Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

Source: Associated Press


WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

Clinton said such measures would apply only to workers who can afford health coverage but refuse to buy it, which puts undue pressure on hospitals and emergency rooms. With her proposals for subsidies, she said, "it will be affordable for everyone."


Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaig...

---

One way or the other, something needs to do done. I realize her plan is just a concept in this discussion but what about people making minimum wage who are trying to pay rent, food, heat, gas with less than $900. a month take home? I guess two full time jobs without insurance might cover it? I don't know. Things are getting tough all over and with "RECESSION" either on the way, around the corner or at our doorstep already ...I don't know what we are all going to do in this country to address the needs.

as long as Big Pharma and Insurance make Big Profits. There is a reason she sought their input in her "plan". There is something terribly wrong with a country that profits off of people's lives.

my check was taken for health care. Great idea.

HRC has been committed to helping poor families all her life. She isn't going to do anything that will hurt them. The progressive income tax doesn't hurt them, and neither will this.

But universal health insurance has to have a universal mandate or it simply won't work. Part of the reason the Medicare system isn't working is that the costs aren't being spread to the entire population, including younger people. Also, providers can continue to raise their charges on the rest of the uninsured population with no consequences. If everyone is insured, and the system regulates ALL insurers and providers, then charges can be reined in -- insurers won't be able to cherry pick and no one will be able to price gouge.

Paul Krugman, the very progressive Princeton economist, has written at length about why any insurance plan must have a universal mandate. Hillary's can and will be developed so as not to be one more burden on the poor -- those people who are now either putting off care and waiting till they end up in the hospital emergency rooms. We can do much better for them, and for all Americans.

'truth-mongering?'

be done, but there is every reason, based on her Senate record and career of working for poor families, to believe that this won't be an additional burden for the families that are barely making it now.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Please fill in. This is the results of 35 years of 'work'.

He ended up vetoing it. Later, she voted for a compromise bill in the Senate, then opposed it after it was altered in a way that hurt women getting child support.

She worked to bring universal health care to this country but was stopped by the Republican Congress. She'll be in a very different position with a Democratic Congress.

She has been a consistent and strong advocate of a woman's right to control her own body. And she has been a consistent and strong advocate of women's and children's rights being a part of HUMAN RIGHTS, including making a statement before the UN in defiance of the Bush administration.

For the rest, you can do your own research. I'm not going to fill in your little chart. You give away your own misogyny when you put the word "work" in quotes.

And voted in favor of one that didn't pass; then changed her position to oppose it when it was altered in a way that hurt women getting child support payments.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/clinton-a... /

Obama, by the way, has received more contributions from banking interests than she has.

Americans for Thinking before you Decide

Universal healthcare does not. And that's the problem. Keeping the insurance companies in the loop makes it so that garnished wages go right into the pockets of her big campaign donors.

And I disagree that the progressive income tax doesn't hurt poor people.

There are always people who are going to be on that cusp of being able to "afford" and "choosing not to buy". Where that line is...who can say? But I'm sure it will err on the side of making sure Big Pharma and the insurance companies continue to make a mint off of the suffering of others. I can't imagine the insurance companies are going to go for this either if they don't get to continue business as usual (denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, not covering things recommended by MDs, taking premiums for years and then ducking out of paying big claims because someone didn't dot the Is and cross the Ts on their applications).

We only have the choice between Obama's plan, which won't cover millions of people, and HRC's, which will cover everyone. The liberal economist at Princeton, Paul Krugman, has examined the plans and says that HRC's and Edwards were economically feasible because of the mandate. Obama's plan was not.

Both HRC's and Edwards plans had a government (non-private insurer) option, and both candidates acknowledged that that option might be chosen by so many people that the private companies wouldn't be able to compete. Eventually this could lead to a de-facto single payer system.

I'm not going to "get over it". I'm going to continue to work and fight for reasonable coverage for all Americans that doesn't penalize them for not having the money to do it. If we can all buy into this "government plan", why not just start with that and leave out Big Pharma and the insurance cos?

Is simply letting corporate health care make even more obscene profits. If you are going to have mandatory universal health care, then you also must make it non-profit and single payer. Otherwise you are handing the insurance industry a monopoly with which to suck America dry.

This is especially disturbing in light of the fact that it will encourage corporate America to drop health insurance as an employment benefit.

