Clinton suggests tapping wages for healthcare

[concerned]

news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp;_ylt=AreQ9GL0Bon12cF85fwJDgGs0NUE

In a day dominated by familiar stump speeches, Hillary Clinton made news by saying she might allow workers' wages to be garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance. She has criticized Obama for pushing a health plan that she says would not require universal coverage.

Pressed on how she would enforce her mandate, Clinton said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

She 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."

Obama has said he would require parents to buy health insurance for children, and possibly fine them if they refused. But he would not insist that all adults buy insurance.

Hillary: To Enforce Health Mandate, I Will be "going after people's wages" - POLITICAL SUICIDE?

www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4368468

[froggy]

How about creating healthcare coverage premiums that are proportional to your income? That way everyone would be paying in at the same rate.

I don't think the approach of going after people's wages is appropriate. If they don't have coverage, then its fully out of their pockets, so who does it hurt but themselves. Obama's measure about penalizing parents who don't get coverage is kinda iffy also. To some, it could be construed as neglecting the kids by not fulfilling their needs. But think about this, what good is having coverage for the kids and not the parents then one of the parents gets ill? Yeah, a financial nightmare.

BTW, to some extent, workers' wages are already garnishable (is that a word?) for medical insurance. I know if a child is on medicaid, the County will garnish the non-custodial parent for the medicaid coverage. It happened to me when my son's mom went to apply for Child Health Plus but got bounced into the medicaid system in Oneida Co. The County dragged us both into court to garnish my wages for his coverage. I was garnished for close to a year until my wife could get him covered under her policy at work.

[Swimmy]

Once again the communist hrc is trying to take away yet another choice that belongs to the American people. The pathetic and/or scary part is that people actually support her! If I want to be stupid and not have health insurance, that's my right, and not yours to cram down my throat or garnish my wages if I don't!

I fall into one of those people who believes that children should be covered under medical insurance. Froggy, you have a great idea, make health care coverage premiums be paid proportional to your income, similar to the income tax rate.

[froggy]

swimmy said:

I fall into one of those people who believes that children should be covered under medical insurance. Froggy, you have a great idea, make health care coverage premiums be paid proportional to your income, similar to the income tax rate.

Yes, exactly like the income tax rate. But would or should it be a progressive rate, like income taxes? Should it be a set percentage like social security and medicare taxes, or should it be a progressive rate like the tax brackets for income taxes?

One thing I see as a problem, which is always a problem in this type of topic, is the health care industry. If people of lower income, obviously paying lower premiums, are pay outs to providers also lower when lower income people receive services?

Without doing any research on Canada, I'm thinking the proportional nature of my thoughts is probably similar to what the Canadians do. I hear they do pay higher taxes up there, but we all know everyone has healthcare.

One thing that Government could do to encourage healthcare is through the tax code. Right now, as it has been for as long as I can remember, medical costs can be deducted, but only as an itemized deduction, and only medical expenses above 7.5% of your gross income. Why not change that? Why not make medical expenses, necessary medical expenses (not like elective or cosmetic like a boob job), be deductions from income? Right now, many heathcare premiums are set up on a pre-tax basis, so those monies don't even appear as income on your tax return. Why not all medical expenses be deductions from income as well?

[frankcor]

Damn commies. And to think I fought in a war to prevent this.

Seriously, I could probably live with mandatory insurance as long as there was some mechanism to support and require people to shop for the best deals. Part of the problem we have today is that the majority of people who have insurance are getting it through their employers and are not directly interacting with the insurance provider. There is no mechanism or incentive for people to shop around. While my employeer offers several plans, just about everybody is covered by the same one. Put 3 or 4 plans side by side and it is pretty easy to see which one works best for you. Ahhh, the free market, bane of all socialists like Hillary and her ilk.

Giving consumers the power and the information needed to shop around, not only for insurance, but for doctors and other medical services as well and giving them the power to control their own destiny is not something I hear being discussed by any of the leading candidates.

Vote Freedom. Vote Ron Paul.

[Swimmy]

Interesting point. I did not know that medical expenses above 7.5% of your gross income was deductible.

Your suggestion would be feasible and practical.

One aspect of health care that really concerns me though is the drug industry and the pressure they put on the FDA to approve certain drugs without those drugs being fully tested, e.g. Vioxx. I think that process costs more in health care than the cost that would be involved in fully testing the drugs before applying for FDA approval. The testing will be continued anyway, but without the added expense of treating the side effects.

[froggy]

Yes, goes on schedule A for itemizing deductions.

The drug companies is one of the biggest problems in healthcare, and their pressure on the FDA doesn't help matters.

I agree with Frank's sentiments on employer provided coverage. It doesn't support a true competitive, consumer driven market. The rates employers get are based on the size of the group they could insure. I work for two employers, one with hundreds of employees and the other with around 50. Big difference in the premiums from one to another. So, in other words, because someone works for a small business, they have to pay out the ass for healthcare? They are, in effect, penalized because of who they are working for. Take it out of the employers' hands and into the public. I've discussed this topic before on another board. What you do is have people, like brokers, who are not making money for selling one company's policies over another, to take any bias out of the selling. You have people like that who can explain to people what they are getting, and even better, make health insurance buying more ala carte. Buy the coverage you want for the things you need or might need. Would you buy an eyecare rider if you don't need one? Yet many employer policies include that, which employees are paying for regardless if they need it or even use it.

