Edwards: Garnish Wages If Needed to Cover All. What In The Hell?

[hdmarketing]

November 29, 2007 1:13 PM

ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards is hoping to stand-out from rivals on health care by portraying the plan of rival Barack Obama as leaving 15 million uninsured and portraying Hillary Clinton as lacking the candor needed to get to universal coverage.

"Barack Obama's plan leaves out 15 million people," said Edwards. "The truth is that some people will choose not to buy insurance even though it's affordable, knowing that the rest of us will pay for their emergency room visits."

"But it is just as bad to say that everyone will have insurance without a plan to get there," he continued. "Hillary Clinton says her plan will cover everyone through a 'mandate' but does not provide even the most rudimentary idea much less a detailed plan of how this 'mandate' would work."

Like Clinton (and unlike Obama), Edwards' health-care plan would require every American to have health insurance.

But unlike Clinton, Edwards is now detailing how he would enforce his mandate.

Under the Edwards plan, when Americans file their income taxes, they would be required to submit a letter from an insurance provider confirming coverage for themselves and their dependents.

If someone did not submit proof of coverage, the Internal Revenue Service would notify a newly established regional or state-based health-care agency (which Edwards has dubbed a Health Care Market).

Those regional agencies would then evaluate whether the uninsured individual was eligible for Medicare (which covers those over 65), Medicaid (which covers the indigent), or S-CHIP (the State Children's Health Insurance Program which targets the working poor).

If the individual was not eligible for either of those existing public programs, the regional-health care agency would enroll the individual into the lowest cost health-care plan available in that area. The lowest-cost option could be a new Medicare-like public option or a private insurance plan.

The newly covered individual would not only have access to health benefits but would also be responsible for making monthly payments with the help of a tax credit.

The exact size of the financial obligation would vary according to a person's income (lower-income Americans would receive larger tax credits).

If a person did not meet his or her monthly financial obligation for a set period of time (perhaps a year, perhaps longer) the Edwards plan would empower the federal government to garnish an individual's wages for purposes of collecting "back premiums with interest and collection costs."

The process, according to the Edwards campaign, would resemble the process used to collect money from Americans who are delinquent on federal student loans or child support payments.

The Edwards campaign has not put a dollar figure on the amount that would be garnished from wages because the cost of the lowest-priced plan in that region could vary and is not yet known.

While raising the specter of wage garnishment could expose Edwards to the criticism that he favors a bigger, more intrusive government, he is hoping that Democrats will reward him for offering a plan that is bolder than Obama's and more candid than Clinton's.

"To get fundamental change in our health care system, we need a fundamental change in our politics," said Edwards. "That starts with being clear and direct about what we are going to do and how we are going to do it."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/edwards-garnish.html

So not only is he going to raise taxes, but he is also going to mandate what we can and can NOT do.
Sounding more and more like Comunisim everyday.

Telling me I WILL have insurance, and not giving me a choice?

Fuck That...

[LadyMod at scam.com]

What are you worried about HD? They don't give you a choice about having insurance to own and drive a vehicle either. And should you get sick, why should my tax dollars be squandered on you if you can afford health insurance but didn't want to get it?

Lady Mod

[radioguy]

Hey HD, maybe you missed it, but a few days before the Edwards statement, Osama... Oops, I mean Obama... said if he would make it illegal for Americans to refuse socialized coverage.

All I can say for the democrats and their socialism plans are...

Sieg Heil!

[Moby]

What's the difference between the plan that Romney's promoted and signed into law and Hillary's plan? One is touted by Bill O as a great plan and the other is touted in silly meaningless terms like "Sieg Heil!"

I've asked this numerous times on the board and none of the Hillary bashers have ever responded.

[hdmarketing]

And that's the point I am making, thanks RG.

Democrats want to controll everything.
Health Care, Perscription Drugs, School, everything.

That's comunism...

[Moby]

And that's the point I am making, thanks RG.

Democrats want to controll everything.
Health Care, Perscription Drugs, School, everything.

That's comunism...
So what's the difference in the health care plan that was signed into law by Mitt Romney and that proposed by Hillary?

