Clinton suggests tapping wages

but she ignored it and no one followed up.

Took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Nuclear interests then
worked AGAINST the interest of his contituents.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?em&ex=1202101200&en=f2853a7f59384438&ei=5087%0A

..typical bought and paid for politician.

Then learn to spell

The word is SCANDLE not SCANDEL

There is, however, "scandal." Please take a trip to your nearest ENGLISH dictionary.

You are so correct. I am an idiot. But I can still spell SPAM :)

Nobody's purfect!

I still feel stoopid. :)

If someone had to pay SS taxes but did not (say, if they were an independent contractor), their future wages would be garnished also.

..it's a tax and it would be required for ANY WORKABLE national healthcare plan.

..Urban institute study shows that yes, mandates are *essential*.

The key passage:

...absent a single payer system, it is not possible to achieve universal coverage without an individual mandate. The evidence is strong that voluntary measures alone would leave large numbers of people uninsured. Voluntary measures would tend to enroll disproportionate numbers of individuals with higher cost health problems, creating high premiums and instability in the insurance pools in which they are enrolled, unless further significant government subsidization is provided. The government would also have difficulty redirecting current spending on the uninsured to offset some of the cost associated with a new program without universal coverage..

http://www.urban.org/publications/411603.html

HILLARY IS RIGHT - we HAVE to have mandates. Edward's plan did too. Obama's is the only one that doesn't and as such it WILL NOT WORK.

Thank you.

mandate). It's not the same as car insurance--you HAVE to carry liability for OTHER drivers, not for yourself.

...in the UK. If you want NATIONAL healthcare it is necessary. It won't work any other way. If you want more of the same as what we have NOW - then it isn't necessary. OTHERWISE, it IS.

That's your choice. IF you're at all interested (and I rather doubt it, it challenges the deification of Obama) look below for an explanation of WHY the system won't work UNLESS coverage is mandated:

"Evidence on Voluntary Participation. There is abundant evidence that without an individual mandate a health reform would fall well short of achieving universal coverage.As part of the work that we did early in the debate over universal coverage in Massachusetts,we showed that voluntary approaches without an employer or individual mandate would only cover about 40 percent of the uninsured; adding an employer mandate would still leave about 50 percent of the uninsured without coverage. We found that Massachusetts could achieve universal coverage only with an individual mandate, even when we assumed relatively generous subsidies provided to those with incomes up to 400 percent of the FPL, government-sponsored reinsurance for high-cost cases in the private nongroup and small-group (fewer than 100 workers) markets, and an organized purchasing pool.

Other analysts have reached similar conclusions. In a study that analyzed health reform options for the state of New York, the Lewin Group found that voluntary measures including a public expansion and subsidized buy-in to a state health plan reduced the number of uninsured by 29 percent.Adding an employer mandate (but not an individual mandate) to these voluntary measures reduced the number of uninsured by 36 percent. In an analysis extending the Massachusetts type plan to the United States, Jon Gruber found that voluntary measures, including income-related subsidies and a purchasing arrangement, would reduce the number of uninsured by about 50 percent.

Opponents of an individual mandate argue that they can come close to universal coverage with a combination of income-related subsidies, more options for purchasing affordable coverage (e.g., through purchasing pools), and administrative mechanisms for facilitating enrollment in insurance. The most recent data indicate that there are 47 million uninsured people in the United States. Even if subsidies, benefits, and administrative simplifications are sufficient to reach two-thirds of the uninsured (a reach beyond what any study to date has shown for a voluntary system), this would still leave 15.5 million people uninsured.This would be admirable, but would be considerably less than full coverage, and, as health care costs and insurance premiums increase, these numbers could easily erode unless further government dollars were injected into the system."

