Question:
Are you willing to let Hillary garnish your wages to force your compliance with Univ. Health Care?
fencingrat
2008-02-04 11:34:23 UTC
When interviewed on 'Sunday with George Stephaopolous' (2/3/2008), George pressed her on compliance methods/mechanisms that she would have to ensure participation in Universal Health Care. Barak Obama is unwilling to go as far as Hillary is. Apparently, she cares SO MUCH about our health, she's willing to sacrifice our financial health to benefit our physical health, telling George that she's willing to institute government-imposed wage garnishments - "... or some other compliance mechanism". This is the first time she's admitted to this position.

If your self-determined budget does not allow the payments to a health care system, and/or you have decided NOT to purchase coverage, do you support her position that she (as President) should be allowed to garnish your wages to force you to have health coverage?

Do you agree that she should be allowed to make that choice for you? Is this a proper role and responsibility for the government, or President?
33 answers:
Trollbuster
2008-02-04 11:40:08 UTC
No. The government is not/should not be responsible for managing every aspect of out lives.
anonymous
2008-02-04 12:04:18 UTC
Darry T: “The same issues came up during the enactment of social security, and many people thought it was a bad idea for the same reasons everyone is giving here. This a shown not to be the case”



If Social Security is your argument for the Gov’t being able to run healthcare you have chosen poorly. Remember it is supposed to be sort of a bank account, which means if I put in the money for most my life it should be there. The system is going broke. Not exactly a ringing for proper care is it?



BTW, FDR also promised that your Social Security Account Number, (which it is no longer called), would never have any use but as an identifier for Social Security, (Many were against branding Americans with a number for the Gov’t to track them).



I guess I don’t have to tell you how that worked out.



chas

PS, The Gov't already garnishes your paycheck each week, it's called Federal Withholdings.
joe
2008-02-04 12:49:14 UTC
GIVE ME A BREAK! We need a health care program NOW!

She is not going to garnish anyone's wages. Wake up people. I have spoken to many canadian's and people abroad. They are very happy with their health care system. It may have some flaws but so does ours.

We need to wake up and stop listening to all the propaganda thrown at us. We listen to all the MEDIA crap!

We need to change. We are working 24/7 and still cannot make it. We are loosing the Middle Class because of the REPUBLICANS. We have to start the changes for the little guy. CEO's get fired and they still leave with millions. There is something wrong!



GO Hillary! she is the only one that has a definite plan. All OBAMA has is ideas and dreams. At least when the Clinton's were in office, we had a balanced budget and they tried to get a health plan, but the REPUBLICANS shot it down.
thehermanator2003
2008-02-04 11:55:14 UTC
I missed the interview, but saw some blurbs online mentioning her statement. I saw her loong speech in New Hampshire, where she said that the plan she proposed would give all Americans the same coverage as the Congress has, provided by the same private company, and that people with current coverage that they liked, could opt-out of the new plan, and keep what they had for coverage.

I really liked that idea, and the choice part was what I liked best, Plus, by being privately owned, it wouldn't create another level or bureaucracy.

My personal health-care is provided by the Veteran's Administration, and I'm happy with that, but I still don't want to see my kids and grand-kids saddled with any new taxes, or paying into another "entitlement" type program for the lazy, non-working part of our society.



This latest update changes my mind about this issue, but I still think Hillary is the better candidate than Obama, and this, by itself, won't make me vote for McCain,...only Obama being our nominee will do that!
?
2016-05-24 13:11:40 UTC
That's why Mitt Romney's plan is so much better. The government doesn't pay for it and there are no federal mandates involved. Under his plan, the government helps everyone find a plan that they can personally afford. This will give the insurance companies extra incentive to lower their rates so as to be more competitive in the field. The government will also give tax breaks to anyone who sets aside money to pay for insurance. Every penny that you spend on insurance would be one hundred percent tax-deductible, as well as interest and annuities earned from savings set aside. This mirrors his other tax plan, under which any sort of personal savings for people who make less than $100,000 a year would also be completely tax-deductible. Basically, any money at all that you save or earn interest on would be tax-free.
anonymous
2008-02-04 11:42:59 UTC
Last time I checked, wasn't Hillary the one who pushed for a socialist system, only to give it up after pressure from the medical insurance companies?



I live in Canada.



