She wants to pick your pocket.
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they 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 during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."
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. Under her plan, she said, health care "will be affordable for everyone" because she would limit premium payments "to a low percent of your income."
Because we all know how good the federal government is at determining what is affordable for average American workers. Just ask all those "Welfare to Work" mothers. Of course it may be hard to reach them between shifts of the two or three jobs many of them work to keep their kids clothed, fed and in daycare.
Yes, Hillary, in her infinite wisdom, has deduced that the ones responsible for our broken health care system aren't insurance companies or pharmaceutical companies or employers who are slashing benefits and pay raises, simultaneously. It's those flush workers who just refuse to pay for insurance.
Make no mistake. This is yet another Republicrat idea designed to utterly fuck the middle class.
But, if Obama is smart, he will take this ball and run with it, because Hill has just handed him a hell of a campaign issue right before Super Tuesday. "Hillary wants to garnish your wages." It just writes itself.
6 comments:
This was a horrible mistake on her part. Inadvertently being honest and saying "she'll go after wages." Just inexcusable - Bill would never have made the mistake of being honest.
Her plan is also just a bunch of goodies for favored groups at taxpayer expense - as I've written about here.
If You Care About Health Care:
Clinton, Obama, Insurance (by Paul Krugman)
[N]ew research, just released, confirms what I’ve been saying: the difference between the [Clinton and Obama] plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short… Over all, the Obama-type plan [without mandated coverage for all] would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan [with mandated coverage for all] only $2,700…
[T]he Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care. If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.
If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.
Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com
His plan is worse.
I live in kkkanada where there is actually universal healthcare. What the politicians aren't saying is that the country can't afford free health care.
They will make the people who are already struggling to cover basic living expenses pay for health coverage. So now, for some it will be a choice between healthcare and food or rent or heat.
What the politicians aren't saying in so many words is that they have no choice. All the money's gone into wars overseas.
Your country is not only understood as morally bankrupt, it's also fiscally bankrupt.
Universal health care is just a fairytale the politicians are telling the voters as they lay them down to sleep.
Sadly, dark daughta, I think you're right. I just stumbled on this this morning.
THE Iraq war has cost the US 50-60 times more than the Bush administration predicted and was a central cause of the sub-prime banking crisis threatening the world economy, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
. . .
Professor Stiglitz, an academic at the Columbia Business School and a former economic adviser to president Bill Clinton, said a further $US500 billion was going to be spent on the fighting in the next two years and that could have been used more effectively to improve the security and quality of life of Americans and the rest of the world.
The money being spent on the war each week would be enough to wipe out illiteracy around the world, he said.
Just a few days' funding would be enough to provide health insurance for US children who were not covered, he said.
I wish politicians would stop infantilizing voters by telling them strategic, safe, acceptable lies. The people need to know, even if, especially if they've been trained to not see what's right in front of their faces. They deserve that. I've met bloggers who are voting because their grandparents fought for the right and because they were taught by rote to believe that it stands for something positive that brings potential change in each voting cycle. It's sickening to watch the politicians manipulate people's dreams of something as basic as accessible health care. It's so sad. Thanks for responding. I appreciate the link you gave.
Post a Comment