Hillary Clinton wants to garnish the wages of individuals that do not comply with her health care plan.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek...

Big difference.

so she wants to make this a part of her plan.  From an electoral standpoint, this would be a disaster.  The middle class would go nuts!  Hillary wants the goverenment to go into the checking account of a single mom and take her money she uses to pay her mortgage to house her family?  If someone does not sign up for the plan because they cannot afford it, how does garnishing their wages make them able to afford it?  This is nuts!!  And the government is going to garnish her wages month after  month, year after year?  

This plan is nothing but a plan for electoral disaster if Clinton is nominated.    

that Obama's plan simply will not solve the problem. You can read the link, above, but for a follow up, you can read Dean Baker's response to Krugman here at TPM:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme...

And Krugman's response to Baker here:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c...

It's actually not too deep in the weeds, and provides a great discussion of what the nub of the health care debate is.

I think it's very relevant, because once you get away from the issues of personality, spouses, etc., it represents one of the starker policy differences between these two candidates.

I agree that there are differences between their two plans -- I personally think that the idea of mandates in the current system is bad policy, but I haven't studied the issue enough to feel very confident in that assessment.

But I find it silly to make such a big fuss about this. NEITHER CANDIDATE'S PLAN ACHIEVES TRUE UNIVERSAL COVERAGE. Frankly, they're both playing a little bit of a game here. They both want to say they're for universal coverage without having to confront the right-wing verbal voodoo games that put progressives into intellectual seizures. Hillary is absolutely playing a game when she wants to enforce "a mandate" by "garnishing wages" -- IT'S A TAX; SAY IT. Similarly, Barack and his campaign team lack the truth and honesty to just admit they don't think universal coverage is doable at this point -- they are trying to split the difference and improve the situation utilizing the current employer-based health care coverage scheme. I believe that, in their hearts, both candidates would like to have a universal, single-payer scheme, but neither is willing to take a risk to say so, so both propose flawed plans that probably do improve the situation.

This is my biggest problem with both candidates. But if you think the 50.1% solution being better than the 49.9% solution is worth deciding the election on, that's not an illogical position and I can't say you're wrong to base your vote on such policy differences.

Regardless, neither candidate, once she/he is President, gets to just wave a wand and implement their plan. It depends completely on the composition of the Congress, especially the Senate. I believe Obama is more likely to get a Senate that is filibuster-proof by exciting more people to vote in November, especially in reddish states where there is great enmity (fairly or unfairly) towards Hillary.

I would love if one of them would get up there and say, "Screw it, no more tinkering around at the edges. Here's what I propose: the federal government will cover every single child in the United States, will cover all elderly citizens over 65, will cover all US military personnel and veterans and government workers and government pensioners (the latter group for life). The federal government will extend Medicare to all these groups, making one single-payer federal system. Next, we will work to extend catastrophic health insurance and preventive health insurance to every single American that does not belong to one of these further groups. We will pay for all this by increasing the payroll tax, and eliminating all income ceilings on the payroll and social insurance taxes, to make the system solvent and make Social Security solvent. Health insurance companies can then compete to figure out if there is a market for supplemental coverage that consumers seek and need to meet their health care needs. But the US government will meet the basic needs of all of its citizens." But no one is saying that, so we play these policy games.

I'm voting for Obama because, 1) he was right on Iraq, and has a much more progressive and much less hawkish group of foreign policy advisors, and seems to have much better foreign policy instincts than Hillary; 2) he is much more likely to provide the coattails that enable him, or some other President in the near future, to make that speech.

although I do think the Clinton plan gets closer to universal coverage. But, yes, there is a debate to be had.

I hear you on the coat-tails, but what Senate races, in particular, do you think Obama will affect. I honestly haven't looked at it closely enough.

It's not a slam-dunk, by any means, but there are about 4-6 races that are not "on the map" right now that I think could be competitive if things shake out right this summer and fall, and that I think Obama makes more winnable for our side:

1) North Carolina. Elizabeth Dole is not very popular, and North Carolina is very similar to Virginia as a purplish state that can go Blue with the right candidate. Kay Hagan is a popular state legislator, and if black voters are motivated to turn out en masse, I think we can upset Ms. Dole.

2) Kansas. Pat Roberts is similarly not very popular in Kansas, and Kathleen Sebelius and the state Democrats are winning the battle at the local level. I think tonight showed that Kansas Democrats are much more enthusiastic about Barack than Hillary.

3) Georgia. Saxby Chambliss is unpopular, and Georgia Dems have a solid candidate brewing in Josh Lanier. In order to compete in Georgia, we need the substantial black minority to be fired up.

4) Idaho. Larry LaRocco is a fantastic Dem candidate running as a progressive in a red state that has blue roots, similar to Montana (Frank Church, who investigated the abuses of the CIA and the FBI in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, and helped bring about the passage of FISA in the '70s, is still beloved out west, and LaRocco is running explicitly on Church's legacy and has Church's family's endorsement). This is the disgraced Larry Craig's seat, and the Republicans are balkanized fighting for the nomination. This is very uphill, but again I think, as tonight showed, that Idaho Dems are much more enthusiastic about a Barack candidacy.

5) Texas. In order to win in Texas, with a strong, progressive Dem Senate candidate in Rick Noriega, we need strong black and Latino participation. Again, I think Barack is more likely to bring about victory.

6) Nebraska. An open seat, there's a real opportunity here. I think Barack has a better chance to help drive up our chances here.

