Pay Up B@st@rds!

[PEP]

WASHINGTON - 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.

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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31


Those people who can afford it but dont buy it arent the one's that are causing the problems at hospitals and emergency rooms.

[101A]

It's so nice of the government to let us keep some of its money every now and then.

[Extra Stout]

All your paychecks are belong to us.

[xrayzebra]

Hey how bout we just turn it all over to them, let them pay
everything. Credit card bills, car payment, house payment, on
and on and on. And they just give us a weekly allowance. And
we can all live like Kings. Right?

Oh, they tried that in Russian didn't they and it didn't work.
Nevermind.

But you gotta know Billary and Obama and the rest of the
crud in D.C. all know how to spend your money better than
you....

[boutons_]

You pay up already, out of local/state/federal taxes, for the costs of providing health care to millions of uninsured people who take dubya's advice and "just go to the emergency room" for all their health needs, often after they are much sicker and many times more expensive to treat. The anti-immigration mad dogs love to quote how many $Bs/year, just in CA, in health care provided free to illegal aliens. (but they seem quiet on the $2B/year in medical care fraud in CA by legit doctors and orgs, that's OK, it's how the game is played)

The health care industry loves it because they get to sell more product and higher prices of a longer period, with the govt footing the bill reliably and on schedule.

Why aren't you right wingers supporting "personal responsibility" of these poor people paying, probably a token sum, for timely, assured, no-cancellation health care, instead of you rich fucks who plonk down $10K+/year for your gold-plated plan?

[101A]

Why aren't you right wingers supporting "personal responsibility" of these poor people paying, probably a token sum, for timely, assured, no-cancellation health care, instead of you rich fucks who plonk down $10K+/year for your gold-plated plan?Because when the govt. gets involved, it gets worse, not better.

Also, if everyone in this country who has health insurance is "rich", then we are much better off than you let on.

[PEP]

You pay up already, out of local/state/federal taxes, for the costs of providing health care to millions of uninsured people who take dubya's advice and "just go to the emergency room" for all their health needs, often after they are much sicker and many times more expensive to treat. The anti-immigration mad dogs love to quote how many $Bs/year, just in CA, in health care provided free to illegal aliens. (but they seem quiet on the $2B/year in medical care fraud in CA by legit doctors and orgs, that's OK, it's how the game is played)

The health care industry loves it because they get to sell more product and higher prices of a longer period, with the govt footing the bill reliably and on schedule.

Why aren't you right wingers supporting "personal responsibility" of these poor people paying, probably a token sum, for timely, assured, no-cancellation health care, instead of you rich fucks who plonk down $10K+/year for your gold-plated plan?
Is Boufon always in such an ugly mood? Poor dude. I dont pay for healthcare, I get mines for free!!

[xrayzebra]

You pay up already, out of local/state/federal taxes, for the costs of providing health care to millions of uninsured people who take dubya's advice and "just go to the emergency room" for all their health needs, often after they are much sicker and many times more expensive to treat. The anti-immigration mad dogs love to quote how many $Bs/year, just in CA, in health care provided free to illegal aliens. (but they seem quiet on the $2B/year in medical care fraud in CA by legit doctors and orgs, that's OK, it's how the game is played)

The health care industry loves it because they get to sell more product and higher prices of a longer period, with the govt footing the bill reliably and on schedule.

Why aren't you right wingers supporting "personal responsibility" of these poor people paying, probably a token sum, for timely, assured, no-cancellation health care, instead of you rich fucks who plonk down $10K+/year for your gold-plated plan?

I am still trying to find that part of the Constitution that
says they government is responsible for the health
care, heating and housing of the people. Can someone
please direct me to that part. Oh, I left out the
legal cost for the poor. Is that in there somewhere?

I thought we were suppose to care for the poor through
charity.

[xrayzebra]

Is Boufon always in such an ugly mood? Poor dude. I dont pay for healthcare, I get mines for free!!

Naw he isn't always this way. Sometimes he really
rants and have you noticed, he is bilingual. English
and profane.

[I.R.S.]

You all need to just pay your taxes and shut the hell up. How the hell do you all think we are paying for this war? and your roads? and bridges? Just shut up already!! :wtf

[boutons_]

"an ugly mood?'

bitch-slapping right-wingers is nasty business. The for-profit health-care disaster we have allowed the "free market" to create is one ugly bastard that needs aborting.

[GaryJohnston]

http://www.americanprotest.net/images/rally/07042007/07042007-h.jpg

[BonnerDynasty]

I'm still waiting for my government issued toilet paper.