This is just one more reason not to vote for Hillary.

She'll be allowing the government plan to compete against the private insurers, and has acknowledged that it's likely the government plan will achieve significant savings and the private insurers will lose the competition. And it's not a problem for her if this puts the private health insurance companies out of business.

There is nothing about Obama's plan which is better for consumers than HRC's, and hers has the advantage that it will cover everybody and is economically feasible. I like Obama, but I wish he was pushing a plan more like HRC's and Edwards.

The cutoff line could be such that while the poor will be covered, the middle class will be screwed. In fact looking at Hillary's plan, this looks like a certainty. Like I also said, it will also encourage employers to drop health insurance as a benefit, again screwing the middle class. Furthermore, Hillary has speculated that having insurance would be a prerequisite for getting a job. And finally, part of this plan includes a nice hefty payoff to the insurance industry with our tax dollars

This is not a good plan, this is nothing more than the way that Hillary is going to pay back her corporate masters in the insurance agency. The only active candidate getting more insurance money is Mitt, which means that Hillary has a lot of favors to pay back.

I'm not impressed with Obama's plan either, but I think that mandating health insurance for all is going to wind up screwing us all.

why Edwards and Clinton's plans would work, and why Obama's wouldn't. I trust him on this more than I do the individual campaigns.

My wife, and I think that I trust her more than somebody who not only has a definitive partisan bent, but who was also part of the Reagan White house and served as an Enron adviser. My wife has just as much education and doesn't have the same biases as Krugman.

One year as a token liberal on Reagan's Council of Economic Advisors didn't change that.

But I'd love to hear your wife's take on how we could have an economically viable health insurance policy that allowed people to stay out of the system until they thought they needed it.

that they would end up making a very inexpensive plan available for people that don't want insurance but have to have it because it is mandated. A plan that would satisfy the mandate but not give any actual insurance converge of any use. I don't like any of the plans I have read about either.

Raebrek!!!

The policies will be subsidized so everyone can afford them.

Think it through.

and sign up for a government run plan like Medicare. The private insurers may well have trouble competing on a cost basis with the govt. plan, since the private insurers will want their profit. So both HRC and Edwards (whose plan was quite similar) acknowledged that this might drive the private insurers out of business -- and result eventually in single payer for all.

garnishing SS payments. Is that a sin? If you had Universal Health care it has to be paid buy someone. We would all have to contribute. Wages is the easiest method of payment. People who refuse to get health care when it is offered deserve no health care at all . No emergency room care nothing at all. People without health care now can't help it but when it is universal they will be covered. Your paying now for those who don't have health care. Your insurance rates go up and the hospitals must pay for it.

I, for one, would happily pay a tax for guaranteed single-payer healthcare, but am very much against being forced to purchase insurance from a private corporation that will cut corners and deny claims to pad their bottom line.

If you don't want to subsidize private insurance then buy into a government plan.

Why are Obama supporters lying about Clinton's plan?

and employees' own private plans.

The government plans will compete with the private plans and if the private insurers can't make enough profit to suit them, they will get out of the business. HRC and Edwards both recognized that this would be a likely effect of their plans down the road, and that their plans might well lead to universal single payer as private insurers drop out of the business..

I remember this being in JE's plan, but I did not realize HC was on board with that. Can you link to it, please, I'd like to read more about it--if this is the case, I just might go vote for her tomorrow (I'm in MA).

Very predictable developments lie in wait if this plan is adopted.

and choose a government run plan instead. You should familiarize yourself with at least the basics.

She will give all people the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan /

private insurers, from a range of 250 plans. People will have the same choices as members of Congress have given themselves.

Posters here (notably the one I responded to) gleefully post false information that could be damaging to a candidate, not unlike the tactic of Karl Rove and the radical right.

it's called "democracy". Get over it.

Don't tell me to "get over it", Karl!

our democracy has been getting such suck-ass results.

And I'm sure Senator Obama would agree.

All she's talking about doing is pooling government employees for enrollment in private insurance.

It's the same thing.

She will give all people the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan /

Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for health care.
Available: No discrimination. The insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.
Reliable: It's portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.


If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

Small businesses are the engine of new job growth in the U.S. economy but face bigger challenges when it comes to providing health care for their employees. Hillary would give tax credits to small businesses that provide health care to their workers to help defray their coverage costs. This will make small businesses more competitive and help create good jobs with health benefits that will stay here in the US.

Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium. And like other things that you buy, they will have to compete for your business based on quality and price. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose their jobs, they won't lose their coverage.

The failures of this plan are as follows
1. Who are 'working' people?
2. What does affordable mean? Is it like Romney-care in mass?
3. What mechanism holds the rate down?
4. What keeps the healthcare system from being overwhelmed?

Right now, there is no incentive for docs or insurers to keep costs or premiums down. Also there is no incentive for doctors to convince others to stay healthy.

Doctors push pills to manage illness rather than cures. How do we stop this?

How do we convince a nation of stupid Americans to eat healthy, exercise, and take care of themselves?

would not involve giving our money to insurance companies. All of her plans, even the government pooling plan, do exactly that.

She's offering a Medicare-type option or options.

She will give all people the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan /

If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

Might it have something to do with the fact that they make laws affecting insurance companies? What if they are forced to accept lots of chronically sick people? What do you think will happen to the premiums?

the government run plans. If the government plans achieve the savings that they should (by eliminating the profit factor), then the private health insurance companies are going to lose the competition. That will be one route -- albeit an indirect route -- to an eventual single-payer, government run system. Edwards had the same basic proposal, by the way.

The private insurers are going to have to accept all people, they won't be able to cherry pick. If they can't keep their premiums low enough to compete with the government plans on that basis, then they'll have to get out of the business.

And no one will miss them.

That's how they compete now, and it won't change if we are forced to subsidize them. Private insurers are paying Clinton and Obama precisely because they intend to insist on cherrypicking, no matter what their beneficiaries say on the campaign trail.

and eventually the private insurers will find themselves out of the health insurance business.

No one will be forced to subsidize the private insurers. Both Edwards and Clinton have recognized that their government run options may eventually put private insurers out of business.

And most people will never, ever get expensively sick. They will keep their private insurance simply out of inertia, which will continue to suck health care dollars away from public plans. You will never get fucked over like the people in SiCKO unless you get really sick. Most people won't have that happen to them. In any given year, half the population has NO HEALTH CARE EXPENSES WHATSOEVER!

That's a laugh.

In every single age demographic, 20% of the population accounts for 80% of the costs. That's why we have to cut out private insurance and share the ristk.

doesn't mean that they won't get very sick or badly hurt in an accident in another year. You're thinking that it's the same 20% of the population that consistently accounts for most of the costs. It isn't. And everybody dies, eventually, and the last few months of care also account for a huge chunk of costs.

None of us are exempt from the risks -- even you. That's why we need to have universal health care and share the risk.

HRC's plan doesn't cut out private insurance, but that option isn't out there anymore. Obama's doesn't either, and Edwards was just like Clinton's. Both Edwards' and Clinton's plans allow people to sign up for government plans that will compete on a cost basis with the private insurers -- which could well drive the private insurers out of the health care business.

If a lot of sick people sign up for government plans, the private insurers behind them will quickly make the rates unaffordable. As long as most people don't get expensively sick, private insurers will continue to drain the pool of health care dollars.

private insurers "behind" the government plan, waiting to take their profit. There will be government run, Medicare-like plans (not run by private insurers) which will COMPETE with private insurers. The government plans won't be trying to make a profit, which will put the private insurers at a competitive disadvantage. That is fine with Clinton (as it was with Edwards) and she's acknowledged that it could be a step toward universal single-payer (if the private insurers drop out because too many customers desert them for the government plans).

You're in for a rude awakening someday when you or a loved one ends up in the hospital with a serious accident or illness. You'll think back and realize how callous and naive you were.

All plans including private insurance guarantee that health care dollars will be diverted away from public plans, which will be second rate plans for sick people only. The callous and naive people are the ones who persist in thinking that any system allowing for profit insurancea to continue to exist can possibly work. I know all about serious illness, having gone hungry as a kid because my parents couldn't get insurance at any price and everything was out of pocket.

Customers will not desert private insurance as long as they stay healthy, as it is the line of least resistance to keep doing what they have been doing all along. We already have Medicare Advantage competing with regular Medicare, and it is causing an unbelievable amount of damage. Most people will never get expensively sick, and so will have no motive to change.

will never get expensively sick. It must be important to you to feel that you're in that group. But no one can know ahead of time, no matter how virtuous and careful a life they lead, what sort of health catastrophe could happen to them in the future.

