Clinton in Ohio: Regulate firms that exploit people

I have never understood how a person who cannot afford health insurance will be able to afford paying a penalty for not signing up for health insurance. This isn't a partisan rant, I really want to know.

"Clinton in Ohio: Regulate firms that exploit people"

People of common sense in Illinois: "Regulate politicians like Clinton who exploit people"

The problem Ohio voters are facing is that they're bombarded with silly political speeches from the likes of Clinton and Obama, each trying to manipulate the press and the public. Phrases such as Clinton's "I care deeply about (fill in the blank)" are mid-level Oprah psychobabble, unworthy of a serious candidate for president.

"FEMALE GENDER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE SPEAKS"

NO THAT WOULD NOT BE RIGHT FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE MRS. CLINTON. NO THAT WOULDN'T BE "FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY" BY BIG CORPORATIONS. THAT WOULD IMPEDE ON 150 MILLION DOLLAR CEO BUYOUTS.

COME ON AMERICA DOWN WITH SENATOR CLINTONS THINKING ON RESHAPING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF AMERICA CORPORATIONS.

THIS IS HYPOCRACY AT IT'S BEST. THIS MUST BE A MEDIA SPIN, NOT TO VOTE FOR A FEMALE BECAUSE SHE MAY BE "FISCAL RESPONSIBLE" AND FIND WAYS TO REPAIR THE .65 CENT DOLLAR WE HAVE IN AMERICA.

.65 IS WHAT THE DOLLAR IS WORTH IN SOME STATES THAT DON'T HAVE A "SALES TAX" OF 10% ON THE DOLLAR.

COME ON PROGRESSIVE AND LIBERALS POLITICAL MINDED PEOPLE, THIS IS AN OUTCRY,
FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY.

GEORGE BUSH SR, AND GEORGE BUSH JR WOULD ROLL OVER IN THEIR GRAVES IF THEY SAW WWW.DOT.COM COME BACK ALIVE AND NOT BE ABLE TO "EAVESDROP, MONITOR, AND DATAMINE FOR THAT "LEADING EDGE" IN COROPORATE AMERICA.

NOT A WOMAN, GOD DIDN'T ORDAIN THIS. GOD ORDAINED JOHN MCCAIN AS THE NEXT AND ONLY MAN ON THIS PLANET THAT CAN BE THE CAN CAN MAN.

FORGET FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, VOTE REPUBLICAN BECAUSE YOU KNOW REPUBLICANS ARE 95% SURE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY WOULD HURT THEIR BACKEND.

I absolutely vote for
Hillary Clinton ' Univercal care and economy issue.

The one thing that hurts Obama is his refusal to pick up on Hillary's dishonest campaigning. Set up questions, negative and lying ads and now trying to change the votes of PLEDGED delegates. It seems to be all about Hillary and her entitlement to the presidency

I've been without health insurance. Its not fun. Its scary. We need universal health insurance. Its a right.

We need mandates (and yes you can keep your current plan if you like it) because there are people who can afford cigarettes and drugs but don't "feel like" buying health insurance. They will one day be uninsured unhealthly burdens on our system.

To Tom,
I think the point is that they won't want to pay the penalty if it's harsh enough, so thy WILL buy the insurance. Now, if they can't afford it on their own (even after their highest possible premium is capped as a small percentage of income, as Hillary is proposing), there will be assistance given to make sure they can afford it. The point of having EVERYONE in the system is that it spreads the cost and risk, and that alone can help to lower premiums b/c it gets rid of the need for wasteful emergency costs or other stuff with people who DON'T have insurance.

Of course, Obama's crap about "Hillary will force you to pay even if you can't afford it" is just that, crap. Hillary will make it affordable for everyone. He's lying which proves he is exactly the kind of politician he is supposed to be fighting against.

It's your chance, America, to open your eyes and ears to Hillary's call. I truly believe in her ability, integrity and sincerity to make your country great again. Don't be fooled - Obama's 'rhetorics' will never solve your problems.

“I think it is morally wrong that in our country health insurance companies get to decide who lives or dies and who gets treated and who doesn’t get treated,” Clinton said.

So the answer is...I want to let the government decide who lives or dies and who gets treated or not??

IS there any issue facing this country now that Hillary does not see the solution being more government?

Everyone of her solutions begins with some variation of the following two phrases;
1. We should regulate...
2. We should tax...

