Wage Garnishment for Healthcare? Yikes!

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

TIME - Hillary wants yer cash-money

Now I realize I'm being a little fallacious here by picking up on one of the most exacerbating things said in the race and ragging on it. What can I say, people want to legislate morality or legislate on the basis of morality, there's no debating against that crap because it requires no logic or functionality. Hear stuff like 'it's time to do what we know we should as a society'. The real counterpoint is that it's got nothing to do with reality and is thus inherently flawed, so I feel justified in taking a quick jab at a blatant example of that.

Hillary says (I think I'm paraphrasing accurately) if folks don't buy into the universal health care, take the cash and give it to 'em anyway, because people who don't participate will screw it up. Makes sense right? I mean, no one gets asked if they want to pay for a share of the military and it wouldn't work if people opted out. Didn't get bombed by Iran today? Another satisfied customer, pay yer taxes.

I'd always assumed if socialized medicine went down it would be taken care of that way - but that's socialized medicine, which is a few steps ahead, nominally, of what the Dems are ready to admit they're selling. Better to give people a choice and penalize them for making the wrong one, if in fact they're contributing enough to the GDP to begin with to be capable of wrong doing, right?

But then, what are we really taking care of? Are we saying health care doesn't work because of the people who choose to do without? Obviously not, if in fact it doesn't work it's because the **** costs assloads of money sporadically. But then, instead of subsidizing it to normalize the cost, since we're not quite pinkos yet, what are we going to do? Target those of dissenting opinion and optimal cash value. Freedom in America rests on the failure of Hillary to act on this madness.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,195 • Replies: 72

No top replies

That ought to play well with most working Americans. Fail to do what is good for you, and the government will seize your paychecks.

0 Replies

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Karl Marx

0 Replies

I asked already what's the difference between that and auot insurance? You don't buy it.... you don't drive. Not legally anyway. AND, the auto insurance companies charge whatever the hell they please.

Garnish my check for 400.00 a month and give me healthcare... my premiums are around 2.5 times that much.

0 Replies

Asherman wrote:

That ought to play well with most working Americans. Fail to do what is good for you, and the government will seize your paychecks.

Well, the Democrats do know what's best for us.

0 Replies

Why would anybody be surprised at this?

Quote:

"I can't be responsible for every undercapitalized business."
Hillary Diane Clinton
Sen. Clinton's response in 1994 when employers complained that the mandates in her original Hillarycare plan would bankrupt them

0 Replies

nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."

Karl Marx

I believe it was Ayn Rand who observed that under such a system everone's abilities go down and their needs go up.

0 Replies

The system works in Australia. Its ain't perfect but its better than what you have at present according to all reports.

Percentage of taxable income is taken at tax time. I think 1 or 2%, so that low wage earners don't pay beyond their means. Its so small I don't notice.

A tax rebates for those who do choose to use a private health insurance scheme.

0 Replies

We effectively have garnishment now for social security and Medicare (as well as taxes), and it works. We should also have it for healthcare.

Our present system of healthcare is killing the country. People are reluctant to start businesses, and existing ones are dropping coverage. We have 100 M people with no or inadequate insurance.

We should have a version of Medicare for all. It is all private except for its single payer, which is either the govt. or a nonprofit.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

We effectively have garnishment now for social security and Medicare (as well as taxes), and it works. We should also have it for healthcare.

Our present system of healthcare is killing the country. People are reluctant to start businesses, and existing ones are dropping coverage. We have 100 M people with no or inadequate insurance.

We should have a version of Medicare for all. It is all private except for its single payer, which is either the govt. or a nonprofit.

If the government can nationalize the healthcare industry to guarantee coverage to all, why can it not nationalize the agriculture industry to guarantee nobody goes hungry?

I would think that food is a far more basic right than a visit to the doctor.

Are you in favor of government providing food for all of us, and if not, why not?

0 Replies

What about those of us with existing private coverage?

Do we get to choose or do we have to pay twice?

If Democrats ever wised up, they would shoot themselves for being so stupid for so long. And that would suck because then there would be a bullet shortage.

0 Replies

and then you'd not be able to kill as many animals and you've never get another hard on.... careful what you wish for...

0 Replies

Bi-Polar makes a good point - we've effectively got government mandated auto-insurance instead of socialized auto insurance and we get raped on it. I'm not really against it, because to quote 'American Graffiti', driving is a serious business. I mean, a lot of lines of work do well to have licensing/bonding and plumbers can do a lot less damage than motorists.

At any rate - what Hil wants, apparently, as opposed to socialized health care (assuming the working class is larger than the po', although I'm not really sure how they determine that) is more like government-mandated health care. Now, since we can't do too much harm by not being covered I don't think this fits the bill for a risk-coverage issue. Nonetheless, just as we get raped for auto insurance, thus we should be raped for health insurance if they've got the G doing their billing for them. The populace would have no do-nothing alternative to keep the industry on its toes. Also, the way Hil would have it, it wouldn't just each must pay for his own, we'd still be picking up the tab for the poor. It would be like I gotta pay for my auto insurance, even if I don't drive, and pick up part of the tab for someone else, who might get in more accidents than I do.