Neither one of you know do you? You're just repeating what you've heard on the radio :lmao2:

[hdmarketing]

So what's the difference in the health care plan that was signed into law by Mitt Romney and that proposed by Hillary?

Neither one of you know do you? You're just repeating what you've heard on the radio :lmao2:

No I am not repeating what I heard on the radio.

First of all the "New Hillary Plan" is simply a revised roll out of her failed miserably 1994 plan.

Basically she claims the plan would cover all uninsured Americans.
She claimes that it would be paid for by a repeal of the Bush tax cuts for individuals making over $250,000 and through savings from modernizing the health care system and reducing excess spending.

Once again Hillary care is "Government controlled" health care that is going to raise our taxes to pay for it.

Mitt's plan calls for the same thing, "everyone pays".

by the way, for the record the record, I don't like either one of them.

[radioguy]

HD, on this board, when the right makes solid arguments, with solid points, they are not challenged. They're instead met with comments like "You're just repeating what you've heard on the radio" and "Don't you have any original thoughts". You just have to get used to it, because thats just how they handle common sense and logic.

[hdmarketing]

HD, on this board, when the right makes solid arguments, with solid points, they are not challenged. They're instead met with comments like "You're just repeating what you've heard on the radio" and "Don't you have any original thoughts". You just have to get used to it, because thats just how they handle common sense and logic.

Yes I know, but I posted my reply because I did in fact know he answer. I was going to ignore it because it is all the same Hype Bull Shit that says pretty much the same thing...

[Cat slave]

And that's the point I am making, thanks RG.

Democrats want to controll everything.
Health Care, Perscription Drugs, School, everything.

That's comunism...

Youve got that right! Talk about Big Brother!!!:disbelief:

[Moby]

HD, on this board, when the right makes solid arguments, with solid points, they are not challenged. They're instead met with comments like "You're just repeating what you've heard on the radio" and "Don't you have any original thoughts". You just have to get used to it, because thats just how they handle common sense and logic.
I was commenting on your incredibly detailed and intelligent post of

Sieg Heil!

You thought up that all by yourself? That's one hell of an argument.

Silly me. I didn't even know that the Nazis had health insurance. I thought they had government controlled health care which has nothing to do with insurance. I'm sure that you've researched this in your own way and came up with that snappy Nazi line on your own. It's really quite impressive. I mean being a different language and all.

Is getting health insurance through a company or organization considered socialist?

[Moby]

by the way, for the record the record, I don't like either one of them.
Good for you. I think they're both bad since I think it's the idea of insurance and the inability to price out services that's really costing the big bucks.

It seems the very far left like Edwards. While I think he's the smartest candidate I don't think having a tort lawyer as President is a good thing. The plan mentioned above seems a be the process a tort lawyer would use to get money won in a law suit.

[mwillman]

Can I assume from your posts Radioguy and HD that you think that poor people should get no healthcare?

There are 40 million uninsured and they are costing this nation more by being unisured then it would to insure them. Does that make sense to you?

Just answer the first question. Should we just let poor people die becuase they cant afford insurance, and when you buy your burgers at Mcdonalds what do you say to the people there that can't afford insurance?

[hdmarketing]

Can I assume from your posts Radioguy and HD that you think that poor people should get no healthcare?

There are 40 million uninsured and they are costing this nation more by being unisured then it would to insure them. Does that make sense to you?

Just answer the first question. Should we just let poor people die becuase they cant afford insurance, and when you buy your bugers at Mc donalds what do you say to the people there that can't afford insurance?

The poor already have health care here in Arizona.
It's called:
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS)

it's funded at the federal, state and county level, including some money from Arizona’s tobacco tax.
http://www.ahcccs.state.az.us/Site/AboutUs.asp

[Yirmeyahu]

If that's an accurate summary of Edwards' health care plan, I join hdmarketing and radioguy in condemning it.

[Cat slave]

The poor already have health care here in Arizona.
It's called:
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS)

it's funded at the federal, state and county level, including some money from Arizona’s tobacco tax.
http://www.ahcccs.state.az.us/Site/AboutUs.asp

Here in TN they have TN Care and Medicaid.

Wonder what they will do when they have exhausted the tobacco money?
Smoking is becoming such a issue, people may just quit, then we will have
one of the infamous "short falls" and look out for your wallet.

