Posted on 11/30/2007 9:50:18 AM PST by FocusNexus
Presidential candidate and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) on Thursday in an interview said that, under his health care plan, U.S. residents who can afford to pay for health insurance could have their wages garnished or tax refunds withheld in the event that they do not obtain coverage, the Des Moines Register reports. The proposal would require all residents to obtain health insurance, with federal subsidies available to lower-income residents.
Edwards also said that the proposal would enroll uninsured residents in health plans when they use the health care system or public services. He said, "So if you don't have health coverage, and you go to the emergency room, you get enrolled. If you are a five- or six-year-old and you go to kindergarten or sign up for school, you get enrolled, if you're not on a health care plan. If you go to the library, you get picked up."
He added, "When somebody chooses not to be in our health care system, then what they're choosing is that the rest of America is going to pay for their health care" (Leys, Des Moines Register, 11/30).
In related news, the Register on Friday examined how voters "must decide ... if there are two John Edwardses" because, during his 2004 presidential campaign, he advocated a "gradual approach to health reform" but today he "embraces universal health care." According to the Register, his current health care proposal is "choreographed to endear him with his party's left in 2008."
(Excerpt) Read more at kaisernetwork.org ...
This is also Hillary's intentions - and Romney has already signed it into law in Mass...
Wake up, America
I was wondering where in the US Constitution the federal government was given the authority to compel citizens to have health insurance, but I think I found it in Article F, Section U, Subsection C, Paragraph K, sentences Y, O, and U.
12 Trillion Dollars laying in Mutual Funds all over Amerika.
Hillary will be told everything she needs to know on how to cover paying the health insurance for the nice folks buying Lottery tickets each day and paying off the debt on the 60k dollar Escalade! She can go to h*** and the rest of the democractic party can go with her
RE: “the possibility that mandatory health insurance, like mandatory car insurance, is justifiable”
To operate a motor vehicle in this state, one must purchase this minimum level of insurance coverage, and to breath in this state, one must ...?
You are confusing health care with health insurance. Have you noticed car repair body shops under more government regulations than hospitals ? Didn’t think so.
The real problem is the ERs and hospitals that cannot legally refuse patients, so all the uninsured use them for “free” healthcare.
We need to either get rid of the laws that mandate “free” treatment for all, or mandate insurance.
The current scheme cannot continue to work much longer.
I’d support mandatory health insurance if they make it HSA with high deductibles.
The same part that requires mandatory treatment of all by ERs without recourse to ability to pay. :)
At least auto insurance is private. What folks like Hillary, et al. have proposed is government-run health insurance. And, while I detest dealing with my auto insurer, I shudder at the thought of government bureaucrats deciding that it's time for any of us to go the way of the dodo.
thanks, bfl
Under the German model...you are automatically enrolled if you make less than $55k a year...and they automatically take the money from the employer and employee. There is no exemption. If you make $55k....you can make your own decision...public healthcare or private healthcare...your choice.
We need to either get rid of the laws that mandate “free” treatment for all, or mandate insurance.
Thank you, I was beggining to wonder If I was the only one in the house that sees it.
This is the only question.
Can we let people die because of their own choices?
hmmmm .. well?
My answer is yes we should, but you know that won’t fly in today’s feel-good world.
This is just my opinion all ... We need to get our heads out of the sand and come up with our versions of national health care. The current system is way broke and can't be fixed. You can't polish a turd! So, what are we doing, besides, bitchin? Nuttin! We are allowing the Libs to dictate exactly what we must settle for. Not one Republican is talking about it, other than, "We need to do something", for the past 20 years.
All Western nations have socialized health care. Name one candidate from any country running for public office who has ever said, "We need to stop free (sic) healthcare and turn everyone over to private insurers and leave them pay as they go or an option not to have any." Why is it that we say it would be terrible, when no one anywhere wants to give it up. Sure, there will be problems, but, 50 nations already did the 'try this, try that' we can learn from. We have socialized schools, police departments, libraries, fire departments, child care, etc.
Lack of portable, affordable healthcare for people under age 65 is terrible. How many people are locked into jobs they hate but must remain because of having healthcare, or, make their spouse work because of either being able to buy into their plan or just need the extra money to purchase privately. This has been a direct assault against our freedom and families for way too many years.
Veterans, handicap, federal government employees, and people over age 65 get American style national healthcare now. Why can't I buy into it? I don't hear one of those people bitchin.
Why don’t we just not accept people who don’t have health care? I mean we don’t allow people to attend a University unless they pay for it. You can’t go to a restaurant if you don’t pay for it. I say that either you pay for it or you leave. This would solve so much. Yes of course the liberals will bash me, but come on this is ridiculous. Just get the dang insurance.
For now.
At the state level the insurance industry itself is very heavily regulated. Many if not all states have "insurance commissioners," who are often popularly elected. Insurance premiums thus often reach seemingly absurd proportions, and insurance is certainly one of the industries for which public dissatisfaction is the greatest. That would, with mandatory health insurance, be even more true for health care than it is now.
Extending state control over health care and insurance turns it into just another zero-sum pressure-group struggle. And health care, unlike auto insurance, is an industry where the incentive to continue to innovate is of paramount importance. The more government control, the weaker this incentive becomes for risk-averse providers who never know what obligations the government will impose next. A mandate to purchase will be followed by even more mandates that this or that expense be covered, etc.
I do agree that part of the problem is that we expect health insurance to pay for almost all health expenditures, even routine ones, something we don't expect of our homeowners' insurance. If health insurance were really "insurance" in the classical sense it would have high deductibles or only cover catastrophic events. But this gold-plating is mostly because of mandates by the government and because employer-provided insurance benefits are tax-deductible, unlike salaries.
Military personnel will probably continue the way it is now. It is basically socialist medicine anyway.
A big part of the reason the current system is "way broke" is because of trial lawyers like John Edwards, who have made money hand over fist. Ask any doctor how many tests they have to order and other CYA activities they have to do, strictly so they can defend themselves against legal action.
Implement tort reform to make losing plaintiffs pay 100% of the defendant's legal and court costs. Give that system 10 years to sink in and change the way medical care is given. Then tell me if you think a socialized system would work better.
Nobody is forced to have car ins if they don’t have a car.
True, but what happens it you have a heart attack and don’t have insurance? Does that person pay the entire bill? If that is the case that I don’t care if people have insurance or not, but if the government picks up the tab than I have a problem with that. Do you know the answer to this?
What he said: “When somebody chooses not to be in our health care system, then what they’re choosing is that the rest of America is going to pay for their health care.”
What he meant: “When I force somebody to be in our health care system, then I’m forcing him to pay for someone else’s healthcare.”
Precisely!
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.