LINK:

http://www.urban.org/publications/411603.html


READ IT and weep.

going to start right out of the box with a more European-styled nationalized health care. Congress will NEVER pass it--there are still GOPers in Congress, remember? Obama's plan is much more likely to pass in the short term. Yes, we all pay into Social Security, etc.--but I can tell you that we're not about to start the same sort of mandated system for health care. Just ain't gonna happen.

is easily sellable. People are comfortable paying their Medicare taxes because they know it helps their elderly parents today and will help them in the future.

John Edwards has spoken candidly about this. If we offer government plans such as an expanded Medicare or the one Congress gets, and let people choose a private plan if they want WITH the stipulation that the private insurers cannot deny insurance or jack up the prices the way they do now, eventually the private insurers will go out of business and everyone will be in a single payer plan because it will be the only viable one for people in this country. Spread over a huge base of people, the single payer will be cost effective and the public will want it.

That's a real smart way to do it. Call it the "invisible hand of the marketplace" and dare the Republicans to answer that one. That's the way to play it.

Whose overriding purpose is to squeeze money out of people.

My thoughts that Obama's supporters are not even bothering to find out about the fundamental basics of Obama's plan is confirmed more deeply with each of his supporters posts.

Health care needs to come from taxes, the way Medicare and SS do. Yes they would go up, but probably not by that much, especially if there is no income cap.

Hillary's in bed with offshored entities. Which, if globalization didn't equate to "migration", none of these problems would exist. Though we might have others; it's impossible to really connect dots when the day is over... so why am I now?

We don't all need it is his theory.

"Clinton also suggested that Obama would be more susceptible to Republican attack ads in a general election because he has not been scrutinized for years as she has."

Like the Republicans are going to give her a free pass because they covered all of this in the 90's. C'mon, gimme a break. I'm sure that they'll have no problems going into reruns.

...there is no way the pukes would dare go after her new plans.

How fucking stupid does the woman think we all are?

It flies in the face of reality, and history. There are people in this country who haven't gotten over the Civil War, for gawd's sake, and yet they think half the country will forget that they don't like the Clintons.

how the big RW smear machine will take him on. With Clinton there are not nearly as many unknowns.

available to everyone who wanted it...not forced on people. The federal government is already "garnishing" my wages for this abomination of a war. In countries that have universal health care, do they garnish wages?

same as every country that has already dealt with this issue. If America rejects this again, I don't know when we ever get there.

years, there'd be money available to fund this without taking more of peoples' wages.

They both have committed to beginning a withdrawal within the first couple of months. They both would draw down at about the same rate 1-2 brigades a month. They both would limit the mission for any remaining to protection missions.

As for your concern about paying for Healthcare I can tell you this, her plan is paid for by eliminating taxes cuts on the wealthy and reducing costs, and that includes providing tax credits and subsidies for lower income people so they can buy in. Everyone will be able to afford it.

He said he would get the funding by eliminating the tax cuts and closing tax loopholes. The three plans are very similar, except that Obama would not expect those who cannot afford to pay... until it becomes affordable.

he says my plan will make it affordable for everyone but I dont want to make people join a plan if they cant afford it.

DOUBLE SPEAK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

..everyone gets benefits.

And yes, IF we reject this again - WE'LL NEVER GET THERE.

payer". And no one except Dennis and Gravel even considered it.

If they REALLY wanted health care for everyone, equally and fairly, they'd go single payer. I fear that their decisions not to do so has a lot to do with the ginormous insurance industry. Otherwise, why wouldn't single payer be the most popular?

They don't have to look any farther than Canada to see how to do it, and how to do it right.

I'm very disappointed in all the health plans that have been presented - except DK's and Gravel's.

it backs up the private system with a government paid system like medicare. As people are mandated into the system they would either get private insurance or the medicare like system (which is a single payer sytem for the people in it.) Many people who couldn't afford the best private plans would end up in the government plan. People wanting to reduce their healthcare cost will select the government plan becuase of its guaranteed levels of service and low cost.

to to nowhere.

Government subsidized private insurance companies. That's multi payer just like we have now. It's stupid.