[mwillman]

The problem with the various medical aid systems in place now is they dont cover the working poor most of the time and if they do its rarely helps them with preventive healthcare.

Also look at whats happened to the costs of medical coverage over the last 10 years the cost has risen by as much as 800%, All the while insurance companies have shown some of the highest profit margins in thier histories.

I want to know would you people rather just see people die from no medical coverage then have to share some of your taxes to heal them?

[Cat slave]

Hes really a scary person but what is scarier is the volume of support he has
to be so close to the front of the line.

Dont people have brains anymore?

I can just see our new universal health coverage...if youre sick maybe you
will die and they see a quick turnover in their individual "sectors". Need a
surgery, well, buddy weve gota line do you want to stand in it or go back home
(to die)and when they cut costs to the bone they will use a real cat for a cat
scan and send you a bill by the little brown truck in a great big box.
And the screech

And Edwards himself. What a dork. Sure hes been able to argue cases and
get money for himself and clients, hes part of the problelm , his ideas i mean.
Hes spent his ife and emasseed NOT a small forture, but a huge one. Now
we are going to be hosed big time for our free health care/bad drea, system
and his outlandish hair cuts

[bairdi]

If that's an accurate summary of Edwards' health care plan, I join hdmarketing and radioguy in condemning it.
And if is not an accurate summary?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

The problem with the various medical aid systems in place now is they dont cover the working poor most of the time and if they do its rarely helps them with preventive healthcare.

Also look at whats happened to the costs of medical coverage over the last 10 years the cost has risen by as much as 800%, All the while insurance companies have shown some of the highest profit margins in thier histories.

I want to know would you people rather just see people die from no medical coverage then have to share some of your taxes to heal them?

They don't seem to want to answer your questions mwillman. Personally, I would prefer to share some of my collected taxes to get these people on health insurance rather than pay the entire costs on the back end.

And I do wish there were insurances that covered preventive care. No money in being healthy I guess.


Lady Mod

[radioguy]

The poor already have health care here in Arizona.
It's called:
Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS)

it's funded at the federal, state and county level, including some money from Arizona’s tobacco tax.
http://www.ahcccs.state.az.us/Site/AboutUs.asp

I am also in Arizona, but would like to add a few comments. My ex-father in law is an RN at Maricopa County Hospital in Phoenix. I haven't talked to him in 4 years, but he used to tell me that as many as half the people that show up there for medical attention, are illegal aliens. When people show up there without insurance or any means to pay, they are still treated no matter who they are. My point being, that if a family has a sick child, that child will get medical treatment whether the family has insurance or the money to pay. That's the way it is there, and all over America.

The statistic of 40 million uninsured doesn't take into account illegals, families with incomes that can afford insurance, but choose not to have it, or the fact that 45% of those 40 million, are uninsured for 4 months or less.

As it stands today, America has the best quality health care in the world, and that is because of our free market system. If health care is nationalized, you can kiss that goodbye. If doctors have to treat people for a fraction of what they make now, people are not only going to get short changed on their treatment and quality of their care, there are going to be fewer and fewer people willing to spend 8 years in medical school to become "minimum wage" doctors.

Since every American in need of serious medical attention, will receive it no matter what there status is, I think it is better for everyone involved, to keep health care privatized. Quality is the most important thing in my book.

[LadyMod at scam.com]

As it stands today, America has the best quality health care in the world, and that is because of our free market system.



http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm

Myth: The U.S. has the best health care system in the world.

Fact: The U.S. has among the worst health statistics of all rich nations.



Summary

The U.S. does not have the best health care system in the world - it has the best emergency care system in the world. Advanced U.S. medical technology has not translated into better health statistics for its citizens; indeed, the U.S. ranks near the bottom in list after list of international comparisons. Part of the problem is that there is more profit in a pound of cure than an ounce of prevention. Another part of the problem is that America has the highest level of poverty and income inequality among all rich nations, and poverty affects one's health much more than the limited ministrations of a formal health care system.


Conservatives think the U.S. health care system needs reform because there is too much government involvement in health care; liberals because there is not enough.

