Hillary's healthcare plan could have power to garnish wages

[Mrs Behavin]

WASHINGTON - The top presidential candidates and their big-name supporters campaigned from coast to coast Sunday, but one contender seemed atop everyone's mind: Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney contrasted themselves, and each other, with Clinton as though she were the nominee. Her Democratic rival, Barack Obama, played along to a degree, saying Clinton is so polarizing that he is their party's better bet.
Rather than diverting the less-than-flattering attention, Clinton embraced it.
"I've been taking the incoming fire from Republicans for about 16 years now, and I'm still here, because I have been vetted, I have been tested," she said in a TV interview before campaigning in Missouri and Minneapolis.
"There's unlikely to be any new surprises," Clinton added, implying the same cannot be said of Obama, who has been in Congress three years.
Her confidence notwithstanding, polls showed Obama narrowing the lead that Clinton has enjoyed among Democrats nationwide, even as McCain appeared to be pulling away from Romney.
With 24 states holding presidential contests Tuesday, Sunday was an intense day of campaigning and advertising, making it all the more remarkable that one figure managed to dominate so much of the talk and speculation.

rest of story here All eyes on Clinton as big vote nears - Yahoo! News

 

[gLing]

Clinton is evil. Who needs terrorists when you have people like her working to screw you over from within. :mad

 

[Tim]

We all pay for it now anyway... I could list out 10 different ways you are paying for health care today... it's just that you don't see it... that's all.

:dunno I don't think health care should be a for profit enterprise anyway. I'm all for capitalism, but on the backs of sick people?

 

[gLing]

We all pay for it now anyway... I could list out 10 different ways you are paying for health care today... it's just that you don't see it... that's all.

:dunno I don't think health care should be a for profit enterprise anyway. I'm all for capitalism, but on the backs of sick people?

I see it in the premiums I pay and it should be for profit because profit leads to competition which leads to lower prices and innovation. Whenever you monopolize health care, whether it be by the government or by insurance companies, it becomes a bloated and expensive mess and the quality of the health care goes down.
Plus even in our free market system nobody goes without health care and the bulk of people who do not have insurance can afford it but instead choose to spend their money on luxuries instead.

http://www.offtopicz.net/25683-uninsured-america.html

 

[GraceAbounds]

We all pay for it now anyway... I could list out 10 different ways you are paying for health care today... it's just that you don't see it... that's all.

:dunno I don't think health care should be a for profit enterprise anyway. I'm all for capitalism, but on the backs of sick people?

:homo:

 

[GraceAbounds]

Plus even in our free market system nobody goes without health care and the bulk of people who do not have insurance can afford it but instead choose to spend their money on luxuries instead.

http://www.offtopicz.net/25683-uninsured-america.html

This is not true. Many that don't have insurance are because companies will not insure them.

My husband's company that he use to work for didn't offer health insurance as they were a small company and could not afford it. So we went to buy health insurance for our family and two out of five of us were denied coverage. And for the other 3 of us the health insurance would not cover any pre existing conditions thus making the insurance worthless. Nor would they cover pregnancy. And for all of this bunch of nothing were going to charge us a $1,000 a month for a monthly insurance premium.

And just because an institution is not for profit, it doesn't mean money is not set aside for research and what not. (huge misconception)

 

[gLing]

This is not true. Many that don't have insurance are because companies will not insure them.

My husband's company that he use to work for didn't offer health insurance as they were a small company and could not afford it. So we went to buy health insurance for our family and two out of five of us were denied coverage. And for the other 3 of us the health insurance would not cover any pre existing conditions thus making the insurance worthless. Nor would they cover pregnancy. And for all of this bunch of nothing were going to charge us a $1,000 a month for a monthly insurance premium.

And just because an institution is not for profit, it doesn't mean money is not set aside for research and what not. (huge misconception)

Should have followed the link.

