Hillary: I may garnish your wages to pay for my Universal Health Care plan

Little-Acorn

Little-Acorn

New member
But don't worry, she said. She'll first have the government check your means and lifestyle to see if you can afford to lose that money. After the government decides how your money is better spent, THEN they'll take it.

Hope that makes you feel better about her plans for you.

Remember, you still DO have choice: You can choose whether to elect her or not. If you elect her, that may be the last choice you see for a long, long time.

-------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

by CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Sun Feb 3, 11:40 AM ET

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."
 
Little-Acorn said:
But don't worry, she said. She'll first have the government check your means and lifestyle to see if you can afford to lose that money. After the government decides how your money is better spent, THEN they'll take it.

Hope that makes you feel better about her plans for you.

Remember, you still DO have choice: You can choose whether to elect her or not. If you elect her, that may be the last choice you see for a long, long time.

-------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080203/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_31

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

by CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
Sun Feb 3, 11:40 AM ET

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."
Click to expand...

What is best for YOU.... just ask Hillary, she knows what is best for you.
 
and if you don't enroll in Hillery care you run the risk of being a criminal, as everyone is required by law to sign up.
 
Man I hope they nominate her, I just can't contain my excitement.

"I've got a million idea's and America can't afford them all" Hillery Clinton Nov 2007
 
OK, if your taxes go up by 3%, but you're not paying any money for healthcare anymore, isn't that a net positive for the US? I think so. Anyone with common sense knows so.
 
Damocles said:
This is going to be the funnest election year in my lifetime. Seriously.
Click to expand...

Well, the journey might be a hoot, but the arrival may be bad news indeed.

The Democrats are fielding an almost-identical field of candidates, that is the farthest-left in the country's history. Even George McGovern never proposed forced enrollment and outright confiscation of people's wages when running his campaign.

Fortunately, there was a relatively conservative alternative in Richard Nixon, whom voters decided was far preferable to McGovern despite the growing Watergate scandal, giving Nixon a landslide victory.

This time, there is no candidate that conservative, and their comparatively clean records may not be enough to get them elected.

Careful what you wish for, Damocles. Bungee jumping is fun, until the moment you find out the hard way that the elastic cords are too long. >:-O
 
Obama's plan has an opt-out option. That's one of the reasons I support Obama. I see no reason why making the plan mandatory would reduce its costs.
 
Watermark said:
OK, if your taxes go up by 3%, but you're not paying any money for healthcare anymore, isn't that a net positive for the US? I think so. Anyone with common sense knows so.
Click to expand...

Gotta love that. It's OK to turn over more and more power over your life to an indifferent, overbearing bureaucracy... as long as they only charge you a little for the privilege!

There speaks the quintessential modern liberal! :lolup:

Obama's plan has an opt-out option. That's one of the reasons I support Obama. I see no reason why making the plan mandatory would reduce its costs.
Click to expand...
Republicans have an even better opt-out option: You don't have to sign up in the first place, because they OPPOSE socialized health care!

This just keeps getting better. Democrats offer a disasterous plan for socializing all of health care... even as their lapdogs say one of the good parts of the plan is that you can get out of it! :lolup:

You can't make this stuff up, folks......... :D
 
Last edited:
Little-Acorn said:
Gotta love that. It's OK to turn over more and more power over your life to an indifferent, overbearing bureaucracy... as long as they only charge you a little for the privilege!

There speaks the quintessential modern liberal! :lolup:
Click to expand...

If it means that I can save 5% of my money I'm all into this common sense proposition.
 
Little-Acorn said:
Well, the journey might be a hoot, but the arrival may be bad news indeed.

The Democrats are fielding an almost-identical field of candidates, that is the farthest-left in the country's history. Even George McGovern never proposed forced enrollment and outright confiscation of people's wages when running his campaign.

Fortunately, there was a relatively conservative alternative in Richard Nixon, whom voters decided was far preferable to McGovern despite the growing Watergate scandal, giving Nixon a landslide victory.

This time, there is no candidate that conservative, and their comparatively clean records may not be enough to get them elected.

Careful what you wish for, Damocles. Bungee jumping is fun, until the moment you find out the hard way that the elastic cords are too long. >:-O
Click to expand...
In a republic, all things can be fixed with an informed vote.
 
Little-Acorn said:
They can be prevented with an informed vote, even more easily.

Something I haven't seen much evidence of lately.
Click to expand...
It doesn't mean I should "fear" whomever might win in a fun election year.

You and I will likely support the same candidate.

I will still enjoy watching and participating in this election year. I am very happy that the R candidate is not going to be uber-religious, I think it will help the party in the long run to relegate the uber-religious to the minority position they actually hold rather than the forefront.
 
Wow Republicans everywhere are salivating just waiting for you morons to choose Hillary, and the fucked up thing is it look like you actually may.
 
Epicurus said:
Wow Republicans everywhere are salivating just waiting for you morons to choose Hillary, and the fucked up thing is it look like you actually may.
Click to expand...

Well, I can understand why they would... how the hell can the far left bitch about an election being stolen if they actually win one?
 
Superfreak said:
Well, I can understand why they would... how the hell can the far left bitch about an election being stolen if they actually win one?
Click to expand...
It would make more sense. Supposedly they are "stolen" in Democratic strongholds run by the Democratic Clerks elected by those people. Those clerks choose which machines from those certified in their state to buy. They program them. They set them up, they train the people on the machines....

Now if Bush wins this election... I'll start shouting about how it was stolen.
 
Damocles said:
It would make more sense. Supposedly they are "stolen" in Democratic strongholds run by the Democratic Clerks elected by those people. Those clerks choose which machines from those certified in their state to buy. They program them. They set them up, they train the people on the machines....

Now if Bush wins this election... I'll start shouting about how it was stolen.
Click to expand...

Come on now... you know those Democratic Clerks are really Republicans pretending to be democrats so that they can steal the elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top