Hillary is going to garnish our wages to cover health care?

ckisck:

I hope this isn't true. 

Why? Stop fanning yourself and put away the smelling salts. By now you should know that the 'librul' media loves to take swipes at the Democratic front-runner , and with Hillary Clinton they get a twofer. God knows that the well insured, millionaire pundits and politicians who are always telling us that any universal healthcare plan -- cue the special effects scary thunder and dirge music -- is just awful because... they care about us -- drum roll -- and besides its *shiver* 'socialized medicine'.

Except when a Republican does it. What?!

See, when Mitt Romney created a mandatory healthcare system in Massachusetts, it was a good thing because, "It's a conservative idea," says Romney, "insisting that individuals have responsibility for their own health care." Yes, indeedy, what a marvelous Republican idea! Why at least a dozen other states looking at it, including Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who would likewise require all of us Californians to have the new Republican health insurance plan... cuz its a Republican kinda thing.

Yet when Hillary proposes a similar program... "Hillary's plan is just like the Massachusetts plan. There's not a whole lot of difference," said Jonathan Gruber, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology economics professor who was an adviser to Romney on the state's health care reform law."  OMG its HillaryCare! What a craptastic idea... its socialized medicine... the dreaded nanny state... etc., etc.. and so on, and so forth... you know the drill, right?

Next!

They are doing something like this in MA now. Just started. If people don't have health care,they will be fined, and tax refunds, etc taken. I don't know if they'll foreably take it out of their pay, but the law there now says they HAVE to have health insurance. Some, of course, work where it's provided.

SC, this is a ridiculous statement and you know it! 

Did the Catholic church tell the people in that church to vote for JFK in 1960?  I don't think so.

Get real. 

  I don't know how old you are, but I lived in MA (Boston is strongly Catholic and Irish) when JFK was running and was elected and had friends who were Catholic. And, of course the church couldn't MAKE people vote for him, any more than the Mormon church can with Romney (or his father would have been elected, for one thing) but they can strongly encourage it.

   So, you can see it as ridiculous if you want, but I know what I know.

 If you think religion doesn't influence who people vote for, like a lot didn't vote for  GW Bush because of him being "Christian"  and this stuff doesn't even come in to it, and the religion the candidates are doesn't WANT a president that's their religion, and even Black people aren't going to vote for Obama because of having a Black president (who, they think will side with them, in ways, whether he really does or not)  than you're more naive than I am.

  But, it's nothing to argue over, and after I wrote that (about the Mormon Church) I realized someone would probably jump on it, and I shouldn't have written it.

Did Hilary actually say "garnish wages"?  Poor choice of words if that's the case.  I live in Oregon State and we have a health care program.  It covers people who are not privately insured.  Illegals may take advantage of the program, people from other states, whomever, if you can't afford medical care.  All the citizens pay for it.  It is deducted from our taxes just like your Federal and State taxes are deducted now.  How do you think the government is going to pay for your health insurance?  It will be taken from your wages just as all taxes are currently deducted.  If you think your tax bill is high now, just wait until the government manages insurance for all.  If that is what people want so be it, just be prepared to take home less money.

Roma, they take it out of your check even if you have your own insurance? If so, just lovely. [:'(]

Just remember.....There is no such thing as free health care.

Shouldn't you have the right to NOT have health insurance if you don't want it?????  I don't think it would be a wise decision, but it's MY DECISION TO MAKE, NOT the federal government.

I'm not going to debate either side of it, just posting a link I found: 

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/story?id=4235448&page=1

I'm not debating the issue either.  In fact I'm not sure I know where I stand.  All I know is if you ever have been unable to go to a doctor because you can't afford it you know that the government has to do something.  I just hate it when people post stuff that just isn't true and don't bother to check it out first.  Catmint - no - they won't take money from those who already have insurance. She said they would take money from people who CAN afford insurance but refuse to get it.  Peachygirl this is what she said re: people who choose not to have insurance. (for whatever reason) 

Clinton 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. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone."

I read what she said.  I'm just saying that I should have the right NOT to buy healthcare even if it is affordable.  I don't think the federal government should be able to force me to buy healthcare if I don't want it.  So what if somebody refuses to pay for it?  Shouldn't they have that right, even if it is not a wise thing to do?

I think that they should make healthcare affordable, but they shouldn't be able to garnish anyone's wages regardless!

So if people were allowed to opt out of "universal" health insurance because they didn't want to pay, would the hospitals be allowed to turn them away for any service they couldn't afford?  Would paramedics check their ID and then let them die on the street?

Think about how we fund education in this country.  Even if you kid goes to private school or if, like me, you don't have kids, you pay taxes which fund public school.  Why?  Because some of that tax money is to fund your potential kids, while some goes to fund the kids of people who couldn't afford to pay for their educations.

It makes sense to me.  I would hope, though, that it was not structured as payment for a single governmentally-administered health plan, but rather that it would be a payment of premiums which could be applied to a variety of insurance plans the individual or family would select.  Much like the insurance I have now, through my government job.

"Clinton 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. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone."

People wonder why she is called a socialist? She wants to decide what people need and force them to take it. That is not what a free country should be doing. THey can be responsible for the bill, sure. But you should not force people to buy health insurance. This idea is as repressive as the law trying to be passed in Mississippi I believe. The bill states that restraunts cannot serve fat people. If people vote this woman into the White House we will be losing freedoms left and right. For those who are against the Patriot Act, it amazes me how many support her socialist ideals.

Yes, many churches tell its members who to vote for. Just because yo have never been in a church that has done so, does not mean it does not happen. Personally I feel it is wrong and won't be a member of a church that does that.

 Public health care is not the answer. We have people come here from all over the globe to learn medicine, more than any other country. You have to ask what are we doing differant that is making that happen? Go to countries with public health care and the ER has become the doctor's office and emergency patiants end up suffering. Or you end up waiting hours to be seen to get a script.

peachygirl_GA:

Shouldn't you have the right to NOT have health insurance if you don't want it????? 

No, not always. As with Romney's plan, and Ahnold's too, the analogy that being held up as the logical explanation is mandated auto insurance... which you have no choice but to comply. The idea is that uninsured motorists/patients end up costing the system more and create a strain on resources that cost that taxpayer more than subsidizing those who are aren't insured.

cooking71:

We have people come here from all over the globe to learn medicine, more than any other country. You have to ask what are we doing differant that is making that happen? 

This is not a criticism of your statement, but an honest inquiry.  Do you mean more in total numbers or more in relation to the number of teaching hospitals the country has?  I know, for instance, that many people go to the UK to study medicine, and that is a country with managed health-care.  I'm sure it is a numerically smaller number than come here, but given the difference in the physical size of the two countries, I'm thinking that they simply have fewer total hospitals and schools. 

peachygirl_GA:

I don't think the federal government should be able to force me to buy healthcare if I don't want it.  So what if somebody refuses to pay for it?  Shouldn't they have that right, even if it is not a wise thing to do?

A lot of people feel the same way about Medicare and Social Security.

Honestly, I have mixed feelings about the whole situation.