Hillary: 'Going After Peoples Wages'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

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

From the story (tl;dr->)
"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.” "

This is my main reason fro preferring Obama. Hilary wants to FORCE you to have health care. Even if your young, healthy, and poor enough to not want it. She doesn’t care if your self-responsible, she’ll just steal from you if you don’t want national health insurance.

2

And Obama will make you pay for it through taxes sooner or later, so where is the difference?

3

I wouldn’t be sorry if she were assasinated.

I’m hyperbolizing a little bit, but that’s rather infuriating.

4

[quote]orion wrote:
And Obama will make you pay for it through taxes sooner or later, so where is the difference?[/quote]

The difference is Hillary is telling the truth about her plan. Obama is not.

5

Going after wages? Oh come on, you people actually expect me to believe she said this? Hillary favors “free health-care,” remember? So, obviously this must be a mistake.

But seriously. I can refuse medical treatment at a hospital, yet not opt out of her ‘free’ health care?

6

They can both suck my dick. It’s like trying to pick between Stalin and Mao Se Tung.

7

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp;_ylt=AreQ9GL0Bon12cF85fwJDgGs0NUE

From the story (tl;dr->)
"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.”

[/quote]

Anyone not agreeing with the plan is violating one of the Fundamental Principals of Ingsoc! (Bonus points if anyone recognizes the reference.)

8

Whatever they say it’s going to cost, double it - and then probably double it again. The only way it won’t cost that much is if they institute price controls - then we’ll only pay for it with the opportunity cost of reduced innovation.

9

Does anyone have any ideas on health care that wouldn’t kill us economically?

I say we expand Medicare to cover everyone. People CAN buy it, if they want, or they can abstain. We pay for it by offering better and more expensive plans to the wealthy.

That way, to me, seems like the most cost effective way. It’s major consequence is turning a governmental department into a business… basically a government sponsored monopoly on health insurance.

I can’t think of a better way (if cheap health insurance must be created).

10

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas on health care that wouldn’t kill us economically?
…[/quote]

Eliminate the middleman for 80% of doctor visits. Have the patient pay directly.

Have catastrophic health insurance for really expensive rare things.

Don’t go crazy trying to save 90 year olds from cancer.

There is no reason the last 2 weeks of someone’s life should be spent in the hospital. When it is time to go, die at home.

11

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Does anyone have any ideas on health care that wouldn’t kill us economically?

I say we expand Medicare to cover everyone. People CAN buy it, if they want, or they can abstain. We pay for it by offering better and more expensive plans to the wealthy.

That way, to me, seems like the most cost effective way. It’s major consequence is turning a governmental department into a business… basically a government sponsored monopoly on health insurance.

I can’t think of a better way (if cheap health insurance must be created).[/quote]

I can think a few ways to improve the health care situation improve in this country.

While I typically disagree with any government involvement in practically anything, I fear it is a necessary evil in to combat out of control prices. I don’t really want them to control everything or anything. I want them to put in some form of price controls.

Secondly, putting some control over the epidemic of frivolous law suites. Other than flat greed that is other biggest factor in ridiculous health care costs.

My opinion, is that foreign competition is one of the best ways to control prescription prices. Foreign drugs are far cheaper and hence would cause competition.

Actually, something that is in fact coming down the pipe, is the ability to price shop for procedures.

I have more, but a little short on time to expound on all of my ideas. It would completely fix everything, but I think it would help.

What I want you to think about is to come up with solutions to problems with involving the government. If you are familiar government run entities, then tend to be all fucked up. You don’t want your health care all tied up with bureaucracy and red tape. That doesn’t mean that things aren’t fucked, it just means that the government isn’t the solution. It’s often the problem.

12

[quote]pat wrote:
Actually, something that is in fact coming down the pipe, is the ability to price shop for procedures.

[/quote]

I think if people think of health care like a local fast food place, they should accept that quality will fall right along with it. Doctors didn’t go to school for 10-15 years to be broke.

13

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Anyone not agreeing with the plan is violating one of the Fundamental Principals of Ingsoc! (Bonus points if anyone recognizes the reference.)

[/quote]

May the 1984 references never die.

14

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
Actually, something that is in fact coming down the pipe, is the ability to price shop for procedures.

I think if people think of health care like a local fast food place, they should accept that quality will fall right along with it. Doctors didn’t go to school for 10-15 years to be broke.[/quote]

That is one thing.

The other issue is that we apparently can´t have a “two class medicine”. That is more or less taken directly from German and Austrian political debate.

You see if rich people can afford more or better treatment that is obviously unfair.

Never mind that you will never be able to manage an unlimited demand that meets limited resources, you simply cannot admit that making money has advantages, especially not when it comes to life span and quality of life.

So, a growing future service industry will be strangled in its crib so that having saved money will not pay off too much.

And this is not envy or socialist rationing, oh no, it is an ethical distribution of medical resources!

15

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
Actually, something that is in fact coming down the pipe, is the ability to price shop for procedures.

I think if people think of health care like a local fast food place, they should accept that quality will fall right along with it. Doctors didn’t go to school for 10-15 years to be broke.[/quote]

As an oral surgeon, Dr. ‘Professor’ X, your input here is of great value: If someone regulated how much you could earn and told you who your patients were going to be, would you be as likely to choose medicine as a career? Would such policies leave the field open to those who don’t mind taking orders and being regulated?

