowed people to opt out of the system if they thought they couldn't afford it that year.  The system would collapse immediately, because it is a system that is based on pooled risk.

        So if you are going to be outraged over this, get outraged over the existing programs that are the same.

      •  I have to agree with you (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        eugene, Patricia Taylor, mainefem

        I work in an insurance office in Florida. You have no idea the number of people who walk into our office barely able to pay car insurance (which is required in Florida). I have often heard the argument that health insurance is like car insurance, but the truth is if somebody chooses to let their car insurance lapse they no longer get to drive, there is no second option on health insurance. So many people would love to have health insurance (or for that matter, life insurance) but do not have the means. That's the one point Obama has me completely sold on.

        "Since, then, we both wear masks, either let us both retain them or put them aside together." -The Man in the Iron Mask

        by L etudiante on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:10:53 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  well some do (0+ / 0-)

        make that choice. I did before marriage & kids. But that was my choice and I had  every right to make it. However, someone w/o the means to healthcare who needs it and wants does not need to have their wages garnished. Maybe she has great intentions and this quote is out of context but  that short snippet is incredibly frightening. What else would she like to mandate by garnishing wages? That we all play the flute?

        •  Are you going to pay the cost of your health (0+ / 0-)

          care for your entire life over the course of your life?

          Maybe, maybe not. But if you are allowed to opt out of the system until you start getting dizzy or start feeling chest pains, it's pretty clear you won't.

          Know what you'll be? A free-rider.

          You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

          by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:54:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  why would I be free loading? (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Patricia Taylor

            If I did not buy insurance nor use anyone else's? if I got sick & paid myself? All I am saying is that if, when I was 25 young and healthy and someone said - you HAVE to buy an insurance policy because the government said so I would have said no way. I NEED the extra dough. Maybe I just WANTED the extra dough but it was my extra dough.

            THis is the conundrum with Universal Healthcare or Universal insurance. it isn't the same thing. You cannot guarantee universal coverage if people do not want the coverage. Unless of course you FORCE them into unwanted coverage. At that point you have trampled on someone's rights. Then perhaps you could try for a constitutional amendment that makes healthcare mandatory- but I don't see that as a possibility. Its a bear of a problem - that I do not have the answer for by the way :-)

            •  Yes, you are free-loading. (0+ / 0-)

              If you view this as a lifetime commitment, not day-by-day or year-by-year, then it is clear you should be making payments on your health care needs in your sixties while you are still in your twenties.

              You are right that the current system is indeed a day-by-day system, in that you can choose any day to opt into an insurance plan and that plan can choose any day to expel you from it.

              You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

              by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  got to disagree again (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                politely - you say "If you view this as a lifetime commitment, not day-by-day or year-by-year, then it is clear you should be making payments on your health care needs in your sixties while you are still in your twenties."

                But philosophically I disagree, Why "should I" ? Who has the right to make that decision for me? No one.

                •  Ya got me. It's NOT immoral to be a free-loader. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you plan your life in such a way that you can game the system to get $1 worth of benefit while paying 99 cents in contributions and letting unspecified others put in the other penny, you certainly have an argument that you have just been smart.  

                  And, in fact, let me be the fool to volunteer to throw that penny in for you, rather than see you denied the benefit when you need it.

                  It's not a moral issue at all.

                  Societies generally prosper based on pride and dignity much more than morality, and every system has tolerance for 'slippage' built in.

                  You're not heavy, you're my brother ...

                  You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                  by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:51:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  we're on two different levels I guess (0+ / 0-)

                    sorry- just not getting the point. I was talking philosophy & freedom to choose. Not morality. And the "morality" of me or you or anyone being forced to buy a service we do not want or need is still, well, not moral. Should all 25 year old healthy individuals be required to buy insurance? Why?

        •  You Bring Up a Point That Libertarians (0+ / 0-)

          and independent voters will make -

          What else would she like to mandate by garnishing wages?

          Now that it is a little later (and I have calmed down a bit) and I'm reading this comment thread, it strikes me that Hillary's comment this morning on ABC might well have been a sort of divisive "call to arms" of some sort, or a distraction, like the guns and gays issues that the GOP would bring up to distract their base.

          But who does Hillary rally with this sort of language, the key phrases being

          enforcement mechanism,
          mechanism,
          tax system,
          automatic enrollments?

