Hillary clinton wants to garnish your wages to pay for healthcare?

Ok, it's official: I am not in favor of Hillary Clinton's bid for the democratic nomination. Now that she let the cat out of the bag about wanting to garnish people's wages to pay for health care, it's a serious no go.

Is she that ignorant that the...

people who don't have health care simply lack the ability to buy private health care insurance??? That's like saying, we'll give you health care, but your kids have to starve...in my opinion, it's sick twisted.

Who's with me?

tina.

ya your definatley right man, but at least she's trying to find a solution to a well known problem, its not the right one, but she's trying. And thats why im not voting this year, I hate every candidate

Agree - sounds like an old Soviet Union tactic - no go.

My biggest problem with Ms. Clinton's plan is that it still goes through insurance companies. Right now much of the problem we have with health care is because insurance companies run things. We need to get insurance companies out of the business of providing health care.

filletofspam, actually, I'm shocked.

You don't think that putting the burden on the paycheck of the poorest Americans is a big issue?

And yes, health insurance companies shouldn't be providing health care, either. However, taxing the poor simply makes no sense.

I agree, Obama's plan actually makes the most sense of any candidate. Rather than simply force health insurance on all Americans, he wants to call all the industry heads together (drug companies, HMOs, doctors' assocations, patient reps, etc.) for a televised evaluation of the health care situation. The idea is that it would force these leaders to explain some of the major deficiencies in the system to the American people.

Guess I haven't been up on things lately, but my wages are already garnished for health care, $ taken from my paycheck every time, how is that different? Or is the effect the same and the wording just different?

I'm not from the US, so this sort of thing isn't news in my country and I don't know the fundamentals of what's being proposed here, but...

Wages being garnished for providing healthcare is known in my country as Taxes. The richer you are, the more you are taxed, and similarly, the less you earn (I.e. poor people) you are taxed less. In this way, healthcare for the Poor is subsidized by those who have everything - almost like an act of compulsory charity. User pays in terms of healthcare only seems to be to the advantage of the rich - it seriously disadvantages those who are poor, because they cannot foot the bill, and so are caught in a rut of having to try and afford healthcare at the expense of other things. In my opinion, User Pays for healthcare produces more of the we'll give you health care, but your kids have to starve scenario than the garnishing of wages. I'm not entirely clear whether User Pays is the alternative to Mrs Clinton's view, but coming from a country where such a garnishing system is already in place and works reasonably okay, (and once again, without knowing the specifics of the plan) I think Mrs Clinton's view is quite reasonable and a good one.

I have never been able to understand why Insurance Companies are tied up with US Healthcare - it seems to me, as an outside observer, an arrangement which only serves the interests of the Insurance Companies, and not the people for whom Hospitals are meant to serve.

yes