I bet its a tremendously high number. This is what would happen, the government plan will suck the life out the behemoth that is private insurance. They wont be able to compete for the large majority of lower and middle income business. Even France and England have private insurance companies offerring supplemental healthcare. What this is about is building a government system to handle the bulk of it.

eligibilty except age. Medicare hasn't sucked the life out of private insurance, because medicare only offers a restricted set of benefits. So most seniors, if they can afford it, are forced to get a supplemental policy or two or three.

So what this is going to do, is subsidise private insurance companies to offer medicare benefits. It's sort of like privatizing social security.

What a lot of people don't get is that insurance is a socialistic concept, and the more people in an isurance pool, the lower the cost per participant. The risk is spread farther. Think of it this way, if you and 10 neighbors form a fire insuance pool, what do you think your premiums would be compared to if 10 million were in the pool?

By putting all americans including our congress into one pool the cost is far cheaper than having competeing systems. That means more benefits for lower cost per person.

England has a natioal heath service. Single payer isn't a national health service.

Canada has a single payer system. It costs about 40% less per capita than our non-system and it covers everybody. It covers all neccesary health proceedures (no, it doesn't cover (elective plastic surgery)people can go to any doctor they wish, and all perscriptions are covered too.

If we start using tax dollars to subsidize private insurance companies, they will never go away. They will continue to fund our politicians out of our tax dollars to insure their profits. They will continue to deny claims, proceedures, ect. It's stupid. It's wastefiul, and it's unnessesary.

I saw what happened when Repos in Monatana took our governemnt run workers comp. system and turned it over to private insurers. It wa smuch more expensive, people had to waste money going to court to try to get claims paid, and then the largest carriers just up and abadoned the state. It was a mess.

All three top candidates have rotten plans. We need single payer. It's time tested and it works to deliver healthcare to all for the lowest cost.

Lets NOT do the samething with health insurance.

There are some medicare benefits that require a premium and are optional.


The point is that a system that is attractive on a cost services ratio will attract more and more people into it. That is basic economics.

What is rotten is rejecting the basic fact that if everyone doesn't have to pay in something based on their ability we wont get there.

DUers who live in Canada tell amazingly wonderful stories about the health care they receive.

Clinton adopted Edward's plan.

private insurance companies. That's both stupid and borders on criminal.

Wasn't that what the Dems supposedly faught when it came to social security? Using public tax dollars to subsidize private investment firms?

:hi:

and Ceo golden parachurtes for insurance executives plain sucks.

We need single payer, but as long as candidates are to afraid to take on the insurance industry we are bound to get socialism to fund capitalism.

Stupid.

If you want it then you must realize that ALL Americans need to get insurance. The young and also those that think they won't get sick until they end up in the emergency room where you and me pay their bills. You're headline is misleading and probably because you meant it to be. What Hillary actually said was that we need to use all means to get everyone to be insured. You're title implies garnishing wages is the ONLY way she "suggests".

:applause:

are not using emergency rooms or causing a burden to the health care system. They aren't the problem and there's no reason to garnish wages of someone who hasn't caused a burden.

Automatic enrollment, everybody gets a card in the mail, that's universal health care.

I would rather have my wages garnished to pay for health insurance than be fined and not have any insurance.
:shrug:

If they showed up in the hospital having not bought any plan.

Hillary would fine anyone in her universal mandate.

So I guess it's two shades of grey.

But thank you for the link.

But Obama would not mandate people who could not afford it.
Hence he would fine less than Clinton.

Under Obama's anyone can opt out - but when they need coverage can opt back in....letting the honest people foot the bill.

We either need to move towards Universal coverage, or keep things the way they are. Obama's plan is a step in the wrong direction, and Hillary's is two steps in the right direction.

while we're doing our projecting on everybody's new fav superstar of the moment --

:shrug:

I support real single payer universal health care. Hillary Clinton is likely to submarine any chance of it for the next generation.

were mandates worth it to get favorable columns from Paul Krugman and the jargon class, Hilly?

