Clinton wants to garnish wages to force you into socialized healthcare

[FordBuyer]

ill take hitlery over odumbo..we have the dirt on hitlery...and well we all know bubba will have his harem in the white whore house

 

Yep, we know what we are getting in Bill and Hillary Clinton. I do notice however that Bill is getting kind of seriously crabby in his old age, but he's not as crabby as McCain is and not as old. I'm sorry, but a 72 year old has no business running for President, especially when you have the challenges the next President will have Overseas and at home with potential crisis at every turn. At least Bill knows his way around the world and has worked with many of the world's leaders before. Obama is just another rookie President who will spend first four years just learning the job. Hell, Obama still has a way to go just figuring out how to become a good senator.

[jpd80]

Question from an outsider;

Your government already takes quite a bit of tax, why not use some of those dollars instead?

Seems to me the US government wastes a lot of money so why give them more?

[BlackHorse]

Question from an outsider;

Your government already takes quite a bit of tax, why not use some of those dollars instead?

Seems to me the US government wastes a lot of money so why give them more?

 

BINGO!!!

[NickF1011]

Question from an outsider;

Your government already takes quite a bit of tax, why not use some of those dollars instead?

Seems to me the US government wastes a lot of money so why give them more?

 

Stop that. You're making sense. The Federal government here doesn't allow that.

[FordBuyer]

You did notice that Ted Kennedy, the most ultra liberal of all, endorsed Obama. Hillary has tried to be more towards center, and certainly was more a centrist in Senate on most things. But I do know that what they say now doesn't mean a thing. Bush said many things to get elected and turned out to very conservative even though he portrayed himself as moderate Repulican during campaign first time elected. You really don't know what they will do until in White House. But I will tell you this.....if Obama gets almost 100% of black vote and they come out in record numbers, his policy will be very tilted to their needs in hopes of getting re-elected. It certainly is looking like they are willing to desert the Clinton camp if South Carolina is any indication. With Obama as President, we will see the most liberal President since LBJ and his Good Society programs. Between Vietnam and all these social programs, we spent ourselves right into the poor house.

[mlhm5]

As owner of a small business, health care expenses are through the roof.

 

On the other hand Medicare part A is free and Part B is $95 a month. Add in a decent Part D and medigap and the total price out the door is $180 a month.

 

A individual policy costs about $500 per month per employee and even with those good policies, the above combination is much better. No deductible and absolutely no costs out of the hospital except for $15 copay with any physician.

 

Great deal for $180 a month and I would love to offer that to my employees for $180 a month. Now we split it 60/40.

[NickF1011]

As owner of a small business, health care expenses are through the roof.

 

On the other hand Medicare part A is free and Part B is $95 a month. Add in a decent Part D and medigap and the total price out the door is $180 a month.

 

A individual policy costs about $500 per month per employee and even with those good policies, the above combination is much better. No deductible and absolutely no costs out of the hospital except for $15 copay with any physician.

 

Great deal for $180 a month and I would love to offer that to my employees for $180 a month. Now we split it 60/40.

 

Yes, if that was available to everybody, the government would have to PAY for it somehow. Watch as your taxes go up and wonder why you haven't ended up saving any more money in the long term.

[TStag]

Interesting stuff. As far as "socialised halthcare" goes then frankly I feel compelled to point out that the US system is one of the most inefficent and overly beaurocratic in the world. In the UK our system isn't great either because although it's fairly efficient is also only reasonably good. If you were suffering from cancer then and you were insured then I think treatment would be better in the USA. In Britain you would be guaranteed treatment, it would be no frills and posibly only so-so. But it is cheap! In the USA doctors are paid what they demand. In Britain will tell doctors what they will earn and in effect we regulate prices.

 

Then there is the third way, which is French. They have the best healthcare treatment in the world allegedly. Like in Britain everyone is entitled to "free" healthcare (i.e. healthcare which is funded by tax payers). But unlike Britain people can top up their cover and improve it by paying a bit more in insurance. The French do get the best care, but it's expensive.

 

So you pay you money and you take your choice. In the end we all pay for healthcare (unless really stupid) but frankly I'd rather belong to a society which looks after the weakest and most vulnerable. I think I could neverback a US style system when most US ex pats in Britain seem to say they think our system is better.... but make your own mind up on that one.