The only difference with Obama is that he says it better..

God help us-

Doesn't "push Cuba now" sound like she wants to impose our values on them?
Isn't Ohio in the "rust belt", a term coined long before 8 years ago?
Are insurance mandates a stealth tax increase?
Should the government regulate calculated risks without approval from our betters?
Should lawyers who approved unaffordable contracts also be liable?
Was Bill responsible for the .com bust?

Firms that exploit people? How about presidential candidates that do it? Ask Hillary's fired campaign chief how she feels about exploitation. Oh, and I can't wait to see how the anti-gun Clinton supporters deal with her announcement today of how she shot an innocent little duck. But don't worry. That probably ranks on the truth meter right down there with her being named after Edmund Hillary, her
"attempt" to enlist in the Marines, and her Grand Jury "can't remember" testimony.

Hillary needs to explain up front and personal why she claimed in a debate that all she knew about NAFTTA was seeing some charts and grafts, while she was a big wig in the Clinton administration. Ohio is in the rust belt which was hurt when manufacturers heard the sucking sound from Mexico and moved South. She needs to be asked if she would reverse NAFFTA.

Tom, Hillary wants to be elected and is saying something that she really knows is not going to happen the way she is proposing. She wants to make people buy insurance, but does not have a clue as to how to make them buy it if they do not. This is a good example of smoke and mirrors at it's best.

Nobody says that these things will be easy. Unless the democrats can take back both houses of congress, it will be an uphill struggle to regulate anything that is making money hand over fist for the rich in this country. It's not Dems or Repubs that are ruining this country, it's GREED, pure and simple. From the insurance industry to the oil industry and especially to the banking industry, their incessant obsession wtih and need for more money is destroying America.

Here are some details from the Massachusesetts mandatory health care program which Clinton wants to make national:
"What are the costs? Costs are determined by family size to be covered, age of adults to be covered and income level. A single person must pay the FULL COST of insurance premiums if their income is greater than $30,636. A couple must pay the FULL COST of insurance premiums if their income is greater than $41,076. A family, 1 couple with one child, must pay the FULL COST of insurance premiums if their income is greater than $51,516, and so on. Government assistance is provided to those making less than the stated income level within each family size mentioned above. To get more information on the assistance provided, you may go to www.mahealthconnector.org . This assistance may be changing soon, as indicated by this recent article in the Boston Globe. www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/15/health_plan_rates_may_rise_by_14/
Below is a table with premium costs PER MONTH of plans currently available within numerous categories:
Single making more---------------------Insufficient------------------Good---------------------
than $30,636/year--------Age----------Coverage-----------------Coverage------------------
---------------------------------30--------------$199.40--------------$347.69 - $473.42
---------------------------------40--------------$201.30--------------$396.00 - $577.00
---------------------------------50--------------$253.20--------------$441.50 - $826.06
---------------------------------60--------------$398.81--------------$695.39 - $946.83

Couple making more--------------------Insufficient------------------Good---------------------
than $41,076/year--------Age-----------Coverage-----------------Coverage------------------
---------------------------------30--------------$428.72--------------$747.54 - $1060.80
---------------------------------40--------------$579.84--------------$884.00 - $1252.29
---------------------------------50--------------$586.87--------------$942.00 - $1717.43
---------------------------------60--------------$857.43--------------$1144.00 - $1906.63
Family, 1 child more--------------------Insufficient------------------Good---------------------
than $51,516/year--------Age-----------Coverage-----------------Coverage------------------
---------------------------------30--------------$618.15--------------$1077.85 - $1572.00
---------------------------------40--------------$792.48--------------$1390.71 - $1673.67
---------------------------------50--------------$845.23--------------$1475.49 - $1915.00
---------------------------------60--------------$1139.53------------$1984.00 - $2415.07
About this table - The column titled "Insufficient Coverage" is the monthly premium for the cheapest plan available within all categories. The reason I titled it "Insufficient Coverage" is that I believe it is just that! This plan has a $2000 deductible per person, or $4000 for a family. It only covers 20% of hospital stays after the deductibles are met. I don't believe this is a worthwhile health insurance plan because the premiums don't justify the high deductibles, and because what we uninsured really need is protection against a huge unexpected hospital bill. I included this option in the table, however, to be honest about the lowest cost plans that are available. The column titled "Good Coverage" is the monthly premium for a range of different plans that have low or no deductibles, and 100% coverage for hospital stays. To see all the plans available for every family size and age, you can go to www.mahealthconnector.org . "

Come now, what is all this marxist nonsense about protecting workers?