Just to show I'm not completely biased, I think Hillary would improve our chances to win in Kentucky and Tennessee, and maybe Oklahoma, although those races are all uphill, too. Barack could also potentially put Alabama on our map due to exciting the black voters there with the right candidate for the Senate seat (Ron Sparks), and maybe even Mississippi if Mike Moore changed his mind to run.

These are no where near slam dunks, and I respect any Dem who looks at both Barack and Hillary and comes down on Hillary's side. If you think Hillary's health care platform gets us closer to universal health care coverage, then I absolutely understand your vote. Mine is more a politics of what might be, because I think Barack has the ability to inspire people that otherwise will not go to the polls.

[Regardless of whether it's Barack or Hillary, I think the Democrats are going to pick up Senate seats in Virginia, New Mexico, Colorado, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Alaska, and Oregon, but we'll lose Louisiana. Maine will be another tossup, but even winning that will put us at best at 58 - 42, still subject to the whims of the Republican obstructionist tactics and the odious Joe Lieberman. We desperately need to get to 60, and I really believe Barack gets us there.]

Good rundown. I appreciate it.

One thing I will say is that the Democrats need to get to 60 without counting Joe  Lieberman. He can caucus where he wants next year, but once the Democrats don't need him anymore to control the Senate, he should be stripped of any chairmanship and every other privilege they can possibly strip him of.

I couldn't agree more but garnishing the wages of American workers who cannot afford the financial hit is absurd.  With the economy collapsing, the mortgage crisis deepening, etc., this idea will drive more middle class and working class families into financial ruin.  

Aznew, she wants to take bread out of the mouths of the children of working mothers who cannot afford to pay mortgages on the homes they evidently were once able to afford.  Now, because of the mortgage crunch, these mothers have to pay more monthly on their home and cannot pay both the Hillary socialist care health program and the house payments.  So, if the kid gets scarlet fever and is not covered, the mother can go to the emergency room of your nearby friendly hospital ER and get it treated cheaply (say, $475, which she can put on her VISA card).  If she had to give those payments to the Hillary socialistic healthcare mandatory fascist program, at a cool, say, $11 a month, sure it might be cheaper for that one time.  But suppose your kid is extremely unlucky and never has a major medical ailment for 16 years.  Look at the money you are out:  $11 per month X 12 mos X 16 years.  Wow!  Further, aznew, as we both know, most mothers who raise their kids NEVER have to take these kids for medical care; so you see, the socialized enforced payments are typical of how Hillary wants to take away our freedom to stay out of enforced medical slavery.

Further still, aznew, in my role again as teachersoccerdem, I'd put forth the idea that mothers should also be exempt from joining the Social Security program since that too is enforced and is taking bread away from the kiddies.  And when they age, as I have, why would they need Social Security income that they didn't pay for--after all, the money they saved was probably put into a 404K and worth a cool million.

Also, property taxes and state income taxes take the bread away from those working poor (how come, I wonder, if they're so poor, they are in a house, anyway?  When I and my latest spouse were poor we rented an inexpensive apt and did not extend ourselves in home ownership till we saved a few bucks.)  But I digress.  Whether homeowner or apt dweller, those mothers who Flipper writes about certainly should be allowed an exemption from joining the socialized medicine plan, should be exempt from from state taxes, Fed income taxes, and social security payments, all mandatory.  They definately should be allowed to gamble on their kids' health if they choose to, or, at least, the tiny infant should be asked if he/she wants mommy to be exempted from Hillarycare (by the way, little sweetkins, what's that oozing rash on your tush?; come, mommy will take you to the low-cost ER of our charitable neighborhood hospital). And the mama should NOT be allowed, of course, to call the police if she's robbed, the hospital for an ambulance, the fire dept, etc, if she has voluntarily exempted herself from these enforced-by-taxation socialistic money-grubbing enterprises.

I hope, aznew, I've enlightened you as once again I'm forced by dint of reason to take the side of your enlightened critics.

As Ayn Rand put it, "We must think of ourselves and not the community at large.  Only duty to ourselves, selfishness, if you may, can bring society to its fruition.  And if the poor, the feeble, the sick, and the nonachievers suffer, so be it, for this is the essence of Democracy."

 

I appreciate that you are a Libertarian, and so we'll never see eye-to-eye on these matters.

And no offense, for some of my closest friends are Libertarian, but your views have nothing to do with enlightened reason, and everything to do with a particular world view that you agree with that is the opposite of enlightened reason in that the world view, rather than the facts at hand, drive the result.

But Ayn Rand is a terrific storyteller.  

I'm no libertarian, rather, an old line left-wing totally liberal social-program-supporter who loves big govt and wants to see ALL people on health care, whether mandatory or not, whether they like it or not.

Aznew, you are one of the few voices of reasonable reason left here, it seems, and my spouse (driven away by the "popular delusions and the madness of crowds") and I fully enjoy your writings, along with Gordie--now also a switcher to another site with my much better half.

The quote by Ayn Rand--look it up and you'll find it not, but the spirit is hers.  Ain't it the ultimate in selfishness, the type of thinking that starry eyed college kids love until they get into some dire strait or get in touch with the better angels of their being and start to have pity for the unfortunate in life.

Twas all a sarcastic effort on my part to show how unreasonable is the view expressed by flipper and others.  That you got angry is fine, since you believed what I was writing was truth, but I certainly thought that the "charitable ER rooms--$475 and up--would have given my true thoughts away.