The funding for the public plans will come from the same place as the private plans -- people, or their employers, will pay premiums based on a small percentage of their income. Medicare isn't a "second rate plan" and it won't become one if more people are allowed to join.

It's the private plans that will have trouble competing, not the public, because they will not be allowed to cherry pick their insured, and will have to accept people regardless of preexisting conditions. Then they will have to COMPETE on prices with the public plans -- and yet still make a profit.

Personally, I would be happy to be able to enroll in the same range of plans that Congress people have available to them.

http://www.ahrq.gov/research/ria19/expendria.htm

See above for the small percent of the total population that accounts for most health care costs.

"The researchers concluded that there is a substantial leveling of expenses across a population when looking over several years or more compared to just a single year.

"An acute episode of pneumonia or a motor vehicle accident might lead to an expensive hospitalization for an otherwise healthy person, who might be in the top 1 percent for just that year but have few expenses in subsequent years. Similarly, many people have chronic conditions, such as diabetes and asthma, which are fairly expensive to treat on an ongoing basis for the rest of their lives, but in most years will not put them at the very top of health care spenders. However, each year some of those with chronic conditions will have acute episodes or complications requiring a hospitalization or other more expensive treatment.


__________

In other words, the people in the top few percent, whose health care costs are highest, are NOT mostly the same people every year. Therefore, "there is a substantial leveling of expenses across a population" over a period of years.

The one group that is most likely to have persistently higher costs, of course, is the elderly. And, barring sudden death, most of us will face high health costs in the last months of our lives.

--your chances of getting expensively sick are only somewhat higher than the chances that your house will catch fire. That is why health care and fire protection must be PUBLIC GOODS, period.

could lower their premiums because the really sick could switch to the government plan. It almost sounds like a big bone is being tossed to the private insurance companies.

Raebrek!!!

which is happening in Canada and England and the same will happen here. Sure you can get the "cheap" government policy with the long waits and not so cutting edge but you can get better care if you can afford a private policy (psst. just how it's always been)

at hardly any cost? I'll buy tickets to that.

This is why i cannot stand 'mandatory' enrollment ideas. Either, you are forcing ME to pay a private insurance company money, or you are subsidizing corporate profits by having public plans that help people 'purchase' health insurance. Why waste our money on a system that doesn't work?

And would you support health coverage being mandatory if it was already paid?

Eliminate the middle man (insurance companies) in health coverage.

Hmmm isn't that what Republicans and Libertarians demand? Eliminate the middle man.

<i>Eliminate the middle man (insurance companies) in health coverage.</i>

Now the middle man will be the government, the same government that can't account for billions in Iraq, is currently getting scammed for $33 billion (7.5%) every year in Medicare, and that handled Katrina so well. Politics will get into this and pork will be everywhere. Do you really think it'll be any cheaper? The main advantage will be that the various abuses, such as health insurance companies dropping people when they finally get really sick after 30 years of on-time payments, may stop.

I do have one big question that I would like to see addressed by any legislation enacting universal health care. Currently it is possible to sue your insurance company when they screw you over. Will we be able to sue the government?

The Bush administration has been using the departments of government as profit making centers for their cronies to a degree that would have been unimaginable in the past. This will end.

Pork, corruption and inefficiency existed since long before Bush, and it will exist long after. Bush is an amateur or he's very good at faking dumb. Tammany Hall, Teapot Dome, Credit Mobilier, star route fraud, Dan Rostenkowski et. al. with the congressional post office, Keating Five (which includes one of the current candidates), I could go on.

For this to end we first have to break the power of the parties, and that's not happening. You see what they're doing to Kucinich for rocking the boat too much. You see what the Republicans are doing to Ron Paul.

Bush has deliberately turned it into nothing but a profit center for Republicans.

The Democrats, on the other hand, actually believe that government can work for people. Either HRC or Obama will do their best to see that it does. If you're going to argue that our remaining candidates are as bad as the Rethugs, then I don't know what you're doing still on this board.

"The Democrats, on the other hand, actually believe that government can work for people."

In theory, yes. But the current lot in power are for the most part full of pork and beholden to the entrenched profit power structure. Someone like Kucinich could have helped break them out of that, which is why he wasn't allowed to be the nominee, and Pelosi isn't even listening to him in the House.

