Your News From The Sunday Shows

is probably this.. (from AP):

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."

Comments

I am an Obama supporter but I have sort of resented the way he has framed his health care plan.
But THIS is exactly why he chose to push his plan without the mandate. How exactly does HILLARY CLINTON with her image plan to sell to the American public a plan to GARNISH their wages ?
It would be impossible for any politician, let alone her.

Posted by Benjamin | February 3, 2008 1:21 PM

Wow. THIS is why a mandate for anyone beyond children will not be politically feasible. And it's stuff like this that will be red meat to Republicans who are already hostile to Clinton.

HRC: the fastest way to unite the party behind McCain.

Posted by Rhoda | February 3, 2008 1:22 PM

Don't worry, I'm sure Paul Krugman will explain why this is good policy, and one we have to fight for if we want to be good progressives.

Posted by lampwick | February 3, 2008 1:30 PM

It may be the ideal policy but Hillary Clinton, who half of the country already thinks is a socialist, is the worst possible vehicle for it.
And this is going to be catnip for Republicans in the general.

Posted by Benjamin | February 3, 2008 1:42 PM

The way Hillary tried to avoid answering this question for so long is exactly why I am not going to vote for her. I'm sick of politicians not being straightforward!
It's just like when she won't admit that her vote to authorize the Iraq war was a mistake. It's the slippery crap that makes people distrust her. Obama's relative straightforwardness is why people -- both Dems and Repubs -- find him to be a breath of fresh air.

Posted by Linda | February 3, 2008 1:45 PM

Geez. While didn't Hillary just pin a big fat target on her back and tell the Republicans to fire away?

Posted by Gene | February 3, 2008 2:11 PM

Well I guess this why she never gave a straight answer when Obama asked how she would make people buy it. I think this answer lost her the election. Hopefully people are paying attention.

Posted by deb | February 3, 2008 2:28 PM

Hillary tried very hard not to answer this question, understandably, but George S pushed and she had no choice.

Hillary will be the embodiment of the "nanny state" in the general election (in a way a man never could be), and it's hard to see that as a winner in this country. A large segment of the population, especially in rural areas, wishes the government would just leave it alone. That's why Hillary is so easy to demonize...and that's why Obama's health-care plan is much more politically astute.

I admire Sen. Clinton for being so passionate on this issue and so ahead of the curve back in 1992, but Democrats are insane if they think she'd be the stronger nominee against McCain. "Nanny State" -- you heard it here first, and you'll hear it A LOT MORE in the Fall if HRC is the nominee.

Posted by Ban Johnson | February 3, 2008 2:29 PM

How exactly does HILLARY CLINTON with her image plan to sell to the American public a plan to GARNISH their wages ?

One is aware that talk of wage garnishments might not be politically imprudent (though I do give credit to Clinton for her blunt honesty on this issue). But on substance, how is wage garnishing any different from a tax increase? I'm open to single payer, for instance, but that, too, would require people to have their wages "garnished" in the form of higher taxes.

Posted by Jasper | February 3, 2008 2:30 PM

Jasper, to answer your question: What Clinton is essentially proposing is a very regressive tax to finance universal health care. The people whose wages will be garnished will be middle-income people who feel they can't afford health insurance. A single-payer system on the other hand would spread the cost burden as our government currently does, that is with the richer people paying the majority of the taxes.

Posted by Michael | February 3, 2008 3:01 PM

I have to say, she has just crucified her prospects in the GE if she gets that far.

The notion that the government may garnish your wages simply because you don't want to involve yourself with the government managed health plan is anathema to moderate republicans and many independents, and I dare say many democrats.

Obama's is more palatable in the GE environment. It's easier to sell mandates for children, then healthy adults that may opt for better private plans.

It will be interesting to see if there is any backlash amongst democrats for this position.

