Posted on 09/18/2007 2:33:42 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.
"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
Clinton unveiled her health care plan Monday in Iowa, promising to bring coverage to every American by building on the current employer-based system and using tax credits to make insurance more affordable.
She told the AP she relished a debate over health care with her political opponents, including Republicans "who understood that we had to reform health care before they started running for president."
On Tuesday, Clinton began airing a 30-second ad statewide in Iowa and New Hampshire promoting her new health care plan. The ad reminds viewers of her failed effort to pass universal health care in the early 1990s, trying to portray a thwarted enterprise as one of vision.
"She changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America," the ad's announcer says.
The ad also highlights her support as senator for an expanded Children's Health Insurance Program and for more affordable vaccines.
Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the ad.
"Now she has a health care plan that lets you keep your coverage if you like it, provides affordable choices if you don't, and covers every American," the ad says.
The ad also continues her campaign's effort to appropriate the mantle of change away from rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards. The word change or its variations appears four times in the ad, which ends: "So, if you're ready for change, she's ready to lead."
Though her ads are airing in major markets in both states, they are appaearing with greater frequency in Iowa. Polls of voters in New Hampshire show her with a double digit lead over Obama and Edwards, but polls in Iowa show the three of them clustered together.
___
The only exposure I have had to Mexican healthcare is along the Texas border which is aimed at Americans. You have any details or opinions on the Mexican healthcare system?
As you tell tell, this hilary “commycare” does more than get me a little worked up.
...Oh! Didn't mean to infer that!...$hrillary, Is gonna tax you....one way or the other. ....there's no such thing as "free" from the CongressCritters....just hidden taxes.
Tax breaks to buy insurance, until the dims decide that they need more money in the coffers for something. Then, you will still be forced to buy insurance, but if you make over a poverty-level wage, they will cry “tax the rich”, “make them pay their fair share”, “they have no right to such tax breaks at the expense of the poor.”
Where is the HSU story now??????........
Canada pays more than that for only 30 million people.(And that is only federal government costs) Think ten times that amount just for starters, with another 60% of costs coming from each state.
Excellent question!!!
Behind OJ, behind Britney, behind Petraeus, behind...well... what else is there to be behind?
I beleive the 110 billion is “only” the new gov’t costs and does not include what we already pay thru our insurance, deductible, etc. already.
In an address at an Iowa hospital yesterday, Mrs. Clinton detailed a proposal that would require all Americans to have health insurance while raising taxes on people making more than $250,000 a year to help subsidize coverage for many of the country's estimated 47 million uninsured.
Now, ladies and gentlemen, how is that not a new form of legalized extortion?!
Why don’t our elected theives led by example, start pating you own way, give up your self decided perks and begin earning the money that the tax payers are forced to pay you by the rules that you decided amoung yourselves.
“Hillary Care will cost 1.26 Trillion!”
Perhaps not, since you won’t get access to many procedures our insurance covers now. And, most likely, if you’ve done things that Hillary deems to be unhealthy, like eat beef, carry a couple of extra pounds, etc., you will not get treatment because you failed to perform your societal duty to be healthy. Then when you’re old, you’ll just have a duty to die for the good of the country, so they won’t cover any procedures or treatments for the elderly.
Key words here are "at this point".
After the election will be a completely different point.
Yeah, it’s a stretch, but it does express the feelings of the poster who said that, doesn’t it?
He has not made that claim himself, not exactly, but it comes up on Romney threads here. Staunch Mitt supporters don’t see it as “mandatory”, but rather “market based” instead. The Heritage Foundation white paper describes the theory behind Romneycare as being market based.
No. It won't cost us anything. And healthcare will become perfect. Read the NYT and listen to ABCCBSNBCCNN.
In reality, she will buy the insurance for poor folks (read medicare and medicaid) and will probably set things up so that middle class and rich folks must go seriously out of pocket to afford plans that are inferior to what they have now. Either that or massive tax increases. There will probably be some attempt to hide the costs by putting the expense on employers. But the details about how she is going to pay for it won't be revealed until after she is president. They will be most unpleasant.
Almost certainly, she will completely centralize control over medical decisions into the federal government. So your knee replacement will wait upon the whims of some minority lesbian bureaucrat in the ministry of health. If that isn't in the initial plan, it will proceed inexorably there as the left struggles to fix a system that will never work and blames everyone but their beloved federal government.
Unless of course, you are poor or a minority.
So you're not planning on reaching age 65 I take it?
lovely
What does that have to do with anything? If I'm a healthy 65, then why waste money on something I don't need? If my needs are narrow (say I need prostate medicine, but everything else is fine), why spend money on a Big Plan when it will never get used. Throughout my working life, I have variously accepted and rejected medical plans. The only one I use regularly was eyecare, to get a new pair of glasses every few years. Anything else was a waste.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.