Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (219986)	9/17/2007 10:45:38 AM
From: mph	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793778

Clinton's plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers. Well, there it is. What she's really promoting is a business tax and hiding it as a plan for universal coverage. Actually, not only a business tax, but an overall tax increase to cover the subsidies and government pool. This is one hugely expensive plan. Also, mandated insurance purchases are not necessarily successful. The comparison in the article was to states requiring drivers to buy auto insurance liability policies. Yeah, right. There are drivers without coverage all over CA. In CA, those who drive without insurance are not allowed to seek pain and suffering general damages against an insured party in an auto case. They can seek medical and other economic losses. This was enacted through the proposition process, of course. There isn't a comparable sanction one can impose against individuals who refuse or fail to buy mandated health insurance. What are you gonna do, refuse them anesthesia or pain meds?