Posted by ChrisNBama | February 3, 2008 3:22 PM

How exactly does she plan on determining who "can afford health insurance, but chooses not to get it?" There are all kinds of mitigating factors that play into peoples' incomes (where they live, expenses towards family, previous debt, car insurance rates, et al.) so you can't simply look at someone's pay stub and declare that they can afford health care and choose not to get it.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 3, 2008 3:24 PM

If democrats don't get behind Hillary Clinton and make a uniquivical statement that the Democratic Party stands, on principle, for universal health care, then we will have surrendered before the battle is even joined. If we do not pick Clinton it will mean we are not really serious about covering all Americans. Period.

I am so sick and tire of political cowards like Obama and his rable who chant for hope instead of standing up for something worthwhile, like universal health care.

Posted by ken | February 3, 2008 4:49 PM

If democrats don't get behind Hillary Clinton and make a uniquivical statement that the Democratic Party stands, on principle, for universal health care, then we will have surrendered before the battle is even joined. If we do not pick Clinton it will mean we are not really serious about covering all Americans. Period.

I am so sick and tired of political cowards like Obama and his rable who chant for hope instead of standing up for something worthwhile, like universal health care.

Posted by ken | February 3, 2008 4:49 PM

If democrats don't get behind Hillary Clinton and make a uniquivical statement that the Democratic Party stands, on principle, for universal health care, then we will have surrendered before the battle is even joined. If we do not pick Clinton it will mean we are not really serious about covering all Americans. Period.

I am so sick and tired of political cowards like Obama and his rable who chant for hope instead of standing up for something worthwhile, like universal health care.

Posted by ken | February 3, 2008 4:49 PM

How exactly does she plan on determining who "can afford health insurance, but chooses not to get it?" There are all kinds of mitigating factors that play into peoples' incomes (where they live, expenses towards family, previous debt, car insurance rates, et al.) so you can't simply look at someone's pay stub and declare that they can afford health care and choose not to get it.
Tom in Raliegh

Without mandates, you have the same "free rider" problem as you do with the uninsured motorists issue. People who reckon that they can go for 30-40 years spending all they earn and having no assets to sue for in case their kid gets cancer or they are in a wreck - when "society" is nevertheless obligated to care for them for "free".

Obama wants to be Mr. Magic Happy Negro, talking of new treats and rights he will hand out with no commesurate responsibilities on citizens other than "taxing those with lots of money".

Hillary is the adult. Romney, in agreeing that his state health insurance was unworkable w/o mandates as every foreign nation has concluded, is another adult.

And zealot Republicans that side with Obama on mandates on different grounds - that our present system is "the envy of the world" or "Reagan thought it was a bad thing"- ignore that 1/3rd of people now count on taxpayers to foot all their health care costs while many of them still have the disposable income to live in houses beyond their means and fill whole rooms up with luxury Chinese-made goods and garages with Japanese and German cars because they avoid paying in whole or in part, for insurance based on their "risk perception".
Republicans who in the same name of blind dogma ignore that employers say they can no longer globally compete if the health care costs of employees, families, and free riders is factored into their product and services costs that competitors of other nations do not have to include. Now telling government that employers must end being the ones that provide health insurance because the globe has gone a different path, and to survive, companies must join them in how health care is covered - or move the jobs out of America.

And the Obamites and Republicans ignore that if there is not a general risk pool everyone must join, that insurers and employers will have great incentive to discriminate not only on policy, but on actual risk determined by medical & genetic testing, age, race, ethnicity, gender, and any pre-existing condition.
Do you penalize someone that agrees to pay their own health care costs with the free rider's costs? Or say that older people in their 60s must pay 8 times the monthly insurance of a 30-year old, except for 30-years olds with medical histories that condemn them to unemployment because no employer would risk them given their helath costs in a pure "free market"? Or a secretary with a kid genetically tested to be at high risk of adult onset dystrophy must pay 2,000 a month for insurance while other young secretaries w/o kids, without adverse "genetic flags" pay 300 a month?

