Want a job? Show me your Health Insuarance Card!

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

Clinton unveiled her health care plan Monday in Iowa, promising to bring coverage to every American by building on the current employer-based system and using tax credits to make insurance more affordable.

She told the AP she relished a debate over health care with her political opponents, including Republicans "who understood that we had to reform health care before they started running for president."

On Tuesday, Clinton began airing a 30-second ad statewide in Iowa and New Hampshire promoting her new health care plan. The ad reminds viewers of her failed effort to pass universal health care in the early 1990s, trying to portray a thwarted enterprise as one of vision.

"She changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America," the ad's announcer says.

The ad also highlights her support as senator for an expanded Children's Health Insurance Program and for more affordable vaccines.

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the ad.

"Now she has a health care plan that lets you keep your coverage if you like it, provides affordable choices if you don't, and covers every American," the ad says.

The ad also continues her campaign's effort to appropriate the mantle of change away from rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards. The word change or its variations appears four times in the ad, which ends: "So, if you're ready for change, she's ready to lead."

Though her ads are airing in major markets in both states, they are appaearing with greater frequency in Iowa. Polls of voters in New Hampshire show her with a double digit lead over Obama and Edwards, but polls in Iowa show the three of them clustered together.

So much for freedom of choice. This plan just keeps getting better by the day. I cannot wait to see what else she comes up with in this plan.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it.

So much for freedom of choice. This plan just keeps getting better by the day. I cannot wait to see what else she comes up with in this plan.

See? Choice

1 - You MUST buy your own, even if you don't want to
2 - You WILL NOT get help, credits, or subsidies if you have a job
3 - You MUST also buy via taxes for someone that 'feels' they can't afford their own (as they WILL get help, credits, or subsidies)

You get to CHOOSE all 3 !!!


So, since I'm already covered under my own plan, and already indirectly paying for others via emergency room protocol, Blue this and Blue that, etc. Am I paying more or less under her more direct application of the same thing?

If less, then how long until it grows to something substantially MORE?

That's the only answer I want to know.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[NtheSeaOrSky 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it.

So much for freedom of choice. This plan just keeps getting better by the day. I cannot wait to see what else she comes up with in this plan.

See? Choice

1 - You MUST buy your own, even if you don't want to
2 - You WILL NOT get help, credits, or subsidies if you have a job
3 - You MUST also buy for someone that 'feels' they can't afford their own (as they WILL get help, credits, or subsidies)

You get to CHOOSE all 3 !!!

In the interest of equality....Bill got his cock sucked by one chick its time for Hilary's turn-with interest- the whole US can suck hers!!

Life is not fair and there are no guarantees...

[kelpdiver 2]

got an answer?

The status quo is failing. At least she is promoting something. You shouldn't be sweating the details you don't like - nothing will happen just because she says it might work out that way.

I doubt she's interviewed for a job in a long long time. The time to show the insurance card would be with HR at the date of hire, along with the proof of citizenship.

[Rookie120 0]

Quote

got an answer?

Yeah! Dont buy into her govt controled health care.

If you find yourself in a fair fight, your tactics suck!

[Lindsey 0]

It's only been in the last few years that people could not be dropped from group health insurance plans due to their risk factors, and if a person is covered under a group policy and changes jobs, the new company's policy cannot deny them coverage. The same is not true of individual policies. If you're covered under an individual policy and develop a chronic condition that will cost the company too much money, they can drop you like a hot potato.

In my mind, Hillary's thinking here moves us back a bit in terms of universal health care.... but maybe I was too lazy to read it all

linz

--
A conservative is just a liberal who's been mugged. A liberal is just a conservative who's been to jail

[willard 0]

Quote

At least she is promoting something.

Yeah, let's do something, anything, even if it's wrong.

No thanks.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

At least she is promoting something.

Yeah, let's do something, anything, even if it's wrong.

No thanks.

She's not doing 'something wrong;' she is proposing a framework around which something right and acceptable might be achieved.

Shrub at least made a proposal to deal with Social Security. It may have been shot down, but he did more than the Bill Clinton or the Democrats have done. Likewise, Hillary Clinton continues to try to force some debate on how to move forward. Even if you don't give a fuck about other people's medical care (and it's clear many of you don't), the status quo is ruining GM and Ford and many other old established companies. That should be incentive enough.

