Posted on 02/03/2008 8:52:55 AM PST by Berlin_Freeper
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."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
According to “Open Secrets” it’s pretty much neck-n-neck with the Insurance Industry donations to both sides of the aisle for 2008 so far. Sure looks to me that the Pubbies take a lot more cash from them than do the ‘Rats. Hold on to your wallet. We’re screwed either way. :(
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=F09
bump!
“This country has lost its mind! where do we go from here?”
They go after the guns. The only way this country can be destroyed is by revoking the second amendment. As long as people can defend themselves the left can never win.
"EQAndyBuzz Wrote: “If you are going to post crap like this at least get her party affiliation correct. She is a Marxist"!
I think she is a Socialist, but; if you want to call her a Marxist, that will be fine with me.
Because the socialists Clinton and Obama, are skilled in using the language to confuse people, I did a search to see if I could find a definitive answer which relates to the difference between Marxism, Communism and Socialism. One of the results of that search is written below. I take no credit for authoring any part. So that you can check on the accuracy of my copy, I have included the following links.
Source: Answerbag
Author: Glenn Blaylock
After you have read Glenn Blaylock's answer to the following question, I think you will also know both of these cretins as Socialists.
Pure Marxism had three main characteristics. First of all, there was to be no government, no central controlling body allocating resources. If something needed doing then some person or group of people would just do it for the good of all. Second there was to be no private ownership of anything. All things were to be held in common. If you needed something you would just take it. ("From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need.") Finally, there would be no religion. Religion was created by the rich and the powerful to keep the lower classes down by pacifying them with the promise of a better existence in the fictional next life if they accepted their lot in this life. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.")
Marxism appeals to an innate sense of fairness in people. Nobody has more than anyone else. Everyone works for the good of everyone else. The problem was that Marx could not describe a mechanism by which we get to his utopian society beyond the masses violently overthrowing their oppressors nor did he really understand human nature.
Various attempts to get to this Marxist ideal have been made over the decades. These usually start with the creation of a socialist government. People aren't psychologically ready to live Marxism, so they need a government to take everything away from them and train them to work for the good of all. This is socialism in its purest form. The government owns everything and directs the allocation of all resources. Since the people own nothing they theoretically should learn to do everything for the good of the whole. Eventually, when the people have been properly trained, the government is disbanded and the Marxist utopia is achieved.
The problem is that human nature gets in the way. The people in power grow to like having the power. So, they start do things to ensure that they stay in power. ("Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Additionally, there is a very broad lazy streak that runs through much of humanity. People only do as much work as they have to in order to survive. If the government is going to take from Joe and give it to me, then why should I work for a living. Joe then sees his industry going to support me, a lazy bum who doesn't contribute anything myself, and thinks why should I bother. This mentality means that the people never reach a state where the government, even if it were inclined to do so, can step aside. So, the corruption just continues to fester.
Marxism and communism were initially the same thing. However as people tried to institute them, Marxism became the ideal that can never be achieved and communism came to be synonymous with the failed, corrupt, transitional, utrasocialist governments. Socialism is any form of government that takes control of various industries away from the private sector. All governments have some elements of socialism in the mix because there are just some things that the private sector cannot do. The debate is over just how much the government should do.
I do take exception to what he wrote in the second from the last sentence of his article. I firmly believe that a private individual can accomplish anything that the government can do if the incentive to do so is great enough.
Semper Fi
An Old Man
Next she’ll propose legislation demanding that we send her a thank you note.
I am not surprised, but I am incredibly angry. I have a family of 7 to support, on a decent but not large salary. I have healthcare now through my job, but will probably retire in the next couple years. I was hoping to start my own business, but this could change the whole thing. I was planning on getting a catastrophic plan for my family for the first few years, because we are all fairly young and healthy.
Letting Hillary choose what kind of health insurance I need for my family and forcing me to buy it goes against everything this country stands for.
BUMP!
They already have access to your paycheck. Take a closer look at the deductions and you will find Medicare.
Agreed. I’ve actually talked to some people who believe that our money actually belongs to the government (simply because they print it) and that they can take however much they want.
“This country has lost its mind! where do we go from here?”
The inevitable; fight or flight.
“A Nice Clear Post” BUMP!