Apparently I can't wipe my own ass without their help.

[inconvertible]

http://www.radrowdies.com/vt/asp/Affil-0/itemcat-boys/BO_ID-726/Desc_ID-1/tv/gfx/prints/large/USSR.jpg

[inconvertible]

ron paul

[fyatuk]

WASHINGTON - 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.

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."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31


Those people who can afford it but dont buy it arent the one's that are causing the problems at hospitals and emergency rooms.

You say it like this is new. She and I believe Edwards both proposed this kind of setup back in September or so. I think it's disgusting. Especially, what exactly is "can afford it".

[boutons_]

One of the huge problems the doctors have with their patients is the patients not buying their prescribed drugs. As the co-pay goes up, the problem is worse.

If the drug actually works (you can never be sure with Big Pharma), then people are preferring to be sicker and keep the money, probably calculating they'd rather have some more quality of life rather than less sickness.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I can't wait to see all of you righties in January when the dems take control of the country.. will any of you leave? :lol

[fyatuk]

I can't wait to see all of you righties in January when the dems take control of the country.. will any of you leave? :lol

I doubt the right wingers are as sensitive and defeatist as the left was when Kerry lost and Canada was innundated with immigration applications... :p:

[spurster]

Your wages are already garnished for health care (see the Medicare line). So would you get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, too?

I am perplexed by the attitude of not paying taxes for the country you are proud of.

[George Gervin's Afro]

I doubt the right wingers are as sensitive and defeatist as the left was when Kerry lost and Canada was innundated with immigration applications... :p:


I hope your right because all of the moaning and complaining we will hear will be music to my ears...

[fyatuk]

Your wages are already garnished for health care (see the Medicare line). So would you get rid of Medicare and Medicaid, too?

I am perplexed by the attitude of not paying taxes for the country you are proud of.

I'm perplexed by the attitude that the government can better handle your finances than you can, even after it's been proven time and again it can't.

Anyone with half a brain making at least 14k would be doing signicicantly better with these kind of things if the government wasn't stealing 35% or more of their paychecks. I know in my case, I'd have health insurance and more savings for retirement if the government was taking even just Social Security.

[Nbadan]

Yeah, it's much better to keep the system we have now and expect less service and pay a bigger price...I've advocated a single-payer system of national health insurance for all Americans for many years...

[fyatuk]

I hope your right because all of the moaning and complaining we will hear will be music to my ears...

*shrug*

I thought it was funny when Lefties did, it'll be funny if the Righties do. I doubt they would though. There would be talk about taking back the majorities and a call to war (so to speak) for conservatives.

Personally, I think the Republicans win the Presidency again.

[Nbadan]

I'm perplexed by the attitude that the government can better handle your finances than you can, even after it's been proven time and again it can't.

It's not about 'doing things yourself', it's about belonging to groups that help spread the costs...since not everyone gets sick at the same time.....

[fyatuk]

Yeah, it's much better to keep the system we have now and expect less service and pay a bigger price...I've advocated a single-payer system of national health insurance for all Americans for many years...

Single payer insurance system won't work without socialising the care providing system as well. In fact, it my inflate care costs even more.

I still think the best way to reduce health care costs is to reduce liability insurance rates (limit punitive damages in malpractice cases to a multiple of actual damages except in cases of death, increase regulation of the medmal insurance sector by limiting non-claims based rate hikes to a small percentage), reduce equipment costs (tax breaks/grants for offices upgrading and optimizing their equipment), and reducing education costs (MD's who work in low income sectors and/or volunteer time in free clinics/programs get loan forgiveness for some of their student loans, and increase scholarships and grants specifically for med-school training).

[xrayzebra]

It's not about 'doing things yourself', it's about belonging to groups that help spread the costs...since not everyone gets sick at the same time.....

Erh, dan, it is called insurance and anyone can buy it.
When they guvmint gets involved, it is called socialism and
the bureaucrats take charge and it is called: rationing.
Because the guvmint cant afford it. Well that is, unless,
they raise the taxes to cover it. You ever heard of a few
countries who have tried UHC; you know, England and
Canada. And even Mexico tries a form of it, and you see
how they have made such a success of it.

[Holt's Cat]

Hmmm...we are required to buy liability insurance if we drive. Yes, not all drive, but most of us do and need to in order to be able to get to work, etc...to live, basically.

Not perfectly analogous to making health insurance mandatory, but there is a precedent.