 

As for Obama or Clinton or a repulican, it's none of my business. But I'll say this Bush has appeared to everone else in the world as an oaf. The worst President in the last 100 years for many. Even Nixon had more going for him. Like it or not Bush has really damaged US relations badly. Say what you like about Obama, but he's popular outside the USA and he could make more progress than anyone else at getting people to stand "shoulder to shoulder" with America. If Americans want to lift America's battered relationship with the rest of the world then the person people are calling the new JFK is the man to elect. Frankly I know nothing else about the other candidates other than the fact Hilary's a career politician. I don't even know who the old folks are in the Republican party (might be great guy's). But Obama is certainly the man that everyone outside America is hoping wins. But it is America's election and no one else's business. I just hope American consider foreign policy.

[suv_guy_19]

Let's put it in terms you car guys can understand. The government is going to regulate the automobile industry. They say you Ford guys charge too damn much for your cars and there's no reason a Mustang should be any more than 10 thousand dollars. We will therefore force you to charge only 10 grand for your Mustang, period. Because look, everybody has to have a car to get to work and what not, so it's essential and you are ripping people off by overcharging for an essential life need. What do you think will happen to the auto industry in this country?

This is essentially the same thing they want to do to the medical field. Think about it. I'm not saying our system is perfect, but sometimes the cure is worse than the illness.

 

 

We're talking about people, not cars. There is a clear reason for the fact that the US government pays more for health care than most other countries as a percentage of government revenue but provides less service. It's because your costs are too high.

[Anthony]

Good friggin' grief. Robert, please create an off-topic section this stuff (and all the other off-topic threads) . :rolleyes:

[P71_CrownVic]

And this has WHAT to do with Ford Motor Company Discussion???

[jpd80]

And this has WHAT to do with Ford Motor Company Discussion???

User pays.

[mlhm5]

Yes, if that was available to everybody, the government would have to PAY for it somehow. Watch as your taxes go up and wonder why you haven't ended up saving any more money in the long term.

 

 

I think health care is an excellent use of my tax dollars and do not think subsidizing big oil and the growing of corn and sugar is a good use of tax dollars. As an employer, I already pay for more heath care out of my income than my taxes would ever increase if Medicare was available to everyone. Crap, most everyone does even if they are an employee. My employees pay $200 a month. I cannot conceive of a tax measure that would raise taxes on middle incomers by $200 a month.

 

Right now we pay big oil $0.51 a gallon for every gallon of ethanol they mix with gasoline. Where I live gasoline is 10% ethanol and that is a lot of $$ needlessly going to companies who had an eleven figure net income in 2007.

[RaZor]

Why is that people throw terms (scare tactics) like "socialized" around without even knowing what it is?

 

Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for the government and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. Examples also exist in Great Britain and Spain. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized financing, or socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage their medical practices or hospitals.

 

The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance. It does describe the interference by insurance company bureaucrats in our health system.

 

I haven't heard ANYONE even suggest that we have "socialized diseasecare/healthcare" when speaking about universal healthcare. Actually, that is what we have now "diseasecare" not "healthcare" and if we don't get our prejudices and fears under control, our current "healthcare" system is going to bankrupt us in the not-to-distant future. Many have predicted that healthcare costs will soar to 20% of GDP by the year 2015 in this country.

 

Over sixty percent (60.5 percent) of health spending in the US is currently funded by government. Official figures for 2005 peg government’s share of total health expenditure at 45.4 percent, but this excludes:

 

1. Tax subsidies for private insurance, which cost the federal treasury $188.6 billion in 2004 and predominantly benefit wealthy taxpayers (for those of you who think that universal healthcare will be subsidizing the poor, we currently subsidize the wealthy - stick that under your hat).

 

2. Government purchases of private health insurance for public employees such as police officers and teachers. Government paid private insurers $120.2 billion for such coverage in 2005: 24.7 percent of the total spending by US employers for private insurance

 

So, Government’s true share amounted to 9.7 percent of gross domestic product in 2005, 60.5 percent of total health spending or $4048 per capita (out of total expenditure of $6697).

 

By contrast, government health spending in Canada and the UK was 6.9 percent and 7.2 percent of gross domestic profit respectively (or $2337 and $2371 per capita). Government health spending per capita in the US exceeds total (public plus private) per capita health spending in every country except Norway, Switzerland, and Luxembourg. Source, Himmelstein and Woolhandler, “Competition in a publicly funded healthcare system” BMJ 2007;335:1126-1129 (1 December).

 

Advocates of the free market approach to health care claim that competition will streamline the costs of health care and make it more efficient. What is overlooked is that competitive activities in health care under a “free market” system have been wasteful and expensive and can be blamed for raising costs. Not only have they NOT contained costs, they have raised costs. In fact it has been shown that in some states where competition among insurers and HMOs is fiercest, such as California, costs are higher than the national average. (Our current systems produces over $300 billion per year in duplicated/wasted costs by insurance companies. Can we continue to afford that?)