And what do you do in such a system of laissez faire when the uninsured kid whose parents vacationed in Thailand for a month and who drive new Lexus's does come in with cancer, or the elderly man in a car crash is found by ambulance crew not to have an insurance card because he couldn't afford 3100 a month for insurance on his personal risk factors? Let the kids cancer progress w/o spending money on care, leave the old guy by the side of the road to bleed out?

Posted by chris ford | February 3, 2008 4:57 PM

Folks, leaving aside the question of policy for a moment, can't you understand how poisonous a statement about garnishing workers' wages is to a Democratic candidate's chances? (There are, of course, ways to achieve universal health care without garnishing wages.) McCain could ride this one all the way to the White House. And once again the Democrats will be the pious losers.

Posted by Gene | February 3, 2008 5:24 PM

Gene, many of us DO realize how poisonous HRC's statement could be. If she's so smart and prepared, she should have thought this out before she entered the race. This is exactly why Obama does not have a mandate. He knows that there are potentially millions of people who, given a choice between buying food/paying utilities and health care, will forego medical insurance. I used to be one of them.

I fear that HRC thought she could keep this under the rug, since the Democratic party would roll over and elect her. (She's a Clinton, after all!) HRC never thought she'd be faced with a formidable opponent who actually provides an alternative.

Posted by Gordon | February 3, 2008 5:43 PM

chris ford,

I was going to read your post in its entirety and make a reasoned judgment. But you saved me a lot of time when I got to your second paragraph and read: "Obama wants to be Mr. Magic Happy Negro."

The rest of your statement and any point you may have had is discarded. You may consider uplifting rhetoric and practical presentation a novelty, but I think you'll find them necessary to facilitate real discussion and--need I mention--change.

(Yes. I am an Obama supporter.)

Posted by A Reader | February 3, 2008 6:06 PM

A Reader - Be an unsufferable prick if you want to be, but the critique of Obama rests in part that he fulfills liberal's need for a black redeemer to their guilt.

The perfect, magic, happy Negro that appears again and again in films and books to help the white protagonist past his issues.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-ehrenstein19mar19,0,5335087.story?coll=la-opinion-center

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_Negro

The phrase originates with Spike Lee, who deliberately used Negro as a means of telling others he considered it a throwback term and also a sign of guilty pandering by white liberals seeing blacks as unfortunate creatures that should always be portrayed as noble, magic, wiser than other races Negroes of 50 years ago and never criticised..Always cast as the moral redeemers, in accordance of dreams of guilty Hollywood Jews, and strange Maine horror novel writers - who see the Magic Negro's approval as needed on their character's life journeys.

Spike Lee sees Sidney Poitier as the most famous Magic Negro of modern times , but non-threatening, happy negroes with "magic moral fiber" appear in early slave day pieces - Bessie the real boss-Mom of the Plantation, steadfast and holy Uncle Tom, Stepin Fetchit, ideal black athletes who set a moral example and role model to children of all races and redeem them as good people. Even - the one perfect American - who alone ranks highest of all Americans historically as the bravest, morally purest and greatest achiever, Magic Negro Saint Martin Himself...Worship his holiness!

Posted by chris ford | February 3, 2008 8:26 PM

Psychologically, you could make a case that Bill and Hillary are, tow varying degrees, trying to destroy their own chances of winning this Primary.

At the very least, the wise person can easily detect that they have lots of internal conflicts about this quest, and are not in very good alignment with their selves.

Like many of my fellow Americans, they are sick in their souls. Of course, they are still junior in this respect to the Republicans.

Posted by Gregor | February 3, 2008 10:08 PM

Chris ford, dare I say, I hope that you lose the ability to type and speak. the world would be a better place. And in that case, I hope you would still have the health care you need.

Posted by whoaNow | February 3, 2008 11:03 PM

Chris Ford - thanks for your long answer, but I understand why universal coverage is important/attractive. What I don't understand is how Clinton would determine which people fall into the "they can afford it, they just choose not to have it" category. Since identical base incomes can mean entirely differnt things based on any number of factors (making $2500 a month in rural Idaho is not the same thing as making $2500 a month in Manhattan), how is she going to be drawing that line? I don't know that it can be done in a manner that's not unduly messy. I don't think we differ vastly on our thinking, I'm just not sure I understand how the mandate system will be implemented.

