WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system. ADVERTISEMENT "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress. Clinton unveiled her health care plan Monday in Iowa, promising to bring coverage to every American by building on the current employer-based system and using tax credits to make insurance more affordable. She told the AP she relished a debate over health care with her political opponents, including Republicans "who understood that we had to reform health care before they started running for president." On Tuesday, Clinton began airing a 30-second ad statewide in Iowa and New Hampshire promoting her new health care plan. The ad reminds viewers of her failed effort to pass universal health care in the early 1990s, trying to portray a thwarted enterprise as one of vision. "She changed our thinking when she introduced universal health care to America," the ad's announcer says. The ad also highlights her support as senator for an expanded Children's Health Insurance Program and for more affordable vaccines. Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the ad. "Now she has a health care plan that lets you keep your coverage if you like it, provides affordable choices if you don't, and covers every American," the ad says. The ad also continues her campaign's effort to appropriate the mantle of change away from rivals Barack Obama and John Edwards. The word change or its variations appears four times in the ad, which ends: "So, if you're ready for change, she's ready to lead." Though her ads are airing in major markets in both states, they are appaearing with greater frequency in Iowa. Polls of voters in New Hampshire show her with a double digit lead over Obama and Edwards, but polls in Iowa show the three of them clustered together.
and they called republicans fascists. You can't get a job without health insurance you can't get health insurance without job I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Yay.
It's the agenda of both parties, they just present opposite ends because the election process rotates between 2 parties, and eventually one or the other will have an opportunity to implement their agenda. Aaron Russo said it best. Stop being good republicans and good democrats. Start being good Americans.
whats happening in Mass, aren't they requiring everyone to have health insurance? what if it works great in Mass? http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...lthcare_plan_resembles_romneys_mass_solution/
It's not relevant what works on a state level. Besides, given that the program didnt start until 2006 or something; it'd be way too soon to judge success or failure. I'm all for experiments on a state level, if MA citizens want coverage for people who live there, more power to them. States can do what they want to their citizens. The federal government doesn't have this responsibility. This is why we have states, remember?
Finally a person who understands the concept of a separation between state's rights and federal rights!
You can bet it'll work GREAT, for the elites, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. How can something work if it's involuntary? I can tell you what life in the US will look like after the likes of Hilary and Romney have it their way. (I know because I lived under this system as a child back the USSR) The government will give you free education, health care, unemployment benefits, promises of secure retirement, etc. In addition, you'll get a check for 70 roubles every month that t will be enough to buy food, rent for a small apartment, MAYBE some extras. Because they rest of money is confiscated by the government under pretense of taxes and distributed among corporations that lobby Congress or have their a**holes in White House. You will not be able to opt out of any of these free services, and not paying for them will be punishable by jail even if you don't use them. We already have it in some industries here, like if you try not to pay property taxes because your child doesn't go to public school Of course the quality of public healthcare will not be any better than quality of public education. Socialism has been tested around the world in virtually every country, always works great for government and businesses that it outsources to
But are we going to just be pissed off, like when we get raped at the gas pump, or will people actually petition their representatives and vote for change? It's pretty obvious the direction the country is headed in, do we have the courage to put the brakes on these morons and claim back the right to self governance?
Haha, exactly! Speaking of which, lorien cast a vote in this poll: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=483276 I'm curious which candidate you support, might give me a bit more insight into your beliefs.
Considering we can't control medicare and medicaid, how are we supposed to control national health insurance? To me, it is just another fleecing of america and a waste of the tax payers $$.
why do i have to keep saying it? RP is a dangerous fool on foreign policy - he's completely wrong. He's fine on domestic issues.
Well, I admire that she is at least trying to come up with some form of a solution to the problems our healthcare system faces in America. The problem is, is that this is definitely not a solution to any of the problems.
If we put the arguing aside, I am sure we can agree more often. At the essence, we want the same good things for America, even if we differ on the direction.
The only way she doesn't become the President is if our leader declares martial law and abolishes elections. I don't know what is worse. She is into preventive nuclear strikes, too. And she said in some interview that our leader doesn't spend enough money in Iraq. Now that I think about it, I am starting to like Guiliani, sort of. Not really
That's what I've been telling everyone, social security and medicare are underfunded by 77 trillion dollars over the next 75 years, according to Alan Greenspan. That's 6 times are GDP. Everyone complains that we have a 9 trillion dollar debt. Where are we going to come up with 77 trillion dollars? We should fix our current problems before starting new ones.
The sad thing is, the idea of our current President declaring martial law is something we haven't had to consider in a long time. And yet most of us think about it with this guy in the back of our minds, particularly since he passed an executive order that gives him 6th months of martial law before he even has to report to Congress. All of this crap is done to "make us safer", and all it does is make me a lot more worried. The best thing all of us can do, regardless of persuasion or political leanings, is to educate ourselves as best possible on the candidates, and educate our friends and family as well. It's out of ignorance and pop star propaganda that Hillary is considered the incumbent, not because she has done or claims she will do anything that is particularly good for our country. Folks need to be made aware of this.