Its only a small step farther to:

garnish money from those who chose to behave in a manner that costs the health care system excessive money.

Such behaviors might be smoking, overeating, and drug use, but also might include having the audacity to no be aborted when you have a known genetic defect. Think about it.

Kim, I love the way you twist "might be" and one of many options to garnishing wages as a done deal.

By the way, Mitt's MA program does the same or even worst:
"Imposes a mandate on individuals to buy cover age and penalties on employers who do not provide and subsidize coverage for their employees."

"In reality, households, not employers, bear the burden of health care costs. Employer mandates constitute a regressive tax on workers and their families, usually in the form of reduced compensation or even job loss."

http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/bg1953.cfm

Well, this is the woman who told an audience that "we're going to take things away from you for the common good," isn't it? Given that precedent, could we expect her to do anything else -- no matter what she might say she'd do?

Mrs. Clinton is the epitome of liberal moral self-exaltation. If she says it's right, it's right, and not all the world united against her could sway her opinion by a millimeter. On some subjects, that degree of moral confidence can seem laudable, but when it comes to reaching into others' pockets...deal me out.

I wish there were a Republican I could vote for without feeling dirty.

If Hillary gets the nomination, our candidate should play commercials with Hillary saying that take away for the common good quote over and over and over.

"By the way, Mitt's MA program does the same or even worst:...."

Barney, you might want to read Jay Tea's 7 AM post from today.

Forcing people to pay for insurance is no more a force than everyone having to pay more b/c that person decided not to be insured. That is not freedom. Do people think the police department and fire department or all of our schools should be run on a "for profit" system? Why do we think our healthcare should be run for profit as well --that means we all need to pay more then it costs so investors, etc. get a return as well.

In some places in the US if you are not insured, others do not subsidize and you go untreated which also affects your ability to work --loss of arm, finger(see sicko), etc. that person then becomes able to receive disability benefits for a problem that was completely correctable --that is a waste of money and foolish fiscal planning of a nation.

Guess when we started with our current system?...Nixon via Kaiser Insurance. Do you trust big insurance and big pharma industry more? Factor in those issues please in terms of being forced and choice. Freedom to get by and have your kids protected seems fair enough.

The Observer, you know the silly anti-corporate "evil insurance companies" rhetoric got old a long time ago.

And if you don't really know the history of Health Maintenance Organization legislation in the US, don't pretend that you do.

But the democrats (50% already on welfare) want free health care. I guess if you don't work they can't take your pay. Something is going to break soon and no one will have medical care. Something like Canada and the UK, only worse.

Baghdad barney - "Kim, I love the way you twist "might be" and one of many options to garnishing wages as a done deal.

You miss the point, (OH, what a shock) for any candidate from either party to suggest wage garnishment as punishment is so far out of line to be near delusional.

On the other hand we ARE talking barney aren't we? So it all fits.

"The Observer," anyone who mentions Fat Man Moore via a ref to "Sicko" is automatically disqualified from rational discourse.

See ya, not glad to be ya.

marc, so you denounce Mitt's healthcare solution?

"Why do we think our healthcare should be run for profit as well --that means we all need to pay more then it costs so investors, etc. get a return as well."

Observer, your understanding of free enterprise is a little bit off, although that was a tiny stretch of the imagination. The great thing about competitive and private healthcare is that companies are highly motivated to research and come up with better, more innovative treatment and medicines. We have cutting edge non-profit Hospitals in the US like no other in the world. An obvious example would be St. Judes Children's research Hospital for catastrophic diseases. Besides this one example of what makes the US, even with all of its flaws, one of the best places in the world for healthcare, you may want to take a good look at the real pros and cons of Universal Health Care.

The Clintons are appalling people. Coercive Socialists, petty party bosses. Corrupt.

Reminds me of Chavez-lite.

marc, so you denounce Mitt's healthcare solution?

Halftime

I denounce it Barney. And I'll vote for him. If he becomes President he will have a much easier legislature to work with.

Barney, you really make this too easy for us here. Try real hard to summon up a tough question next time.

Marc
Just to be clear, my #13 above is a criticism of Barney, not you. Quick halftime troll hunting!

"..for any candidate from either party to suggest wage garnishment as punishment is so far out of line to be near delusional." marc

"(Mitt) And I'll vote for him." marc

Nice to know that you have your standards.

As further evidence of your lack of conviction, you said you hated football and would not watch the Superbowl, yet you are?

Sorry, that should have been directed to hughS

Observer

Oh goodness, why should we allow food production for profit? I mean, isn't FOOD a basic of life? Or why should we allow home/shelter production for profit? Or clothing? Aren't they all necessities?

geez, scratch a Leftist find a totalitarian.

Silky Pony already proposed garnishing wages to pay for health care. Since he is out of the race, maybe this is a cheesy attempt at wooing some remnant of his supporters.

Standards are one thing, Barney - reality quite another.

Hillary would gladly tax anyone considered 'rich' to provide for people who 'need' what government's going to hand out. Of course, 'need' is a very relative thing - if I decide not to buy medical insurance for my son because I'd rather spend it on, oh, designer clothes for him, or rim rental for my ride - should government force other people to pay for MY lack of responsibility?