          She sounds like a technocrat or a bureaucratic wonk.  Is this language meant to reassure, to signal experience?

          Maybe this language appeals to other voters, to a Democratic base.  Maybe I'm just really so out of her constituency group (as her campaign has defined it) that I am being triggered in a negative way while others are seeing positives.

          I truly don't get it.  As I said previously, I've come to see Hillary Clinton as a bully.

          Maybe I should seek help for some sort of hereto before buried issues with my own mother or something!

          My rational mind says otherwise.

          What on earth makes anyone think that any healthcare plan that needs "enforcement mechanisms" is going to be a concept welcomed by the majority of the American people, especially working folks?

      •  Did she say "garnish"? Or did ABC? (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        eleanora, Clem Yeobright

        If she said "withholding" instead of "garnish", would you still be furious? Do you get furious every week at the several withholdings from your paycheck?

        If we had a single payer plan, would you get furioius every week at the thought of taxes withheld from your check to support that system?

        You do understand that the working poor are subsidized 100%, don't you, with subsidies reduced as incomes increase on a sliding scale?

        You do understand that Obama's plan -- and Edwards plan -- does the same thing, don't you?

        You do understand that under Obama's proposal a free rider is involuntarily enrolled in a default plan on first contact with the health care system? How do you suppose those premiums get collected?

        The Great Obama might saw the lady in half, but he won't make the elephant disappear. The Confluence

        by RonK Seattle on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:09:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  You have not seen the icing on the cake yet. (14+ / 0-)

    ...If you can't afford it do you know what the 'subsidy' is all about?

    Tax payers money to the insurance companies. It makes me sick.

    LOWER THE DAMN PRICES!!! That is the solution.

    "I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters" Solomon Short

    by RedMask on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:25:31 AM PDT

    •  Actually, that's what the program does (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      By requiring everyone to participate is spreads the risk in the pool to a greater number of healthy people who are not using health care.  That lowers the price of health care in the aggregate, and thus people can afford it.

      If you don't require everyone to participate, then the cost will remain high.

      •  Not true (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        eugene, Patricia Taylor

        Clinton's plan does not require everyone to participate. You can opt out of it, just like you can in Obama's plan. She said it herself in the last debate (CA).

           And the reason why I have designed a plan that, number one, tells people, "If you have health insurance and you're happy with it, nothing changes," is because we want to maximize choice for people.

           So if you are satisfied, you're not one of the people who will necessarily at this time take advantage of what I'm offering. But if you are uninsured or underinsured, we will open the congressional health plan to you. (Applause.)

        "Since, then, we both wear masks, either let us both retain them or put them aside together." -The Man in the Iron Mask

        by L etudiante on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:16:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That is participating (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          If you have insurance on your own, through your employer, from your retirement program you don't have to buy in.

          But that doesn't mean you are not participating.  The point is to ensure everyone has health care and is paying in to systems to pool risk.

          So there is a requirement that everyone participate.  Not that they participate in the government programs or a particular program, but that they have health insurance.

          •  I'm sorry for my wording (0+ / 0-)

            I like your response. Your point was well made.

            But my point is, you create essentially the same risk pools in both Obama's and Clinton's health plans because the same people who opt out of one can opt out of the other. Most of the people who Obama thinks will opt out of his plan are either: well insured or young (under 25). The truth is well insured people (also generally the richer people) are not going to buy into Clinton's or Obama's plans. People under 18 are mandated by both plans to have health insurance provided by the parents. People >18 and <25 are still covered under their parent's health care poilicies. Finally, most people who are 25 or older and healthy (who some people assume don't care about health care- although I know that to be untrue) will generally have health care provided through their workplace. This is assuming that they went to college and have a decent paying job. Those who did not go to college and/or do not earn enough money or are not provided health care through their companies will be provided sufficient funds through Obama's plan to buy health insurance. So, again, essentially the same risk pools in both plans.</p>

            "Since, then, we both wear masks, either let us both retain them or put them aside together." -The Man in the Iron Mask

            by L etudiante on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:06:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Except for the 15 million (0+ / 0-)

              who will rationally go bare. That's how this whole discussion got started: Obama calls for allowing those people to remove themselves from the pool, and Clinton and Edwards realize that the entire system will fail without their participation.

              You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

              by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:13:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The "15 million" (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright

                People are still being discussed. So far as I have found researching, nobody can say who these "15 million who will rationally go bare," are. I know that  The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn estimated it. From my research, what can be said is that nobody actually knows the figures of either of the plans, because  neitherhas been fully detailed to the extent that true statistical data can be taken.

                I would really like to know who the 15 million are (I am not being sarcastic or mean-spirited)- what tax bracket, age group, race, etc. Please provide me a link if you have one.

                "Since, then, we both wear masks, either let us both retain them or put them aside together." -The Man in the Iron Mask

                by L etudiante on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:48:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  If there are zero free-riders, then there will be (0+ / 0-)

                  zero garnishments, right?

                  And if there are 2 free-riders, then 2 people will be garnished, right?

                  Sens Clinton and Edwards took a responsible estimate from a respected analyst and used that number.

                  The point is that a plan without mandates will inevitably fail. It will be more expensive, and that in turn will make it rational for others to opt out. And so on.

                  If Sen Obama is correct in claiming there will be no free-riders then there is no advantage on either side.

                  One does wonder, though, why Sen Obama came up with a bizarre half-baked proposal for dealing with them during the LA debate. He seemed to be acknowledging that the phenomenon will occur. Why wouldn't it? It's rational.

                  You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                  by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 02:24:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  No one assumes mandates will (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Clem Yeobright, L etudiante

                ensure everyone, Massachusetts has already exempted 20% of people who can't afford the insurance despite the subsidies. The fines are going up on those not exempted but still not buying it because they can't afford it

                Honestly both plans are less than great. If they want great they would go single payer universal coverage. Then it would make more sense to have all people and employers pay in by some formula, then it would be a shared pool.

                But this mix of subsidies and payments going to a variety private insurers is not as clear cut a benefit or a way to cut costs.
                Obama actually has an important cost cutting provision that Clinton does not and that is capping risk for insurers through federal reinsurance for catastrophic coverage.

                Obama has mandates...for children as noted (not covered by other expanded programs) and on large employers. He's also said later mandates could be added once prices are lower and if not having them turns out to be a problem. I think it makes more sense that way as we go through the bureaucratic mess of getting it all started.

                They both have good intentions and good points and drawbacks. Obama's will clearly get refining through the (open) policy meetings/negotiating. I assume Clinton might have such meetings too. With experts and spokespeople from all areas of it discussing the issues they'll likely improve in the refining.

                But again they both miss the mark on single payer health care. I disagree that Clinton's mandates make it easier to go to that since private insurance are a big part of her plan too.

                There just isn't enough difference in how many will end up covered to make that the big issue. The guy who initially said 15 million later said he was surprised to hear other campaigns using it, it was a rough estimate not expertly arrived at. Today I heard her say the 15 million will keep growing larger. Why would that be? Rising costs? If so those defying mandates would go up too.

                We don't know the numbers on either of these imperfect plans.

                But you can't compare these mandates to others. Auto insurance? People are obliged to get PLPD for the damage they do to others, not to cover their own.
                SS and Medicare? Those are fixed government programs available to everyone regardless of income.

                •  Not much to disagree with there. Thanks. (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  joynow

                  Of course single-payor is the goal, but it's not a practical proposal in the current environment.

                  I like Obama's proposal to absorb catastrophic claim costs, but I am not comfortable that he will accomplish it through reimbursements to insurance companies (cost-plus, no doubt!) based on vague conditions. This certainly holds promise of cutting premiums in the case that the insurance policy doesn't have per-case and lifetime caps already (but most do, I think).

                  Since the promise is that these plans are intermediary steps on the way to single-payor, perhaps my next cavil seems arbitrary, but the way I see it, as I've mentioned above, is that every individual who opts out - as a rational choice - increases the premiums for those who remain, which then makes it rational for others to opt out, which raises premiums again ... so that a system without mandates is doomed to collapse. That's why I am chary of Obama's casual rejection of mandates. Note that he deals with mandates in absolute 'rights' terms and has effectively shut down their application if he finds the above analysis accurate.

                  Please remember that we get one bite at this apple. If the Rs can construct this policy in a way that will guarantee its failure, it will be 30 years before we get full medical coverage for every American.

                  BTW: Personally, I am in great shape under the current system. I don't even have any close relatives blocked out by pre-existing conditions. It's strictly my intellectual conclusion that the current system stinks.

                  Peace!

                  You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                  by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  but if you take the 47million people (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          who don't aren't covered and put them on a plan . . .  you have your pool. and people may switch from what they have to one of the options that will becoma available. for instance, those that are getting squeezed by the rising cost of employer offered insurance. at my last staff job i had to decide if i could afford the next rate hike. it would have been nice to have a lower cost plan to opt into.

          •  Sorry (0+ / 0-)

            I misread the comment to which I replied.

            I agree with you completely. I think that either plan is going to give that other good option.

            "Since, then, we both wear masks, either let us both retain them or put them aside together." -The Man in the Iron Mask

            by L etudiante on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:11:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Everyone uses health care (0+ / 0-)

        Or do you not want healthy people to have regular doctors' visits, dental cleanings, and eye exams?

        This notion that health care is all about pooling risk is idiotic. It's about how to pay for health care. "Risk" has little to do with it.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day
        Neither is California High Speed Rail

        by eugene on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:37:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Get real. (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        snackdoodle

        It still gives the insurance companies a big hunk of profits.

        And the tax credit stuff does NOTHING for people who can't afford it in the first place.

        If the money isn't there, it isn't there.  So they're criminals now or they have their wages garnished.

        Hillary's health care plan doesn't sound so good when you get into the details.  

  •  How do you suppose we get a Nat. Healthcare (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MarkC, otis704, Clem Yeobright

    Policy without everyone jumping in? We are either in this together or we are on our own. All people will have to buy into this to bring prices down.  You are not seeing the bigger picture here.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:27:19 AM PDT

  •  Not completely a new idea (7+ / 0-)

    Money is deducted for Social security, medicare, and in many states unemployment and disability.  should those deductions be stopped as well?  Social security is basically your wages being garnished.  

    Maybe it could be worth it if we got universal health care?  I'm just thinking it's conversation that we need to have calmly and rationally over the next year without over reacting.

    "The woman's life is misery; for God's sake, people, at least give her a few good songs". NYT review of The Color Purple

    by arogue7 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:27:50 AM PDT

    •  So the Answer is to ADD ANOTHER DEDUCTION (4+ / 0-)

      to working people's wages?

      How welcoming to the middle class is that idea?

      Or to young people in entry level positions who are trying to pay back student loans or start a family?

      Or to senior citizens who've lost their pensions or seen their retirement accounts dwindle to nothing who are back to work at McDonalds or as substitute teachers or bus monitors in order to eat?

      Christ.

      •  Yes, but... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, nycstray

        That deduction is more than made up for by the overall reduction in the cost of their healthcare.

        Let's look at the situation now.

        Someone without health insurance goes to the hospital. They get treated and a big bill comes in the mail. That's the real cost of not having the insurance.

        Now, why didn't they have health insurance? Because it is so damn expensive and the insurance companies and drug companies make it impossible for low income people to afford.

        The result is that low income people get clobbered with healthcare costs over their lives.

        With universal coverage only a small fraction of income is payed in, and people with really low income pay nothing at all. One the other hand when you go to the doctor or hospital you don't get a big bill in the mail. Low income people save money, a lot of it.

        But this only works when everyone is required to participate.

        •  Except That it Isn't Really Universal Coverage (0+ / 0-)

          either, is it, with those able to afford and willing to opt out (i.e., the very rich) doing so.

          So the idea of it being a big pool where everyone's insurance gets to be lower in price isn't real in her plan, either, is it?

          And we end up with this -

          A two-tiered (public and private) insurance and healthcare system, like in Ireland now, where there is public care and then (for a price) premium care and where if you are unfortunate enough to be working but able to barely afford the necessities of life you get wages pulled out each month if you don't voluntarily turn them over to pay for the second tier of care?

          While the insurance and drug companies, like the oil companies, continue to turn obscene profits?

          This idea is so wrong and so out of touch that, in a way, I'm calmer now, because if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate, and she tries to run on this healthcare scheme, the GOP are going to run her out of town on a rail with it and it will never come to pass.

          •  Again, the perfect is the enemy of the good... (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright, arogue7

            What happens now to those people who have no health insurance? They don't even get a second tier. They are in free fall without a net.

            Why you conclude that the drug and insurance companies necessarily continue to make obscene profits I don't understand. Isn't that going to be a function of how the details of the program are worked out?

