Must be all those probes we sent to the Red Planet;)

Because soundbites are easier than thinking... Or learning.

Same reason that every time it is snowy or rainy somewhere this is trotted out as evidence against global warming even though most models predicts increased snow and rain in some places.

OK....once again, Hillary scares the hell out of me....

link

So she can envision a day when, to get a job, you have to prove you are insured - and I presume that to mean you have the government controlled health insurance plan?

Thank you, no.

Really? Why do I need a social security card to get a job?

Do you think it's fine to have to be enrolled in a government pension plan to qualify for employment?

What's the difference between that and having to be enrolled in a either a government or privately-run health insurance plan?

There is none. I despise the whole concept of social security. It is a government sponsored pyramid scheme. However, the existance of social security does not mean I should accept further intrusion, does it?

Well, if it is private insurance not provided by the employer, what business is it of the government to mandate you do it before you can be employed?

If the government wants to mandate that I have insurance, it makes no sense to make employers the gatekeeper for the governments enforcement. Create an Internal Insurance Service and require that we file annual paperwork with the government proving coverage and creating criminal liabilities if we don't. Otherwise it is feels like saying I can't get a job (that doesn't involve a car) without me providing my employer with evidence that I have car insurance.

Social security presentation is a requirement for employment because all legal citizens are automatically enrolled and the employers are required to withhold payroll taxes (regardless of your actual status) and provide detailed reporting on who gets credit for that contribution. That is, the employer has a vital role in the government program. Since all legal residences are enrolled automatically, it is also secondarily evidence that you are legally eligible for employment. If the employer is not involved in the insurance, I fail to see what role the employer has in it; it strikes me as a personal matter.

If health coverage would be a requirement for employment that is a pretty startling shift from the move towards health insurance being a obligation of employment to being an obligation for employment.

If it is government run and provided health insurance, then again, I wonder what the necessity would be in making the employer the middle man of enforcement?

If it is somewhere in between then I'll wait and see what actual proposals she makes. Her interview on NPR today still had most insurance being provided by employers and creating incentives and tax breaks to encourage increasingly small business to offer insurance.

What I love is that elected officials do not have to pay either SS or for their own medical benefits, at least from what I understand. I'm with Alex as to waiting to see what sorts of proposals she actually makes before making any judgments.

I believe the whole point of this is that employers are claiming they can no longer afford to be the providers of health insurance. And that may very well be true.

scaeagles' opinion notwithstanding, social security is routinely considered the best thing the federal government has ever done. I daresay a requirement that everyone be health insured which resulted in everyone having health insurance would be similarly popular, and similarly devised by the people FOR the people.


If it became a legal requirement for every working citizen to have such health insurance, employers would no more be the "gatekeeper" for that than they are now for social security.

I haven't heard any details of Hillary's plan ... but if part of the health insurance premium were to be paid by the citizen and part by their employer ... then the situation would be quite similar to social security vis-a-vis an employer's current right to require a social security number for prospective employees.

Hmm. I wonder what the costs of this 'mandatory' insurance would be? Seems that a lot of people who make a certain amount of money {more than the average people, but, still with the costs of living, never seems to be enough to cover everything} they get no breaks. Meaning, would the part the employer covered be according to what the person makes? And, it sounds like the person has to come to the table with said insurance.

And, does this punish the person who can't afford insurance at their income level? Or encourage others not to work hard enough to be at a certain level to keep them at low income status, etc.?

Insurance is expensive. When the Hubster was laid off for four months, we had Cobra. It was almost/over $800. a month. I think that was also not the normal price, but, what his company would be paying {minus his portion}. And remember, he was unemployed.

And, what type of insurance would be offered? I reached enough hours/length at my part time job to qualify for insurance. But, it was pretty darn lame. It was something, but, really, if I saved the premiums myself I could probably, if I got sick, go to a doctor and then ask for generic prescriptions. It didn't cover any major illnesses.