Clinton to Offer Health Care Plan (Cost: $110 billion/year)

[Heracles 417]

How does she propose to pay for this? Back home we have a separate 1.5% Medicare tax that pays for the universal healthcare. Which increases to 2.5% of you are earning over $50K and do not have supplementary private health insurance..

Or is she just proposing they add it on to the US budget and hope for the best. You know, that exact thing they are no criticizing republicans for.

[Cassie 8]

well, at least she's throwing some ideas out there for discussion

[Scott & Lai 12]

Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered.

This would be the death knell of our small business's in America. There are hundreds of thousands Ma and Pa business's that don't offer health care that would either have to start or have to pay the government. She is taking the cowards way out. Either she thinks the government should pay for health care or she doesn't. Since when has it been the employer who has that responsibility? Health benefits were an incentive to attract and keep good employees. Now Clinton wants to saddle every employer with the responsibility. Just shows how anti-business she is.

She has said in the past that she doesn't care about small businesses...

[GaryC 7]

If we let the government mandate our health care then we will end up with no choices at all. Case in point, see what Edwards wants to do. I realize that his chances are next to nil but it shows just how these people including Clinton, think.

If John Edwards is elected president, Americans will have no choice but go to the doctor when told.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

“It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat “the first trace of problem.” Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...medical_choice/

Carefully read that. He is saying that you MUST go to the doctor. Whats next? Fines, jail, forced doctor visits or exclusion from the system if you don't go when ordered?

[mawilson 2,133]

Carefully read that. He is saying that you MUST go to the doctor. Whats next? Fines, jail, forced doctor visits or exclusion from the system if you don't go when ordered?

If the government is going to cover the costs of your health insurance, why is it

unreasonable to require that people go to the doctor for preventive care?

Getting people diagnosed early will save many millions of $$$'s in the long run.

[Nagishkaw 510]

If we let the government mandate our health care then we will end up with no choices at all. Case in point, see what Edwards wants to do. I realize that his chances are next to nil but it shows just how these people including Clinton, think.

If John Edwards is elected president, Americans will have no choice but go to the doctor when told.

Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards said on Sunday that his universal health care proposal would require that Americans go to the doctor for preventive care.

“It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care,” he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. “If you are going to be in the system, you can’t choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK.”

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat “the first trace of problem.” Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/...medical_choice/

Carefully read that. He is saying that you MUST go to the doctor. Whats next? Fines, jail, forced doctor visits or exclusion from the system if you don't go when ordered?

more like forced labour and gulags.

[russ 1]

This would be the death knell of our small business's in America. There are hundreds of thousands Ma and Pa business's that don't offer health care that would either have to start or have to pay the government. She is

It is a bigger problem, as large corporations get a tax break for offering health care employees. (Even though they pass a huge chunk of that on to employees through payroll deductions).

Small businesses still get taxed on health care benefits for the business owners (it can't be completely deducted).

And yes, you would get fined for not having insurance. In Mass for example, if you don't have insurance, they increase your taxes as a penalty. (Nice thing to do to a poor person who can't afford it to begin with).

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

more like forced labour and gulags.

Geez, enough with the histrionics, already.

It is not unreasonable to require yearly checkups to remain part of the system. If one does not wish to participate, then one need not get checked.

It's not unlike submitting proof of insurability for life insurance.

Edited September 17, 2007 by VJ Troll

[Donna A 4]

just like car insuranse...the poor cant afford it so how can they pay for health insurance.

Are you saying it's ok for the poor to drive without car insurance?

where did i say it was ok? i said they cant afford car insurance so how can they pay for health care? dont put words in my mouth.

[cmartyn 0]

In this country we are forced to put up with a lot of #######. Forced to put up with guns, put up with do-nothing civil servants, restaraunts you can't understand the waiter in. Ya know, being forced to go to the doctor aint that bad of an idea. Heck, I should go more often.