If you do nothing but shoot down discussion, you're not an answer to the problem. You are the problem.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

See? Choice

1 - You MUST buy your own, even if you don't want to
2 - You WILL NOT get help, credits, or subsidies if you have a job
3 - You MUST also buy via taxes for someone that 'feels' they can't afford their own (as they WILL get help, credits, or subsidies)

You get to CHOOSE all 3 !!!


So, since I'm already covered under my own plan, and already indirectly paying for others via emergency room protocol, Blue this and Blue that, etc. Am I paying more or less under her more direct application of the same thing?

If less, then how long until it grows to something substantially MORE?

That's the only answer I want to know.

You'll probably still get the tax credit to cover some of what you and your employer pay out. Many medical expenses are already deductible, even though most people don't bother.

Also, if everyone has insurance, even if subsidized by the taxpayers, you will probably be paying less in the long run to subsidize other people's health care. The reason for this is that emergency room visits are by far the most expensive kind of doctor visit, but ERs are currently the only place someone without insurance can reliably go for care. Many of these visits can be prevented by making doctors and urgent care clinics available to everyone. If you can go to the doctor for your strep throat, you will, and it'll cost maybe three hundred bucks, including a course of antibiotics. If you wait to see if the infection gets worse because you don't have insurance, you'll probably wait until that same case of strep gets so bad you end up in the ER, and by that time, you could be looking at a cardiac infection and days of hospitalization, which you will receive under the current system, regardless of your ability to pay. So, three hundred dollar doctor visit, or thirty-thousand dollar ER/hospital visit?

Insurance companies have already realized that with good preventative care, healthcare overall is cheaper. Is it better to pay for a measles vaccine, or a hospital stay? Cholesterol lowering medications or arterial bypass surgery? How many people could receive a measles vaccine for the cost of tha hospital stay? How many years of pills would equal the cost of that surgery? Its often cheaper to pay for hundreds of people to receive preventative care than for one to end up in the hospital or OR. Of course, not every disease is preventable, but if we can prevent the medical issues that we can in as many people as possible, our health care costs would drop, not rise.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

The status quo is failing.

So let's go back to the way things were before the status quo was changed, i.e., pre-1965.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[wmw999 2,555]

Pre-1965 the expensive options were far fewer and farther between than they are now.

Heart bypass, transplant surgery, operations to fix fractures, a lot of vascular surgery -- it just didn't exist.

We aren't going back there. Even if it would be better for the gene pool. Of course, Medicare, which was what started in 1965, doesn't do much about the gene pool; it's about helping older people find affordable insurance.

The medical world isn't the same as it was in 1965.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[AWL71 0]

Not to change the subject but health care costs are not ruining Ford and GM. That would be mainly due to the unions

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Not to change the subject but health care costs are not ruining Ford and GM. That would be mainly due to the unions

MANAGEMENT is responsible for running companies. Blaming unions is a cop-out excuse for poor management.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[AWL71 0]

Not when the union has management by the balls.
Unions sap productivity and protect mediocrity.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/14/news/companies/uaw_gm/index.htm?section=money_topstories

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

You'll probably still get the tax credit to cover some of what you and your employer pay out I think it noted that you won't

Also, if everyone has insurance, even if subsidized by the taxpayers.........{same old subjective stuff}...........rise.

I want it simple - I current pay $x, with the new thing I will pay $y. I current get www in coverage, with the new thing I will get zzz.

Is www = zzz?
Is $y > $x?

fill in the variables, I'll handle the analysis.


Your whole discussion isn't support of national health care, it's support of tax credits for those that exercise and eat right. I have no issue with that.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Not when the union has management by the balls.
Unions sap productivity and protect mediocrity.

If unions have management by the balls, shame on the management. Management's job is to manage the company, including its unions.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

Not when the union has management by the balls.
Unions sap productivity and protect mediocrity.

If unions have management by the balls, shame on the management. Management's job is to manage the company, including its unions.

How simplistic.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Not to change the subject but health care costs are not ruining Ford and GM. That would be mainly due to the unions

it's reasonable to provide health care benefits to your workers, and quite reasonable for unions to negotiate for it. But when costs increase at double the rate of inflation for decades, it is going to hurt, to the tune of 1700$/vehicle produced. I don't think either side saw that coming.

