According to the article, it will cover 23m of 45m uninsured. It simply won't cover everyone -- though it may make the coverage available for those who choose to take it. Maybe that's good enough -- or a necessary first step, but it's not universal healthcare.
I honestly can't believe there are people that actually think its a good idea to tell someone, "You will pay for healthcare" or suffer consequences like garnishment of pay. Facist. Plain and simple.
Not really true. As excessive as they may be, it only increases the price of care about 1% directly. The two largest components of our additional spending on healthcare are: 1. Unnecessary treatment and testing. Part of this is a secondary effect of malpractice awards, as providers would much rather overtest than undertest, because of the liability. Really though, the biggest offender is the HMOs. They have successfully moved the market forces away from the provider-patient relationship. The provider will run tests and offer treatments that make them the most money, just because they know that the patient won't object, as they aren't paying for it directly. 2. Better technology. American healthcare may not offer the best care, but it certainly has the best equipment for that care. Hospitals are constantly upgrading perfectly good equipment, and the patient has to pay for that eventually (whether directly to the hospitals or through insurance premiums).
The differance between that and SS? Hell, anything else you pay taxes for? The only differance between that and car insurance is that you have the option to break the law and not get car insurance? Aside: The above is why I hate paying for car insurance on cars I have fully paid for.
great post. lets not forget these pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs for such health dangers as restless leg syndrome. I have come into some experience with the costs of medical equipment through a couple of different jobs and the costs are very high, but I don't know if that's something can be considered a problem, or it is what is. A) this equipment is highly specialized, only developed for one industry and b) i don't know if doctors want to be buying this equipment second hand and incurring the liability.
What???? your healthcare costs haven't gone down exponentially with the advent of tort reform!!!???? i'm shocked!!!!!
Max, Texans were so shafted by that amendment (what was that... number 400?). We (average Texans) were screwed. Our constitution is a joke. It pains me to have to say that, but it's true. Impeach Bush before it is Too Late.
"Mandatory", "garnishment" "enforcement bureaucracy" are largely spin or just confusion from the forces opposing healthcare for all. Well let's just tax a bit more (my understanding is riscinding the Bush tax cuts on peope making over roughly $200 grand per year is enough) and have medicare for all (like the Canadian system). People are then free not to seek health care or to buy a private insurance policy if they want. Just like people are taxed for public universities and are free to not attend university, or pay for private ones. Just like people are taxed for public libraries and are free to never go to libraries or only buy books at bookstores. If you wish you can have it as a dedicated tax like social security, which despite all the conservative attempts to undermine it is popular. What is the deal? Trying to turn "mandatory" health insurance into a big anti-freedom thing is fine if you are trying to keep everyone from being covered, but otherwise it is no more logical than objecting to public universities. I have heard that a majority of people in the US are for a single payer system though obviously the private insurance companies and execs with their unnecessary expensive multi-million dollar middle man role are opposed.
glynch -- her plan is...if you have health insurance, your wages are not garnished. if you don't, they are. how in the world do you find that out??? who polices that from month to month and institutes the controls over the HR department at your office to make sure it gets garnished??? that's not at all like social security or medicare...which you pay into regardless (unless you're a teacher and you have something like TRS)
Except this isn't Hillary's proposal. None of that is spin from anti-healthcare people. Garnishment is something Hillary mentioned herself. She requires people to get health insurance - period.
OT - This is my new favorite site on the internets. I spend hours sometimes looking through businesses. I've donated to a couple, and they haven't gotten all of their money yet, but I'm excited to follow what they do.
You are correct about the garnishment only for those who aren't insured. If Krugman is correct on his numbers, then it just has to be done. HR departments, much less health insurers, are always demanding proof of something or other. Given the societal good involved what is one more verification? Why act like it is the biggest deal. For example think of all the verification now for immigration. I think it does show how single payer is more cost efficient and involves less bureaucratic paperwork.
but people's individual policies are month to month. i just can't see this working. the stuff you give to HR is stuff about taxes...how much you wish to withhold...it doesn't change your tax burden, just how much of it is being paid in withholdings. i think this is very different from that. and almost impossible to enforce.
Well that just settles it. Let's take people who are uninsured because they can't afford insurance and FORCE them to buy it by taking it out of their paycheck. Tiny Tim can go to the doctor every time he has the sniffles, which is gonna be a lot because Bob Cratchet can no longer afford the apartment rent because the money was taken out of his paycheck to buy the insurance he can't afford. Maybe Hillary can explain to Tiny Tim why he no longer lives indoors. Absurd.