"If you're going to argue that our remaining candidates are as bad as the Rethugs"

Not even close. I give Obama a small chance of achieving a change in government to efficiently work for the people. I don't expect anything out of Clinton. I expect things to get worse under the Republicans since they've learned what they can get away with, even while having a Democratic Congress.

like Medicare -- you WON'T BE MANDATED to choose a private insurer, but you will have that option, if you think it offers rates and benefits that you prefer to the government plans.

There is every likelihood that the government plans are going to win out over the long run, because of the savings they will achieve due to eliminating the insurers' profit.

She will give all people the option of choosing a government run plan like Medicare.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan /

If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

Small businesses are the engine of new job growth in the U.S. economy but face bigger challenges when it comes to providing health care for their employees. Hillary would give tax credits to small businesses that provide health care to their workers to help defray their coverage costs. This will make small businesses more competitive and help create good jobs with health benefits that will stay here in the US.

Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium. And like other things that you buy, they will have to compete for your business based on quality and price. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose their jobs, they won't lose their coverage.

The Congressional plans have more than 250 options. I'd be thrilled to have their choices.

Both she and Edwards realize that the government run plans they proposed are likely to pose stiff competition to the private insurers and that, in competition with those, the private companies may not survive. And that's perfectly fine with HRC.

A country where the hedge fund managers pay 15% on their billions in terms of the tax rate table.

But the janitor also pays 15%. And the school teacher 22% to 28%. (Depending on who the teacher is married to, and other jobs worked etc.)

Let's see Hillary go after the hedge fund managers. Let's see her alter her cozy little relationship with these people.

When Bill CLinton was in office he dropped the tax on the wealthiest of incomes from 28% to 22%.

You give me an equitable and progressive taxation system and I won't whimper one bit about paying some of the costs of Universal Health Care.

But the middle income citizen is now paying the most taxes in the most regressive way of any citiazen on earth! (Yes, taxes in Europe are higher but many of those are due to VAT's, and with the taxes comes the health insurance.)

But I will still demand that it be Single Payer god damn it.

Not a penny should continue to go to those corrupt executives inthe insurance companies. These people have stressed us out while we are trying to work and take care of the very loved ones whom they deny deserved care. These executives have stonewalled us on policies that we hare paying hundreds of dolalrs a month on. And they have outright SLAUGHTERED many Americans.

They need to be cut out of the system, like any cancer would be cut out.

And Hillary, their gal pal, is not gonna be the one to do it.

hedge funders then a flat percentage of income would be fair for health care. Say 2% of your gross income if you make minimum wage that would be about $5.00 per week, if you make $50,000 per week it would be about $1000.00 per week. Seems fair to me. No need to concern ourselves with what is and isn't covered. If it is deemed necessary by your physician then it's covered, period! My guess is that the "tax" would have to be higher, maybe as high as 17%??? Anyone know?

Her plan would cost the "Averge family of four" who makes $ 24,000 a year ONLY $ 4,000.

Where the average family of four on that income would get that money I don't know.

The thing is, 15% is simply not a fair tax for the hedge fund managers.

The whole income tax needs to be re-structured. Go up to 35% for people whose discretionary income is in the tens of millions.

That's where the money is.

$4000 a year works out to be roughly $77 per week or $307 per month.

Lets look at your 24,000 a year family of 4. We will figure they get paid weekly for this, and that they have no state income tax which is a rarity.

24,000 a year is 461.53 a week.

With 3 exceptions they would pay the following taxes out of that.

10.58 federal income tax
28.61 FICA
6.69 Medicare

That leaves $415.65 a week after taxes, $1662.60 per month.

The average three bedroom house in my area goes for $750-$1200 a month Lets say $800 for a reasonable estimate.

That leaves 862.60 a month for bills

Lets say $200 a month food

$662.60

$70 a month for car insurance

$592.60

$100 for electric (low ball especially in winter)

$492.6

$50 gas and water

$442.6

$200 car payment

$242.6

$140 for gas ($35 per week)

$102.6

$70 expanded basic cable tv and broadband internet

$32.6

Lets say a $25 minimum credit card payment.

That leaves us with $7.60

Wheres that $307 susposed to come from? I didn't figure clothing, school supplies, medical and dental care, insurance co-pays.