According to the US Census Bureau, 17 million of those without health insurance live in households having over $50,000 in annual income. That's 38% of the uninsured in America.(2)

In fact, 9 million - 20% of the uninsured - reside in households pulling down more than $75K a year. (3)

Devon Herrick (National Center for Policy Analysis):
Most of us would agree that people like that should probably be able to afford some type of coverage. Essentially, insurance to them is just not a good buy. It's something that they don't have a priority for in many cases.

Stuart Browning (voice over):
And then there are the young invincibles. Over 18 million of the uninsured are people between the ages of 18 and 34. (4) They spend more than four times as much on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment and dining out as they do for out-of-pocket spending on health care.(5) They represent 40% of the uninsured in America.

Faye Chao:
I bike everywhere in the city, so I have gotten hit by drivers twice - and one time I ended up in the hospital. No, I didn't have health insurance, but I was treated - and billed for it later.
Stuart Browning (voice over):
Since 1965, when Lyndon Johnson signed Medicare and Medicaid into law, many Americans have become accustomed to the idea that someone else should pay for their health care.
These days, federal law requires that any hospital must provide care to anyone who comes within 250 yards of an emergency room - regardless of ability or willingness to pay. (6)


Devon Herrick:
In terms of charity care, we spend more than one thousand dollars for every man, woman and child who's uninsured in this country. Studies have found that the uninsured tend to get about 50 to 60 percent as much care as say someone who is insured.

Stuart Browning (voice over):
And across the nation there's an extensive system of low or no cost community health care centers and free health care clinics.

 

[gLing]

And just because an institution is not for profit, it doesn't mean money is not set aside for research and what not. (huge misconception)

Oh and I never said it didn't.

 

[GraceAbounds]

Should have followed the link.

I didn't need to follow the link as I did a huge report on this topic last semester. I use to believe as you. My research and the research of the other 3 people in my group changed my mind.

As to your article:
$50,000 is not a lot of money unless one is supporting only their selves with it or if you live in a part of the US with a very low cost of living.

Just because the young party has no bearing on that fact that many go without insurance because they have no means of getting it.

And sure you can go to an emergency room at a county hospital because they can't turn you away. But every single doctor's office can and will turn you away unless you pay right then and there. Emergency rooms are clogged with uninsured people because they have no where else to go. You and I pay for their care because they do not have insurance. Instead a hundred dollar visit to the doctor, they go to a five hundred dollar visit to the emergency room because they have no insurance or way to pay.

Per your article 40 to 50% of people are not getting full medical care due to them being uninsured. Money is more important than their health. Profit has no place in a business where the bottom line should be someone's life ... not money. It is immoral imo. Non-profit/break even is what we should be aiming for.

As far as free clinics go. I've never seen one, not in any state I've lived in. I've seen some free immunization clinics. This country does not make them easy to find or user friendly, that is for sure.

 

[All Else Failed]

why do people think health is a commodity?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

why do people think health is a commodity?

What do you mean? It's not a commodity, but insurance companies are publicly traded, the largest anyways....Indirectly that makes the ability they have to serve us properly...somewhat biased by shareholders.

I am positive this is not the context by which your question was asked though.

 

[FreeWorkVest]

why do people think health is a commodity?

I have worked in health care for over 20 years. Treatment plans are made based not on outcomes, but on reimbursments.

Treatment protocols are based on capturing charges, because most of the actual medications are a loss or break even, even with private insurance. For instance, I know of a guy who was a Vice-President of a major hospital chain when he retired and had a rare disease that, if he did not get his medication, he would die.
He had great insurance, but still had to pull strings to get treatments because administering the drug he needed to live was more expensive than the reimursment, and even he couldn't afford the extra 5 grand every two weeks needed to break even.

This is what an unregulated insurance industry leads to, so we need something

 

[GraceAbounds]

So you'd actually be agree'ing with AEF?

 

[FreeWorkVest]

So you'd actually be agree'ing with AEF?

Yes, I forgot that part

 

[sharpies]

Every Australian pays 3% of their wages to pay for "free" Medical treatment in Hospital, but they also encourage people to take out Private Medical cover by giving you a tax break on the premiums.

