Clinton's Free Health Care to be Expensive

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Sun Feb 3, 11:40 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Is this what is meant by the Government "tapping your pay" ...... to pay for your own healthcare?

February 4, 2008

Imagine less-costly imaging

Raleigh doctor fights hospital, state to expand ultrasound offerings

Dr. Gary Poling wants to offer patients in Raleigh County and the surrounding area a deal. Let's say you need an ultrasound of your abdomen. Poling, a family practice doctor in Beckley, will charge you $360. If you go to the nearest hospital - Raleigh General - you'll pay $830, on average.

Dr. Gary Poling wants to offer patients in Raleigh County and the surrounding area a deal.

However, Poling can't offer ultrasounds to patients referred to him by other doctors. The state won't allow it. He doesn't have the required "certificate of need."

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200802030294

GEEEZE, seems like $500 is a pretty hefty "tap".

But with Hillary's plan it won't bet a "tap", ....... it will be a "KERWHAP".

.

[quote="SamCogar"]Is this what is meant by the Government "tapping your pay" ...... to pay for your own healthcare?

February 4, 2008

Imagine less-costly imaging

Raleigh doctor fights hospital, state to expand ultrasound offerings

Dr. Gary Poling wants to offer patients in Raleigh County and the surrounding area a deal. Let's say you need an ultrasound of your abdomen. Poling, a family practice doctor in Beckley, will charge you $360. If you go to the nearest hospital - Raleigh General - you'll pay $830, on average.

Dr. Gary Poling wants to offer patients in Raleigh County and the surrounding area a deal.

However, Poling can't offer ultrasounds to patients referred to him by other doctors. The state won't allow it. He doesn't have the required "certificate of need."

Just think how much less medicine would cost if the government got out of the picture. All government needs to do is moniter the training and credietials of doctors to ensure they meet minimum requirements. The Certificate of need does nothing but limit competition.

You know, health care costs, including insurance costs, are exhorbitant. I just don't know that Hillary has the ability to actually help the situation.

I would rather see free clinics expanded such that someone could get free care, and the rest kept the same.

SheikBen wrote:You know, health care costs, including insurance costs, are exhorbitant. I just don't know that Hillary has the ability to actually help the situation.

I would rather see free clinics expanded such that someone could get free care, and the rest kept the same.

I want the government to say the blazes out of medicine, other than ensuring that doctors meet minimum training and competancy standards to practice medicine. Then I only want to see that on the state level. Otherwise, I want government out of the picture.

But private charities, in the absence of government overregulation, could expand free clinics. I would have government be involved at a state by state level, so that those people who want more socialized medicine could move to states with it, and those who do not want socialized medicine could move away from such states.

SheikBen wrote:But private charities, in the absence of government overregulation, could expand free clinics. I would have government be involved at a state by state level, so that those people who want more socialized medicine could move to states with it, and those who do not want socialized medicine could move away from such states.

As socialized medicine is no where to be found in the Constitution, this is the only way government could be involved.

That makes perfect sense to me, Aaron. I am all about states' rights, because that is really where "freedom of choice" exists. I believe it was Brandeis who called states "laboratories of democracy"--if socialized medicine is a good idea, let the states try it, and then let other states evaluate the given data of success/failure.

I also agree that our government does a lot that is beyond it's purview given the Constitution.

SheikBen wrote:But private charities, in the absence of government overregulation, could expand free clinics. I would have government be involved at a state by state level, so that those people who want more socialized medicine could move to states with it, and those who do not want socialized medicine could move away from such states.

You don't want government involved at the state level either. All the State has to do is ensure doctor's meet the minimum standards of care and education. That is it. If you want the state involved otherwise, I strongly suggest you take a good long look at the West Virginia Healthcare Authority. It manages to add more expense to healtchare that the drug companies ever thought about.

Well I would not want the state of West Virginia involved, no

I just like states' rights and for those blue states that want to do it, let them serve as examples (good or bad). We have from Romney something in Massachusettes to judge. Steph's relative (was it your son, sorry Steph, I forgot just who it was) was forced out due to the economic consequences. We see that this is quite bad. Perhaps there are stories to the contrary. I'd like to see the evidence.

Forgive me, but I'm a social science kind of a guy. If a state wants to sign up to be guinea pigs for my own curiosity, and crossing state lines is a relatively easy task, then I like them going for it.

Think of this advantage, Cato, I presume that we are both into gun rights. What better fodder do we have for the legitimacy of gun rights but the high crime and murder rates of those cities and states that have restricted them? Now, unlike health care, I'd say that the 2nd amendment expressly prohibits the states and cities from acting as they are; however, such foolishness does give us a decent array of data to consider.

Michael,

It was my son who fled Massachusettes. I agree with you totally on states rights. However, the fleeing is easier in some locations than others. MA is a fairly small state and my son only lived about 10 miles from the RI border, but imagine living in Alaska, or Hawaii, or central Texas, then flight isn't quite such an easy task.

Still I believe MA, and any other state that wants to try something with healthcare, is entitled to do so. I wouldn't want WV to do it because I live in WV and can't afford whatever they do and imho the folks running this state aren't the best and brightest WV has to offer.

I get really peeved when the feds interfer with states' rights. You know like my friend with MS who can legally grow 13 marijuana plants under RI law but the feds could swoop in and arrest him and perhaps confiscate his home. He hasn't had much success growing the stuff and the feds arrested the man he was buying from back in November. It's infuriating.