[GaryC 7]

In this country we are forced to put up with a lot of #######. Forced to put up with guns, put up with do-nothing civil servants, restaraunts you can't understand the waiter in. Ya know, being forced to go to the doctor aint that bad of an idea. Heck, I should go more often.

Yes, maybe you should go to the doctor more often. But that is your right not to if you don't want to. Do you really want the government to tell you that you must go? I thought this was the sort of thing the pro abortion types hung their argument on. "Don't tell me what to do with my body." So now it's OK?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why does everyone assume it must be about 'punishment' (given that it's Hillary we're talking about that's probably a rhetorical question)? Surely this sort of thing could be achieved merely by giving people positive incentives to take their health more seriously - premium reductions if you get a checkup twice a year or some such.

[Dan J 277]

In this country we are forced to put up with a lot of #######. Forced to put up with guns, put up with do-nothing civil servants, restaraunts you can't understand the waiter in. Ya know, being forced to go to the doctor aint that bad of an idea. Heck, I should go more often.

Yes, maybe you should go to the doctor more often. But that is your right not to if you don't want to. Do you really want the government to tell you that you must go? I thought this was the sort of thing the pro abortion types hung their argument on. "Don't tell me what to do with my body." So now it's OK?

Because you decided not to take preventive care, should the insurance company pay for you to get treated when the preventable problem occurs? Or should you be responsible to pay for it yourself, because you choose not to prevent it?

Its much cheaper to replace the oil in your car than it is to replace the engine block after it's seized up, because you didn't change the oil. But then car insurance doens't cover engine maintenance. If it did, you can bet the insurance companies would want you to make sure you took care of your car.

[GaryC 7]

Why does everyone assume it must be about 'punishment' (given that it's Hillary we're talking about that's probably a rhetorical question)? Surely this sort of thing could be achieved merely by giving people positive incentives to take their health more seriously - premium reductions if you get a checkup twice a year or some such.

That may be the way it's suppose to be. But Edwards clearly states that he wants it to be MANDATORY. It would be inevitable. When the government starts getting involved with our health care they will be calling the shots. Then you will eventually get a "progressive" administration in there that thinks they know better than you what is good for the people. It's a very slippery slope. And one I don't think is to far fetched.

In this country we are forced to put up with a lot of #######. Forced to put up with guns, put up with do-nothing civil servants, restaraunts you can't understand the waiter in. Ya know, being forced to go to the doctor aint that bad of an idea. Heck, I should go more often.

Yes, maybe you should go to the doctor more often. But that is your right not to if you don't want to. Do you really want the government to tell you that you must go? I thought this was the sort of thing the pro abortion types hung their argument on. "Don't tell me what to do with my body." So now it's OK?

Because you decided not to take preventive care, should the insurance company pay for you to get treated when the preventable problem occurs? Or should you be responsible to pay for it yourself, because you choose not to prevent it?

Its much cheaper to replace the oil in your car than it is to replace the engine block after it's seized up, because you didn't change the oil. But then car insurance doens't cover engine maintenance. If it did, you can bet the insurance companies would want you to make sure you took care of your car.

So you are in favor of mandatory check ups? Does that mean your OK with the government telling a woman what she can do with her body? It works both ways you know.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Why does everyone assume it must be about 'punishment' (given that it's Hillary we're talking about that's probably a rhetorical question)? Surely this sort of thing could be achieved merely by giving people positive incentives to take their health more seriously - premium reductions if you get a checkup twice a year or some such.

That may be the way it's suppose to be. But Edwards clearly states that he wants it to be MANDATORY. It would be inevitable. When the government starts getting involved with our health care they will be calling the shots. Then you will eventually get a "progressive" administration in there that thinks they know better than you what is good for the people. It's a very slippery slope. And one I don't think is to far fetched.

I can't see mandatory health checkups passing the House & Senate, let alone the Supreme Court. That doesn't mean the basic idea itself is a bad one, just that the folks in charge of it aren't the best.