HillaryCare Part Deux
Posted by BrianMrs. Former President is set to announce her latest foray into socialized medicine today. She was kind enough to leak out the basics ahead of time so that the AP could start giving her some ink. I’ll reserve my full commentary until I get a chance to look through the gory details, but the basics aren’t pretty.
First of all it is built upon the employer based system, which is itself one of the core problems with health care in the U.S. I don’t see why it would be wise to build a huge bureaucracy on a shaky foundation. And of course her plan isn’t free - remember that “free” health care is anything but. It’s going to cost, according to the story, about $110 billion per year, which probably means about half a trillion in the unfortunate event it gets implemented. How will she pay for it? Raising taxes, of course.
If you pull the string on a liberal you’re going to hear the raise taxes mantra. The current batch of liberals have changed their language, but don’t be fooled. The catch phrase of the days is “repeal Bush tax cuts.” Folks, repealing a tax cut is a tax increase.
Clinton’s plan imposes an “individual mandate” on all citizens. And no, she isn’t using that phrase to try to get support from Larry Craig and Barney Frank. Every citizen will be compelled by the government to have health insurance by threat of force. You’re a young, healthy person? Too bad. The article compares - probably parroting what will be one of H-Rod’s talking points - the “individual mandate” to compulsory car insurance, which is a false analogy. States adopted mandatory auto insurance to protect drivers like me, who already carried insurance for our own economic reasons, from bozos who drove around recklessly without insurance. In that situation compulsory insurance protects me from others. There is absolutely no comparison with compulsory health insurance other than she is using that analogy to seize upon the familiarity of the populace with governmental force.
And make no mistake about it, under H-Rod’s plan every business will make a cold hard decision about whether to offer insurance or drop coverage and pay the government imposed fee. That will effectively eliminate your choice in the matter and force you into the government program because current tax policy and regulations make it prohibitively expensive to purchase insurance privately. Here’s how it will likely go down. At first the government fee on businesses will be comparable to what they currently pay for, say, Blue Cross/Blue Shield. However, the government insurance will probably not be quite as good. Many businesses will drop coverage and opt for the fee as a rational business decision. The affected people who find themselves in the substandard government plan will have no option but to petition the government for better coverage, which politicians will be more than happy to do - more power for them. Taxes on businesses will increase, but so will premiums for private plans because they are now spreading the cost over a smaller group of people. Eventually there will be few hold outs and a large swath of the country will be under full control of the government.
And make no mistake about it; H-Rod’s program is just a stepping stone to the U.S. adopting a British type health care system. And in Britain they are predictably moving towards using their socialized health care system to manipulate the lives of private citizens.
Failing to follow a healthy lifestyle could lead to free NHS treatment being denied under the Tory plans.
Patients would be handed “NHS Health Miles Cards” allowing them to earn reward points for losing weight, giving up smoking, receiving immunisations or attending regular health screenings.
Like a supermarket loyalty card, the points could be redeemed as discounts on gym membership and fresh fruit and vegetables, or even give priority for other public services - such as jumping the queue for council housing.
But heavy smokers, the obese and binge drinkers who were a drain on the NHS could be denied some routine treatments such as hip replacements until they cleaned up their act.
A comment with the article left by Neal Asher of Chelmsford, England says it best:
Related content:State run health care results in the next power grab: we make you pay for the maintenance of your body, therefore we own your body and can tell you what you must do with it.

September 17th, 2007 at 6:25 am
I would be interested in knowing your position in the case of an individual who, for reasons of either poverty or stupidity or both, has failed to either purchase health “insurance” or to save a large amount of money, and shows up at an emergency room with a life-threatening illness or accidental injury. Maybe a child with spendthrift parents, who has, oh let’s say Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Should this individual be turned away due to his inability to pay, just as though he were attempting to check in to an expensive hotel?
September 17th, 2007 at 8:34 am
First Cup September 17th…
Here are some of this morinings top stories:
AG Nominee:
Bowing to pressure from Democrats, President Bush has decided to name Michael B. Mukasey, a formal federal judge from New York to replace Alberto Gonzales as Attorney General, according to s…
September 17th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I just love the line “this will not be government run” then in the next paragraph goes on to talk about requirements and higher taxes. I guess the government will not be involved in setting or enforcing requirements and taxes.