I think the system still has some problems but it is far better than some of the health systems.

Allan

 

[gLing]

I didn't need to follow the link as I did a huge report on this topic last semester. I use to believe as you. My research and the research of the other 3 people in my group changed my mind.

As to your article:
$50,000 is not a lot of money unless one is supporting only their selves with it or if you live in a part of the US with a very low cost of living.

My family was making less than that and they can afford it.

Just because the young party has no bearing on that fact that many go without insurance because they have no means of getting it.

The article showed that a lot of those who do not have insurance can afford it but choose not to. It pointed out the young as making up 40% of those uninsured and it pointed out they spend four times as much money partying than they do on health care.

And sure you can go to an emergency room at a county hospital because they can't turn you away. But every single doctor's office can and will turn you away unless you pay right then and there.

That is not true. Once I finished school I did not have insurance and I was able to see doctors. I was not asked for money up front.

Emergency rooms are clogged with uninsured people because they have no where else to go. You and I pay for their care because they do not have insurance. Instead a hundred dollar visit to the doctor, they go to a five hundred dollar visit to the emergency room because they have no insurance or way to pay.

How do you know many of them cannot afford it but are instead taking advantage of the free emergency rooms?

Per your article 40 to 50% of people are not getting full medical care due to them being uninsured.

That is not what the article said. What id did say is the uninsured get about 50- 60% as much health care as the insured do.

Money is more important than their health. Profit has no place in a business where the bottom line should be someone's life ... not money. It is immoral imo. Non-profit/break even is what we should be aiming for.

Nothing is ever for free. It has to be payed for by somebody. You implement a socialized medical scheme in the US then all you do is lower the quality of health care for everybody. Just take a look around where it has been tried in and outside of the US.
I think Japan is the only one that has been successful at it.

As far as free clinics go. I've never seen one, not in any state I've lived in. I've seen some free immunization clinics. This country does not make them easy to find or user friendly, that is for sure.

I live in Texas and have been to them. They are not that hard to find. All you have to do is look for them.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

I think if there is an issue, then it needs to lead to tighter regulation of the Insurance industry. I don't think adding more government is the answer, not right now. The first order of business should be to pull the government back from the brink of financial collapse, slap every single senator and congressman in the face...Twice, remind them they are working for us, not the other way around.

Next, light every single lobbyist and "think tank" in DC on fire, and shoot them like rats as they run out of the building.

Tell the insurance companies the next time they deny coverage to some family who has a child dying of leukemia, we will find the person who stamped the paperwork and beat them until there ancestors noses bleed.

If there is anyone in thei scoountry who needs to be paying for indigent health care it needs to be the insurance companies, the way I see it I am paying two ways:

1. I pay for my own insurance premiums, for everything, things I own, and the bodies that consume the space in my life.

2. I pay a fortune in taxes every year, without a doubt I am paying for some family that has no insurance, which I do not mind, but I do mind getting double taxed, and you cannot tell me that JUST BECAUSE some family does not have insurance, that someplace, somewhere big insurance isn't profiting....Even from the un-insured.

Simply put, if you add more of the problem, your problem increases, if you go to those whos job is to govern and repair that which is broken, and threaten them, the problem goes away.

I mean all of this in the good Christian way, particularly the violent parts:ninja

 

[Boomer]

opcorn2:

 

[Pudding Time]

Bad Boy,

Who's going to be the ones to go and do all this? The government? lol...

Also... what do you mean by "adding more government?"

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Bad Boy,

Who's going to be the ones to go and do all this? The government? lol...

Also... what do you mean by "adding more government?"

I think the people who vote need to man up and say enough is enough.

And socialized medicine just simply cannot work in this government, at least not right now.

If a Senator wants to have a barbeque at his/her house they need ti hire 15 more assistants, one thing I can say bad about the US government, is they are terribly inefficient.

Can you imagine how large we would have to inflate the size of the government to make this happen?

Look at the IRS....And that's an agency that technically is doing something illegal..Taxation without representation...