Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

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.

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 health plan may mean tapping pay

Yep folks, there is nothing like good ole coercion of the State.

I'm sure we'll be hearing similar complaints soon enough from any number of Right Wing Whiners who have all along been complaining about the undue burden placed on the system by having to provide care for people whom they claim can afford private health insurance but "choose" not to pay for it.

Those same whiners who would rather "punish" such miscreants by denying them life-saving or -sustaining emergency care will whine even louder at the idea of "punishing" them by making them fork over the money like everyone else.

They would do the same no matter which Dem candidate suggested adding a Medicare-like FICA tax for health care. After all, they don't want to help the working poor, they want to punish them for being poor even though they are working. That way, they can continue to whine about the undue burden placed on the system by having to provide care for them. That way, they can continue to whine about those nasty socialistical Dam-ocrats and their infernal persistence in providing for the general welfare.

Yeah, well Steve, could it be possible that the article is correct about Hillary and health care? Are you going to dismiss everything offhand? Are you telling us that the article is total bullsh*t?

Welp, Slipped, I would have to say your description of the article was correct, it is total B.S. - to the extent that there is an implication that it has any substance at all. Having said that, I think it is also important to allow people to express their opinions. I try to be specific in my criticisms. The point that Senator Clinton makes, quite correctly, is that in order for insurance to work, it is important that everyone participate, and that people not be allowed to self-select out, reverse cherry-picking, if you will. The problem I have with her system is exactly that - it is an insurance program. Personally, I prefer to see basic health care as an entitlement. If you want additional coverage, have at it, you have the absolute right to arrange for that. That will reduce the burden on the rest of us, but one isn't allowed to simply "opt out" of the tax system just because they aren't presently getting the benefit of it.

You didn't even bother to look for the actual source before you posted this? It isn't rocket science picking-up a transcript from a major broadcast network's Sunday talking head news show that evening, unless of course, the network is Fox. It's been a while, but the last time I tried to pick-up a transcript on Fox, all they offered were Reader Digest styled condensed versions.

Here's the full health insurance segment of the interview:

----moderator forced edit----
This Week with George Stephanopoulos,
ABC News, Fevruary 3, 2008

I readily admit that the excerpt I'd posted of this interview was longer than guidelines. It was about 40% of the total interview though, and there is absolutely no way that this deceitful AP piece can be shown for what it is in under the 150 word limitation.

Worse, I posted this before the same garbage showed up at the top of the Capitol Hill Blue website. Are there no journalists left in the Nation who care to spend even the few minutes it too me to locate the transcript, read it and then realise how deceptively it was portrayed by The AP before they gleefully publish it?

I've said it before on this site, and I will say it again now: I WILL NOT be voting for HRC and I WILL NOT be voting for a Republican presidential candidate either this election cycle. If the DNC serves up HRC, I will be quite content to choose amongst the several 3rd parties available, the one that most closely aligns with my political point of view. That still does not excuse dishonest reporting of fact, and its subsequent viral spread in publications across America.

2004 was the first Presidential campaign where I voted for a major party's candidate in 2 decades, and that decision was not founded out of any deep affinity with the lurching Mass. Yankee, but instead grounded upon the firm belief that it would damage The Nation to reelect a president who had led us into an immoral war, and that the question of Mr. Bush's honesty in doing so, need not even be reached. It did not matter whether he was a liar or a fool; the War Upon Iraq was predicated upon false causes, and it is immoral for the aggressor state to change its causes justifying a war, after hostilities have been initiated.

Mr. Thompson, do you hear me?

Look at your headline:
"Clinton: Garnish wages to pay for health care"

Read the transcript and see that this is not the truth.

Sometimes exceptions to the rule need be made. This is why 'fair use' was initially legislated. By the time I had provided a proper citation, and set-up coherent context with a Stephanopoulos question, there was no way that a rebuttal to this deceitful article could have come in under 150 words.

I am out of here for at least long enough to lose this foul taste in my mouth.

----End Post-edit ravening----

Stephanopoulos said it, not HRC. She just said that under her plan it would be mandated, and persons who had to be corralled into would not face fines. The easiest way to effectuate this is to simply make it a tax, if it's a payroll tax, small business owners who presently do not offer employee health insurance would be mighty angry for a while, but the corporations would not be, and it would settle-down into the background noise after a bit, so I'd wager on that route.

If HRC does succeed in winning the presidency, I will derive great pleasure from the discomfort it causes the Wacky-Wabbid-Wigt-Whingers, and all the rest of the LooneyCons, because no matter how bad her presidency would be, there would always be one ultimately redeeming factor: She Is Not GW Bush.

I can't resist:
Did you Drudge up the link to the AP story on Yahoo?

The article is certainly correct. The title of the thread is not. Ms. Clinton said what she said. Somehow, as is the case with absolutely everything Ms. Clinton utters, it will be so widely misconstrued that what she said will be forgotten in favor of what other people say she said.

Just checked my paystub. There is a deduction for 'healthcare' coverage, the one which was selected by my employer for me. I'm trying to imagine how life might be different if the deduction were in recorded in a different box, nearer to the Income Tax, FICA, and Medicare deductions.

Some differences maybe:

It would be Portable.
(I might be able to change jobs without considering this non-germane subject!)
It would be the same as my boss's plan.
I could skip the wallet biopsies.

I agree, NW. Points of yours I have highlighted.
It is hard for me to even examine a 'policy' like hers that wants to keep insurance companies (ie....for profit health care) involved....misconstrued or not.