aREDSKIN Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 When she says "might be willing" you know that means I'm going to take it from you. Romney already has his hands in a fiasco like this at the state level. Man these politicians are just so in your face it's sickening. Clinton Suggests Tapping Wages WASHINGTON (AP) - 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." 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. "I've been through the Republican attacks over and over again," she said. When Obama was elected to the Senate from Illinois in 2004, she said, he "didn't face anyone who ran attack ads" comparable to those aimed at her. The presidential contenders in both parties campaigned all-out on Sunday, two days before the Super Tuesday voting in 24 states holding primaries or caucuses. Clinton was campaigning in Missouri and Minneapolis. Obama scheduled a rally in Wilmington, Del., while some of his highest-profile surrogates—his wife, Michelle, Oprah Winfrey and Caroline Kennedy—were rallying voters in Los Angeles. Among Republicans, Arizona Sen. John McCain was stumping in Connecticut and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney scheduled stops in Glen Ellyn, Ill., and the St. Louis suburb of Maryland Heights. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee was concentrating on the South, with appearances in Georgia and Tennessee. McCain told "Fox News Sunday" he would veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic-controlled Congress. McCain, who opposed President Bush's first two tax cuts, now says Congress should make the reductions permanent, and that there also should be further tax reductions for business investments. His chief rival, Romney, told the ABC program that McCain "doesn't understand the economy" and that his advocacy of a higher gasoline tax to combat global warming would hurt U.S. consumers. Romney also called on Huckabee to drop from the race. In response, called the suggestion "ludicrous," noting that only a fraction of the delegates needed to win the Republican presidential nomination had been apportioned thus far. "I've got a different take on that. I think it's time for Mitt Romney to step aside," Huckabee said on CNN. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UIUP3O0&show_article=1&catnum=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 WASHINGTON (AP) - 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." Wow she has lost it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Let me ask a question - Am I allowed to drive without Car insurance? Why not? Am I allowed to open a busniess without Liability insurance? Why not? Am I allowed to employee people without Works Comp? Why not? I'm leaning towards Obama - But, at the same time, one of the reasons Health insurance is so high is because hopsital bills are so high. One of the reasons they are so high is because they have to treat everyone, even those without insurance. If everyone had insurance, prices would most likely drop. But still, some will be lazy and not buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I was thinking she was going to give people sr22s :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 She's a commie/socialist Did anyone expect differnetly? WHy anyone is stupid enough to vote for her is beyond me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 She's a commie/socialistDid anyone expect differnetly? WHy anyone is stupid enough to vote for her is beyond me your just a male chauvinist pig! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koolblue13 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 She's a commie/socialistDid anyone expect differnetly? WHy anyone is stupid enough to vote for her is beyond me Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Let me ask a question - Am I allowed to drive without Car insurance? Why not? Am I allowed to open a busniess without Liability insurance? Why not? Am I allowed to employee people without Works Comp? Why not? I'm leaning towards Obama - But, at the same time, one of the reasons Health insurance is so high is because hopsital bills are so high. One of the reasons they are so high is because they have to treat everyone, even those without insurance. If everyone had insurance, prices would most likely drop. But still, some will be lazy and not buy it. As for the Why nots? Because the government has inserted itself into your life and demands it. We have laws mandating liability ins... But I can promise you MY bill never went down as a result...should we do payroll deductions there as well? Government regulation is what drives high medical bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Hillary is the only one with the experience to step in and lead from day 1. She was the 1st lady in the White House for 8 years, and she was the 49th lady in Arkansas for 12 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Hillary is the only one with the experience to step in and lead from day 1. She was the 1st lady in the White House for 8 years, and she was the 49th lady in Arkansas for 12 years. Are you freaking serious? ROTFL!!! :laugh: :laugh: enlighten us as to how that has anything to do with being President? What a rediculous assertion! I'd put more weight on her staying in a Holiday Inn express! So does that make Laura Bush qualified too? She has nearly the same "experience" that you outlined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Hillary is the only one with the experience to step in and lead from day 1. She was the 1st lady in the White House for 8 years, and she was the 49th lady in Arkansas for 12 years. Snort...what if we don't like where she is leading? Should we endorse a disaster simply because it might be more efficiently done? I'm not in a hurry to get there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Let me ask a question - Am I allowed to drive without Car insurance? Why not? Am I allowed to open a busniess without Liability insurance? Why not? Am I allowed to employee people without Works Comp? Why not? I'm leaning towards Obama - But, at the same time, one of the reasons Health insurance is so high is because hopsital bills are so high. One of the reasons they are so high is because they have to treat everyone, even those without insurance. If everyone had insurance, prices would most likely drop. But still, some will be lazy and not buy it. If everyone had insurance, why would the prices need to drop? I'm required to drive my car with fiscal responsibility, but that doesn't mean I have to have insurance. If I choose to have auto insurance as my means of being financially responsible, I can choose to pay more for good coverage or pay less for worse coverage.I think you have to take a look at how much the legal profession is driving up the cost of the medical profession. John Edwards, with his in-court shennanigans, is personally responsible for doctors quitting their practice in North Carolina and moving elsewhere. Why? The resulting malpractice insurance rates made the cost of doing business there prohibitive. Imagine how much you'd have to pay for a new car if every engineer in the auto manufacturer had to pay an extra $15K - $100K per year in insurance rates! If part of your goal is to lower the cost of medical care, you need to put a leash on lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Hillary is the only one with the experience to step in and lead from day 1. She was the 1st lady in the White House for 8 years, and she was the 49th lady in Arkansas for 12 years. wow you have lost it so that is more then McCain's experience :doh: :doh: I hate to break it to you but you are not voted to be the first lady of anything, it just comes with the territory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Hillary is the only one with the experience to step in and lead from day 1. She was the 1st lady in the White House for 8 years, and she was the 49th lady in Arkansas for 12 years. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 wow you have lost itso that is more then McCain's experience :doh: :doh: It would take McCain until at least day 10, and that's being generous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 We have got to watch what happens to states that "VOLUNTEER" to do this. There are people that want this to go before we see the results on a smaller scale. this is reason number 1 why I dont like Romney.. he's been touting his decision for his state but he left before it needed funding.. now look whats happening.. give it a couple years and then repeat it if its o.k.... California wanted too also, but they just couldnt find the money.... hint hint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Happy Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 This seems like the same type of thing that got us into this housing "crisis." Lots of people live from paycheck to paycheck. That's just a sad truth. If their mortgage payment goes up, they're screwed. The same thing goes for forcing them to buy health insurance. She says it's only for people who can afford it, but how do you determine that? Do middle class people living beyond their means count as people who can or can't afford healthcare? Their salary may suggest they can afford it, but reality might say otherwise. But if you do exempt people living beyond their means, then someone who can actually afford healthcare might decide that since they are forced to spend the money on healthcare, they would rather buy a home theater with the money instead. Now their budget says they can't afford healthcare, so they are off the hook. Not to mention the idea of the government snooping around your budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 If everyone had insurance, why would the prices need to drop? I'm required to drive my car with fiscal responsibility, but that doesn't mean I have to have insurance. If I choose to have auto insurance as my means of being financially responsible, I can choose to pay more for good coverage or pay less for worse coverage.I think you have to take a look at how much the legal profession is driving up the cost of the medical profession. John Edwards, with his in-court shennanigans, is personally responsible for doctors quitting their practice in North Carolina and moving elsewhere. Why? The resulting malpractice insurance rates made the cost of doing business there prohibitive. Imagine how much you'd have to pay for a new car if every engineer in the auto manufacturer had to pay an extra $15K - $100K per year in insurance rates! If part of your goal is to lower the cost of medical care, you need to put a leash on lawyers. I agree that government regulation is the answer.You know, we used to have this problem with factory workers at the beginning of the 20th century - too many people were getting hurt on the job, so they sued their employers, increasing the prices of cars, clothing, and all consumer goods. Do you know what the solution was? Mandatory insurance. All employers are required to carry workman's comp. insurance so that whenever one of their employees is injured on the job, they give up the right to sue, but their medical bills are automatically paid for. Many states have gone to a similar system for car insurance, with no-fault laws in effect in New York, Michigan, Florida, for example. We could do the same for malpractice, by first making sure that everyone is covered by insurance, and then moving to a no-fault system, but to get there, we need to take the first step: mandatory insurance. Once everyone has insurance, both patients and doctors, then we can reduce lawsuits by taking away peoples' right to sue, and then we can start lowering the costs for everyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 I agree that government regulation is the answer.You know, we used to have this problem with factory workers at the beginning of the 20th century - too many people were getting hurt on the job, so they sued their employers, increasing the prices of cars, clothing, and all consumer goods. Do you know what the solution was? Mandatory insurance. All employers are required to carry workman's comp. insurance so that whenever one of their employees is injured on the job, they give up the right to sue, but their medical bills are automatically paid for. Many states have gone to a similar system for car insurance, with no-fault laws in effect in New York, Michigan, Florida, for example. We could do the same for malpractice, by first making sure that everyone is covered by insurance, and then moving to a no-fault system, but to get there, we need to take the first step: mandatory insurance. Once everyone has insurance, both patients and doctors, then we can reduce lawsuits by taking away peoples' right to sue, and then we can start lowering the costs for everyone. Taking money from MY paycheck to cover irresponsible people is socialism, bordering on communism Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Taking money from MY paycheck to cover irresponsible people is socialism, bordering on communism On this, good sir, we agree! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 So Mass is trying this: they are doing the pay or play like Hawaii? Mass started out richer than most states and with a low 10% uninsured to start. They expect 1.2 billion per year for 3 years and then ???? who knows. In Hawaii where you cant just go outside and get it... are at 10% uninsured .. At one point they were going with some Mandatory person thing (paraphrasing lol). but the perscription prices were crazy high per month per person so they stopped. Mass is backing away from the 100% insured already. And the prices are going up ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I hate the ideal of universal health care, but the fact is, Hillary's right. If you're going to do it, that's the only way. It can't be optional if it's going to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueTalon Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 I agree that government regulation is the answer.....Once everyone has insurance, both patients and doctors, then we can reduce lawsuits by taking away peoples' right to sue, and then we can start lowering the costs for everyone. Man, where on earth do you get the idea from what I said that government regulation is the answer? I'm not proposing or advocating taking away the right of anyone to sue. The two changes I would make would be to limit damages awarded, and to make attorneys and judges financially accountable for frivolous lawsuits. Fewer frivolous lawsuits and less insane cash awards would do a great deal to suppress the outrageous malpractice insurance premiums that all doctors have to deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMK9973 Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Taking money from MY paycheck to cover irresponsible people is socialism, bordering on communism I agree - And right now - Money is taken from your paycheck to cover uninsured people going to the emergency room. That needs to stop. So take money from your paychek to pay for your health insurance. Probably that is already happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted February 4, 2008 Share Posted February 4, 2008 Yea, I really want the government to manage the health care system. These are the same people who are bankrupting social security and can't manage medicare. It would take years and higher taxes to get this done. Bush has the right idea with allowing the 'free markets' to determine things, but there is still reform needed to control the skyrocketing cost. Regardless the system, it's going to cost the American people. To me it's more a question of more or less government. I say less. :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.