That idea works if there’s access to healthcare. If you’re laid off with a pre-existing condition and move states for a new job, and the cobra coverage won’t follow you due to it being a closed network, or if you have been continuously insured, but aren’t hippa-eligable, then you won’t be underwritten by ANY company unless you are in a guaranteed-issue state.
Sorry, but I can't agree with you.
The problem with insurance is that you are not a true consumer of healthcare. You are a consumer of healthcare co-pays. If you are insured, the cost of healthcare is irrelevant to you...it is utterly transparent. You just care about your $10, $20, $25 copay. (Chances are) you don't pay attention to your medical EOB that states that the doctor you used attempted to bill the insurance company $250 for a 10 minute appointment (you know, the appointment that you had to wait in the waiting room for an hour after your appointment time to be seen). You don't care that the insurance company paid $65 for that appointment. You don't care that you were billed $10 for a box of Kleenex in the hospital and $25 for the little wash-pan when you went into the hospital to get your knee scoped...or $3 for a two Tylenol. You care that you had to pay $50 a day copay for the stay.
And so, there are not NEARLY enough of us who will think about the concept of asking "Why" we are being charged $10 for the box of Kleenex that actually cost the hospital $0.50 wholesale and that you could have bought at the local Safeway for $1.00 retail. So not enough of us will know that this is the way that the hospitals make up for the lost money where they treat people who don't pay their bills. And that the government mandates they do so and doesn't fund the mandate.
And you don't find out that the doctors actually bill the way they do for largely the same reason...and also because the more of them do so, the "typical and reasonable" rate database insurance companies use gradually increases in median rates...thus gradually increasing the amount that the doctors get paid...
Also, since you are a consumer of insurance copays and not healthcare, you don't ask the illogic of why the doctor takes the throat swab when you go into the office for an appointment and walk out with a antibiotic prescription. (The throat swab is taken so they can culture strep...but if they've already given you the prescription, why do the $150 throat culture??? Are they going to call you back and tell you to STOP taking the antibiotic??). So the doctor doesn't have the opportunity to explain that he/she needs to do this as a CYA in case you get a ambulance-chaser to try to sue him/her out of business later on.
The point being that we already live in society without free-market medicine. Why? Because you aren't the consumer of it. It's not really much different than an economy with socialized medicine, if you think about it. The difference is that the insurance companies are the real consumers of medicine and the entities paying the insurance premiums are the consumers of insurance. How to fix? The only REAL way to fix it is MSAs and extremely high-deductible insurance...paid out of the consumer's pocket, not out of the consumer's employer's pocket...for the times that you have massive bills (such as if you have hospital stays).
Thanks for that link - bumped the thread.
You are right. Read my tagline............tells it like it really is.
Strep tests provide instant results now. Sure there is still the 3 day variety, but most doctors use the instant tests. In most cases, they don’t do it to CYA, they do it to make sure the antibiotic is appropriate to treat the infection.
You are right in some of your ideas. The problem is that it is pretty difficult for a typical patient to understand some of the more complex procedures and what they should cost. Certainly, it is not easy for a typical patient to understand which procedures are necessary, and which would be more beneficial. I have a medical background, but still don’t have the level of knowledge that tells me what procedures are necessary in some cases.
When my son was sick, and getting sicker by the minute, we didn’t question why he needed a CT and an MRI, we had to trust the doctor. One of the biggest inherent limitations on patients being good consumers, is that major medical decisions are being made by those who are usually scared and in pain. They do not tend to make good decisions when in this condition, and even if they are personally paying, they tend to overlook financial implications.
After the fact, bills don’t list just kleenex and tylenol, they list all kinds of things that most people don’t even know exist, let alone what they are for and what they cost. Insurance companies do, and they know how a certain procedure should be completed and what it should cost. They base their reimbursement on these amounts. Sure most patients could be better healthcare consumers. I don’t think they can be good enough to make a difference in the system.
betwixt insurance companies, trial lawyers and ALL the liberal suits [ both r's and d's ] that heap more regulations on us, its a losing proposition to not end up on the wrong side of the 'law'...
they will kill me for my own good someday
LFOD...
I will never again 'compromise' my principles with any socialist [r or d ] and if no one rises up to service that will REPRESENT my moral obligations, then 'none of the above candidates are representative of this citizen's values' will be written on the ticket...
LFOD...
Love your tag...
LFOD...
What does LFOD mean, anyway?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.