And Hillary wants to make it mandatory?

if that was all I was making, I would not have cable or broadband internet because this is a luxury and not necessary for survival, so that saves me 70.00, I would not have a credit card so that saves me another 25.00, and at the income you are using that is below the federal poverty guidelines for a family of that size so they would qualify for low income housing, food stamps, and at least a state medical card for the kids.

So, lets see, no cable saves 70.00, food stamps saves 200.00 low income housing would save 800.00 (not really saves the full amount, section 8 housing goes on a sliding scale so lets say for arguments sake rent is 250.00 which is a savings of 550.00). That all equals approx 825.00 less than you budgeted out. More than likely I would not have a credit card so that is another 25.00 per month not going out.

The conditions you describe are what we would call cruel and inhuman if you subjected someone in prison to them. It's clear you never had to live on 24,000 a year its' hard for one much less four.

I also call into question if a family of 4 making 24,000 a year would qualify for the public benefits you suggest as a valid option.

MUCH less, but thats not the point here.

Ok I was wrong, the federal poverty guidelines for a family of 4 is 21,000. But the rest of my post still stands, if your making that little you would not have cable and broadband internet, would more than likely not have a credit card. How is considering broadband internet and cable considered inhumane?

I dont see where you consider anything I posted cruel or inhumaine but thats ok. Btw, as I said at the start of this post I have lived on less than that amount, lived in a rooming house for 50.00 a week, paid my child support, and guess what if I wanted to get online I would go to the local library. Did I like it? hell no, but I survived.

Without, I will agree with every friggin' thing you say.

And please don't give me that crap that they work hard. The ones I have known have spent ample time on the golf courses, with the secretary doing the work. But their cute little insider deals give them the right to their title ("I'll see that the 4200 employeess I manage here at Mega Insurance have only your hospital to go to as their choice, if you get me a seat on the Hospital Board of Directors."

those in upper management do get away with too much, but, just because they do does not mean that those of us at the lower end of the ladder dont have to sacrifice luxuries just to get by. Does that make it right? hell no it doesnt, but, if anybody thinks that if Hillary or Obama get into the White House that things will change dramatically for those of us down here at the lower end living paycheck to paycheck they are sadly mistaken. I am sad to be this way but its the way I am and until I am proven wrong i will continue to feel this way. We had homelessness, poverty, struggling to make ends meet during Carter, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, and Bush 2, it wont go away no matter who is in power, the ONLY way to make things change is for each person to do it for themselves.

The explosion in homelessness occurred under Reagan. I know, I was one of Reagan's "pioneers" in mass homelessness.

your cheap ass budget sucks big time , we ownly have 1 shot in life , we are born and doomed to die , why and the hell should all these people do with out and eat shit and die , live your life to the fullest and let thesse rich ass hole pony up for the least among us , this dam country is going ass back word , we need to turn this shit around and get some help for the bottem end of the latter , fuck the top end , there is no shit head rich shit that needs 3 or 4 homes and shit up the yahoo in life well the poor just drag along and finally die

Most states finance welfare at less than 100% of the standard of NEED NOT the poverty level. For those states that use the poverty level, no state that I know of gives ANY subsidy for anyone over 100% of the poverty level.

For example, my home state of Pennsylvania has the "Medically Needed only" "MNO" Program. To be eligible for it you MUST be below the following:
APPENDIX G
MONTHLY
MEDICALLY NEEDY INCOME LIMITS
(MNIL)

1 PERSON $408
2 PERSONS $442
3 PERSONS $467
4 PERSONS $567
5 PERSONS $675
6 PERSONS $758

The other medical program is the Non-money Payment plan (NMP) this covers people on SSI and Welfare. Limits are as follows:
1 Person $ 468
2 persons $ 751
3 persons $ 984
4 persons $1225
5 persons $1463
6 persons $1654
Each Additional Person $224

The actual regulations:
http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/055/chapter181/chap18...

NOTICE NONE OF THESE EXCEED THE STANDARD OF NEED OF $637 per month (This is also the SSI payment). Basically if you are on SSI you are one welfare Medical coverage. Pennsylvania is considered GENEROUS when it comes to welfare. The South income guideline is even less.

They are other programs (The Healthy Horizon program for the elderly is one) that uses higher cut off, but the above are the most common cut offs in Pennsylvania. Most states have even less programs AND uses lower numbers for eligibility (And Pennsylvania has NOT changed its numbers since 1990 except in regard to SSI, which goes up every year). CHIP is another program that uses higher guidelines.