There is a lot more that can be done in the healthcare industry to get people covered than what we have.

[frankcor]

I always somehow knew that if I was ever in a position to deduct itemized medical expenses, that I would not be in very good shape.

I came real close 2 years ago (hospitalized 3 times for 3 different things plus had elective eye surgery) and I learned that I was right. It's not something to celebrate.

I wouldn't take medical deductions off Schedule A like I think I hear is being suggested. It would reduce the paperwork burden on most folks if you bump up the standard deduction to accommodate the suggestion. At the same time, I'd reduce the 7.5% restriction to be fair to those who already itemize and bear the paperwork burden anyways.

[Swimmy]

frankcor said:

Giving consumers the power and the information needed to shop around, not only for insurance, but for doctors and other medical services as well and giving them the power to control their own destiny is not something I hear being discussed by any of the leading candidates.

Vote Freedom. Vote Ron Paul.

You're absolutely right.

[froggy]

Well, Frank, what I was suggesting is indeed taking it off Schedule A, but putting it on the front of the 1040 as a deduction from income instead. That way you would be able to deduct medical expenses regardless if you itemize or take the standard deduction.

7.5% of gross income, for some who make a decent amount of money, can come up to a hefty amount of medical expenses, as you've seen Frank. What my thoughts are, do away with that minimum and also deduct those expenses from your income, and truly make medical care totally non-taxed.

[Clipper]

The answer to the healthcare problem is not forcing people to purchase coverage. It is making that coverage affordable. Medical costs have gotten absolutely ridiculous. It is a runaway industry, and I cannot believe that no matter the time and effort that goes into developing a drug, that the drug should be marketed for $50 a dose, when it costs $5 to produce. They do not need to recoup their research dollars in the first 6 months it is on the market.

I fully realize that doctors spend a lot of money and a lot of time on education, and are skilled professionals, but they have priced their services so that a person WANTING to see a doctor at THIER OWN COST cannot afford to pay $100+ for the doctor to fly into the examining room, shove a stethoscope up your shirt, write a prescription and fly back out. At least at the VA, even with their poor reputation for care, they spend at least 15 or 20 minutes, twice a year, just simply asking you what your concerns are, and addressing your issues on a personal basis.

I don't want to go so far as to suggest socialized medicine, but there needs to be some sort of price controls placed on medical care and medical fees charged.

[rrogers40]

admin said:

The answer to the health care problem is not forcing people to purchase coverage. It is making that coverage affordable. Medical costs have gotten absolutely ridiculous. It is a runaway industry, and I cannot believe that no matter the time and effort that goes into developing a drug, that the drug should be marketed for $50 a dose, when it costs $5 to produce. They do not need to recoup their research dollars in the first 6 months it is on the market.

I fully realize that doctors spend a lot of money and a lot of time on education, and are skilled professionals, but they have priced their services so that a person WANTING to see a doctor at THIER OWN COST cannot afford to pay $100+ for the doctor to fly into the examining room, shove a stethoscope up your shirt, write a prescription and fly back out. At least at the VA, even with their poor reputation for care, they spend at least 15 or 20 minutes, twice a year, just simply asking you what your concerns are, and addressing your issues on a personal basis.

I don't want to go so far as to suggest socialized medicine, but there needs to be some sort of price controls placed on medical care and medical fees charged.

Exactly- why do we always try and fix the problem by throwing money at it after the fact instead of actually fixing the problem? And its not just with healthcare but every socal problem. Take welfare- so someones poor so we give them money. Well how about we give them training and the ability to get a job instead of just throwing money at them well asking them to get a job.

[frankcor]

Clipper, if you're seeing a doctor who won't spend 15 or 20 minutes two times a year to hear your concerns, FIRE HIM (or her). Go find a doctor who will.

This goes to what others are saying here too. Give consumers the ability and the power to make smart choices about their health care and control their own destiny.

froggy's onto something, I think. Using the tax code to modify behavior is something our congress does regularly, but not always very intelligently. Why would you penalize people for saving money (interest income is taxable) but reward them for borrowing money (deductible mortgage interest and points)? And then they cry about the high levels of personal debt in the US? Health care presents an opportunity to modify behavior in a positive way. I hope they don't throw the opportunity away by mandating a government insurance program that diminishes the choices and quality we enjoy in America today but instead find ways to make our system, already the finest in the world, more affordable.

[Swimmy]

I think the theory on penalizing for saving versus deductibles for borrowing is because the latter tends to cause people to spend money and that's always good for the economy, until now.

[dgriffin]

It’s quite clear to me that only solution to this problem is to license sex. After all, it is sex that produces more people, who get sick and fill the hospitals and doctor’s waiting rooms. And just as with drivers’ licenses, sex licenses would require a test and a lot of restrictions that would ensure we all drive on the right side of the road, if you know what I mean. Also, just as you can’t drive without auto insurance, you would not be able to *** without health insurance. Which of course means, just as in driving, all ***ing would be required to take place in public. But then, we would be able to have *** Rallys, Competition ***ing and a new Indianapolis 500, although I’m not sure about the 500 …. it seems rather high at my age.
Dave