Here's the deal. In a world where we all get along, we all sink, or we all swim. A socialist and universal system ensures that no one will leave the hospital untreated.



Imagine you can provide for yourself medically, then something happens and you can't afford it. What would you rather?



a) Going in to debt and not receiving full treatment maybe, or



b) Being taxed a small amount (whether it is an actual tax, or is "garnished" from your wage) so that you are always covered, and in some cases will have to sit in the hospital and wait a few hours (and if your arm is lopped off and some lout with a sore throat beat you there, don't worry, we have this wonderful thing called triage)
Bee Bee
2008-02-04 12:11:33 UTC
No,To me this communist in action. No one should force anyone to have anything they don't want. The welfare recipients, will be getting their's free that's, why she will garnish the tax payers checks, some body got to pay for the poor. She,said, also we would not mind a tax increase to help the poor. and her and obama both agreed on this.,And the people clapped.

So get ready for your second job ,middle class America, if you vote them . I plan on taking a early retirement and let you guys have your wonder woman and hero Obama. Only If a Republican gets elected, I will work a while longer. My one little vote don't hold to much power, so I can't save you..
eat
2008-02-04 11:59:30 UTC
If you keep asking the same question over and over again, is that called SPAM? Wage garnishment is a legal procedure in which a person’s earnings are required by court order to be withheld by an employer for the payment of a debt such as child support.
Human Cattle 555-55-5555
2008-02-04 11:42:46 UTC
Yes, its like social security, everyone has to buy into the system in order for it to work. Anything other than that is not Universal Health Care. The same issues came up during the enactment of social security, and many people thought it was a bad idea for the same reasons everyone is giving here. This a shown not to be the case. It will be based off your income, the less you make the less you pay.



Obama's plan is voluntary, so that means if so and so goes to the hospital and finds out he/she has cancer, and doesn't have enough money to pay for insurance, they get subsidized by the government. You remember all the talk about how much the government pays for a roll of toilet tissue for the army, like 30 dollars a roll. That is what is gonna happen under Obama's plan. Its and exaggeration of what is already happening now. It will raise the cost of health care for everyone because the health care industry will realize, they can just overcharge people because the government will pick up the tab. very very bad.



Either you go Universal or you don't there is no in between here.



What is going on here is a smear campaign from people who obviously don't want universal health care cause they are millionaires and billionaires making money off of people being sick and dying. Is that the kind of legacy you want to leave your kids.
Charlie S
2008-02-04 12:18:34 UTC
I don't agree with a lot fo what governemnt does. I disagree with running up debt in foreign expeditions of adventure. I disagree with no bid contracting to rebuild Iraq. I disagree with invasion of privacy, torture, religification of government (religification is copyright 2008- ME) but I've lived on this earth for 60 years, and i can't remember ever being asked what I think by the government. All they ever ask me is what is my race and do I have indoor plumbing. And they only ask that every 10 years.
Sweet Epiphany
2008-02-04 11:46:33 UTC
I saw the same interview and thought she was insane! The government has no right to tell me what I can afford. The only time that I was without insurance was when my wages were so low I couldn't afford to spend 1 extra penny. AND what about the unemployed, how will they pay? My guess is that we hardworking middle class will pick up the tab for that one too. No Thanks, Ms Clinton!
the_iceman86
2008-02-04 11:39:08 UTC
I would be a quite upset, I have health insurance, and I don't think wage garnishes would go over very well. Taxes are already going to go up under whichever democrat wins, which is fine, but lets not get too carried away here.
Mr Miguel R.
2008-02-04 11:58:40 UTC
No I do not. I feel we as Americans who are part of a Democracy need to decide on these issues through the voting process, or through the voice of our local politicians and officials that are suppose to represent us.( I feel politics as usual will continue to keep this Country in the sad state its in.)
Kenneth C
2008-02-04 12:17:33 UTC
Our wages are already garinished. It's called Medicaid. I still pay it even though I have 2 medical plans. (One from my job the other from my wife's) I think the government should have an insurance plan but the co-pays should be adjusted to your income. However, I believe that one should not have to have a national insurance plan if you already have one.
cajel2
2008-02-04 11:47:57 UTC
Yes, just like Social Security is garnished from my wages.
Homeschool produces winners
2008-02-04 11:40:41 UTC
It will be inevitble. McCain is the same. If the Senate and house don't change, it's all up the the Supreme court.
heyteach
2008-02-04 13:02:45 UTC
It's not even Constitutional and she should know that.