In any event, why should an individual be forced to do pay for something to cover the cost shirked by others? Also, if I am not mistaken, if you are indeed provided with emergency medical care and you don't pay up, then you end up with a lien against your assets. Not sure if your wages can be garnished. But the broader point is that it's handled like a debt just like any other.

[xrayzebra]

^^Yeah! But HC, how bout I buy my insurance and not require
anyone else to buy any. Like no liability insurance. I will cover
me and to hell with you. You want insurance, buy it. Talking about
car insurance. I can hear the lawyers screaming now. But, but,
but, that's not fair (to me) for the little guy who you run over.

May be surprising the some, but health insurance didn't
exist in my younger days and funny thing happened. I cant
think of a single person who died for lack of medical care.

Oh, and my first two children cost me: $75 bucks for the
doctor and 63 bucks for the hospital. boutons are you
listening. Oh, he was a family doctor and he let me put it
on the books. And he did get paid.

[fyatuk]

It's not about 'doing things yourself', it's about belonging to groups that help spread the costs...since not everyone gets sick at the same time.....

And that's something I fundamentally disagree with. Why should I contribute to a random new yorker getting medical treatment at a rate of twice what I would pay for the same thing here. This kind of crap should be state level programs, period. They will never be cost effective on a national level, even if they were constitutional.

Why should I pay the government MORE than what I would have to pay doing it myself?

I don't trust the government with my money. I would rather volunteer to pay for a random persons medical treatment than trust the government to do anything effective.

I'd rather see better developed HSA system. Allow (require) people to contribute to an account that can only be used for medical treatment, offer company matching, and allow it to be used for any household member (not just spouse and children). It'd be much more effective since the vast majority of people will never even come close to using the amount of money they pay for insurance. The small percentage that does could be covered by a small tax.

combine that with efforts to reduce root cost, and that system will work quite handily.

[Holt's Cat]

The fundamental problem with American health care is that most consumers pay for just about any health care related expenditure through insurance. In such an arrangement what incentive does a consumer have to mitigate those expenditures when they are pay a fraction of the true price? We ended up in this arrangement as health benefits are not taxable for the covered and employers are able to deduct the cost of those benefits for their employees. I may be wrong, but I don't believe in any other nation does such an arrangement exist. Of course, employers do have an incentive still to minimize those costs and thanks to legal arrangements such as HMOs, individuals find themselves in plans they generally do not want and which opt to engage in less than ethical practices in the coverage provided. The problem with American health care is not that the market is punishing individuals, but rather that it has not been tried.

[boutons_]

"I don't trust the government with my money."

You're perfectly happy to give your money, $10K/year for family of 4, to private insurers who then burn up 30% in overheads, dividends, management payouts, etc while delivering back to you as little product as possible.

[fyatuk]

"I don't trust the government with my money."

You're perfectly happy to give your money, $10K/year for family of 4, to private insurers who then burn up 30% in overheads, dividends, management payouts, etc while delivering back to you as little product as possible.

You don't pay much attention do you. I was pushing for reduction in care costs and expanded HSA system.

I give nothing for health insurance or care for myself, and I won't. Insurance is a scam. It's a government supported industry that can't possibly lose money and treats its customers like crap.

[boutons_]

"reduction in care costs"

... increasing at 2+ x inflation, at least.

The winning rats in the health care scam will destroy anybody or anything that touches their $3T/year ripoff. That's why no health care plans by the candidates talk about cost reduction but only how find more money to pay the current/escalating costs of new coverage.

[fyatuk]

"reduction in care costs"

... increasing at 2+ x inflation, at least.

The winning rats in the health care scam will destroy anybody or anything that touches their $3T/year ripoff. That's why no health care plans by the candidates talk about cost reduction but only how find more money to pay the current/escalating costs of new coverage.

And that's why none of those plans will accomplish anything. Like the current form of SS, why support something that will inevitably bankrupt the nation.

If you're unwilling to correct the root costs, your plan will fail. Period.

[spurster]

First of all, SS is not bankrupting the nation. There are simple solutions available to the President and Congress if there was any political will and bipartisan cooperation. Yes, it means someone will have to pay more taxes, e.g., increasing the threshold where 15% kicks down to 3% (I'm off on the percentages) or increasing the 3%. I think many in Congress would go along with starting some form of private SS accounts with such an increase, but the GOP are very adverse to any tax increase for any reason.