Personally, I would be fine with a health care system that is predicated on higher taxes across the board and covers everyone. I think that a society that makes an effort to take care of all its people is inherently a healthy (er, healthier) society. But I am certain that I am in the vast minority here (as far as raising taxes). I don't know how you would frame an argument that this is something people should strive for versus, I dunno, having the financial ability to buy more plastic widgets from Wal-Mart. All I know is that I spoke with my friend from Denmark earlier today whose mother had a brain aneurysm a few months back and, while he has had to make small sacrifices such moving from Copenhagen to be with and assist her, he has never had to worry one second about medical bills. Personally, I would take being alive with 40-odd percent taxes than being dead or terminally in debt at, what, the current 30-some percent I pay in taxes now. Still, this is a difficult argument for people to embrace.

Posted by Tom in Raleigh | February 3, 2008 11:13 PM

This just guarantees that Hillary could never get a healthcare program passed. This also makes her even more unelectable in a general election.

Couple this with her very dumb idea of seizing control of monetary policy and freezing interest rates for 5 years and you can see why the Republicans are salivating at the thought of going up against her. The champagne corks will pop at the RNC if Hillary gets to be the Democratic nominee.

Posted by cm | February 4, 2008 12:10 AM

First of all, there is a HUGE difference between universal, single payer systems and what the Clintons are proposing.

Universal, single payer is fashioned like European, Canadian systems. There are different ways of doing it less extreme than they do...for example opening Medicare up to all so care is still done by private industry, but the insurance companies are largely cut out.

This sort of system would be paid for via taxes just as Medicare is. Hence, single payer.

What the Clintons are proposing is using our existing private insurance industry with some modifications (pre existing conditions, etc.) but still we are depending on a for profit industry. When they call for mandates, it's because the for profit insurance industry wants to spread their risk pool out as much as possible.

So we mandate that citizens buy a for profit product. It's bad policy to begin with, but to add the insult that you will garnish someone's wages because they refuse to buy a for profit product is bizarre!

The Mass plan, which the Clintons fashioned theirs after, has been a giant failure. They still have half the uninsured uncovered, the premium rates to the for profit companies have skyrocketed.

Mandates when you're basing the whole system on the existing insurance industry is a travesty and will only result in another failed mess like the first HillaryCare.

Don't get me started on her *economic* plan...freezing free market interest rates for FIVE years???

Blech...

Posted by G Davis | February 4, 2008 1:38 AM

What the Clintons are proposing is using our existing private insurance industry with some modifications (pre existing conditions, etc.) but still we are depending on a for profit industry.

Hillary's plan (and Edwards's before), unlike Obama's, allows people to easily sign up for a public sector Medicare-like option if that's what they prefer. They can essentially "vote with their feet" for single payer. Obviously this would be one way to make sure healthcare reform isn't overly regressive (by limiting the premiums charged by the government to a low percentage of income). Obama's plan, by contrast, makes it difficult to sign up for government care, by putting the onus on individuals to prove they're not able to find affordable private sector healthcare. If being overly nice to Big Insurance is what you want to avoid, then don't vote for Obama and his terrible healthcare plan.

Posted by Jasper | February 4, 2008 11:02 AM

Jasper...those plans are income limited. They are not open to all.

The Mass plan has an outside limit of 31,000/yr. The Clintons haven't posted their income limits, but I imagine they are based on a percentage of fed poverty standards.

Obama's plan also does this, but goes farther in subsidizing premiums.

You are correct in one thing. If we force it, we CAN get real universal coverage. But that's NOT what the Clintons are proposing at the moment, and I find it hard to believe they will either inspire enough people to demand it, or that they will buck the DC establishment effectively to *give* it to us.

Posted by G Davis | February 4, 2008 12:09 PM