Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Printable Version
+- InsaneTrain Forums (https://insanetrain.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: General Forum (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Health Care - The Democratic Thing (/showthread.php?tid=44176)
+- InsaneTrain Forums (https://insanetrain.com)
+-- Forum: General (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: General Forum (https://insanetrain.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Thread: Health Care - The Democratic Thing (/showthread.php?tid=44176)
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 02-05-2008
Apparently, one of the biggest policy differences between Obama and Clinton is in how they are going to provide Health Care to all Americans.
Obama - is going to lower health care costs by eliminating frivolous medical claims, getting rid of special interests that are running up costs, etc and subsidize the poor in order to make health care so affordable that everyone in America that WANTS it can buy it. If anyone chooses not to buy it, then tough for them. That's their choice.
Clinton - is going to lower health care costs (sort of the same as Obama) and then she is going to subsidize the poor to lower their's until it is affordable. And then she is going to MAKE EVERYONE buy health care. Even people that don't want it.
Obama's beef with her plan is that you can't force everyone to buy it. How do you enforce this? Do you fine them? Jail them? Garnish their wages? Clinton just says, "Don't worry, they will buy it."
So her "plan" is universal health care. His plan is selective health care.
I have to go with him on this one. You can't force people to buy something, no matter what it is.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - BIRD33 - 02-05-2008
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:Apparently, one of the biggest policy differences between Obama and Clinton is in how they are going to provide Health Care to all Americans.
Obama - is going to lower health care costs by eliminating frivolous medical claims, getting rid of special interests that are running up costs, etc and subsidize the poor in order to make health care so affordable that everyone in America that WANTS it can buy it. If anyone chooses not to buy it, then tough for them. That's their choice.
Clinton - is going to lower health care costs (sort of the same as Obama) and then she is going to subsidize the poor to lower their's until it is affordable. And then she is going to MAKE EVERYONE buy health care. Even people that don't want it.
Obama's beef with her plan is that you can't force everyone to buy it. How do you enforce this? Do you fine them? Jail them? Garnish their wages? Clinton just says, "Don't worry, they will buy it."
So her "plan" is universal health care. His plan is selective health care.
I have to go with him on this one. You can't force people to buy something, no matter what it is.
I'm forced to buy social security even though most experts predict it to go bankrupt before I can get my money back.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Banana - 02-05-2008
That doesn't hold true for car insurance, does it?
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - BIRD33 - 02-05-2008
Driving is a choice.Health care is not.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Banana - 02-05-2008
Good point.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - BIRD33 - 02-05-2008
Its all I got.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 02-05-2008
BIRD33 Wrote:I'm forced to buy social security even though most experts predict it to go bankrupt before I can get my money back.
So you support the idea of garnishing people's wages in order to pay for it.
Now, let's see how this idea works. Do you set up a "Health Care Agency" in Washington? Then they contact everyone in the United States to see who has health care now and doesn't need government supported health care. Every year you will have to follow up to make sure that these people still have it and that it meets government standards.
Then, you go to all of the employers in America and make sure that they have certain people on a "mandatory" wage withholding payment to the US Health Care Agency to pay for their insurance. Also need to make sure that they are insuring all of their family members. But you'd have to cross check to make sure that their wives/husbands don't have health care at their work or that the kids aren't on his/her government plan at his work.
I could go on and on with this. Can you even conceive of how expensive this could get?
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Banana - 02-05-2008
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:So you support the idea of garnishing people's wages in order to pay for it.
Now, let's see how this idea works. Do you set up a "Health Care Agency" in Washington? Then they contact everyone in the United States to see who has health care now and doesn't need government supported health care. Every year you will have to follow up to make sure that these people still have it and that it meets government standards.
Then, you go to all of the employers in America and make sure that they have certain people on a "mandatory" wage withholding payment to the US Health Care Agency to pay for their insurance. Also need to make sure that they are insuring all of their family members. But you'd have to cross check to make sure that their wives/husbands don't have health care at their work or that the kids aren't on his/her government plan at his work.
I could go on and on with this. Can you even conceive of how expensive this could get?
It works fairly simple in Canada :confused:
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 02-05-2008
Banana Wrote:It works fairly simple in Canada :confused:
Let me ask you this about Canadian Health Care (because, honestly I don't know anything about it).
Can an employer offer Health care that is not part of the government program. Say Blue Cross/Blue Shield. And if you have that insurance, can you opt out of the government insurance?
Also, how do they enforce that homeless people or contract laborers (maids, gardeners, etc.) have healthcare?
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - BIRD33 - 02-05-2008
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:So you support the idea of garnishing people's wages in order to pay for it.
Now, let's see how this idea works. Do you set up a "Health Care Agency" in Washington? Then they contact everyone in the United States to see who has health care now and doesn't need government supported health care. Every year you will have to follow up to make sure that these people still have it and that it meets government standards.
Then, you go to all of the employers in America and make sure that they have certain people on a "mandatory" wage withholding payment to the US Health Care Agency to pay for their insurance. Also need to make sure that they are insuring all of their family members. But you'd have to cross check to make sure that their wives/husbands don't have health care at their work or that the kids aren't on his/her government plan at his work.
I could go on and on with this. Can you even conceive of how expensive this could get?
Wow its complicated.Lets not do it then even though our current system is broken.Who said it was going to be easy?Bottom line is they'll figure it out and more people will have insurance.Social security is one of the most complicated systems in the country but you never hear of someone getting their check late because we've over time figured it out.
I don't look at the goverment as garnishing my wages when they take taxes out of my paycheck for road improvments so how is this any different?
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Banana - 02-05-2008
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:Let me ask you this about Canadian Health Care (because, honestly I don't know anything about it).
Can an employer offer Health care that is not part of the government program. Say Blue Cross/Blue Shield. And if you have that insurance, can you opt out of the government insurance?
Also, how do they enforce that homeless people or contract laborers (maids, gardeners, etc.) have healthcare?
You can never opt out of government insurance. You can get Blue Cross through an employer and it offers additional benefits, but you can never opt of of government care. It covers the big stuff (hospital stays, surgeries).
Homeless people essentially get "free" health care. We have subsidies for low income families. Homeless people get 100% subsidy. So, while you can't enforce that they sign up for free health care, most do.
Everyone who has a SIN (or social security number, as you guys call it) is mandated to buy health care. Contract labourers (at least in Canada) still have to have a SIN.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 02-05-2008
BIRD33 Wrote:Wow its complicated.Lets not do it then even though our current system is broken.Who said it was going to be easy?Bottom line is they'll figure it out and more people will have insurance.Social security is one of the most complicated systems in the country but you never hear of someone getting their check late because we've over time figured it out.
I don't look at the goverment as garnishing my wages when they take taxes out of my paycheck for road improvments so how is this any different?
Well, first of all don't put a negative connotation on the word "Garnish". It simply means that they money is taken out of your paycheck before you get it. I think that Child Support and IRS tax liens have given that word a bad name.
So, you garnish everyone's wages based on how much they can afford and then force everyone in America to buy the government insurance. If a person wants better insurance than the government plan,then they have to buy a Blue Cross (or other) policy to enhance the coverage?
Granted, that would make it easier. Because the government is doing the same thing to everyone and not that much different than social security withholding, etc.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 02-05-2008
I can tell you this, from experience. The last company I worked for decided to offer insurance to all of the employees. The employer paid for the employee's and then if they wanted to add family members they had to pay for it out of their pockets.
They all banded together and said they would just rather have a raise equal to what it would have cost and no insurance.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Paddy - 02-05-2008
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:They all banded together and said they would just rather have a raise equal to what it would have cost and no insurance.
Counter staff as well as cooks?
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 02-05-2008
Paddy Wrote:Counter staff as well as cooks?
construction workers. Is that just as funny?
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - BIRD33 - 02-05-2008
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:Well, first of all don't put a negative connotation on the word "Garnish". It simply means that they money is taken out of your paycheck before you get it. I think that Child Support and IRS tax liens have given that word a bad name.
So, you garnish everyone's wages based on how much they can afford and then force everyone in America to buy the government insurance. If a person wants better insurance than the government plan,then they have to buy a Blue Cross (or other) policy to enhance the coverage?
Granted, that would make it easier. Because the government is doing the same thing to everyone and not that much different than social security withholding, etc.
Garnish, tax , take, whats the difference?
For me I know I'm going to get hit with more taxes but I know that every person will have access to health care which is a good thing.I think its a natural evolutionary step this country has to take just like social security was.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - BIRD33 - 02-05-2008
Flumper Barflusterbutt Wrote:I can tell you this, from experience. The last company I worked for decided to offer insurance to all of the employees. The employer paid for the employee's and then if they wanted to add family members they had to pay for it out of their pockets.
They all banded together and said they would just rather have a raise equal to what it would have cost and no insurance.
My work used to pay 100% for Health Insurance but over the last 3 years we've been forced to have the employees chip in.
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 02-05-2008
Why is everyone (sup Obama?) forgetting that Hillary, not that many years ago, was put in charge of developing national health care by her husband. Because he couldn't think of anyone in America that had more desire and strength to get it done. Something so dear to him that he wanted his wife to lead the charge.
Then she basically got nothing done. Same as she will if she's elected. Its too complicated, you can't get it cheap enough for everyone, the government not only can't afford to pay for it, but they can't afford to set up the beaurocratic monster it would take to run it. It will fail once again.
But no one mentions that. If I was Barak, and Hillary started talking about how easy this was and that EVERYONE in America is going to have insurance, I"d say, "WTF are you talking about? You had your chance at this once and you failed. Miserably. If it was so easy, why didn't you get it done 10 years ago? You can't do it now just like you couldn't do it then. It doesn't work your way. Never will."
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - quint - 02-05-2008
Hillary is on the health care tngent again because she lost with it 12 years ago.
Here is the next debate
[ame="http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e0df117b38"]Hillary Drops F-bomb at final Dem debate from dave_hasselhoff[/ame]
Health Care - The Democratic Thing - Flumper Barflusterbutt - 02-05-2008
BIRD33 Wrote:My work used to pay 100% for Health Insurance but over the last 3 years we've been forced to have the employees chip in.
That's because every year they lower the coverage for the same $$$. Its crazy. It goes up 15 to 20% every year. Employers are forced to either pay more for it, lower the coverage, or ask the employees to chip in.