The Latest Proposed Health Care Mandate
By Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted in Health care | Hillary Clinton | Policy | Wage Garnishment — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
One of the reasons why I am a member of the Anti-Universal Coverage Club is summed up by the manifesto of the club:
Universal coverage" could be achieved only by forcing everyone to buy health insurance or by having government provide health insurance to all, neither of which is desirable.
In a free society, people should have the right to refuse health insurance.
This kind of statement is a prerequisite to having and maintaining a free society. Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton appears to disagree and she has announced the most draconian of measures to finance her plans for universal coverage:
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 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."
Read on . . .
So now, Clinton won't even bother with proposing to raise taxes. Instead, she will impose mandatory wage garnishment in order to finance her plan. And she will do this instead of following the Anti-Universal Coverage Club's recommendation that "If governments must subsidize those who cannot afford medical care, they should be free to experiment with different types of subsidies (cash, vouchers, insurance, public clinics & hospitals, uncompensated care payments, etc.) and tax exemptions, rather than be forced by a policy of 'universal coverage' to subsidize people via 'insurance.'" There is no pretense anymore concerning respecting the notion that what you earn as part of your paycheck should be respected as yours to the greatest extent possible. No. Now, instead, if you make too much money, under a new Clinton Administration, you will see your taxes raised because a new Clinton Administration will prevent the Bush tax cuts from becoming permanent and you will see your wages garnished because a new Clinton Administration wants to force you into purchasing health care instead of working to find the kind of free market solutions that the Anti-Universal Coverage Club helpfully puts forth.
For everyone who still believes that there are no major differences between the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, this post is for you. I recognize that Republican voters may be dissatisfied with either McCain or Romney. But at the very least, they wouldn't try an appalling, authoritarian stunt like wage garnishment to finance their social experimentation policies.
« President Bush and Speaker Pelosi take a swipe at free market medicine — Comments (80) | Bill Richardson: The problem with healthcare in the United States is that we rely too much on doctors — Comments (20) »
The Latest Proposed Health Care Mandate 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
This is part of the Romney plan in Taxachusetts.
I should say garnishing wages is parrt of the plan if you do not sign up for a health plan.
The Romneycare plan is a pathetic monstrosity in Mass., but garnishing wages isn't currently a part of it. Under the health plan in Mass., those who do not purchase the required insurance are subject to fines -- in the $200-$300 dollar range -- which must be paid when filing annual taxes; however, that money is not taken directly out of anybody's paycheck.
The German system was instituted by Bismarck in 1883 to weaken the influence of the Socialists. So much for appeasement...
http://www.germanculture.com.ua/library/facts/bl_health_care_develop.htm
To socialists like HRC, the only reason you make money is so you can give it to them, because they know what's best for us - after all, we're just ignorant peasants. In their minds, we're all worker ants toiling for the "common good".
Cheers,
Scott in Indy
with the proposition that "[i]n a free society, people should have the right to refuse health insurance." Unfortunately, it should also be true that in a free society, hospitals, doctors, etc. should have the right to not treat those who do not have health insurance. Otherwise, those without health insurance simply will end up have the taxpayers fund their health care.
Right - We already have universal health care in the form of the ER. We should either abolish the ER service requirement or re-deploy universal health care in a more cost effective manner.
Hillary's justification is based on the same premise as Social Security, i.e. mandatory participation to fund a universal "benefit" (safety net). Since the Democratic view is that people are too stupid to know how to spend their money, raise their kids, choose what kind of car to drive, set their own thermostat, etc, this approach makes perfect sense to them. The conservative approach of educated personal responsibility is just heresy to the Democrats.
Sadly, the better part of a century of growing dependency on government has created a class that is as ready for personal responsibility as (some would argue) Palestine is for representative democracy.
The ability to effectively exercise personal responsibility would require many of our institutions to start teaching about how to be responsible for their own actions, e.g. choices have consequences, instead of the steady drumbeat of teaching that all good government is like Santa Claus.
The link to the "Price of Free Corn" is illustrative.
You can't afford the price of free corn.
Because school systems are part of the bureaucracy, they have a vested interest in "selling" its virtue to students and excluding any mention of freedom from government, personal responsibility, and self sufficiency.
The government-centric war on poverty is a massive failure, social security is unsustainable, and yet millions of people are still gullible enough to believe that somehow they'll get it right on universal health care.
The promise that it will be paid for by letting President Bush's "tax cuts for the rich" expire is worse than a Ponzi scheme. Treasury Department data from October 2007 shows that the nation's richest 5% are actually paying *more* in taxes under President Bush than they did under President Clinton.
None of our Republican candidates are offering a thoughtful rebuttal to the universal health care "fairy tale". None of them are detailing free market alternatives.
If we don't counter-attack, we're in danger of being stuck with a massive entitlement program that has the potential to be a far great economic drain than social security.
--
"We want great men who, when fortune frowns, will not be discouraged." - Colonel Henry Knox
It's also interesting that although the Republicans are frequently accused of wanting something like Orwell's '1984', in the book itself, the Party and Big Brother are byproducts of INGSOC (English Socialism). The government builds dependency in the governed until the 'governed' become the "owned."
You can't afford the price of free corn.
Will the people get to vote on Universal health care under Hillary? Should Americans not have the opportunity to vote on a mandated health system?
If UHC is implemented, will people be able to opt out? Right now, I work for a small non-profit. My husband who is a med-student and I pay our own health care. We have a pretty good plan for about $120/month. Now, if something devasting happened to either of us, we would likely have to dig into our savings..but overall we have decent coverage. So, I would like the option, since I carry my own health insurance to not participate in her plan.
I would love some answers to the above questions from those of you that understand how this will work in practice.
THANKS
MelZ
The Democrats no longer distinguish between health insurance and health care. One is equivalent to the other in their minds: having health insurance apparently means that you automatically have health care, and apparently you can have health care only if you have health insurance. The absurdity of this position is not at all visible on their radar.
Democrats sound like shills for the health insurance industry. The absurdity of that is not at all visible on their radar, either.
would health insurance cost if everyone's health care was covered? Answer: the total insurance cost would have to cover the total health care bill for everyone it covers. The next question is, how much more health care would be consumed if health care was perceived to be FREE?
You can't afford the price of free corn.
"In a free society, people should have the right to refuse health insurance."
You must make it legal for people to refuse to render care to those unable to pay.
Currently, it is legal to refuse coverage, but legal to refuse care at the emergency room. Thus, those who either do not Want or can not afford coverage are forcing the hospitals to go bankrupt.
"Guns don't kill people...
"...But they sure help!"
-Paul Giamatti, Shoot 'Em Up
First of all, unreimbursed hospital costs are not forcing bankruptcies of hospitals. They increase all other costs to the paying customers. And since there is effectively no competition in healthcare, that's not a problem (for the hospitals).
With respect to denial of service, as onorus as involving the government is to me, they really need to set the standanrd for denying care and they need to exempt hospitals for any liability from such denial. If all they do is give the right to deny care, John Edwards friends will be lined up with class action paperwork at every emergency ward in the nation.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
and all the other hospitals that come up if you google "hospital bankruptcy".
You can't afford the price of free corn.
...she thinks honestly that there's some rash of middle-class people exploiting the emergency room system?
Give me a break. I have a hard time believing that anybody other than the criminally-minded would actually want to deal with an emergency room for care if they didn't have to, even with the promise of free care...
...after having personally experienced the marvel of care that is a major metropolitan hospital's emergency room (University Hospitals Cleveland), I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy, let alone want to rely on it. Eight hours for stitches makes you wonder if, in the long run, you'd just be better off with the scar.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk