Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

AP reports that “Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers’ wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.”

This is part of the problem. She is consistently characterized as BIG GOV’T SPENDING PROGRAMS” by the other side and then she consistently plays right into it.

I do not believe Hillary can solve our Health Care ills ESPECIALLY when she makes statements like this.

Comments

  1. JoyfulC

    With respect to Obama, I think he’s too intelligent to believe that the picture is as rosy as he’s making it out to be. I think he’s very good at telling people what they want to hear (and never saying anything they don’t want to hear), but I don’t think he’s going to be as good with respect to delivering. Now, that isn’t necessarily due to any shortfall on his part — whoever wins this presidency will be inheriting a mess and will be bogged down in trying to introduce change. I actually think he will win this election. I think he’ll come into office amidst much hope and fanfare, and be ridden out on a rail. Again, not necessarily because he didn’t try, but because 1) the odds against the next president are going to be massive; 2) the “GOP slime machine” (as someone here referred to it) is going to come at the next Democratic president with guns blazing (and if they’re successful in taking out Hillary, this will only embolden them); and 3) he’ll have undermined himself during his campaign by getting people’s hopes up too high and not leveling with them about what it’s going to take on the part of ALL Americans to fix the mess we’ve gotten ourselves into.

    As for Romney, Paul and McCain? I believe that they’re careful to try to make it sound like what’s good for big business is actually good for us too, and that it’s in our best interest to forget about our own petty little problems and help corporations rack up massive profits with no limitations. I think either of them would be much like Bush: doing only for big business, while telling us it’s for our own good. And telling us our economy is great because shareholders and CEOs are doing well!

    As for Huckabee … you know, I truly like that guy. He seems very nice, and I do believe he believes much of what he says. And lucky for him, evangelical Christians tend to believe it too. But I cringe at the thought of a Christian fundamentalist making policy for the United States. We’re supposed to be a secular nation, with freedom of worship AND separation of church and state guaranteed. I have sincere doubts that someone as staunchly Christian as Huckabee could straddle that line.

    Actually, I think Hillary’s been honest on a number of occasions. Remember when she said that she’d have to take a look at all the facts before getting us out of Iraq? That rings true to me because I don’t think the Bush administration has been honest with anyone (save perhaps some corporate cronies) about what’s actually gone down in Iraq. Anyone who promises to get us out, just like that, is either naive or hopes we are, I figure. And remember when she said there’d have to be conditions on talking to Iran? Again, I think she’s experienced enough to be wary. The US has a deplorable history with respect to meddling in Iran — and we’ve only ourselves to blame for much of the hostility — but that’s not to say that Iran doesn’t have its fair share of characters too. I think she’s smart enough to realize that the next president is going to have to step carefully with respect to Iran, finding the fine line between diplomacy and prudence. Of course, she’s been jumped all over every time she makes such statements. People would rather have her say something “decisive” — even though we know that making decisive statements in the absence of solid, current intelligence is a recipe for failure.

    I hate to say it, but unless an independent steps forward that I like better, I still think Hillary is the best of the lot. I have bristled at her aggressiveness — but then, it’s commonly accepted that the Democratic nominee is going to have to be one tough and crafty critter to withstand the GOP’s flamethrowers. No one’s tougher or craftier than her so far. And for a while, I thought, “oh no, not more of ‘as the Clintons turn.'” But then, as many have pointed out, if the GOP gets away with it with the Clintons, it will only make them bolder to go after the next candidate with dirty tactics.

    That’s what I think. Frankly, I wish the primaries would be over and we can see what we’re going to get for independents. Neither Bloomberg nor Nader really blow my skirt up.