16

I do find it interesting that in all the discussion about national healthcare, no one bothers to ask the doctors if that is what they want. It is assumed that they will simply go right on working as before and that they have no rights in regard to this.

Question: if gov’t regulators throttle the minds of doctors, what will those bureaucrats rely upon when they are under the surgeon’s knife? I think its dangerous to be operated on by someone whom you’ve enslaved and even more dangerous to be operated on by someone who doesn’t mind being a slave.

But, …nah…, no one will really resent the new socialist utopia. Intelligent people don’t mind taking orders from bureaucrats…nah, not at all…

17

There are a number of things that can be done to make health care cheaper and insurance more available.

First off, we need LESS government restriction. There does need to be some, namely to prevent frivolous lawsuits, as pat suggested. I also wouldn’t mind making it a requirement to give all pricing information before a procedure.

We must allow foreign competition for prescription drugs, and we also must allow consumers to cross state lines when it comes to purchasing insurance. These two things will have a huge impact.

As for health care costs, disclosure is the best way to lower costs. But, I don’t think the costs are that big of an issue. Frankly, I don’t want to sacrifice the quality of my health care to save much money. Doctor’s go to (expensive) schools for a long time and work on a very low salary during their residencies. Throw in the hours that they work even after residency, and most of their salaries aren’t as lucrative as people believe. They deserve the money they earn and imposing controls on pricing will only lower quality.

We need to remove the tax incentives for businesses to offer group policies. These deductions should go straight to the individual or family. Group policies simply provide cheap insurance for some who then abuse it and make it more expensive for others.

If insurance is tied to the individual, people will be less likely to go to the doctor for every ailment and start to realize that insurance is exactly that, INSURANCE. It is meant to be there when you suffer such an injury or disease that you would be financially ruined if you had to pay out of pocket. When people start seeing how rates are affected when they abuse their insurance, they will think twice before filing a claim.

Tying insurance to the individual also opens the door for insurers to offer a better variety of products. You could select a plan to cover everything, with little or no copay and a huge premium, or at the other extreme you could select a policy that only covers you in the event of a catastrophe. A third option would be lifetime health insurance. One would be underwritten at a young age and then pay the same premium for their entire life. Obviously premiums would be high when you are young, but relatively lower as you age.

18

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
If someone regulated how much you could earn and told you who your patients were going to be, would you be as likely to choose medicine as a career?
[/quote]

You do realize that insurance companies already do that right?

The insurance companies came in and said - “If you don’t agree to our prices and our plan, we won’t cover your patients, and they’ll leave you.”

That drove the prices for procedures down plenty. Doctors already make a fraction of what they used to, and private practice has become MUCH less lucrative for general practitioners. The problem now, is that doctors won’t serve ANYONE without insurance, and insurance cost’s an arm and a leg.

19

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I do find it interesting that in all the discussion about national healthcare, no one bothers to ask the doctors if that is what they want. It is assumed that they will simply go right on working as before and that they have no rights in regard to this.

Question: if gov’t regulators throttle the minds of doctors, what will those bureaucrats rely upon when they are under the surgeon’s knife? I think its dangerous to be operated on by someone whom you’ve enslaved and even more dangerous to be operated on by someone who doesn’t mind being a slave.

But, …nah…, no one will really resent the new socialist utopia. Intelligent people don’t mind taking orders from bureaucrats…nah, not at all…[/quote]

My father hates insurance companies. He hates them with a ridiculous (and IMO slightly exaggerated) passion. He is an internist (a general practitioner) and went to Cornell medical (back when it was the number 3 med school in the nation). He doesn’t want total deregulation, because he knows to will bring a return of the overcharging doctors used to do for simple procedures.

He would much prefer the government offering some type of cheap insurance as well as many more expensive plans to cover the costs of the cheaper plans. The cheaper plans would only cover disasters, the more expensive would have a more favorable deductible.

Insurance companies already set prices. The government isn’t the one pissing them off at this point, it’s the insurance corporations.

The government isn’t the only bureaucratic power that pisses intelligent people off HH.

20

[quote]Professor X wrote:
pat wrote:
Actually, something that is in fact coming down the pipe, is the ability to price shop for procedures.

I think if people think of health care like a local fast food place, they should accept that quality will fall right along with it. Doctors didn’t go to school for 10-15 years to be broke.[/quote]

This part of my postulations was not something out of my head. This is actually happening. My company is one of the largest health care related companies in the world and we have already made the software to deal with it and are selling it to hospitals. I would consider it more like shopping for a car rather than a burger.

Look, when a person goes to the dr. or hospital, they have no idea how much shit is going to cost until after. I personally am not going to go with the cheapest doctor to perform a procedure, but what wrong with knowing how much shit costs? Medicine is currently free market, we should be entitled to full disclosure from what’s going to happen to us in surgery to how much things cost.

I mean, I personally get really pissed of when the hospital charges $200 for a bag of salt water. I wouldn’t mind knowing that ahead of time. Even though insurance pays for it then we pay for in the end. If consumers know ahead of time how much money things costs, then maybe things can be done about it.