In Honor of Bill Clinton this Election

[HOZ]

Hee hee....

[Azure]

We'll hope he never gets that far....not because of him, God knows I don't mind him, but because of his wife.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

We'll hope he never gets that far....not because of him, God knows I don't mind him, but because of his wife.

I know--and you've never really given a convincing reason why, I have to say. I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but I'm having a hard time understanding why you don't think she stands out in what is a pretty underwhelming field.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I know--and you've never really given a convincing reason why, I have to say. I'm not Hillary's biggest fan, but I'm having a hard time understanding why you don't think she stands out in what is a pretty underwhelming field.

There are many issues I flat-out disagree with, including her idea of 'taking your money away, and giving it to the poor.'

Hillary Clinton made news by saying she might allow workers' wages to be garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance.

"I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Right.

You're Joe Blow living in Alabama....you're 25 years old, and you make 10 bucks an hour. You make enough money to get buy, and live at least a decent life. You have a 50 year mortgage on your house, and with your current paycheck, along with your wifes, you can narrowly pay the payments each month. Along comes Hillary, who goes after your wages, and FORCES you to buy health insurance.

Did I mention that Joe Blow and his wife have no serious health problems, they work simple office jobs that puts them in no danger?

Now what kind of screwed up plan is it to force them to give up part of their direly needed wages to pay for health insurance they don't want?

And lets not even mention her vote-mongering that she does by flip-flopping on Iraq depending on how the public stands on the whole situation.

[Burninator]

/\ Isn't what she described a tax?

[ken0042]

Originally Posted by Azure

You're Joe Blow living in Alabama....you're 25 years old, and you make 10 bucks an hour. You make enough money to get buy, and live at least a decent life. You have a 50 year mortgage on your house, and with your current paycheck, along with your wifes, you can narrowly pay the payments each month. Along comes Hillary, who goes after your wages, and FORCES you to buy health insurance.

Did I mention that Joe Blow and his wife have no serious health problems, they work simple office jobs that puts them in no danger?

If you exclude the people who are currently healthy from having to pay, then the insurance premiums would be too much, and you are left with a system that they have now; once where they admire our "broken" system.

If you are going to create a universal health care system, then everybody has to pay. Or else it isn't universal.

Here in Alberta, do you have to option to opt out of Alberta Health Care? It would save you $44 per month if you could.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

There are many issues I flat-out disagree with, including her idea of 'taking your money away, and giving it to the poor.'

Hillary Clinton made news by saying she might allow workers' wages to be garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance.

"I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Right.

You're Joe Blow living in Alabama....you're 25 years old, and you make 10 bucks an hour. You make enough money to get buy, and live at least a decent life. You have a 50 year mortgage on your house, and with your current paycheck, along with your wifes, you can narrowly pay the payments each month. Along comes Hillary, who goes after your wages, and FORCES you to buy health insurance.

Did I mention that Joe Blow and his wife have no serious health problems, they work simple office jobs that puts them in no danger?

Now what kind of screwed up plan is it to force them to give up part of their direly needed wages to pay for health insurance they don't want?

When it comes to Iraq, I agree that she has a small problem. I console myself a little with the thought that she had a lot of company in playing craven politics when Bush was riding his post 9/11 wave of popularity. But I think your understanding of her health plan is flawed.

For one thing, ken0042 is right: you can't have universal health care if not everyone participates. In fact, the truth is that universal entitlement programs are typically cheaper for governments to run than ones that consumers can "opt out" of. The U.S. desperately needs health care reform--the system here is broken and immoral, and fails to provide even the most basic services to millions of people. But worst of all: it's expensive. No government program in history has paid so much for so little.

44 dollars, by the way? Pretty good. I pay 350 dollars a month for Health Insurance, and my wife pays 250 for our daughter. Joe Blow will be better off under Hillary's plan.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by ken0042

If you exclude the people who are currently healthy from having to pay, then the insurance premiums would be too much, and you are left with a system that they have now; once where they admire our "broken" system.

Or you privatize certain aspects of health care. Like Britain has done, where certain procedures are sent to the private sector.

If you are going to create a universal health care system, then everybody has to pay. Or else it isn't universal.

Or you don't create a universal system.

Why? Because the government, especially in the US has a traditional habit of screwing up with just about every program they finance.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Why? Because the government, especially in the US has a traditional habit of screwing up with just about every program they finance.

Do you include the military in that assessment?

Honestly, though--that view's a cop out and you know it. Essentially, your argument is that "government hasn't done it right, so it's better if they don't offer it at all." That's nonsense. The reason entitlement programs in the U.S. haven't been successful is actually very simple--and simple to solve given the political will. Their programs are not universal and not comprehensive. What they have is a patchwork of targeted entitlements that are expensive and inefficient. The solution isn't a mystery: Universal entitlement programs are better.

Universal entitlement programs are more efficient, and cheaper in the long run than the patchwork of targeted entitlements you have in the U.S. right now. Right now, the U.S. pays MORE per capita than the cost of the entire health care system in Canada--just to fund two targeted entitlement programs, Medicare and Medicaid. You tell me if that makes sense.

Political will is always the problem. But the solution is simple: do away with Medicare and Medicaid and replace them with a comprehensive and universal single payer health care system paid for by a small monthly premium paid by every American.

And yes--that includes the fellow from your example who's poor, but feels invincible because he's healthy. One thing I've learned over the years is that you never know. The healthiest person could wake up to-morrow and be very, very, ill. Trust me. It's happened to someone very close to me.

Clinton isn't proposing that exactly--but she's made it clear that a universal health care system is her objective. I think that's commendable, and contrary to your claim that she's a flip-flopper, extremely politically courageous.

[foofighter15]

can you imagine if Bill had no responsibility and all the power of living in the white house? The stories would be soooo good