Now we know. It’s Christmas in February for McCain Romney or Obama.
This revelation should be worth a few million votes.
if you refuse to buy the Clinton Health Plan, here’s what she plans to do:
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.”
(emphasis added)
You’ll be coerced. But it’s your money.
Who decides what is affordable for me?
Walk with me. Under a Clinton administration we are further down the road to a police state…completing the Bush legacy.
In November, should Clinton be the nominee, can you see the hell of a barn raiser the GOP will make of this?
Now I’m all for universal single payer coverage for ALL Americans, but I’ll be dammed if I vote for Clinton’s police state.
No one, not the Powers-That-Be, gets to decide what is affordable for me or my family’s budget.
Think about that concept for a nano second.
Next up in the Hillary Health Plan will be mandatory chip implants
I don’t think much of Clinton’s health plan, but the mandate distinction is much ado about nothing.
Current plan: Get sick. Run up bills. Have your wages garnished.
Obama’s plan: Bet you won’t need health insurance. Get sick. Run up bills. Have your wages garnished.
Clinton’s plan: Bet you won’t need health insurance. Have your wages garnished.
Given these lousy choices, I go with Clinton’s.
there you go with Clinton, happy fighting old battles. The mandate in Obama’s plan is for the coverage of children. In other words, coverage for the whole family. There’s no enforcement to garnish your wages if you refuse to participate. Some difference, No?
Let’s turn the page and become an informed voter: no denial of coverage for current illness or pre-existing medical conditions under the Obama plan.
At the very least it affords Americans to join the other industrialized countries with a healthy population.
Take this opportunity, present your ideas at the link provided.
Obama’s mandate kicks in if you get sick & chose not to pay into the system. He’s said that you don’t get a free ride if you gamble wrong. People who show up at the hospital with no insurance will have to pay the medical bill, back insurance payments, or something.
With Clinton’s plan, at least I know up front how much I am forced to pay.
Neither plan addresses the cost of keeping insurance companies in the system. The system won’t be fixed until the insurance companies are out.
Obama’s mandate kicks in if you get sick & chose not to pay into the system. He’s said that you don’t get a free ride if you gamble wrong. People who show up at the hospital with no insurance will have to pay the medical bill, back insurance payments, or something.
from what medium are you informed?
I’ll go with what’s reduced to paper since you can hold his feet to the fire. And also, I depend on my actual experience with health care single payer plans in other countries, now a sacred covenant. Obama’s plan is very close to these.
Does Hillary plan on abolishing the Insurance companies all together and forever? You know that she will?
I’m not biting, can’t bring myself to buy a used car from Clinton even with a guarantee from the Federal Reserve backed by the Pope’s endorsement.
Zakaria in Newsweek, his first paragraph expresses well my thoughts; it extends to all other policy issues offered by the Clintons – domestic or foreign:
I didn’t say that I liked Clinton’s plan. I just find it marginally more honest. With Obama’s plan, there will be people who need medical care who chose not to buy health insurance. What does he plan to do about them?
I find both plans ridiculously optimistic in their projected cost savings. The problem is not that insurance companies don’t compete with each other. The problem is that the purpose of the insurance companies is to waste our health care dollars.
Huckabee’s plan will lower costs as much as Clinton or Obama. Just live healthy.
A coworker of mine died recently of lung cancer. He was an active, healthy, non-smoker who exercised regularly. The cancer was discovered after he had an x-ray of his shoulder. By then, it had spread extensively. After three years of medical bills, he and his wife have spent their retirement savings, and lost their house. He leaves two teenage children, one who hopes to attend college next year. What will any of these plans do to help someone like him?
With Obama’s plan, there will be people who need medical care who chose not to buy health insurance. What does he plan to do about them?
The thing that’s missing from this discussion is the proportion of the population that chooses not to buy health insurance because they can pay out of pocket. I fall into that class. If you can pay out of pocket, there’s not much point in having insurance because it’s costlier in the long run.
I’ve run up big hospital bills before — $14k, give or take, as the result of an eight-day stay in the hospital with pneumonia. Provided you can pay, most hospitals are actually quite accommodating with payment plans that are, in my experience, still cheaper than medical insurance.
Yes, I’m in a world of shit if I need a liver transplant, but if recent news is any indication, I’d be in a world of shit with or without insurance.
I agree that people ought not to be able to opt out of the system while they’re well and then opt in the moment they get sick. But there needs to be an option for those of us who choose to opt out, period. And it should be noted that I’m perfectly okay with paying higher taxes to provide medical care for the needy, though I’m considerably less enthusiastic about paying higher taxes to provide profits for insurance companies. What I’m not okay with is paying higher taxes to compensate for costs that I am not in fact inflicting on the system.