Now I'm not a huge fan of socialized medicine either, but the term I'd use for what Hillary has in mind would be 'fascist medicine'.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar Bear wrote:

I asked already what's the difference between that and auot insurance? You don't buy it.... you don't drive. Not legally anyway. AND, the auto insurance companies charge whatever the hell they please.

The difference is that you do have a choice in whether or not you own a car and operate it on a public road. If you don't want to pay auto insurance you have your option - don't own/register a car.

While Hillary is promoting her plan as "American Health Choices" she excludes the choice of not particpating. Insted, the choices she offers are on how you'll participate - not whether you'll participate.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Advocate wrote:
We effectively have garnishment now for social security and Medicare (as well as taxes), and it works. We should also have it for healthcare.

Our present system of healthcare is killing the country. People are reluctant to start businesses, and existing ones are dropping coverage. We have 100 M people with no or inadequate insurance.

We should have a version of Medicare for all. It is all private except for its single payer, which is either the govt. or a nonprofit.

If the government can nationalize the healthcare industry to guarantee coverage to all, why can it not nationalize the agriculture industry to guarantee nobody goes hungry?

I would think that food is a far more basic right than a visit to the doctor.

Are you in favor of government providing food for all of us, and if not, why not?

As you probably know, we still have a food-stamp program for the very poor. Moreover, that is more efficient than the feds taking over food production.

The feds are only called in when the private sector can't or won't perform, and the service is sine qua non. Consider mail service, which must stay govt., or quasi govt. Were the private sector to take over, the cost of a stamp would probably triple, and many areas would not get delivery at any affordable price. Public transportation is govt. run. Were it private, it would be looted and dry up. Etc. , etc.

0 Replies

You also don't have to purchase insurance to cover your own vehicle, just liability for damage you might cause. While I don't like forced insurance of any kind, it's an important point.

0 Replies

Quote:

Medicare is the scheme that gives Australian residents access to health care.

To help fund the scheme, resident taxpayers are subject to a Medicare levy.

Normally, we calculate your Medicare levy at the rate of 1.5% of your taxable income. A variation to this calculation may occur in certain circumstances.

Generally, tax offsets do not reduce your Medicare levy. However, if you have excess refundable tax offsets, we use them to reduce your tax, including your Medicare levy

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/17482.htm

Quote:

Private health insurance rebate

The private health insurance rebate is worked out as a percentage of the premium paid to a registered health fund for appropriate private health insurance cover. The percentage of rebate you may be entitled to claim is determined by the age of the oldest person covered by the policy (see How the rebate works). The rebate is not affected by your level of income.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/14882.htm

Comment:

Medicare as I know it gives each Australian resident access to basic levels of health care.
If you want better levels or more care you pay private health insurance and receive a rebate on the premium paid.

Show me why this cannot work in the US.

0 Replies

I'm all about cafeteria plans but why pool our resources on the basics? I can get by on antibiotics and stitches but someone's kid, madre de dios. And who am I to say get yer lifestyle choice off my minimum coverage? I never want to be in a position to squabble about such things. Get a man in the whitehouse who will stoke up the industry instead of begging for a cure and balking at the price like trying to bleed a stone, and we're all home free.

As for why it can work in Australia and not the US, well, we've got a lot more on our plate. We're a blazing beacon of liberty and innovation for the rest of the planet - makes it hard to get everyone on the same page if we're not at war. Other countries, I mean you're not as big and diverse so you can be a little more high handed on internal matters without offending the peasantry.

0 Replies

dadpad wrote:

Quote:
Medicare is the scheme that gives Australian residents access to health care.

To help fund the scheme, resident taxpayers are subject to a Medicare levy.

Normally, we calculate your Medicare levy at the rate of 1.5% of your taxable income. A variation to this calculation may occur in certain circumstances.

Generally, tax offsets do not reduce your Medicare levy. However, if you have excess refundable tax offsets, we use them to reduce your tax, including your Medicare levy

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/17482.htm

Quote:
Private health insurance rebate

The private health insurance rebate is worked out as a percentage of the premium paid to a registered health fund for appropriate private health insurance cover. The percentage of rebate you may be entitled to claim is determined by the age of the oldest person covered by the policy (see How the rebate works). The rebate is not affected by your level of income.

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc=/content/14882.htm

Comment:

Medicare as I know it gives each Australian resident access to basic levels of health care.
If you want better levels or more care you pay private health insurance and receive a rebate on the premium paid.

Show me why this cannot work in the US.

It is possible that it could work - but it hasn't been proposed as a solution by anyone here as of yet.

I find it interesting to note though that you pay 1.5% of taxable income for Medicare and it covers everyone whereas we pay 2.9% of gross earnings (split 50/50 between employee and employer) right now and it only covers ~12% of our population.

0 Replies

Wage Garnishment for Healthcare? Yikes!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know