WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.?

there are 44 million uninsured Americans in this country, and 1/3 of the country is underinsured. That's more people than the state of California. It's been documented time and time again that these people going to the Emergency room, and not paying drives up the cost of health care for everyone else. No politician is going vote to refuse health care in the ER because it would end their political career. The potential for lawsuits for misjudging an emergency situation would be too great for those who suggest turning away nonemergency cases. Lawsuits and the cost of insurance also create the high expense that is passed along to people from doctors. These are the reasons for expensive health care. Controling what doctors and nurses get paid would be through controling those factors, not controling what the doctor actually makes. The basic point is when overhead is controled, you have more money, therefore you can bring costs down. My son was charged $44 to have his temperature taken in the ER last time we went (that single item was not paid by my insurance company, but that is what they wanted the Insurance company to pay for that itemized "service") That was just part of his general admission to the ER, not the issue why he was there. Not only that, our healthcare is based on what our insurance approves, you very well may not get the best x-ray, or the new promising treatment...for example, new cancer fighting technology exists, a lot of insurance companies consider it experimental, despite the fact that in many cancers, they are terminal anyway. Under our system, doctors order what they know is covered, because if they order something else, and the bill doesn't get paid, it's on them. If you don't have the $200 deductible for the MRI, you will get the CAT scan...even if the MRI has been proven more effective as a tool for whatever it is they are looking for.

Anyhow, it's no wonder why people who do not have insurance (but would pay if charged fairly), who go to the ER, don't want to pay, because the services are overpriced. Because of the people who can't afford to pay at all. So, the point is, it's been documented, that the money spent on people going to the ER for general care, that should be sought out else where, and taking Insurance Companies self interest out of the picture, along with reducing the cost of billing and paperwork, not to mention regulating the cost and production of medicine in a way that would still promote research, but not line the pockets of Insurance Companies CEOs---(which should happen anyway because as soon as an immunization is not profitable, they can decide to stop making it despite the greater good of preventing a disease which happened just recently with an important vaccination) would allow us to provide health care to everyone. This would not involve tax hikes. Maybe that's how other countries pay for it, but they obviously don't have the wealth or the resources that this country has. No one is saying that additional insurance couldn't be purchased for higher end services--and I am sure there will be a market for that. But if you'd rather keep paying LIKE YOU ARE NOW, for people who don't have insurance, and have nothing to show for it, go ahead, support a system that is broken charging $44 to take a temperature, and watch insurance premiums sky rocket. I guess we can just keep going in the direction we are going. Let's freak everyone out by scaring them away from possibilities. That isn't helping find a solution, it's justifying keeping the current problem.

I wouldn't doubt if health insurance companies don't have people posing as regular people spreading fear and worry to people on here. Sounds paranoid, but look at what some of the people post on here. How much people are spun up about this, like citing Canada as a reason not to have national healthcare--ok, Canada's population is LESS than California...spread out over an area larger than the US. Their Road systems across that area, their puplic systems...for that large area, paid for a population smaller than California--of course they're going to have higher taxes. Of course they are going to have access issues. Of course they are going to make people come to a central point for an expensive procedure because with such a small population, how could you justify purchasing so many machines? I guarantee you if Canada was in the area of California, access would NOT be an issue. Again, based on the FACT that there is NOT a stream of French, English, German, Swedish, etc. immigrants coming here, tells me that no matter what you are saying about their countries, they are still more satisfied with what they have, than what we have. Period. I don't recall any talk about the PROBLEM of Canadians seeking superior American ER services by coming over the Border...or that our Northern hospitals or doctors are being overburdened by too many Canadians taking up beds. All health care systems have their pros and cons, but there's absolutely no reason why we can take the positives and create a better system. All I can say is when my copays for monthly required meds are $20 (generic) and $40 (name brand formulary) per med, for one person, and I have doctors charging me a separate charge from the ER visit which I paid a deductible for, and that separate charge isn't coverage (physician's fee), when a large chunk of my pay goes toward having health insurance, you have to wonder where all that extra money that isn't being spent on doctors visits goes. It's the greatest pyramid scam ever and Insurance Companies love it.