Besides UHC does not work:

"California Senate Panel Rejects Health Coverage Proposal

JESSE MCKINLEY AND KEVIN SACK

SAN FRANCISCO — In a blow to universal health care coverage in California and possibly to its prospects nationwide, a State Senate committee on Monday rejected a sweeping plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would have offered insurance to millions of uninsured residents.

The Senate Health Committee defeated the plan 7 to 1, with three abstentions, as Democrats and Republicans alike said they found it too nebulous and potentially too costly for a state facing a $14.5 billion deficit.

“This bill is not only not perfect, it is flawed,” said State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, Democrat of Los Angeles and chairwoman of the committee, who voted against it.

...

But last Wednesday, as the California Senate committee heard testimony on the bill, Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers.

Shortly after the vote, Assemblyman Michael N. Villines of Fresno, the chamber’s Republican leader, praised it as a rejection of “a massive government-run health care scheme.”

On the Democratic side, there were concerns about the so-called “individual mandate,” which would have required all Californians to carry and pay for insurance, except those in economic hardship...."

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080129/ZNYT02/801290745

Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM





Canadian physician in US now:

"...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”



And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room.



This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente.



Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer."

http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html
Chris D
2008-02-04 11:44:16 UTC
This is just the tip of the iceburg with Government wanting more control of our lives. Welcome to the progressive movement. It will only get worse as these people gain more power. That is why every voter should know where these candidates stand. Not just what the mainstream media wants you to know.
Mezmarelda
2008-02-04 11:43:43 UTC
Sure am. My wages are already garnished by my employer for health insurance costs. They pay 10% and we workers pay 90%. Most of wich goes into profits for the insurance company; not benefits.
anonymous
2008-02-04 12:00:06 UTC
"I think Hillary should spend all of my money for me because I'm too dumb too. " - Supporters of Universal Health Care.
Vbonics
2008-02-04 11:39:00 UTC
I totally agree with you, I think it's bogus. I do not have health coverage not because I choose not to but because I can't afford it AND have a preexiting condition that means insurance companies won't touch me even if I could afford their premiums. I think her garnishment idea is completely insane and will never get past congress.
anonymous
2008-02-04 11:48:54 UTC
She continuously reinforces my observation that she is a socialist nut case. Then again, that racist ex-crackhead isn't any better.
Tiffgoody2shoes
2008-02-04 11:39:42 UTC
Yes, I am willing to have my wages garnished if I do not comply. The only way she can make sure that people will purchase coverage is by force, because lazy low lifes won't make the effort, and it puts a strain on the whole system. She will only garnish the wages of those that are not suffering extreme hardship, so don't make it seem like she's attacking the lower class.
pip
2008-02-04 11:37:32 UTC
Hillary? You give the President too much power my friend. Congress has to pass this type of legislation... Hillary will just get to decide if she vetoes it or not.
anonymous
2008-02-04 11:55:29 UTC
ugh...socialism under hilary and obama or corporate ownership of you under the cons....which hell do you choose?
?
2008-02-04 11:44:23 UTC
She isn't going to give you a choice. It will be the 4th Reich..
anonymous
2008-02-04 11:42:24 UTC
Once again, you seek to spread misinformation about Hillary's plan for universal healthcare.



It's not EVERYBODY'S wages she wants to garnish. It's only those who can *afford* to buy it--that will be garnished. Unless you're making more than $40,000 a year--I wouldn't worry about it.
anonymous
2008-02-04 11:47:51 UTC
Yes.
anonymous
2008-02-04 11:41:30 UTC
It's Obama's healthcare plan I'm afraid of not Hillary's.
Earl Grey
2008-02-04 11:43:06 UTC
You make it sound like the difference is going to dramatically effect your life. It won't.
LatexSolarBeef
2008-02-04 11:40:48 UTC
What's the difference? You pay for healthcare from your paycheck either way.
civil_av8r
2008-02-04 11:37:13 UTC
I'm going to quit working and mooch.
Lynne D
2008-02-04 11:36:47 UTC
I have health insurance. Why don't you?


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...