[Jolie]

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago


WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they 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 during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Read full article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/...r/campaign_rdp

[Jolie]

So much for freedom of choice.

[Diary/Dairy]

Don't some people not enroll precisely because they cannot afford it on minimum wage?????

[pickledpepperRN]

I think it is wrong to take peoples money and give it to a corporation.Even worse to a health insurance corporation.
For what? So they can deny care?

The good thing is that I don't think that if she were President Congress would pass such a law.

Unless she became a "unitary executive" like President Bush is now.
Unfortunately we now have a precident.

[VivaLasViejas]

Another reason not to vote for Hillary..........I'm all for universal health coverage, but not if we're going to have the Nanny State robbing us of 25% of our paycheck if we cannot afford to buy insurance on our own. Sheesh, is there NO end to the bad ideas coming out of Washington?

[jjjoy]

On the other hand, the most effective way to run any kind of group insurance is to have as many low-risk participants as possible. If everyone is high-risk, the insurance won't work. The idea of insurance is that a group of people contribute money to a pot and hopefully never have to use it. For a small amount of money each month, the insured person has access to the larger amount of money in case of the specified problem. If you never have to use your insurance, that's a good thing in that case. It means you've avoided that problem.

But when the relative price of insurance gets beyone a certain point, it becomes less appealing. Such as health insurance premiums that run $600 & $800 + per month! The thought with mandated insurance is that insurance companies will have to fight for the healthy customers & that may lead them to bring down costs to lure customers to their plan - as well as expanding the insurance company's pool of customers which should also help with costs. However, how to keep insurance companies from dumping expensive patients might be a bigger issue.

And then there's perception that one's money is "wasted" on insurance if no service was used during a particular period. Lowering insurance costs is key. But so is reminding the general public that insurance is about protecting against "what if" and not about getting a tangible product or service for the cost of the premium. To remind us all that paying for certain kinds of insurance is just that - insurance - and that one needn't consider it a waste if you never make a claim on it.

Unfortunately, insurance is often misunderstood (& misrepresented) as a way to buy services or products at a great discount. I've met a number of people who buy (and sell!) cell phone "insurance" with the intention of "losing" their phone just before the policy expires. Not a very good business plan if cell phones really are that expensive. But since cell phone prices are so inflated to begin with and many people probably lose their policy or forget when it expires, that "insurance" must be profitable enough to sell.

Also unfortunately, insurance companies can be brutal in their review of claims and have misleading, hard to understand policies that can leave people out in the cold even when they thought they were covered.

I wish is it were easier to come up with a good plan!!

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by mjlrn97

Another reason not to vote for Hillary..........I'm all for universal health coverage, but not if we're going to have the Nanny State robbing us of 25% of our paycheck if we cannot afford to buy insurance on our own.

I get rather annoyed when any considered government mandate leads to the threat of a "nanny state." I do think that we people, as a group, sometimes need such help in 'doing the right thing.' For example, while I don't like seeing part of paycheck disappear, I don't mind some of my money going to support free public education, local and national infrastructure maintenance, regulatory agencies, etc. I want to live in a society that offers free public education, has decent public roads, regulates businesses, etc. But if it weren't automatically taken out of my paycheck throught taxes, what are the chances that I would regularly sit down and allocate X% of my money to public education, Y% to infrastructure maintenance, Z% to regulatory agencies, etc.

Kinda like I like having automatic savings deduction. I set that up because it works better for me. That doesn't mean I'm morally immature or need a nanny. As a citizen, I'm willing to accept and even vote for some kinds of taxes because I think it works better that way, not because I think people are totally incompetent or because I want to give the government parental powers.

[Jolie]

Originally Posted by jjjoy

Kinda like I like having automatic savings deduction. I set that up because it works better for me. That doesn't mean I'm morally immature or need a nanny.

But the difference is that you are making the decision to save, you are controlling how you invest your own money, and you have access to that money if you wish to change your investments or spend it. That is a far cry from the government taking that same amount of your money from every paycheck, investing it for you in a manner that you have no control over, then spending it on other programs, and perhaps never returning it to you. That is a nanny state commonly called Social Security.

And the government's mismanagement of SS has made many of us justifiably wary of putting the government in charge of our healthcare.

[jjjoy]

Originally Posted by Jolie

But the difference is that you are making the decision to save, you are controlling how you invest your own money, and you have access to that money if you wish to change your investments or spend it. That is a far cry from the government taking that same amount of your money from every paycheck, investing it for you in a manner that you have no control over, then spending it on other programs, and perhaps never returning it to you. That is a nanny state commonly called Social Security.

And the government's mismanagement of SS has made many of us justifiably wary of putting the government in charge of our healthcare.

In order for the government to be a least a little effective, we all can't specifically earmark exactly where we want each of our tax dollars to go. Unfortunately, that does mean that sometimes my tax money goes to programs & policies I don't support. I'm willing to accept that as long as there are mechanisms in place that allow for the influence of change. It's a risk, yes, but I think it's worth it to continue to provide services such as public education, affordable health care, national defense, etc. Even social security. It certainly does seem to need an overhaul, like public education, but the concept itself is something I support.

Yes, it's a risk that the social security I pay into won't be there for me. But meanwhile, I will support political efforts to revamp it. It's true that if I don't have kids or need gov't assistance, I'm not directly benefiting from some of my tax contributions. But I would want those services available if I did have kids or came upon hard times, and I want them there for others. I want to live in a society like that. Of course, I want to discourage wasteful use of resources and will also support and vote for measures to minimize such (such as well-designed welfare to work programs).

[tntrn]

Originally Posted by mjlrn97

Another reason not to vote for Hillary..........I'm all for universal health coverage, but not if we're going to have the Nanny State robbing us of 25% of our paycheck if we cannot afford to buy insurance on our own. Sheesh, is there NO end to the bad ideas coming out of Washington?

And I even more opposed to having any more of MY pay garnished to pay for someone who won't pay for insurance0---and I think THAT'S where it's all going to come from: more take from those who have and hand out to those who don't. There's too much of that already.