And if we're going to play that blame union game, it was selling the farm on the SUV craze that killed Ford and GM. They basically put all their effort into one segment of the market, the most competitive one, and ignored the others.

[AWL71 0]

Quote

Quote

Not to change the subject but health care costs are not ruining Ford and GM. That would be mainly due to the unions

it's reasonable to provide health care benefits to your workers, and quite reasonable for unions to negotiate for it. But when costs increase at double the rate of inflation for decades, it is going to hurt, to the tune of 1700$/vehicle produced. I don't think either side saw that coming.

And if we're going to play that blame union game, it was selling the farm on the SUV craze that killed Ford and GM. They basically put all their effort into one segment of the market, the most competitive one, and ignored the others.

I agree. The union is part of the problem. The other problem is Ford and GM can't make a car to compete with the Camry, Accord, etc. It makes no sense. Their trucks and SUVs are great. I love my Suburban. Having 4 kids makes a big mobile necessary. But I had an Impala as a company car for a while and it was like driving a brick. When I switched jobs and got rid of that car it was a happy day. It drove terrible and did not look much better.

The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

[kallend 2,113]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Not when the union has management by the balls.
Unions sap productivity and protect mediocrity.

If unions have management by the balls, shame on the management. Management's job is to manage the company, including its unions.

How simplistic.

Nonsense. Why else do the executives make the big bucks?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Ah! But the issue of cash pay was.

Unfortunately, health insurance has turned into the functional equivalent of gas insurance. Need gas for your car? Well, the insurance ocmpnay will pay for it, so fill her up! I'm only paying a 2 dollar deductible.

Think of the consequences of something like that. It would be abused, and the mere presence of insurance being used for it would drive up insurance.

The catastrophic illness is a rare thing - something for which risk can be spread in the same way it can be spread for car insurance. It only covers the big stuff - not gas, tire wear, car washes or oil changes.

Health insurance today is the equivalent of covering oil changes. And Car washes. And gasoline.

SO, to lower the cost of insurance, and the cost of health services, a move towards cash pay works. I'll admit it - I NEGOTIATE cash payments for health services. Most doctors liek the idea of cash NOW for treatment as opposed to insurance in 60 days for it. The cost to them is lower. The payoff is now.

And, I get a tax break from my HSA, from which I write the checks.
If I need a bypass, I've got insurance to cover it. Up to $3,000,000.00, in fact, subsequent to my deductible, and I'd face a maximum liability of $33,500 deductible for it. Which is nice, because I can take a $3,500 hit. I can't take a $3,000,000 hit. I can finance a $30k hit.

Health care is NOT expensive if you take the insurance out of it. 40 bucks for a visit is much easier that a $20 copay. No forms. THe doc sees you, and you can negotiate down from the $60 it might otherwise cost.

I'm insured thoroughly - FOR PEACE OF MIND FROM DISASTER. Insurance should be for peace of mind from disaster, not for a new set of windshield wiper blades. Which is what health insurance in its present form does.

In 1965, you didn't have winshield wiper blade insurance.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Nightingale 0]

The problem with health as opposed to gas is that if you don't see a doctor, your health problem can get much worse. You can go from a case of strep throat to a cardiac infection, or from a cut finger to necrotizing fascitis (how the heck do you spell that?). If you skip the doc visit because you can't afford it, then the taxpayers (and everybody else who visits the hospital) end up picking up your medical bills if you end up in the hospital. If your car runs out of gas, you call a friend and have them bring you a gallon.

[kelpdiver 2]

the emergence of these walmart and drugstore quick clinics will be an interesting one. They don't take insurance and they cover all the basic needs, mostly under $100. If successful, might be able to fill a bigger need.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

the emergence of these walmart and drugstore quick clinics will be an interesting one. They don't take insurance and they cover all the basic needs, mostly under $100. If successful, might be able to fill a bigger need.

They are growing by leaps and bounds. Because they don't accpt Medicare or insurance, they are able to offer services at a lower rate because the overhead is substantially lower without the back office staffing requirements.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I
If you're covered under an individual policy and develop a chronic condition that will cost the company too much money, they can drop you like a hot potato.

Not in California, hehe :)

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *