Free health care for all?

[Flashermac]

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."

 

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."

 

 

More

 

[cavanami]

Hellery has to make sure that the big insurance companies make $$$

[Flashermac]

That's what it looks like to me. Instead of using some of the money thrown away on foreign wars, she'll force folks to buy their own insurance - and make it sound like she's doing something wonderful.

 

 

 

[mongon]

Medical care is exorbitantly expensive. The only solution of course is for the government to force people to make even more money available to pay for it (i.e. universalize coverage), so that medical costs can spiral even further upward. Sounds like a good policy.

 

I really look forward to having to pay for the spiraling health care costs of the 100 million americans who make themselves sick to death (almost) by eating McDonalds and drinking coke all day inducing diabetes and heart disease.

 

I don't suppose they would outlaw unhealthy foods as part of their universal healthcare plan, would they? While I think the proposals for universal coverage are unwise, if I have to pay for it, then it stands to reason that the gov should clean up the food supply that is poisoning people and which drives the health care costs. Might lower the amount Hillary will force me to pay.

[Old Hippie]

"...I really look forward to having to pay for the spiraling health care costs of the 100 million americans who make themselves sick to death (almost) by eating McDonalds and drinking coke all day inducing diabetes and heart disease.

 

I don't suppose they would outlaw unhealthy foods as part of their universal healthcare plan..."

 

So will that make Americans more healthy? maybe ration food as well? Mandatory exercise as well? Don't want to pay for people with unhealthy life styles? fact is, you pay for those people now, as well as the people who have no insurance, and those here illegally.

 

It is *possible* that some form of national health care *might* lead to people leading healthier life styles.

 

America is the only "industrialized nation" with no national health care, and we are among the worst in terms of providing health coverage. So is the alternative to just stay the course and keep going?

 

Fact is, if I/most people lose my/their job, I/we can't afford medical coverage, if I had to pay for it myself, while working, I still could not afford it. So what is your proposal? And why are Americans so opposed to having health care?

[Hugh_Hoy]

 

OMG! Can u imagine trying to garnish wages of tens of thousands of workers? Talk about a nightmare and the establishment of another mega bureaucracy ! Never in a million years should there be a woman president!

 

HH

[mongon]

Old Hippie: My feelings on this have more to do with my theory of government than anything else.

 

We were able to get along without government healthcare for all of human history. I don't see the reason that the federal government suddenly has an obligation to provide universal health coverage. Now, at a time when the US government is spending the country into oblivion and the SS system is heading for a catstrophe does not seem like the best time for a new monolithic entitlement program. Common sense tells me that we need to cut spending, not drastically increase it.

 

Currently, the elderly have coverage (Medicare) and the poor have coverage (medicaid). As a middle class person my health care plan is expensive. But I choose to take a piece of my paycheck and pay it. I don't want the federal government forcing me to pay it, or to pay for others whether thru taxation or otherwise. But, they will not raise my taxes to pay for it. They will simply borrow more money and increase the defecit to pay for their new health coverage plan. To me, this is the epitome of leadership failure. The pols demagogue the issue (how can you be against healt care for children?) all the while knowing there is no way to pay for their plan.

 

If it were up to me, 50% or more of the federal govt would be eliminated and the states could decide how to pick up the lost services. Some states would find a way to health coverage, others would not impose it. That is democracy. Washington, DC forcing coverage on everyone and driving the deficit ever higher is sympomatic of a failure of the democratic experiment in the US. Everyone knows we have to reign in spending, but we are incapable. Any congressman who proposed sensible cuts to spending programs cannot be re-elected. The vested interests in the program to be cut would not only vote against the congressman, but would also finance his opponent. The result is that no program once instituted ever gets cut. And the deficit rises.

 

So my opinion is that there is a problem with people not getting access to health care, but the solution is not universal coverage. If we go that route, we will be funding the ever increasing costs of health care, making it ever more expensive for the govt to provide universal coverage. A good example of this increase in costs is college education. The federal govt decided to provide insurance to lenders so that they will provide loans to all students. The result is that tuition costs have skyrocketed. Colleges can raise tuition to any obscene amount they arbitrarily choose, because the market no longer contains the setting of the rate. No matter how high the costs go, students will be able to borrow a sufficient amount to pay for it because the fed is backing up the loan and will payoff the lender if the student fails to re-pay.

 

Whenever the fed mandates funding, it drives costs thru the roof. This universal coverage plan is going to distort the market enabling medical costs to go far higher than they otherwise would in a normal market.

 

[Old Hippie]

"...Old Hippie: My feelings on this have more to do with my theory of government than anything else..."

 

With you on that. This may be the major flaw of the program, the government fucking it up. *If* it were run like medicare and medicaid, *maybe* it would stand a chance...MAYBE.

 

right now, if I had to pay 100% of my current plan, it would be about $400usd a month, which I cannot afford (already on salary cuts and what not). A family plan would be well over $600usd a month, figure the effect it would have on the economy if ALL Americans were forced to pay 100%.

 

There has to be some compromise, some sort of middle ground. I don't mind paying a bit if I can, what I can, but the figures currently make that difficult. Were my coverage to lapse, and something happened, then I fall through the cracks, and others end up paying anyway.

 

To me, the basic emergency/life saving treatments should be covered. Not talking nose jobs and tummy tucks here, just the major stuff, by passes, hip replacements shit like that. *Maybe* breast augmentation/reconstruction where needed, but we'd have to negotiate on that.

[shygye]

 

OMG! Can u imagine trying to garnish wages of tens of thousands of workers? Talk about a nightmare and the establishment of another mega bureaucracy ! Never in a million years should there be a woman president!

 

HH

 

It is called payroll taxes. You are already paying for the healthcare of 65 yo and up. You are already paying for the emergency care of people without health insurance and at the [color:red]highest cost[/color]. You are already paying for healthcare of the poor.

 

Why is it wrong to require people to have health insurance, when they expect a hospital to treat them in an emergency?

[dean]

I'm 54 years old. From the time that I graduated from college in 1975 until now (except for 6 months when I had a catastropic health insurance policy), I haven't had health insurance. In that time (while in the U.S., I have seen a doctor twice, both times in his office and paid for the visit out of my own pocket. Its my choice. I have not contributed to the spiraling cost of health care/prescriptions (I don't take any)in the last 32 years. While I know that this would be impossible, if more people were like me, the cost of health care would be dramatically less than it is now. Unfortunately, when I move back to the U.S. later this year, I will be forced to get a health insurance policy ofr myself and wife and four children and I expect to pay through the nose for it. Fortunately, I will then only have 10 more years until I'm on medicare and then I can milk that for all its worth. Universal coverage is just a bandaid and will not fix the problems of the U.S. healthcare system. I'm not sure that, under the present system of doctors and drug companies controling key members of congress and thus makes sure that any laws passed are to their benefit, the the U.S. healthcare sysstem can be fixed.