Obama needs to really get out the word.

distorted hysterical mem:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2/17171/13211

However, without mandating coverage, a "free rider" problem is created. Under Obama's plan, healthy people can choose not to buy health insurance until they experience a medical problem. At that point, they can simply buy into a plan with no added cost concerning their sickness.
In essence, they can free ride on the system while they're healthy, and they can just join up when they get sick. They won't be added to the pool until they're high risk, themselves. This increases costs for all.
snip
Obama's attacks on universal coverage strike a nerve with me because of the work I've done and the places I've heard his argument coming from.
Snip
The essence of Enzi's argument is very much the same as Obama's argument against mandates. They're misleading, dispassionate, and in opposition to the ideals of the Democratic Party. Health care is a right, not a privilege. The only way to secure that right is to make it truly universal.

I havn't cost you a god damn cent except in your own distorted head. I am not a liability. I do not use the emergancy room. If i do get so sick I need to use the medical system instead of just hoping into a doctors office and paying for a one time visit then it might be time to get health insurance. But don't tell me that I am hurting your pocket book when I havnt done anything of the sort.

stop assuming shit you ass.

i guess if you think the shoe fits..who am i to argue with you??

fly

but this is your reply to me
and i "and my insurance cap are being "garnished for you""

so you can go fuck yourself because i havnt done a god damn thing to your salary. Mandatory for profit health care is a bad idea. If you cannot see it I'm sorry. but the words

mandatory + for proft = universal healthcare.

We will never have universal healthcare if voters with your attitude win. You will one day wish you had it though.

I will pay the same percentage of my income that you do for the exact same care hows that sound?

oh wait thats single payer not mandatory for profit health care.

a less percentage of their income then i do. hooray.

Much of the plan is funded by raising taxes on those making over 250,000 per year.

The cap is to make the cost of Healthcare lower and affordable for lower income people. Then their are subsidies as well for lower income folks.

And the cost of Healthcare will be lower because of regulatory changes on private insurance, a competing government plan, and the fact that the cost is spread out to everyone in a fair and equitable manner.

but do research what he promised and then what he accomplished!!

and do come back and post your research!!

we will be waiting..

fly

I'll take Obama's plan over this.

Hillary just pushed the final button sealing her demise in the general election. Americans aren't too keen on "mandates," particularly those that suggest wage garnishing.

Dems that vote for Hillary are IDIOTS.

J

in the GE campaign, and it's President McCain. Sad, unless we nominate Obama.

Are people in this country really this ignorant of insurance?? Are people here really this stupid?????????????

No wonder this country is in such bad shape...Obama's plan is bullshit!

...we are garnished now..it is happening already..today ..right now...what part do some of you not get..when i go to the hospital with full insurance i am charged a flat fee for people who don't have insurance..what part of that don't people get?

when i go with a migraine to the emergency room for a much needed shot ..when my migraine is out of control in the middle of the night ..i am charged $2,100.00 ( my inusrance is charged)

$150.00 is for my care..the rest is for people who check into the hospital with no insurance!

and that comes out of my lifetime coverage that is a capped amount.

what part of this do people just not understand??????????

so i am in essence having my insurace care garnished for people who don't have insurance..

why do i have to pay for people who don't have insurance?

why is my insurance being garnished?????????

fly


Edwards and Hillary's plans are the best..Obama's plan is a fucking joke! ..but the joke is on those who have insurance and now and under his plan will continue to have their health insurance hijacked! ..i call it garnished when i am being charged for someone else's care..and my cap is being lowered because i am being gouged to pay for others who don't have insurance..

oh and i pay $2,000 a month and our employer pays 2/3's..we only are paying 1/3 at $2,000. a month.

understanding of what people are paying for and being garnished or gouged right now..for 47 million people who have no insurance now..

who the fuck do they think is going to pay for them??

oh do you think others should keep being gouged just so they can get a free ride..well clue..there is no free ride in life..

but there is compassion for those who need care and have no means..i have no problem with that..but just like social security..you pay to play!



fuck those who think they don't have to contribute ...you pay taxes for roads..but when that is cut ..bridges come down and people die..get the fuck off the .."i don't want to pay bullshit"..many are paying for those without... right now!

i just had surgery 2 weeks ago my insurance was charged almost $2,500. extra for those without insurance..that is garnishment folks....

i was garnished ..for those with no insurance..but worse..that came off my lifetime insurance cap!

fly

to cover a universal health plan.

n/t

garnished for those with no insurance..and that will not stop with Obama's plan..sooooo

YOU .. just don't want to be garnished..but you don't give a rats ass that...I.. who pay for insurance am being garnished for you??????????

now i get it!!

fly

about Hillary pointing out the OPTIONS of paying for the health care that ALL of you people claim you want.

:eyes:

they think it should be a free ride..who do they think is going pay for their insurance?? hell they don't care...you pay for it..or maybe i should pay for it for them..as i am doing now for those not insured!!

wow ..are people really this ingorant to what they are paying now??

wow is all i can say..i thought there were smarter people here..i guess not!!

fly

..and it's not a "garnishment" it's a tax and it's a MUST for a workable national healthcare plan.

Obama is DEAD WRONG with this. His plan won't work without a mandate for coverage.

i do not believe you have a very good understanding of insurance!

fly

the better plan.

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/2/1/13266/21874

The Edwards Effect


By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 1, 2008

snip:

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals -- and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

It's hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system -- a k a Medicare for all -- but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans -- a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.

Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party's base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there's little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.


snip:
Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn't actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.



Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

in Illinois...and then what he delivered ..far short from what he promised..please do the research..

and lets hope his plan does succeed ..because when the nuclear power plants leak..as they did leak in Illinois ..he promised that he would draft legislation that would ensure the residents in Illinois that the power plants would be subject to state and federal oversight and regulations..only to confer with the power plant administers and they took all the teeth out of the bill and the bill never past..the first thing they did was strip all the State and federal oversight.

Great state senator huh?

make sure you have Edwards insurance plan people of Illinois!!

Obama is famous for crafting bills with all the bells and whistles..but ultimately they never pass and get stripped blind.

fly

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22971762/
Nuclear leaks, response tested Obama in Senate
His legislation is re-made after objections from industry, regulators
By Mike McIntire

updated 12:37 a.m. ET, Sun., Feb. 3, 2008
When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”


snip:
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.



snips:

Another Obama donor, John W. Rowe, chairman of Exelon, is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry’s lobbying group, based in Washington. Exelon’s support for Mr. Obama far exceeds its support for any other presidential candidate.


Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.

link posted here.

no matter how you or others try to spin it!!


shit is still shit!
fly

She is clearly open-minded to garnishing wages, and that is REGRESSIVE!

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2008/2/1/13266/21874

The Edwards Effect


By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 1, 2008

snip:

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals -- and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

It's hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system -- a k a Medicare for all -- but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans -- a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.

Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party's base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there's little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.


snip:
Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn't actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.



Paul Krugman joined The New York Times in 1999 as a columnist on the Op-Ed Page and continues as professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University.

Mr. Krugman received his B.A. from Yale University in 1974 and his Ph.D. from MIT in 1977. He has taught at Yale, MIT and Stanford. At MIT he became the Ford International Professor of Economics.

:kick:

Someone who is unemployed would have a very low cost to participate and would be eligible for some type of tax credits or subsidies.

present it as fact when it is fiction..the hillary machine will grind you to hamburger meat..

research your claims before you post them..

this bullshit is just that... bullshit..

I am not in either of your camps..but i will not sit here and read this bullshit and let it fly..we Edwards people know the facts..

you will be buried with the facts..

half of you kids haven't been alive as long as the Clinton's have been in power.

many of us have been..you will be chewed up and spit out.


if you keep posting inaccurate information it will be used against him and you can guarantee a loss in November.

just a helpful hint..

fly

..