 

With just about any form of universal healthcare, it would be much less THAN what businesses (especially small businesses) would pay for good private insurance for themselves and their workers under the current system. For most of the small businesses already providing coverage, universal healthcare will be much less expensive than what they are paying now.

 

Healthcare is, and has been, in a crisis mode for some time in this country, and we better fix it or it will be just another nail in our economic coffin.

[TStag]

Advocates of the free market approach to health care claim that competition will streamline the costs of health care and make it more efficient. What is overlooked is that competitive activities in health care under a “free market” system have been wasteful and expensive and can be blamed for raising costs. Not only have they NOT contained costs, they have raised costs. In fact it has been shown that in some states where competition among insurers and HMOs is fiercest, such as California, costs are higher than the national average. (Our current systems produces over $300 billion per year in duplicated/wasted costs by insurance companies. Can we continue to afford that?)

 

With just about any form of universal healthcare, it would be much less THAN what businesses (especially small businesses) would pay for good private insurance for themselves and their workers under the current system. For most of the small businesses already providing coverage, universal healthcare will be much less expensive than what they are paying now.

 

Healthcare is, and has been, in a crisis mode for some time in this country, and we better fix it or it will be just another nail in our economic coffin.

 

Exactly! In Britain we like the private sector to do just about everything and anything nowadays but we won't let private companies run the healthcare system. We have tried to go down the US route with Dental care but it's been a massive failure for most people. Pre-privatisation we had reasonably priced dental care and didn't have to struggle to get a dentist. Now we pay our dentists mega amounts of money and get a lot less. The US system has been awfull.

 

France actually has the best healthcare (a mix of Private and Public), it's efficient but it costs a lot as things are done to such a high standard....

[Roadrunner]

socialism isnt completly bad. it just cant be taken to far. garnish sounds really bad but it basically is well were just gonna tax you more but then if your poor it works better because you get health care and dont have foot the bill all by yourself.

10 bucks or so a week is alot better then owing 50k after a heart attack

 

lots of things in the US are socialized. education, media(bad), some medical right now

 

The media is by far not socialized.

 

It receives little or no government funding.

 

In fact, there was a recent discussion about the ethics of taking any form of government funds when the government is the highest organization that the media must act as watchdogs toward.

[Roadrunner]

Incidentally, we already have "socialized medicine" in the form of Medicare, Medicaid and veterans' benefits. They are actually pretty popular - name one candidate aside from Ron Paul who wants to drastically cut or abandon Medicare or veterans' benefits - but they are also very expensive, and will become even more so as the Baby Boomers age.

 

I don't get one red cent out of those programs.

 

As for mandatory insurance - the idea is to have insurance in case you are sued. People buy insurance to protect their assets from a lawsuit (if you cause an injury, are sued, and the plaintiff wins, the insurance company pays the judgment, as opposed to you being forced to sell your house to pay the judgment).

 

If a person has no assets, or minimal assets, he or she really has no incentive to buy insurance.

 

If you have a medical need, why would someone sue you ?

[FordBuyer]

And this has WHAT to do with Ford Motor Company Discussion???

 

To make this auto related, Obama spoke at the Economic Club of Detroit a few months ago and REFUSED to even throw a small bone to the Domestics here. He basically said that the Domestics will have to catch up to the Japanese on their own and there was little his Washington could do. His message was not well received here. He was pretty condescending and unsympathetic to Domestic problems.

[Deanh]

To make this auto related, Obama spoke at the Economic Club of Detroit a few months ago and REFUSED to even throw a small bone to the Domestics here. He basically said that the Domestics will have to catch up to the Japanese on their own and there was little his Washington could do. His message was not well received here. He was pretty condescending and unsympathetic to Domestic problems.

pretty tough when the guy that has the potential to be making decisions of a higher teir has pre-conceived ideas as well about domestics vs imports....wonder if he knows or even cares about American workers, or the influence the car business has on the economy as a whole....

[ray101988]

pretty tough when the guy that has the potential to be making decisions of a higher teir has pre-conceived ideas as well about domestics vs imports....wonder if he knows or even cares about American workers, or the influence the car business has on the economy as a whole....

 

Actually if you have watched some debates (idk how many people have been following the race closely) it seems like Obama is a bit more middle class oriented. He talked a bit about raising taxes on the rich to make taxes more proportional. So thats a definite plus. I also liked how he talked about more government assistance for college students. We all know that the middle and lower classes are hit hardest with college costs. He seems like a smart guy. The thing I don't like about Hilary is shes trying to cater to the rich so she gets some republican votes. The rich are catered to enough already!!