So let's clarify this statistic with a few others. Americans are the most dissatisfied with the quality and quantity of their health care. Of the 10 largest industrialized nations, the U.S. ranked dead last in health care satisfaction, with an approval rating of only 11 percent. (3) There's no putting a positive spin on this statistic; any president with such a low approval rating would be impeached!

Most of this dissatisfaction stems from the high expense and unavailability of U.S. health care. During the 1993 debate on health care reform, polls consistently showed that two-thirds of all Americans supported the idea of universal coverage. (4) Polls also showed that Americans didn't want to pay the higher taxes to achieve this goal, which many pundits took to be an amusing example of public inconsistency. Actually, the public was entirely consistent. Other nations manage to cover everybody, and at lower cost.

Nor is America's international reputation in health care as high as many Americans boast it to be. "Ask anyone you know from a foreign country... which country is the envy of the world when it comes to health care," Rush Limbaugh wrote in See, I Told You So. But according to a Gallup poll published by the Toronto Star, only 2 percent of all Canadians believe that the U.S. has a better health care system than their own. (5)

The fact is that America does not have the finest health care system in the world; it has the finest emergency care system in the world. Highly trained American doctors can summon Star Wars-type technology in saving patients who have become seriously injured or critically ill. But as far as preventative medicine goes, the U.S. is still in the Stone Age. It should be no surprise that in America's health care business, entrepreneurs will take a pound of cure over an ounce of prevention every time.

But in reality, what affects the health of Americans lies more outside the formal health care system than within it. In Europe during the last century, life expectancy nearly doubled after nations purified their drinking water and created sanitation systems. In America during this century, the highest cancer rates are found in neighborhoods around the chemical industry. (6) A healthy diet and exercise provide better health than most medicines in most circumstances. Other nations have realized that factors outside the hospital are more important than factors inside it, and have used this bit of wisdom to lower their health care costs.

Perhaps the greatest reason why Europeans are healthier than Americans is because they have reduced poverty, especially child poverty. The link between poverty and poorer health has long been proven. One survey reviewed more than 30 other studies on the relationship between class and health, and found that "class influences one's chances of staying alive. Almost without exception, the evidence shows that classes differ on mortality rates." (7) The American Journal of Epidemiology states that "a vast body of evidence has shown consistently that those in the lower classes have higher mortality, morbidity and disability rates" and these "are in part due to inadequate medical care services as well as to the impact of a toxic and hazardous physical environment." (8)

And in an even more important finding, studies from Harvard and Berkeley have proven that income inequality -- not just absolute poverty -- is equally important. (9) States with the highest levels of income inequality also have the highest mortality and morbidity rates. The reason why relative poverty matters is because prices and opportunities are relative too - the U.S. may have the best medical technology in the world, but at $10,000 a procedure, who can afford it?

Many reasons contribute to the worse health of the poor. Political scientist Jeffrey Reiman writes: "Less money means less nutritious food, less heat in winter, less fresh air in summer, less distance from sick people, less knowledge about illness or medicine, fewer doctor visits, fewer dental visits, less preventative care, and above all else, less first-quality medical attention when all these other deprivations take their toll and a poor person finds himself seriously ill." (10) And this is not to mention that the poor work and live in more polluted, hazardous and strenuous environments.

These deprivations are especially hard on infants in their critical development years. The U.S. has tried to combat this problem by offering universal prenatal and postnatal health care, much like Europe does. But the U.S. is fighting against a head wind because it has levels of poverty that Europe does not. Again, a person's health is affected by more factors outside the formal health care system than within it. It's not enough to give a few programs to a person in poverty; what's needed is removing that person from poverty completely.

"When I look back on my years in office," says C. Everett Koop, Reagan's former Surgeon General, "the things I banged my head against were all poverty." (11)

If America is to improve its health statistics, it must not only pass universal health care, but reduce poverty as well.

.

[Moby]

Since every American in need of serious medical attention, will receive it no matter what there status is, I think it is better for everyone involved, to keep health care privatized. Quality is the most important thing in my book.
We have a very high rate of child and infant deaths. A very high rate of people with chronic diseases, obesity, heart attacks and regular illnesses.

