• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Clinton: Envisions a Day when proof of insurance is required for employment

jonny

Well-Known Member
[Clinton] 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.

AP Interview: Clinton on health care - Yahoo! News

Am I the only person who thinks this is moronic? One reason why people get jobs is so that they can get insurance. From what I gathered, Clinton doesn't want to create a government-run health system, but at the same time she doesn't want employers to have to pay for insurance (why should they, if you've already got it?).

Could someone please explain to me why this is in any way rational? If someone doesn't have insurance, it's probably because they can't afford it. So, Clinton solves this problem by not letting them get a job?!?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Ok.........that doesn't make any sense at all. I can see the economy crumbling into ruin if such an idea is ever passed into law, as fewer and fewer people are able to get a job, just because they cannot afford insurance.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
The article hardly provides any details. Health care in America is broken and it might take something radical like this to fix it. In her speech the other day she spoke of two plans: one was similar to what federal employees have while another was low-budget coverage. Certainly, all a person would have to do is show they have the low-budget coverage (which will likely be a new version of Medicare) to get employment.

The end result of everyone having health care is the right goal to have - lets just work out the details before we jump all over Clinton. Lets get the details. Then we can make an informed decision.
 

jonny

Well-Known Member
I don't mind getting all the details, but this detail makes no sense. Honestly - does anyone think that this is a good idea? There are better ways to make sure that people get insured than shutting them out of the job market if they aren't.
 

Mister_T

Forum Relic
Premium Member
jonny said:
Am I the only person who thinks this is moronic?
Nope. That sounds like an absolutely horrible idea that will be creating unecessary (not to mention unfair) unemployment.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
But if all you have to do to get insurance is check in with social services then it's not really a big deal.
 

MaddLlama

Obstructor of justice
Without a government healthcare plan already in place, this makes no sense.

With a government healthcare plan in place, this statement is redundant.

No matter how you slice it, this is just ridiculous.
 

Mister_T

Forum Relic
Premium Member
But if all you have to do to get insurance is check in with social services then it's not really a big deal.
We may have to disagree on that one.

Why someone would want to deny someone a job because they didn't have health insurance is beyond me. Why create more unemployment?
 

jamaesi

To Save A Lamb
I don't really find this moronic. The price of health care keeps going up so much that a lot of employers and small businesses can not afford to insure their employees.

This system is very broken and Mrs Clinton has been working towards a fix for that for most of the time she's been in politics.
 

Aqualung

Tasty
I don't really find this moronic. The price of health care keeps going up so much that a lot of employers and small businesses can not afford to insure their employees.

This system is very broken and Mrs Clinton has been working towards a fix for that for most of the time she's been in politics.

My solution would be to not make employers insure their employees in the first place.
 

nutshell

Well-Known Member
We may have to disagree on that one.

Why someone would want to deny someone a job because they didn't have health insurance is beyond me. Why create more unemployment?

No one wants to deny employment. It motivates people to get insurance.
 

Mister_T

Forum Relic
Premium Member
No one wants to deny employment. It motivates people to get insurance.
You think people don't want health insurance? I'm pretty sure those without medical insurance would glady jump on the chance to get health insurance if it were available to them.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
You think people don't want health insurance? I'm pretty sure those without medical insurance would glady jump on the chance to get health insurance if it were available to them.
Actually, I think that a good portion of the uninsured in this country don't have insurance because they are young, healthy, and don't think that it is worth what it would cost them (if I were to guess, I'd say about 20% of the uninsured would fall into this category, a bit more if we count those who have enough money to self insure).
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Actually, I think that a good portion of the uninsured in this country don't have insurance because they are young, healthy, and don't think that it is worth what it would cost them (if I were to guess, I'd say about 20% of the uninsured would fall into this category, a bit more if we count those who have enough money to self insure).
I found this (I have no idea if his numbers are credible or not):
Opinion: Mark Steyn: Nurse Hillary knows best | health, million, uninsured, insurance, people - OCRegister.com
Nobody really knows how many “uninsured” there are: Two different Census Bureau surveys conducted in the same year identify the number of uninsured as A) 45 million or B) 19 million. The first figure is the one you hear about, the second figure apparently entered the Witness Protection Program. Of those 45 million “uninsured Americans,” the Census Bureau itself says over 9 million aren’t Americans at all, but foreign nationals. They have various health care back-ups: If you’re an uninsured Canadian in Detroit, and you get an expensive chronic disease, you can go over the border to Windsor, Ontario, and re-embrace the delights of socialized health care; if you’re an uninsured Uzbek, it might be more complicated. Of the remaining 36 million, a 2005 Actuarial Research analysis for the Department of Health and Human Services says that another 9 million did, in fact, have health coverage through Medicare.