            The point is if you don't start with the concept of universal coverage you can be certain that the obscene profits will continue.

          •  Why aren't those companies jumping aboard? (0+ / 0-)

            You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

            by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 01:04:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  and in return give them health insurance (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        MediaFreeze, Clem Yeobright

        and, over a period of just a few years reduce the cost of government by reducing the impact of caring for so many sick people without insurance.

        Right now the only way for the uninsured who cannot afford care to get care is to show up to the emergency room.  This is the most expensive and least effective type of care out there, and results in worse outcomes and more tax dollars spent.

        By mandating insurance across the board, government costs for health care drop immensely.  That will lower other taxes people have to pay.  

        It will also lower costs on businesses in productivity, lost employee hours, health care costs.  That will lower prices for products for these folks.

        If you don't believe me, look at how much less the government spends today on cancers and lung disease caused by smoking over the past five years.  They started focusing on reducing smoking 20 years ago, and over the past five years the costs have dropped precipitously.

        And, for people who are poor and can't afford health care there are options for the government to provide rebates, subsidies and programs that they can afford.

    •  Look at it this way... (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      arogue7

      Would auto insurance work if it was not mandated? What happens when someone who does not have insurance runs into you and does not have auto insurance? Who would pay?

      Healthcare is the same. What happens when someone who has decided not to purchase health insurance gets sick? Who pays?

      The only way that a comprensive healthcare system works is if everyone, as part of being a citizen is required to participate.

      Of course it must be the case that everyone can afford the insurance. You can look at how much income they make and price the insurance as a small fraction of that income. People that make little or know income would need to get the insurance basically for free. But everyone is covered.  You can't make enough to afford it and not buy into the system.

      Again, people who really can't afford it, get it for free. That's the important point. And, the cost of healthcare is drammatically reduced for everyone.

      Why should this be so difficult to enforce? People have to pay their taxes. That's a mandate. People who don't pay their taxes have them automatically taken out of their wages. Taxes are used to pay for things that the nation in general needs like bridges, police and wars public education.

      Why is health care any different from other basic services? It is not. All advanced societies on the globe except the US have recognized this.

      The problem is that politically powerful industries are reaping fantastic profits by seperating the citizens of this country from their money when they get sick. The way the healthcare system in this country works is that as you get old you are guaranteed to drain you last savings into their coffers. It is ghoulish and disgusting.

      Of course overall costs need to be lowered and they will be if the stranglehold of these industries is loosened, but the overall effect of universal healthcare will be to dramatically reduce the healthcare financial burden of people like the single mothers and others you discuss.

      Without a plan that mandates that everyone participate there is no way that the system will change. The drug, insurance and heathcare companies that are preying on those very people won't let it.

      •  Hate to Break It To You (3+ / 0-)

        But lots of people drive around without insurance. Look at your insurance policy. You're paying a premium that covers accidents in which the other driver doesn't have insurance.

        Oh, and no one garnishes paychecks to pay for car insurance.

        •  No, they just fine the hell out of you (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          MediaFreeze, Patricia Taylor, arogue7

          and take away your license when you're caught.

          And then when you're caught driving without a license, you are fined and quite possibly do time.

          And if you don't pay the fine, guess what? Garnishment!

          You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

          by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:05:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And You Think (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            mainefem

            The above process, incorporated into a health insurance program, is a vote-getter for Democrats?

            You probably thought Mondale running on a pledge to raise taxes in 1984 was an act of political genius.

            •  Yes (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              joynow, Clem Yeobright

              Because the healthcare system in our nation absolutely sucks.

              Before people die they empty their bank accounts into the coffers of the greedy drug, insurance and healthcare companies.

              People recognize that this has to change.

              If we can get past the kind of knee jerk reaction exhibited in this diary--and we must get past being vulnerable to this kind of swiftboat rhetoric---then people will vote to bring a sane healthcare program to this country.

              •  Honestly (3+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Patricia Taylor, bwintx, mainefem

                Some of you folks need to spend some time with honest to goodness normal Americans. The idea that the government is going to garnish your wages if you don't buy health insurance is a vaccuum, handed to the Republicans, for sucking up votes from coast to coast.

                You'd think Hillary would have learned her lesson in 1994. All that experience, etc.