Ideally, I'd be responsible for the little guy's welfare myself, right? How are you going to get people who CAN take care of their own needs TO take care of their own needs when they're able - when they firmly believe someone ELSE should be doing it?

Of course, the truely poor can't provide - but what qualifies as poor any more, Barney?
--

How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America
.
Forty-three percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
.
Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
.
Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
.
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
.
Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, a third of poor households have both cellular and landline telephones. A third also have telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, however, approxi­mately one-tenth have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not expe­rience significant material problems, roughly 30 percent do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty get­ting medical care

So what's the solution? Well, throwing money at the problem hasn't helped... so let's look at the causes.
--

The remaining poverty in the U.S. can be reduced further, particularly poverty among chil­dren. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.
.
In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year-- nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
.
Father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.5 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, almost three-quarters would immediately be lifted out of poverty.
.
While work and marriage are steady ladders out of poverty, the welfare system perversely remains hostile to both. Major programs such as food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid continue to reward idleness and penalize marriage. If welfare could be turned around to require work and encourage marriage, poverty among children would drop substantially.

The Democrats LOVE the poor. Everything they propose makes sure the poor will stay poor in the long run, while they feel good 'soaking the rich' by voting for a Democrat in the short run.

So - much as I might dislike the current crop of candidates myself - I'll vote for a Republican. Because a Republican might not take care of the problems I'm worried about - but after watching for 30 years, I'm certain that the Democratic candidate won't.

(Note - I'm hoping the blockquotes work right. If not, just look for the "--" deliniators..)

Barney

As further evidence of your lack of conviction, you said you hated football and would not watch the Superbowl, yet you are?

Show me where I said that....

In some places in the US if you are not insured, others do not subsidize and you go untreated which also affects your ability to work

Where in America are patients turned away from
hospitals for emergency treatment?
And it is ludicrous to think any human being that is normal is going to work their ass off, and the only reward is to see a good portion of his personal earnings being seized by the federal government. I think they used to call that being a
bonded servant.

hugh, you didn't marc did. I thought the comment I was responding to was from marc and not you.

It was you and not marc that will vote for Mittens even though you think his policies are despicable.

Happy to clear that up.

Barney, it was a single thing in Masachusetts, and I don't know much about it, but considering that Romney did it with a Democratically controlled legislature (and democratic state), he performed in his entire term of office fairly well.

A "single" policy is what we all disagree with him over. I dislike that he views it a "crowning achievment".

However, I'd prefer Romney over McCain, and either of those over Obama or Hillary (both of whom would PUSH for universal healthcare, I have a feeling Romney might have been steamrolled and instead of fighting a Democrat state, he probably rolled with it and tried to make it less of an evil).

First step is garnishment then comes the health care tax. MM i am thinking 20-30% on top of all others. The military budget is 4% of GDP and the government cannot provide good health care to its vets which is small precent of the population. Then let look at the cost of Medicaid and Medicare which most feel are defraud at 40-50%. The HMO issues we have are the result of what? The US government getting involved.
Everyone worries about the debt wait till national health care comes about.

PROFIT is a good thing. Profit means that you have money to re-invest in a business it means you can get better doctors, equipment, fund research and even provide free services for those who need it. It also allows you to put cash away for when thing are rough. Doctors spend a lot of time learning their skills and they have a tremendous amount of responsibility.

The more the government get involved the worse it gets. The NHI in England is recommending women have mid wives. Why cause it cost to much to provide care. So pre natal will soon go down the tubes.

I did an analysis of her "plan" here and found that it is marketed separately. Each constituent group gets their own plan description. It is really just more goodies for her to dole out.

The reference to Michael Moore's film was not support for all of his views or way he makes a film. But there was a man in the film that had lost his finger -I was simply referring to this man's experience.

I happen to know a lot about the health care industry--I work in it and am responsible for service delivery developments. We are the only industrialized country to not have national health care -47mil Americans do not have it and this causes a huge problem for all.

The Canadian system is far superior to ours and the stats on infant mortality, life expectancy, etc. pan this out. Our system does create some innovation (a point made by LaMedusa) but that is not the only way to create innovation.

I do not advocate waiting lists and lack of treatment -the question is how do we create a system that covers everyone -prevents and allows for early intervention more thus reducing costs.

The notion that for-profit health insurance companies somehow makes things more efficient for the consumer is very worrisome. Insurance companies actually employ people whose job is to deny benefits where ever they can get away with it. These medical doctors are hired to look for loop holes and are awarded bonuses for money saved. Some of these doctors have left these jobs and have testified to state and federal government officials about this unethical practice. One doctor said that she knows that she was responsible for many people's deaths and did this to increase the company's profits. She was rewarded with promotion and bonuses. SPQR statement that the evil insurance is old is childish and demonstrates your lack of understanding of a very serious problem. As for Healthcare legislation--I do know quite a bit but am open to learn more as well. No pretending here.

The American people have been brain washed to think the current system as the best -data clearly shows it is one of the worst of 1st world countries. This anti-socialist fear of communist notion is unfounded. We need to look to other countries as well and learn from there innovations. We spend more then any other country per capita on Health and have little to show for it. Profit margins is a key aspect to this fiscal situation. Suggest you learn more about this situation -many of you seem quite naive.