Everyone knows the lives of the lower classes are supposed to be nasty, brutish, and short. Now they want me to pay my employees enough to be able see a doctor? Nonsense! A waste of resources. When one employee dies, I'll just find another to replace them. Letting them all die young will take care of that Social Security hogwash while we're at it.

Speaking of the young, that's where all this trouble began, when they passed those silly laws saying I can't employ children. Now we have millions of lazy seven year olds going to school rather than toiling in the factories and mines like they should. Do you know how that cuts into my profits? The lower classes don't need to know how to think, they need to know how to obey.

Ain't is just so refreshing to see that Hillary cares about us little people? Gee... where in tarnation would we be if Hillary didn't care so darn much? She just cares us to pieces!!!

Steve S is right... I NEED Hillary and her man to step up and take care of me. Lord knows I tried and can't manage without her and him. Thank you Clintons for your tender loving compassion... You too Obama... I'm not ignoring you! You're just such a handsome feller and whispering all those sweet nuthins to us about caring and change. I just think you all can't be beat. Thanks for everything we have!!

These two nothing lightweights, Hillary and Barack, will be two [has been nothing lightweights] once all this foolishness is over and one of them has to compare their accomplishments to McCain's.

America will stay safe and prosperous under McCain.

Paulo

Hey Paul 'O,

Tell it to Limpbag, Coultergeist & Dudson.

Yez gotz some fence mendin' of your own to do!

I've been without health insurance. Its not fun. Its scary. We need universal health insurance. Its a right.
Posted by: SoniaB | February 19, 2008 12:50 PM

Its people like SoniaB that frighten me into wondering what "right" we'll think of next. Its not a right until its in the Constitution and healthcare is not listed in the Constitution.
If we think we can take a 'nice to have' and sometimes necessity like healthcare, and declare it a right, then where will that mentality stop. Why aren't cars a right? Phones? I realize lives are on the line, but the solution is not to declare healthcare as a 'right'!!! Wake up people! The government is not responsible for you... YOU ARE!!!! I do not want to be forced to pay for more healthcare plans than I already do. I have my own to worry about before getting taxed more.

“I think it is morally wrong that in our country health insurance companies get to decide who lives or dies and who gets treated and who doesn’t get treated,” Clinton said.
So the answer is...I want to let the government decide who lives or dies and who gets treated or not??

Posted by: heartburn | February 19, 2008 1:13 PM

Actually moron, we Americans are tired of the Republicans and their corporate cronies deciding who lives and who dies.

Bush:
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nqtL-P8kzo

These two nothing lightweights, Hillary and Barack, will be two [has been nothing lightweights] once all this foolishness is over and one of them has to compare their accomplishments to McCain's.
America will stay safe and prosperous under McCain.
Paulo

Posted by: Paulo | February 19, 2008 2:21 PM

I see your off your meds again, Paulo..

The Dems can't wait to beat down the geriatric warmonger, McCain.

Here's one reason not to vote for McCain:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

Here's another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu-tg1kQ8dk

...and another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

You really know how to pick the winners, huh Paulo?
I remember not to long ago when you were on here cheerleading for Rudy....BwaHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Why would anyone think that the Clintons, who are accustomed to the highest society in this country, will really be interested in the plights of the poor including universal health care, is totally beyond me. It is just an election talk. Wait till she is in the White House, the lady will turn icy cold to the poor and the needy of the country. She despises them secretly.

heartburn,
You don't get it and I'm not surprised. How would you fix a system where insurance companies won't provide coverage and care for people with pre-existing conditions unless they pay extremely high premiums and deductibles? What is your alternative?

"Actually moron, we Americans are tired of the Republicans and their corporate cronies deciding who lives and who dies...."

Wow..I'm a moron? really?

And you offer this well thought out, compelling response? All I can do is hope that you are as equally talented at reproducing as you are at communicating.

BTW your post is related to this story -how?

There's something very meta about a speech about how speeches don't matter. Kind of like basing one's political future on Texas when red states don't matter.

I can't think of a great president who couldn't give an outstanding speech that motivated or focused or calmed the nation when that was needed. It's not the only quality I need in a candidate, but it's surely not a negative. Obama has details, which will have to get through Congress. He also has vision and sound judgment, which will serve him--and us--from day one.