While it's true we can probably get better treatment for cancer do we really get better treatment for children, check ups and normal health care?

So quality is the most important thing on the far end of the medical scale.

How do you feel about education? Is quality important there or does it only apply to the party line?

[Americanadian]

HD, on this board, when the right makes solid arguments, with solid points, they are not challenged. They're instead met with comments like "You're just repeating what you've heard on the radio" and "Don't you have any original thoughts". You just have to get used to it, because thats just how they handle common sense and logic.

:laugh: http://www.acidtrax.net/smileys/chuckle.gifhttp://www.acidtrax.net/smileys/pointlaugh.gif

Common sense and logic aren't found in the Right wing abyss. They prefer living in the world of black & white, good & evil.

I will admit HD isn't completely devoid of intellectual capabilities. He may be rehabilitatable. :D

[Moby]

Dont people have brains anymore?

I can just see our new universal health coverage...if youre sick maybe you
will die and they see a quick turnover in their individual "sectors". Need a
surgery, well, buddy weve gota line do you want to stand in it or go back home
(to die)and when they cut costs to the bone they will use a real cat for a cat
scan and send you a bill by the little brown truck in a great big box.
And the screech

I'm not a fan of Edwards but what you're describing has nothing to do with his plan (that I don't like) at all. Where do you get some of this stuff?

[radioguy]

How do you feel about education? Is quality important there or does it only apply to the party line?

Of course quality is important in education. To be honest with you though, I'm not sure what can be done for America to improve in that area. I believe that what is being taught in public schools for the most part are the things necessary for a good education.

What I'm not sure about, is what's holding things back. Is it the quality of teachers? Is it the students? If I had to take a guess based on what I've seen and what I believe, I would say one of the biggest factors holding things back is probably discipline. In todays society, kids are empowered because they know that teachers are extremely limited on what they can do or say, and lets face it... If kids know they can screw off, many of them will.

I think a lot has to do with the fact that most kids have both parents working, and when they get home from school, there isn't a parent there to make them study. Understand Moby, I'm just spit-balling here.

I will tell you one thing I truly do believe in. A dress code. I believe all schools should require students to wear uniforms. What students wear is probably the biggest distraction in public schools. The clothes kids wear can cause a lot of trouble. What I mean is, it is a form of self imposed segregation. The jocks wear this, the stoner's wear that, the geeks wear something else and if you don't dress the part, you are excluded and sometimes ridiculed. I wore a school uniform at a school I attended in 4th and 5th grade, and I hated it. But I realize today, that those uniforms made everyone the same to each other and there were very few conflicts. Who we were outside of the classroom was never introduced, so it took away that distraction, so everyone got along much better and worked together well.

Anyway, what's your take on education?

[LadyMod at scam.com]

I will tell you one thing I truly do believe in. A dress code. I believe all schools should require students to wear uniforms. What students wear is probably the biggest distraction in public schools. The clothes kids wear can cause a lot of trouble. What I mean is, it is a form of self imposed segregation. The jocks wear this, the stoner's wear that, the geeks wear something else and if you don't dress the part, you are excluded and sometimes ridiculed. I wore a school uniform at a school I attended in 4th and 5th grade, and I hated it. But I realize today, that those uniforms made everyone the same to each other and there were very few conflicts. Who we were outside of the classroom was never introduced, so it took away that distraction, so everyone got along much better and worked together well.

Anyway, what's your take on education?

I live in Texarkana, half in Texas, the other half in Arkansas. The Arkansas schools require uniforms.

The kids still segregate themselves, only now it's the haves and have-nots, depending on the maker of the uniform. Rich kids can afford more expensive uniforms. Apparently, the kids can tell them apart.

If all uniforms had to be from the same manufacturer then there would be no problems.

On the Texas side, dress is not regulated, meaning uniforms. The problem is only a problem when what dress codes that are in effect are not enforced on everyone. It's amazing how many boys walk in with pants sagging down to their knees and are never sent home, and how many girls get by with wearing skirts too short.

Enforce the damned dress codes, then there is no need for uniforms IMO.



Lady Mod

[Moby]

Anyway, what's your take on education?
http://dcjunkies.com/showthread.php?t=2792

It's worthy of it's own topic.