                PS: Mondale lost 49 states. He may have had some great ideas, but good ideas that win one state aren't, well, anything at all.

                •  Honest to goodness normal Americans (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  MediaFreeze, arogue7

                  like the ones Patricia has described above? Which ones do you mean: the ones who have lost their houses to medical bills? or the ones who live in fear of an illness because they have 'pre-existing conditions' and are shut out of the insurance system?

                  I think we'll do fine being straight with the voters.

                  You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

                  by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  That's sad... (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Clem Yeobright

                  ...because what you are saying is that normal Americans will always be susceptible to being tricked into voting against their true interests.

                  I reject that.

                  I think that we need a candidate that can go toe to toe with the spinmeisters and call them out.

                  Quite honestly the thing that worries me the most about the way this whole healthcare discussion has played out is that the Obama campaign has seize on this clever disingenuous ploy to get people all worked up about "garnishment." Those are the political tactics of the Republicans and their media toadies. Democrats can't win by playing that game, because in the end the Republicans will always have the more shify slime merchants and the media in their pocket.

                  Democrats have to win by telling the truth.

                  This is not a truthful campaign against universal healtcare and it is troubling to see it coming from the Obama campaign.

            •  So you are happy with the system as it is, right? (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              MediaFreeze

              Sen Clinton is being honest about establishing universal coverage.  She is not a 'stealth' candidate. Yep, I think it's good to do some straight-talking up front, because if you weasel about it there will be no mandate to implement it after the election.

              You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

              by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:25:02 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Which People Love - (0+ / 0-)

            and so, without fines and garnishment, without penalties like those applied to people driving without auto insurance, how is Senator Clinton going to force this down the throats of those who don't comply, this "enforcement mechanism, whether it's that or it's some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments."

            Will this be another unenforced governmental mandate, a law with not teeth in it because there is no penalty for breaking it?

            Or will Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Congress and Senate pass laws to send American workers to jail for not paying their Health Tax?

            This will be the GOP argument in the general election.  I guarantee you.

          •  Driving is a privilege (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Clem Yeobright

            The argument that I have heard over and over is that being healthy and being provided good health care is a right that all Americans should have.

            If you don't want to pay car insurance:
             a.) Don't drive.
             b.) Drive without insurance (and most likely get caught, where you will have your license revoked).

            If you don't want to pay health insurance:
             a.) Don't live?
             b.) Live without insurance and then get fined.

            I guess those would be the two parallel options.

            If the argument of the Democratic party that health care should be provided for all is a right, then it cannot be compared to driving. Driving is a privilege, not a right. There are many alternatives offered to driving (car pooling, public transportation, cycling, walking, etc.), but those alternatives do not exist for health care.

            "Since, then, we both wear masks, either let us both retain them or put them aside together." -The Man in the Iron Mask

            by L etudiante on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 09:06:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Hate to tell you this but, (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Patricia Taylor, mainefem

        Sure auto insurance is mandated, but that does not mean that everyone has auto insurance.  That is why there is insurance against an "uninsured motorist."  Nobody is garnishing uninsured motorist's wages, so your point is not really a point in that concern.  I believe in universal health care, but what I do not believe in is health care that insures that my money is going to fill the coffers of an insurance industry with or without my approval.  I don't think either candidate has it right, a single payer system is the only way to have what we all want.  But if our country need something in the interim before we achieve single payer, then I don't want that interim to benefit the insurance industry that I am patently against.  On a side note, the major reason I support Barack Obama is because while his plan is not perfect, he is offering our nation the opportunity to demand a single payer system, to become engaged in the process of pushing back against the insurance industry, and to make real change happen.  I believe he would encourage it when he is President, and I look forward to being part of the solution in demanding it.

        Change is the handmaiden Nature requires to do her miracles with.-Mark Twain

        by Severed in Twain on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:04:55 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See Clem's answer above... (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Clem Yeobright

          ...and I agree that single payer is really the best solution. The reason that no one is talking about a single payer plan is because they know it will never pass. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good.

          Regarding helping the insurance companies. They will fight tooth and nail against universal healthcare because they will lose a lot of money. As a huge group the government will have the power to negotiate prices. The government will mandate that they offer coverage to everyone and empose statutory limits on how much they can charge.

          If you really want to stick it to the insurance companies you should be a big supporter of a universal healthcare plan.