I WANT TO FIX HILLARY CLINTON FOR STAYING WITH BILL WHEN SHE SHOULD HAVE DIVORCED HIM OVER:
1. HIS ANTIMASTURBATION
2. HIS CHEATING ADULTERY
ALSO IM AGAINST HER NOT LISTENING TO ME ABOUT VOTING AGAINST THE ANTI POKER BILL (PHONE CALLS, LETTERS) AND RECEIVING FUNDING FROM HEALTH INSURANCE COMPANIES WHEN THEY ARE ALREADY OVERCHARGING AND AGE DISCRIMINATING. I ALSO BELIEVE LIKE JOE LIEBERMAN THAT BILL CLINTON SHOULD HAVE BEEN IMPEACHED AFTER ILLEGALLY CHEATING ON HIS WIFE.

"Its not a right until its in the Constitution and healthcare is not listed in the Constitution."

Steve S-

Apparently you have failed to read ALL of the Constitution, specifically the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

heartburn,
You don't get it and I'm not surprised. How would you fix a system where insurance companies won't provide coverage and care for people with pre-existing conditions unless they pay extremely high premiums and deductibles? What is your alternative?

Posted by: john | February 19, 2008 3:53 PM

Get it- ? whats to get?

Here is what I do "get"-
Lets start with acknowledging that there is no constitutional role the government has in ensuring that everyone has health care insurance. You know, that constitutional thing- that document that includes the rules our entire society is based on?
But lets set that aside-

Tell me how adding the federal government to the mix will improve the ability for anyone with a preexisting conditon to get improved access to health care- please don't tell me that you are naive enough to think that the nanny state could be an improvement?

I would entertain your challenge to provide a solution to the system if the solution offered was ,well, a solution..

heartburn's solution to the healthcare problem:

Let them all die because people who aren't rich enough to pay for health care have no value.

heartburn's solution to the healthcare problem:

Let them all die because people who aren't rich enough to pay for health care have no value.

Posted by: Jt | February 19, 2008 5:40 PM

Jt- good grasp of the argument..thanks for participating.

None of the presidential candidates are adequately addressing the nuts and bolts of the real problem with health care in this country - spiraling costs. There are undoubtedly more, but these are the cost problems as I see them:

1) Market forces are not driving down price. Hardly anyone can afford to pay out of pocket for health care, so it is usually a third party payer footing the bill, be it an HMO, Medicare, etc. If I break my arm and need to see an orthopedic surgeon, I don't shop around: this guy is $150 an hour, the guy down the street is $450 an hour, etc., because I am not paying for it. Thus, there is no meaningful competition between providers for services, and no corresponding downward pressure on price. When insurance companies try to restrict who you can go to, people freak out, not unreasonably I might add, to insurance companies dictating who they can see. The plans of the three major candidates do not address this. Obama and Hillary talk about subsidies and McCain mumbled something about tax free accounts, but none of these address the market forces issue, which is central because all of their plans involve keeping the third party payer system, including private insurance.

2) Overuse of tests. If someone goes to a neurologist with headaches, the doctor can perform relatively inexpensive tests to rule out a bleed. But the gold standard is an MRI, which would cost thousands of dollars. The doctor could be 99.9% sure there is no bleed from the other tests, but is he going to risk getting sued if it is a bleed? No way. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by not ordering the test. So they order the unnecessary test, and contribute to spiraling costs. Note that in socialized medicine countries, such a test would not be considered standard of care, and the doctor does not have to "cover his back" by ordering unnecessary tests. Clear regulations for tests and/or tort reform is the only answer to this, and none of the candidates offer any solutions on this front.

3) Drug costs. This is a tricky one. Drug companies state, correctly, that it is expensive to research and develop a drug, and they only have five years of a patent to recoup their investment and make a profit before the generics come in and eat their lunch. Critics argue, also correctly, that some of these companies aren't recouping, but gorging themselves with excessive profits. Both sides have a point, but all would agree that we want American companies to continue to be at the cutting edge of drug breakthroughs, but we also want to be able to afford it. This implies some sort of compromise, but the only thing we hear from the respective candidates is banging on one side of the drum, which gets us no where.

No problem heartburn, any time I can help clarify your arguement again, I'll be happy to.