My point is the Federal poverty level IS ABOVE the level where most states cut off assistance.

Side-note: They is a Federal Program to help hospitals built with federal aid to provide assistance to people who can NOT pay their bills. It helps people NOT eligible for Welfare but can NOT pay their hospital bill. but only kicks in AFTER the patient has run up the bill and been unable to pay the bill (Hill-Burton Act)

Except maybe as a college student.

First of all where I live, a phone pretty much requires cable. I can go with AT &T for $ 16 a month, but then if I make a few long distance calls which I need to do for my business, I would be spending $ 100 a month w/ AT & T.
So we have opted to go wth the full cable package for $ 100 a month, which includes internet - also needed for business.

If we just did the phone and the internet, we would pay $ 85.00 - the company throws in the TV cable for $ 15 which gives us entertainment- something I can't afford otherwise.

Second of all, If the family is getting 1663 dollars a month, and they get any money, any money at all extra, they won't qualify for anything. (As it is they are exactly at the optimal amount they can apply for any services at.)

Grandma sends one kid twenty bucks for a birthday, etc they qualify for nothing. California right now does insure kids - so this hypothetical family only has two members, the parents, not insured. (The CA program comes from Schrip program and cigarette taxes.)

Second of all, they probably won't get housing costs. You can sign up for Section 8 housing, but there are always waiting lists. SO maybe years from now they will get on.

They may get the $ 200 for food stamps. So you are asking them to go on Food Stamps so they have an extra two hundred to go to the new mandated health insurance. Why not just have the darn government pay the insurance.

But what you are suggesting is the old fashioned Democratic way.

Involve food stamp workers, I guess those people are not making a wage, welfare workers, they don't cost the government anything either, then give the applicant $ 200 in Food Stamps but take it back for the insurance.

Then let's be sure and keep the promise to the insurance executives that they get their 20% off the top of the government mandated health insurance programs - we can't have insurance execs going on Food Stamps can we?

IMHO Revamp the income tax code, tax the rich. Denmark has their entire Nation Single Payer Universal Plan on twelve pieces of paper.

This was back in the mid 90's up till about 2000. I was not a college student, I worked in a factory making seat frames for GM at a supplier making 9 bucks an hour. Take out child support and taxes, there was not a whole lot left for me. Usually under 100.00 a week unless I worked overtime. There was a phone in the boarding house for the residents to use, so no private phone.

I dont know the exact levels for funding as I never applied for them, I just survived and hoped things would turn out better for me. They did when my dad asked me to move back home to help out around the house and I eventually met my wife and got remarried. As far as section 8 housing, there are other programs, (or at least there were years ago when the church I went to owned a house that they would help homeless families out by letting them stay there untill they could get things together) and in the town I live in there is more section 8 housing than need because there are always empty apartments in the complex behind where I live. In bigger cities yea I can see the waiting list problem but I know that certain rental properties ie: houses also qualify under section 8 and a family can live there if the landlord is in the program.

My biggest thing in comparing this country to others is do they have the same population, the same layout as far as country and city living? I dont think you can compare Denmark to the US, and as far as taxing the rich, you can only tax them so much before they start either leaving, hiding their money more than they do now, or whatever other tricks they use before the effects start hitting those of us down here looking up.

Something needs to be done, but, I am not 100% convinced that a federal government ran health care program is the answer.

I worked part time and went to school. A time came when money was squeaky tight and I brought home $35.00 a week. It was only me living off of it and after talking to my land lady about it I got her to take the rent weekly. I paid $25.00 a week for rent and that left $10.00 for food. nothing else. I always pity the day my children complain about not having enough money. Then I will tell them that tale. I walked everywhere and I had lots of time to study. That was in the early 80's.

Raebrek!!!

on that small income. And you'd end up owing more money than above every month. In fact if you were 4 people living on $24k a year you'd be badly in debt by now and hoping your income would go up.

to have a credit card, I did not have one, now the only ones I have are the ones my wife has. I still have no credit cards and do not want them. I survived this long without one and I am 41 years old, so I dont think I need one.

Can just quit going to Aspen in the summer, and the Riviera in the winter.<sarcasm meant>

Those numbers you're throwing around have no connection to her plan.

