Heard that Clinton's plan for enforcing mandatory insurace would make employers check

whether a person is covered at the job interview.

A caller on today's Ed Schultz show said that. Anyone know if that's really her proposal and what would happen if the person wasn't carrying insurance?

The caller complained that as a small business owner it would make more work for her. I couldn't help but wonder why the obvious problem with this was never mentioned - does she plan on penalizing someone who can't afford coverage, or would they not be eligible for the job they're applying for until they get coverage? What a screwy plan, if true.

Oh well, I can't afford insurance anyway, so I guess I can learn to endure a higher tax load.

Washington (AP) Hillary Rodham Clinton says as of right now, her health care plan wouldn't punish people who aren't insured.

The Democratic presidential candidate tells The Associated Press that requiring every American to purchase health insurance is the only way to achieve universal health care. She says her plan would provide incentives and tax credits. But she says she hasn't proposed punitive measures for those who don't buy in.

Clinton says she can envision a day when people would have to prove to their employers they have insurance as part of a job interview, much like children have to prove they've been vaccinated before they go to school.

But, the New York senator says she expects details of the plan to be hashed out on Capitol Hill.

http://www.khqa.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=51504

But, the New York senator says she expects details of the plan to be hashed out on Capitol Hill.

.... this is how she assured the Insurance industry there would be no threat.

A wet dream for the insurance companies wrapped in a feel good 'don't worry, everyone will be covered' illusion for the voters.

I'm really disappointed in Clinton on this. This is a bad, bad idea.

People don't just sit around talking out of their asses...right?

I read a newspaper article quoting her. Is it inaccurate?

Are you listening? Can you summarize for us?

do you have a link to that handy?

she is not listening to "us"! She is listening to the LOBBYISTS for guess who? And Has been for years.....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1832803

read All of the links in that thread, especially the loving revues from Big Pharma and Insurance lobbies then get back to me.

my, my, my.... how "special".
:eyes:

bad, bad, bad idea. for all the obvious reasons.

Her plan includes an enforceable maximum premium amount as a % of income. Something Edwards does not have.

Insurance companies either lower costs to compete with FEHBP and public alternative...or they die...

cuz I couldn't find it when I downloaded her plan.

...Europeans and Canadians have Universal coverage by simply making it non-profit and state run. This woman is in neck deep with the insurance companies who still want to pay their greedy CEOs like Cat Killer Frist, his brother and his dad billions of of unearned dollars while making us feed their freaking greed.


I am sorry but for sure now she has now made me one person who will working my BUTT off against that. What an elitist to MAKE people buy it, especially if they cannot afford it. GAWD! She is acting lika a freaking neocon in a pink suit.

I DON'T like it ...

Cat In Seattle

Americans generally reject socialism without thought. Hillary's plan is nothing but corporate welfare, and that's likely to pass first before a bill that removes the profit out of health insurance. That is the nature of our republic, a republic that runs its elections on private campaign donations. The result is rich people have a strong voice.

Universal health care would benefit just about everyone but the insurance companies. It would take a huge burden off businesses, which puts them on the side of universal care. It's an issue that affects almost everyone directly. I think it actually has a chance. We just need some real leadership on the issue.

you're for universal health care anymore. You have to provide the details. I've gotten enough of a taste of Hillary's plan to get the same taste I got with Mitt Romney's mandatory health care law in Massachusetts. To be sure, Romney's plan is more punitive than Hillary's, as far as the current draft proposal goes, but it's corporate welfare in that you're forcing individuals to purchase for-profit, private health insurance. I don't agree with that. You can save even greater money by removing the profit motive entirely out of the notion of insurance.

I think we should demand nothing less.

This issue really has me deeply disappointed in Hillary Clinton. It's an issue that's very important to me. I know far too many people without coverage. A good friend of mine just went a week with a broken wrist because he doesn't have insurance. He tried to set it himself, finally it hurt too much and he went to an emergency room. He's an independent film maker and spends most the money he makes on his film projects. He's a good person, an asset to the community and he doesn't deserve to go through something like that. No one does.

I just got done listening to an NPR program on this very topic and seemed to be that for small businesses and individuals that could not afford it there would be subsides.


Also presenting this as "forced" health-care is poor framing. I think you would be hard pressed to find an individual who earned a superior financial return by forgoing medial insurance to invest funds else where. Simple things like breaking a leg or strep throat will cost hundreds of dollars out of pocket. Most people develop some sort of chronic condition during life. People lose their life savings and houses over medical bills so I think it would be diffacult to find someone who rejected health insurance on a rational basis.

For many persons, healthcare insurance is simply unaffordable because they cannot fulfill even more basic needs like food, shelter, and clothing.

Forced healthcare (a la Masachutsetts or the "Hillary" plan) is simply a terrible idea.

Universal single payer or some plan which requires that insurance be affordable to everyone and universally available as it was the old days when employers had to pay it are the only real plans that will work.

Simply put, Hillary's plan is just the best plan that insurance company and drug company campaign donations can buy. The only ones that win in her plan are big insurance and big pharma.

Doug D.

Or are self employed artists, etc. who have NO insurance. Some can afford it themselves, most can't.

Relying on an employer no longer seems like a viable option for many people. Even if all employers are required to provide it, the work model has changed for many people. The industry I work in relies heavily on contractors.

Universal Medicare seems like the only sensible option. One that would put us on par with the rest of the industrialized world.

As far as *your* fact go, tax breaks aren't 'subsidies' for people who can't afford something in the first place.

Also, when doing a search I found the article QUOTING HER: Clinton says she can envision a day when people would have to prove to their employers they have insurance as part of a job interview, much like children have to prove they've been vaccinated before they go to school. http://www.khqa.com/news/news_story.aspx?id=51504

She's talking about mandating insurance. That's problematic to me.

I resent it. But, it is best overall.

Mandatory car insurance exists mainly to protect *other* people's property or cover their hospitalization or disability if you are at fault. Perfectly fair and reasonable, except for maybe how rates are determined (credit scores and the like).

Also, you can opt on driving a car. There's only ONE way to opt out on having a body

There is still no coverage, but by giving the state extra $$$ you can get around the "requirement" to have actual insurance.....

It's a total racket.

And I really hate the fact the HRC wants to mandate PRIVATE health insurance, instead of guarenteeing coverage for those who can't afford it.

and NOT on the employer. That's backwards. Employers should be mandated to cover all employees, regardless of the size of the business, if we are no going to have single-payer.

And right now, my insurance is WITH my employer so if I get another job, I would expect THAT employer to offer coverage or I am not working for them.

Fuck this mandatory insurance bullshit.

Why should they? In other first world countries health care is taken care of. It makes it hard for US businesses to compete.

Single payer health care is the way to go.

I favor a Canadian or similar style system. I wasn't very clear; the idea that you would have to show proof of insurance to an employer (which I know is not in the plan right now) is asinine.

I agree that the cost of insurance benefits does make it hard to compete. And we should remove that burden but it should not be shifted to the individual.