September 17th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Del, here are a couple of posts I’ve written recently that shed some light onto my thoughts on the matter. At the core of my philosophy is the belief that our society must have rewards for desirable behavior and punishments for undesirable behavior.
I’m not heartless, but I am rational. I really don’t have a problem with a government program to provide insurance for kids, provided that birth control for both parents is a pre-condition. No need to invite more burden on the system from people with a demonstrated incapacity to provide for their own.
I would support a well funded government program to provide all the necessities of life to individuals with illnesses or injuries so debilitating that they would be otherwise incapable of surviving and that the injury threshold is high enough that no one would cause themselves harm for a spot on the federal dole. I would like to see them given decent government jobs, however insignificant you or I might think they would be, that are respectful of their dignity – even if the job is grossly inefficient over alternatives. Regular employment is an important element of positive self worth; it gives you a reason to get up every day.
But I refuse to trade my liberty and independence for government health care based on hypothetical or anecdotal, isolated tales intended to tug at my emotions. I personally think Democrats do too much governing based on emotion rather than reality. And honestly, for a party that claims to cherish civil liberties how in the world can so many members be so eager to turn their lives over to the government – a government that could easily be run by someone you despise as much as Bush after Hillary/Obama/Edwards (assuming one of them wins)? It defies reasoning and is one of the ways that Republicans effectively portray Dems as only supportive of civil liberties when it comes to protecting the rights of criminals.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Okay, there are a couple of things I’m still unclear about. You didn’t want the government requiring (and enforcing) preventive care as a prerequisite for national health coverage. But you think parents of children enrolled in government-funded health care programs should be forced to use birth control? Temporararily irreversible birth control? Well, there’s no such thing for the fellas. I assume you mean Depo shots for the gals, which are not without side effects and in any case don’t last a year.
I understand the chilly Darwinian logic of not expending society’s resources on its least capable, or even its most luckless, members. I myself have been known to refer to the imbalance of public school spending on special ed as “pouring all your fertilizer on the stunted corn.” I am not suggesting that the government pay for bone marrow and organ transplants for every man, woman and child. Hell, dialysis is helping to bankrupt the Medicare system.
But I don’t like to contemplate a society where homeless schizophrenics are literally left to die in doorways, where uninsured women labor at home for two days to eventually deliver a stillborn baby, where (under your plan) poor Catholic kids die from diarrhea the way they do in the Third World, because they weren’t hospitalized because their parents wouldn’t sign on for mandatory birth control…I could go on, of course. I am not trying to make an emotional appeal, honestly. I just think the spectacle of all this being visited on the “least fit” of our citizens, of a wealthy, industrialized country ruthlessly cutting away its bottom layer like that…well, the word “demoralizing” comes to mind.
September 17th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
No, I’m not a fan of government mandates, but restricting procreation would be the only way to create a disincentive for families to abuse public welfare. I also don’t believe the government is as effective at developing health care solutions as the private sector, but I would support 100% a massive research program to develop a one year birth control shot/pill/etc. for both men and women that could not be reversed. I’d also like to see warp drive and those little kiosks from Star Trek that generate whatever food you request.
I paint a stark, bleak picture of coverage provided under my authoritarian plan, but I yield to your point that I could not stand idly by as people - even people who are responsible for their own plight - were just dying in the streets. I may have a heart after all; I’ll be sure to let the wife know. Maybe we could just bus them to somewhere less public. Just kidding. Whatever care is given to those individuals, though, must carry with it a social stigma and shouldn’t be in any way desirable for regular folks. There has been too much emphasis on lessening the stigma on welfare recipients in general. I would prefer to still see them have to break out a sheet of food stamps in line at the grocery store, holding up the line as everyone stared and silently judged. They need that motivation to stop being supported by the fruits of my labor.
One reason I don’t want to see government health care is Medicaid. A relative was on Medicaid for a period of time and did not speak fondly of it. She suggested that we never use a doctor who accepts Medicaid – something I’ve also heard from other people. Well, last weekend we had to take two kids to the pediatrician and our doctor had the weekend off, so we had to go to a different doctor who trades on call weekends with our doctor. We had met him before in the hospital after one of the children was born – nice guy, seems competent. But going to his office was like visiting a third world country. The purpose of our visit was quite mundane (ear infections), but I felt like we needed to be sterilized and deloused after our visit. That’s what you get with a government run program that pays much less than private programs. Maybe I’m too elitist, but that isn’t what I want.