  2. erinys

    Main problem here is that she never actually stated that she WANTED to garnish wages. Stephanopoulos asked “will that entail garnishing wages?” (paraphrased, as I don’t have the exact quote) According to a Wall Street Journal blog, he pushed her with the same question three times. At the end, all she said was that there would be an enforcement mechanism, and that MIGHT be wage garnishment or it could be done in some other way. QUOTE(again from the WSJ blog): “George, we will have an enforcement mechanism, whether it’s that or it’s some other mechanism through the tax system or automatic enrollments.” And given that, as President, she wouldn’t be the only one determining the whole ins/outs of the system (a lot rides on Congress when it comes to the nitty-gritty), I’m thinking that would NOT be the first choice.

    And, yeah, a healthplan without some kind of “mandate” is pretty much gonna be worthless.

  3. pollchecker

    “Okay, let me revise that: candidates who tell us what they BELIEVE to be true, even if it’s tough to swallow, instead of being careful to say only what people want to ”

    If you really believe that Hillary is telling the truth and the other candidates are not, then you are the one being naive.

    She is telling people what she thinks they want to hear and oops, she let one out of the bag when she mentioned garnishing wages. Bet she wishes she could take that one back.

  4. JoyfulC

    Okay, let me revise that: candidates who tell us what they BELIEVE to be true, even if it’s tough to swallow, instead of being careful to say only what people want to hear.

  5. pollchecker

    “So you’re basically saying the same thing that I’ve been saying all along: any politician that dares to say anything that the voters don’t want to hear — even if it might be the truth — is digging her own political grave.”

    it’s that word “truth” that gets me every time. There are obviously many different perceptions about what truth is. (but that’s not what this blog is about, is it?) Are you saying that Hillary is the only candidate that tells the truth? Please, give me a break. But again we digress from the subject.

    I have no doubt she was saying the truth when she talked about garnishing wages. That’s what concerns me about her plan. It will be another big brother, bureaucratic gov’t mess.

    Quite frankly I don’t believe we can’t afford another one of those. We have a big enough financial hole to get out of as it is.

  6. JoyfulC

    We can come together and create a win-win situation in this country. But when Hillary makes statements like garnishing wages, it only serves to make her look bad and people within the GOP look right. And it also adds to the polarization against her.

    So you’re basically saying the same thing that I’ve been saying all along: any politician that dares to say anything that the voters don’t want to hear — even if it might be the truth — is digging her own political grave.

    One thing I don’t like about Obama is it’s all good news and hope all the time. But let’s face it, that has to be deceptive. We only need to look around to see that we’re in a bad place and getting out of it isn’t going to be any picnic. There might be sacrifices that we’ll have to make, there might be bitter consequences we’ll have to accept.

    I have really been turned off the way that Hillary has run this primary, but in this particular instance, I think she delivered the truth. It may not be a truth you want to hear or many Americans want to hear, but there is no free lunch. If you want universal health care, then it may have to be mandatory. If you don’t want it to be mandatory, then you may have to put up with the status quo.

    I would like to hope that both Clinton and Obama will make some changes both you and I would like to see, however, both will suffer vicious punishing relentless lashings from the far right. Every trick in the book will be used to discredit them — and our own childish unwillingness to accept the truth will also be used against them.

    They say sometimes people are best kept in the dark. And perhaps that’s true. We have a federal sales tax up here — the 7% Goods and Services Tax (GST). It really wasn’t a new tax — it was a revamp of the old 13% Manufacturing Tax. Because Canada had slowly changed from a manufacturing economy to a service economy, the change in the tax was necessary. (Of course, this presumes that you believe that the government needed the money in the first place, but that’s another debate.) Nobody ever complained about the old Manufacturing Tax, even though, at 13%, it was pretty steep! They didn’t complain because few people knew about it. It was a hidden tax.

    When the Conservatives were in power back in the late 80s and early 90s, one of the things that they did was make this change to this tax. But they did something that I find laudible: they made it visible. Instead of doing it all over the heads of Canadians and keeping it a hidden tax, they made it so that it’s visible every time you make a purchase. People went nuts! To this day, people still hate the guy who was Prime Minister then, and much of it is over their resentment for this very visible tax.