[BlackHorse]

On the flip side of that coin, Romney has said he wants to work with the big 3 and find a way to make domestic automakers the top dogs again.

 

So on the one side you have . . .

 

Democrates -- screw the domestic auto makers and lets get as many illegals in the country as we can to drive the price of labor down. Oh and oh yeah we are for the little guy.

 

On the other side . . . .

 

Republicans -- (aside from McCain) lets stop the flood of illegals and work with our auto makers to make them strong again.

 

 

 

 

 

By the way the UAW refuses to endorse a republican. They'd rather endorse the party that's trying to destroy their workers lively hoods. Go figure.

[RaZor]

By the way the UAW refuses to endorse a republican. They'd rather endorse the party that's trying to destroy their workers lively hoods. Go figure.

 

Say what? You apparently have forgotten some very important clues regarding the GOP. During the Contract on America era (1994 to 2006), the ruling Rep House and Senate actually had corporation legal eagles WRITING the actual (verbiage of) bills. They wouldn't even do it themselves. If the Rep's had their way they would disband unions all together.

 

That is just one of the many reasons that we are in such big trouble. . . the wrong people (corporations) are controlling our politicians and they DO NOT have the interest of America close to their hearts. They really only care about the money.

 

Why on earth would the UAW endorse the Rep party? None of them would dare go against the party and make middle America their cause. They may repeat catch phrases to make you think so, but they will not EVER do anything about it. Just like Geo W has been saying for 7 years that he was going to close the borders. How is that going? Right now we have a pretty big door down by Mexico. 700 miles of fence. . . and 1200 miles of an open door.

 

PS By the way, I do happen to agree with Romney regarding the border/illegals. ALL of them MUST go home and then apply for legal entry. Once that is announced along with enforcement of existing laws of persons/companies hiring/employing illegals (huge fines etc), they will all go home of their own volition, especially if they know that they have to . . . to apply to come back. When a couple of Rep candidates mentioned that we definitely must round up all of the criminals, I about broke a rib laughing. They are ALL criminals. . .just by being here illegally. Why should anyone that has broken our federal laws by entering this country be allowed to stay? They knew what they were doing when they came across the border, didn't they?

Edited February 5, 2008 by RaZor

[the_spaniard]

If it comes down to Hilary or Obama, good for them. Why should it be bad to have a black man or a woman office? Is it 1955? If you don't like their politics, fine. If you have a problem with a black man or a woman in office, that's pathetic.

[ray101988]

If it comes down to Hilary or Obama, good for them. Why should it be bad to have a black man or a woman office? Is it 1955? If you don't like their politics, fine. If you have a problem with a black man or a woman in office, that's pathetic.

 

Who said anything about not wanting a woman or a black man in office...?

Edited February 5, 2008 by ray101988

[SVT_MAN]

Okay, I haven't read this thread yet .. but here are a few things I thought of without even reading it.

 

For of all, I wish people would figure out that the problem with health care in America has nothing to do with the fact that people don't have health insurance. Well, okay, indirectly it does. Nonetheless, you need to think about WHY people don't have health insurance anymore. It isn't because companies suddenly decided that they didn't like you anymore. A lot of health care's problems are rooted in this: SKY ROCKETING costs in the health care industry. The worst part is, some of that sky-rocketing cost is driven by pharm. companies spending a lot of money advertising their products and then passing that cost onto consumers and insurance companies.

 

I am all for the free market. I am against regulation on most things, but health care industry needs to be regulated on their advertising. There is no reason why Joe average should be influenced about a drug based upon a commercial he saw on TV about it. Absolutely ridiculous. He isn't a doctor. If regulation was placed on pharm. companies in terms of advertising (that is, they go back to letting doctors decide what prescriptions you should take), some of this problem would be gone. Why do pharm. companies need to advertise? Is there a reason for it? I'd MUCH rather see them put 1/2 the money they spend on advetising back into R&D so they can continue to develop new drugs that save lives and cure disease. Either way, advertising does not bring a consumer 1 ounce of benefit ... it only brings the drug companies more profits. Again, when did the paradigm shift to Joe average deciding what drugs he needed to take? Doctors don't do that anymore? What's the deal .. ?

 

In terms of taxing us for nationalized health care ... poor idea. Has anybody seen a VA hospital? I have ... you didn't miss a thing if you haven't. They're horrible places. What a slap across the face for our veterans.

 

We already pay for people who can't afford medical insurance (it's called Medicaid), but now we have to pay for those who can too?

 

When are people going to wake up and realize that the government touching our money is not a good idea? Government wastes most of it, why should they get their hands on more? Okay, I'm done.

Edited February 5, 2008 by SVT_MAN