No problem heartburn, any time I can help clarify your arguement again, I'll be happy to.

Posted by: Jt | February 19, 2008 6:11 PM

I bet.

Easier to clarify someone else's argument than to think for yourself...

Kind of like the notion that it is easier to get elected president by spending money that is not yours, in order to offer an overpriced benefit that will likely deliver less service than what people are receiving now- in the name of morality..

when you get old enough to vote and have to earn your own money you'll understand, until then go outside and play.

Once everyone is covered, how will health care be allocated?

In the short term there will be no increase in doctors and long term there will be little incentive for the "best and brightest" to become doctors (other than plastic surgeons).

So Mr. Wino needs a heart transplant and so does Jack Welsh? Who gets the one available heart? The wino has been watiing 6 months, Jack has been waiting 3 weeks. Or alcoholic dead beat Hugh Rodham who has been waiting 3 days?

Who gets to see the doctor? The one who has waited the longest? The democrat precinct captain? The corporate CEO. How are these allocations made?

"in order to offer an overpriced benefit that will likely deliver less service than what people are receiving now- in the name of morality.."

Well, unless you are one of the people NOT recieving the benefit now. Then you're just screwed.

Buut what the heck, as long as you're covered, it's all good, right buddy?

Clinton is carrying some major baggage and she is part of the old establishment...we need change...we need Obama!!!

Who gets to see the doctor? The one who has waited the longest? The democrat precinct captain? The corporate CEO. How are these allocations made?

Posted by: 1americancitizen | February 19, 2008 6:50 PM

Right now, those decisions are made by who has the most money. The 47 million americans who can't afford to buy health insurance don't even get to be in line.

What would one do if they could not afford healt coverage and my job does not offer health coverage? I do not qualify for welfare and I sometimes don't make enough money to pay all of my bills and by food to support my family. Fining me most certainly isn't the answer so what is the answer?

I think we can summarize Hillary (and probably Boy wonder's views on economics like this):

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” as spoken by the 40th president of the United States.

"Regulate firms that exploit people" - does that inlcude Congress and state legislatures also?

think we can summarize Hillary (and probably Boy wonder's views on economics like this):
"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” as spoken by the 40th president of the United States.
"Regulate firms that exploit people" - does that inlcude Congress and state legislatures also?

Posted by: Terry | February 19, 2008 10:49 PM

Spelling Chump,

You can lead a horse to water but...

Terri you must thrive on repeatedly beating your head against the wall and then wondering why your head hurts.

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN!!!

THE GOP HAS BEEN IN CHARGE FOR 6 of the last 7 years.

AMERICA IS NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THEIR STAY THE COURSE PLAN OF THE RICH HAVE HEALTHCARE AND EVERYONE ELSE CAN F-OFF AND DIE.

Conservatism is dead you goofball and it was clown FOLLOWERS like YOU who killed it!!!!

fun facts for Wingnut dictators like Terri:
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

Moderator, you think maybe you could get John E to "F-OFF AND DIE?" We certainly wouldn't lose any substantive argument here because of it.

John E - since you brough up Congress and economic performance. Who haseen running Congress the past year as the economy has turned south? Economy was running fine while the Republicans were in charge of Congress.

As far as spelling, there's an old saying about rocks and glass houses, but I am glad you are using your secretarial skills - those 6 years of high school, are paying off.

As far as spelling, there's an old saying about rocks and glass houses, but I am glad you are using your secretarial skills - those 6 years of high school, are paying off.

Posted by: Terry | February 20, 2008 8:39 PM

That's right little Terry, the whole economic downturn is all because the Dems have had a small majority in Congress FOR ONE WHOLE YEAR?!?!

I was telling you that Bush's so-called "great economy" was a house of cards two years ago and yet you were still drinking the Wingnut kool-aide.

Jokes on you, Terry...

PS - Terry

Your spelling is awful, you must have gone to one of those "no Republicans left behind" schools...

JOhn E - my typing is awful, my spelling is just bad.

Were you able to help Hillary with her "math" problem in Ohio? I thought you could since you are the only one I know that can double nothing and get something.

As far as you economic insight, you are like a broken clock, you will be right eventually.

As far as you economic insight, you are like a broken clock, you will be right eventually.

Posted by: Terry | February 21, 2008 10:52 PM

Yeah, because you've been right so many times so far.

BwaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!