          •  stick it to them by ensuring... (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            joynow

            ...that they get everyone's money as well as tax subsidies?  I'd rather cast my lot with a President who encourages me to have his ear and make change happen...from the bottom up.  No amount of triangulation is going to ensure a single payer system comes about, and will only leave us with another divisive, embittered electorate.

            Change is the handmaiden Nature requires to do her miracles with.-Mark Twain

            by Severed in Twain on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:52:58 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  One more thing... (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Clem Yeobright, arogue7

        The word "garnishment" is deliberately being used here to evoke the kind of emotions that are expressed in this diary.

        This is a classic example of how the media shills, Republican slime merchants and in this case I'm afraid, the Obama campaign uses loaded terms to fool people into voting against their best interest.

        Everyone agrees that "garnishment" is an evil thing. So they repeat the term over and over, hoping people will look no further and make a snap decision based on an emotional response.

        They don't say payroll deduction or withholding they say "garnished."

        But, what if you are "garnished" a small amount and the savings are very big? Well then I'd be happy to be garnished.

        This is why it is critical to back a candidate that can take on these types of disingenuous attacks and calmly and rationally explain the real value proposition to the American people. It will be very difficult because the opponents, the big drug, insurance and healthcare companies have lots of money and to fight it and they are very clever.

      •  Can't compare (0+ / 0-)

        Would auto insurance work if it was not mandated?

        The mandated insurance is property loss and damage to the other drivers car. That might vary by state but in all the states I'm aware of it's PL PD required so if I cause losses to other people that is covered but my own losses are not.

        What happens when someone who has decided not to purchase health insurance gets sick? Who pays?

        The uninsured person.

        The way the healthcare system in this country works is that as you get old you are guaranteed to drain you last savings

        When you get old you have medicare and yes that is mandated...because it is universal single payer coverage for all people over a certain age.
        It is not going to private insurance companies.

        Not sure why the belief this would drop prices. This is not a single pool, this is a whole bunch of insurance companies.

        Obama's is actually more likely to lower prices because of the provision to cap the risk to insures by providing federal reinsurance for catastrophic coverage.
        He does have mandates on large employers as well.

        No one has single payer universal coverage. Mandates don't bring us closer, not when private insurers are part of it.

  •  Not a good statement (8+ / 0-)

    No matter what context this was said in, this isn't good for the Democratic party.  If she is the nominee it will be a guarantee that this statement will be played non-stop until November.  A definite political slip.

    Fox news: Even better than meth!

    by get the red out on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:27:57 AM PDT

  •  Bingo (7+ / 0-)

    Its the difference between bottom up vs. top down governing.
    Clinton asks us to trust her to make the right choices for us.
     Obama trusts the people to make the right choices for themselves.

    60 for the Senate. Obama 08.

    by bornadem on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:28:51 AM PDT

  •  And Obama would fine when they enter the plan. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    otis704, Clem Yeobright

    They both favor a penalty system.  Clinton would make it a current expense, Obama a future liability.  So I look forward to this diary being updated to account for the outrage you feel at Obama's plan.

    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

      and say in Obama's plan you have been diagnosed with leukemia.  At what point and how much are you going to penalize someone?  Are they going to have pay premiums all the way back to when they were uncovered or?  Likely a person that has just been diagnosed with something drastic and is going to need time off of work, how are they going to pay for this, because they probably couldn't afford the insurance in the first place or they would have had it in place.  I just don't like his plan at ALL.

      There is no way to peace. Peace is the way. - Mahatma Gandhi

      by otis704 on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 11:34:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  She's like Marie Antoinette! (4+ / 0-)

    "Let 'em eat cake!"

    •  That's just silly. (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MediaFreeze, huntsu, Abra Crabcakeya

      I don't believe you favor universal health insurance at all.

      You kids behave or I'm turning this universe around RIGHT NOW! - god

      by Clem Yeobright on Sun Feb 03, 2008 at 12:07:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, she says let's share the cost (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Clem Yeobright

      That's just a ridiculous thing to say.  Marie Antoinette was suggesting that the poor should eat the worst food so that she and the royals could maintain their luxuries and privilege.

      Clinton is suggesting that everyone in America has a share in creating universal health care so that everyone in America can benefit from universal health care.

      If she were Marie Antoinette then she would be with the Republican plans that preserve the best care for the rich and tell the