They’re pretty darn equivalent. If you think rules to prevent people from gaming the system are limitations on freedom, then I can see if you think Clinton’s plan is less free. I don’t.
- Barack: insurance is available to everyone.
- Hillary: everyone MUST have insurance.
You honestly don’t see the difference?
No, no, let him call her a socialist. I call myself a socialist ever since I was accused of being a Leninist by a tax protestor on April 15–just because I believe in a progressive income tax.
I believe in socialized medicine, I believe in a strong FDA, USDA, EPA, etc. I want school funding to be at least statewide if not national. So I’m a socialist, whether or not I match the Social Democratic platform. I refuse to be afraid of the term, & I’m not going to define it as strictly as Hilaire Belloc (who restricted the term to Collectivists).
I’m a socialist. So is most of America. So are you. It doesn’t make you Russian or something, it just means you believe in a government that works for the good of society instead of for the good of business interests.
I mean, really, what am I supposed to call myself, a liberal? Ick! (Sorry, Lib.) Now that word’s got pretty negative implications for me. Those who call for the liberty of business (the classical liberals) have historically been those who called for the freedom to enslave & exploit others.
And done the most to undermine direct action (protests, etc.) of any politico this side of Cuba.
The compulsory aspect of Clinton’s health plan makes it stronger than Obama’s plan. I actually like Obama’s ideas better, but without mandatory participation, it is probably not going to work. I am hoping Obama’s plan is a work in progress. The only way universal health care can function is with money. Everyone accessing the system and employers must pay into the system or it will be underfunded. Clinton wants to control cost and provide subsidies for those who can’t afford to pay. Frankly, neither plan is the reform I hoped for, but it’s a start.
I know the idea of mandatory participation seems like control, but there is compulsory education, funded with property taxes. Everyone *has *to pay into SS and Medicare.
Well, is it freedom that I have to pay taxes to support a war that I oppose and think is creating more problems than it solves? If you want to be completely “free”, you can join Liberal in Libertaria!
And, by the way, I think a country in which I can make my employment decisions without having to worry about my ability to get reasonably-priced insurance that will cover me, pre-existing conditions and all, would be way more free than the situation now.
Obviously the thing to do is privatise the massive and inefficient socialised defense the US employs and use the funds saved to pay for a public health system. Everybody wins, a bit.
Not any difference relevant to the subject of this debate, no.
There’s the point that determines my vote on the “What’s more free?” question. Yeah, sure, under the current system, I’m “free” to choose whatever doctor I wish to go to. But if I can’t afford to go to ANY doctor, that choice is pretty much an academic exercise of my freedom, isn’t it?
What do you mean by “free”? Is it freedom from the fear of ruin from a random, uncontrollable event? The freedom to change jobs knowing it won’t destroy your coverage from a pre-existing condition? The freedom to make plans for the future with confidence?
Or do you mean, as it seems, the freedom to allow your and your family’s well-being to be destroyed by catastrophic illness or injury, and the freedom to make the rest of us pick up the bill for the treatment you willl get, just because you didn’t feel like getting insurance or supporting a universal government-regulated system that would take it off our hands?
[sarcasm] Cause everyone knows the Government does such a good job with program managment [/sarcasm]
On the one hand, you have NO medical insurance and NO way to afford decent medical care. On the other hand, you have universal medical insurance that might be less-than-efficiently run.
Hmmm…I wonder which one all the people who haven’t been able to afford to see a doctor in a decade would pick?
Well, you won’t have a choice under Hillary’s plan. She plans to autodeduct it from your wages.
How would you compare the efficiency, much less the alignment of insitutional goals and the resulting effect on coverage, of Medicare and your HMO?
I don’t support Hillary as the Democratic candidate. If she does turn out to BE the Dem candidate, I’ll vote for her, but only because I don’t trust the Republicans to tie their own shoes without lying about where they bought the laces, let alone running the country for another 4 or 8 years.
Well, what else? That’s how we pay our income taxes, Social Security taxes, some state taxes, private employment-related insurance if you’ve got it, company retirement plan contributions, etc. It’s an established system that works just about perfectly as intended, and adding another deduction line adds not one penny to collection costs. On the other side of your personal ledger, this one deduction is now the only health-insurance cost you have to pay.
But, we’re getting sidetracked. The point is that proposing this plan (which does leave the private health-care companies in existence and in the system) does not make HRC a socialist by any means. Socialists, in fact, would be satisfied with nothing short of single-payer – and Canada, which already has it, is no socialist country.
We all have to pay property taxes for schools, even before and after we have kids. We do this to equalize “free” education, now considered a right of all. Would we be freer if those without kids yet didn’t have to pay? And could start paying just before their kids entered school?
If the young people who don’t pay for insurance could never get it, then maybe - but you know as well as I that a ban forever never could be sustained.
How about progressive? That has a nice ring to it, and identifies the right as regressive - which sounds pretty accurate to me.
If we call a tail a leg, it’s still a tail. If we call you and Hillary socialists, you still aren’t by the common definition. I do agree that by the standards of a century ago, we’re all socialists. 40 hour work weeks, minimum wages - all solidly red ideas. 
Yeah, it’s America in 2008, where Creationism is the most popular view. No, thanks. I’ll stick to the board mission no matter how uninformed the majority is.
Wow. My health insurance premiums get autodeducted from my wages now. Horrors, the (probably less) money will go somewhere else.