Regarding health care costs, the US is incrementally moving towards a government system of some form. Currently, the governments at all levels pay nearly 50% of all health care costs. The question is whether we can move toward a rational single-payer system (regulated private insurance is fine if they aren't allowed to cherrypick) using the best of other countries' experiences or whether we make laws that are designed to make companies richer (e.g., prescription Medicare, a GOP boondoggle for the pharmas). Unfortunately, I would expect too much of the latter, so I expect health-care problems to become much much worse before any reasonable action occurs.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

First of all, SS is not bankrupting the nation. There are simple solutions available to the President and Congress if there was any political will and bipartisan cooperation. Yes, it means someone will have to pay more taxes, e.g., increasing the threshold where 15% kicks down to 3% (I'm off on the percentages) or increasing the 3%. I think many in Congress would go along with starting some form of private SS accounts with such an increase, but the GOP are very adverse to any tax increase for any reason.


There are lots of problems with SS:

* capped at 100K of earnings
* it was never intended to be a retirement account, but now everyone treats it like one
* we have 12 million people (illegals) in this country that aren't paying shit into it

And I have to disagree. The tag team of SS and Medicare is GOING to bankrupt this country, and I'm not sure how old you are but unless you're over 40 and don't live very long it's going to happen in your and my lifetimes.

That, or the dollar is going to be worth about as much as the peso and we're all going to get fucked over by hyperinflation (hell, that's probably going to happen regardless of whether not the stupid fucks in D.C. actually do something about Medicaid and SS).

[Holt's Cat]

Since government has managed to F up our health care industry let's double down.

[BonnerDynasty]

I can't wait to see all of you righties in January when the dems take control of the country.. will any of you leave? :lol

It's no big surprise man. Just gotta work harder and adapt. No biggie.

[BonnerDynasty]

"I don't trust the government with my money."

You're perfectly happy to give your money, $10K/year for family of 4, to private insurers who then burn up 30% in overheads, dividends, management payouts, etc while delivering back to you as little product as possible.

And the government will do a better job?

I know they ownz with Social Security, but let's not push our luck. :toast

[Clandestino]

the world is coming to an end!!!

[Nbadan]

Since government has managed to F up our health care industry let's double down.

....Touche' .....but rising health-care premiums and the home foreclosure boon is bankrupting people anyway....I'm not totally against the idea of HSA's, but with some sort of catastrophic (health) insurance to cover costs that families could never raise, or pay on their own...dependent on income and family size....

[BradLohaus]

I wonder what it's like to live in a free country.

Essentially, the feds give us an allowance - it's the amount of your income that they don't take.

[Nbadan]

...ask the British.....

[DarkReign]

the world is coming to an end!!!

Clandestino sighting!

[xrayzebra]

"I don't trust the government with my money."

You're perfectly happy to give your money, $10K/year for family of 4, to private insurers who then burn up 30% in overheads, dividends, management payouts, etc while delivering back to you as little product as possible.

You answered your own question. "You are perfectly happy to
give your money". Freely given, not taken. See the
difference boutons? He gets what he pays for. Not what
some damn Congressman, Senator or bureaucrat
says you will get. You are not happy with your
health insurance company, you go to a different one.
You are not happy with the Government plan. Go suck
a lemon, that is all you get, like it or not. Or pay as
you go. Not an unheard of thing.

[fyatuk]

....Touche' .....but rising health-care premiums and the home foreclosure boon is bankrupting people anyway....I'm not totally against the idea of HSA's, but with some sort of catastrophic (health) insurance to cover costs that families could never raise, or pay on their own...dependent on income and family size....

True, catastrophic insurance would need to be a part of it. It actually wouldn't bother me if the government provided the attached catastrophic insurance (through a small tax based on contributions, with contributions matched by employer).

The way I view these things is a minimum level of required contributions based on exceptions claimed on W-4 (the less exceptions you claim, the less you are required to contribute) with employer matching the required contributions. A charge based on % of contributions for catestrophic coverage (should never even come close to being equal to employer contributions, so effectively the employer purchases for you).

The employee could choose their own bank to hold the money, and it should be easily transferable to a different bank to allow competition for interest rates, etc. Contributions would be pre-tax deductions.

The accounts could be charged directly from Dr offices (medical, dental, vision all available). Starting at retirement age, you can draw a set % (say 5-10) of the balance out for whatever use you want, and the balance in the account is cashed out upon death and added to the estate. They should be usable for spouses and children, and community property at divorce (the person who's name it's in should always retain the lion's share).

This turns them into a combined health care/retirement/life insurance.