Where are we now? 27 million? So who are they? Bud and Mabel and a vast mountain of emaciated husks of twisted limbs and shriveled skin covered in boils and pustules? No, it’s a rotating population: People who had health insurance but changed jobs, people who are between jobs, young guys who feel they’re fit and healthy and at this stage of their lives would rather put a monthly health-insurance tab towards buying a home or starting a business or blowing it on booze ’n’ chicks.

That last category is the one to watch: Americans 18-34 account for 18 million of the army of the “uninsured.” Look, there’s a 22-year-old, and he doesn’t have health insurance! Oh, the horror and the shame! What an indictment of America!
Well, he doesn’t have life insurance, either, or homeowner’s insurance. He lives a life blessedly free of the tedious bet-hedging paperwork of middle age. He’s 22, and he thinks he’s immortal – and any day now Hillary will propose garnishing his wages for her new affordable mandatory life-insurance plan.

So, out of 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million aren’t American, 9 million are insured, 18 million are young and healthy. And the rest of these poor helpless waifs trapped in Uninsured Hell waiting for Hillary to rescue them are, in fact, wealthier than the general population. According to the Census Bureau’s August 2006 report on “Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage,” 37 percent of those without health insurance – that’s 17 million people – come from households earning more than $50,000. Nineteen percent – 8.7 million people – of those downtrodden paupers crushed by the brutal inequities of capitalism come from households earning more than $75,000.

In other words, if they fall off the roof, they can write a check. Indeed, the so-called “explosion” of the uninsured has been driven entirely by wealthy households opting out of health insurance. In the decade after 1995 – i.e., since the last round of coercive health reform – the proportion of the uninsured earning less than $25,000 has fallen by 20 percent, and the proportion earning more than 75 grand has increased by 155 percent. The story of the past decade is that the poor are getting sucked into the maw of “coverage,” and the rich are fleeing it. And, given that the cost of health “insurance” bears increasingly little relationship to either the cost of treatment or the actuarial reality of you ever getting any particular illness, it’s entirely rational to say: “You know what? I’ll worry about that when it happens. In the meantime, I want to start a business and send my kid to school.” Freedom is the desire of my human heart even if my arteries get all clogged and hardened.
I definately think he is probably off on the bolded section. He provides no evidence that the 17 million people he mentions coming from households with an income greater than $50,000 aren't already being counted in any of the other groups.
 

Mister_T

Forum Relic
Premium Member
Actually, I think that a good portion of the uninsured in this country don't have insurance because they are young, healthy, and don't think that it is worth what it would cost them (if I were to guess, I'd say about 20% of the uninsured would fall into this category, a bit more if we count those who have enough money to self insure).
Working in the industry, I can tell you that the majority of people who are without health insurance either:

A) Can't afford it

or

B) Are not "eligble."

That's not to say that the group of people you mentioned doesn't exist, but 20% of the uninsured I think is a bit much.
 

SoyLeche

meh...
Working in the industry, I can tell you that the majority of people who are without health insurance either:

A) Can't afford it

or

B) Are not "eligble."

That's not to say that the group of people you mentioned doesn't exist, but 20% of the uninsured I think is a bit much.
Not knowing how exactly it is that you "work in the industry", I'm not sure I trust your observations much. It is very likely that you only ever deal with the portion of the uninsured population that isn't a part of the group I mentioned.

In probability terms, you are seeing:
P(can't afford, aren't elligible|have come under your radar)
(that is read, the probability that an uninsured can't afford, isn't elligible GIVEN THAT they have come under your radar). Since only a subset of the uninsured population has come under your radar, though, this doesn't tell us much about the entire population.
 

Mister_T

Forum Relic
Premium Member
SoyLeche said:
Not knowing how exactly it is that you "work in the industry", I'm not sure I trust your observations much. It is very likely that you only ever deal with the portion of the uninsured population that isn't a part of the group I mentioned.
Your entitled to whatever opinion you like, but having worked for health insurance companies looking to expand their business, I can assure you I have a pretty clear picture of the companies' advertising target (the uninsured population).

SoyLeche said:
In probability terms, you are seeing:
P(can't afford, aren't elligible|have come under your radar)​
(that is read, the probability that an uninsured can't afford, isn't elligible GIVEN THAT they have come under your radar). Since only a subset of the uninsured population has come under your radar, though, this doesn't tell us much about the entire population.

Not only is it not a blip on my radar, but it's not a blip on the U.S. Census Bureau's radar for a survey based on money income and poverty, and other social and economic indicators US Census Press Releases
And it's probably for the same reason: The percentage of people that refuse health insurance even though it's no burden to them, is very small.



Anyways, this thread is about Hilary Clinton and her healthcare propsal, not the different groups of uninsured. Let's not derail this any further.
 
Top