    The Liberals used this resentment to get back into power and promised to get rid of the tax. One Minister even swore she’d resign if they didn’t. Well, they didn’t get rid of the tax and, true to her word, she did resign — for all of about 15 minutes.

    The moral to the story is, what the people didn’t know apparently wasn’t hurting them. But when someone dared to give them some honesty and transparency, THAT’s who they turned on! I’ve sat back and watched Canadians be manipulated over this tax for years now — and it really is insane because it’s not the tax that’s the problem. It’s the fact that the people see the tax.

    When we hear people called “sheeple” on sites like this, that’s what comes to my mind. Not voting for someone who dares to tell you the truth, and voting instead for someone who says what you want to hear is a surefire guarantee of dissatisfaction with the government that eventually does get elected. And so the cycle repeats itself.

    Instead of punishing candidates for daring to tell hard truths, we should be expecting it from them. Any candidate that blows sunshine up our wazoos should be viewed with extreme skepticism. In a perfect world, such “nothing but good news” candidates would be dismissed like spam email promises of greater success with the chicks.

  7. pollchecker

    “But it seems like you’re taking your cue from Sunday morning pundits, and living in fear of supporting anybody who might piss the GOP mean machine off. ”

    No, but I listen to almost everyone because I am a Libra and believe in hearing both sides.

    But I can’t help but like it when they start saying what I have been saying for months….I’m only human I guess (gggg).

    “Living in Canada all these years has given me a fresh set of eyes with which to look at some of the questions in the US.”

    Yes it does. I lived in Mexico for awhile and it does give you a different perspective.

    You keep putting a lot of words into my mouth. It is obvious that you are passionate, as I can be at times. The reason we have elections is because there is a diversity of opinions among us. There always has been.
    Unfortunately politicians keep finding ways to keep us polarized against each other in a I’m right, you’re wrong situation. This is a losing proposition because it creates a win-lose situation.

    We can come together and create a win-win situation in this country. But when Hillary makes statements like garnishing wages, it only serves to make her look bad and people within the GOP look right. And it also adds to the polarization against her.

    The good news is that we both agree that the GOP does not provide the answers we need to address the problems in our country. That’s a starting point we can build upon. (ggg)

  8. JoyfulC

    I think the GOP are frothing at the mouth to turn their hate machine on just about anybody who opposes them. Right now, they’re giving Obama a pass because they’d rather take him on than Hillary. They’ve been taking Hillary on for years, and in spite of all the heat and noise, they really haven’t slowed the lady down too much. She knows them too well and she can give ’em as good as she gets. Maybe she’s the one who can get in there and open a can of whompass on ’em.

    If you would have asked me 25 years ago about “big government programs” my views would have been similar to yours. Part of that might have been because I was young and dumb, but I think part of it is because that’s drummed into Americans by profiteers who fear any type of effective government and will do everything in their power to discredit and undermine governments, all the while working to buy them out. Living in Canada all these years has given me a fresh set of eyes with which to look at some of the questions in the US. We not only NEED government, but we need effective government too. Government is what stands between decent people and predators — or at least it should. Couldn’t you possibly just consider the notion that having the government work on your behalf doesn’t necessarily need to result in failure or in a loss of your rights and freedoms?

    But it seems like you’re taking your cue from Sunday morning pundits, and living in fear of supporting anybody who might piss the GOP mean machine off. I guess that doesn’t really leave a lot of room for solutions. Why not just vote Republican. Then they’ll be happy and won’t have to throw any tantrums, eh? We wouldn’t want to nominate anyone they didn’t like — heavens no! Hell, it seems to me that most of the Republican nominees are polarizing figures in THEIR OWN party.

    The Republicans got us into a shameful war that’s bleeding us dry. They’ve been passing out tax cuts to the rich and paving an easy road for big business, while pulling the rug out from under the rest of us. They’ve lied to us. They’ve been hypocrites. They’ve used our own prejudices to turn us against one another.

    And you think we should worry about appeasing them?