Her plan now is virtually the same as Edwards, and she will make it affordable.

please give source for your information regarding top rate 28% was dropped to 22%. was this individual or corporation taxes? i think info is full of shit, since i was part of that tax adjustment.

And that guest had a book out. Bill Moyers said something to the effect that the book made him aware of many thing he wasn't aware of President Clinton doing.

the guest responded with the factoid that Buill Clinton had made the first drop in the income tax for the wealthy. From 28% (or maybe it was 29%) down to 22%.

ANd of course, compounding the problem, President Bush continued with the tax cuts for the wealthier. From 22% down to 17 or 18%.

David Cay Johnston

With all the talk of change coming out of the campaigns, can we expect big money to lose its grip on Washington? Bill Moyers interviews NEW YORK TIMES investigative reporter and Pulitzer Prize-winner David Cay Johnston who says America's system has been rigged to benefit the super-rich.

Johnston is the best-selling author of PERFECTLY LEGAL: THE COVERT CAMPAIGN TO RIG OUR TAX SYSTEM TO BENEFIT THE SUPER RICH--AND CHEAT EVERYBODY ELSE. Johnston's latest book, FREE LUNCH: HOW THE WEALTHIEST AMERICANS ENRICH THEMSELVES AT GOVERNMENT EXPENSE AND STICK YOU WITH THE BILL, explores the power of lobbyists and wealthy donors to manipulate government policies such as regulation, taxes, and subsidies to enrich themselves at tax-payers' expense.


There are lots of problems with the government. I've spent my life exposing all sorts of problems with government. But government is fundamentally essential. Government is what creates for us civilization. We created this country so that we could be free, so that we could pursue our lives the way that we want to pursue them. And wealth is a byproduct of that. But the government is being turned into a vehicle not to ensure our liberties and create a level playing field but instead into a vehicle to take from the many to enrich the few.

David Cay Johnston
Born in San Francisco in 1948, David Cay Johnston began his journalism career in 1968 by talking his way into becoming the youngest reporter at the SAN JOSE MERCURY AND NEWS, where he covered local governments, student radicals, and land use. After a three-year stint as an investigative reporter with the DETROIT FREE PRESS, Johnston spent twelve years with the LOS ANGELES TIMES reporting national news, entertainment news, the Los Angeles Police Department and sundry other topics. Beginning in 1988, he reported on the casino industry for the PHILADELPHIA ENQUIRER and briefly served as assistant business editor before joining the NEW YORK TIMES to cover taxes, tax evasion, and the Internal Revenue Service.
Johnston won the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting "for his penetrating and enterprising reporting that exposed loopholes and inequities in the U.S. tax code, which was instrumental in bringing about reforms." He had previously been nominated in 2000 and in 2003 was again nominated both for Beat Reporting and National Reporting. That year, he also received recognition by Investigative Reporters and Editors with a Book of The Year award for PERFECTLY LEGAL.

In addition to his reporting, David Cay Johnston studied economics at the University of Chicago graduate school and at six other institutions, earning several years of college credits but no degree because he enrolled primarily in upper level and graduate level courses.

Hillary's plan takes an incremental approach -- people will have the OPTION of joining a government run plan -- but she recognizes that as more and more people do so (due to cost savings and benefits), the private insurers will face stiff competition and may wither away.

The current marginal tax rate on the highest incomes is not 22%. You are referring to the alternative minimum tax. My cousin is an accountant and she has MANY high-income clients who pay much more than that. When you add the top marginal rate (35%) to Social Security and state and local taxes, total income taxes can easily reach into the 40's.

--with the "option" of buying into a public fire department. Any plan except single payer amounts to starving the public plan to subsidize private insurance.

But then, I don't have to make up excuses on not giving this country citizen's what they need -
I'm not the ones running for office using tens of millions of dollars provided to me by the insurance industries of America.

Or go into "helping encourage George W's diplomatic efforts with Saddam Husein" overnight, but let's not allow the citizens of the USA to receive an item that is considered a human right (by most other nations at least.)

And all because of the horrible relationship between campaign financing and how it results in what and how an issue is voted on.

I am talking about the sort of tax break that the mega rich have received from both Pres. Clinton and George Bush - the sort of people who don't even worry about Social Sec and its onerous effect on the average salary - because they make a thousand times the cut off point for Social security payments.

I am not talking about anyone whose salary is less than probably a half million or so.