  |
  |
 |
Posted on 09/21/2007 5:42:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
Hillary Clinton has spent years trying to erase the memory of her failed attempt to bring socialized medicine to the United States, but this week the ghost of Hillary Care was lurking in the wings again as she unveiled her new plan to overhaul the nation's health system. Touted as an "American Health Choices Plan," Sen. Clinton's proposal is short on choice but full of government mandates, including a new directive that every American purchase health insurance.
Like her Democratic rivals -- and even some Republicans running for president -- Clinton makes it sound as if we are facing a health care crisis, one that only government can solve. But what exactly is the problem?
Advocates of universal health coverage like to trot out the statistic that about 46 million Americans lack health care coverage, a number based on Census data from 2005. But the figure is misleading.
Most people, upon hearing that so many Americans lack health insurance, automatically assume it is because they can't afford it, but the Census study tells a different story. More than 17 million of those counted as uninsured earn more than $50,000 a year, including almost 9 million who make over $75,000 a year. Some of these people are, no doubt, self-employed, healthy and young, which is why they choose not to buy health insurance for themselves. Since there are few options out there for catastrophic coverage -- the kind that will take care of your bills if you're injured in a car crash or suddenly get cancer -- many of these Americans opt not to spend the money on expensive comprehensive health insurance, just as many people choose not to buy life insurance. Does it make sense to force them to do so?
What's more, nearly half of the 46 million uninsured remain so for only a brief time, on average four months. Many of these persons are between jobs and choose not to pay the premiums for continued coverage available to most persons covered by an employer-provided health plan if they lose or quit their jobs.
Finally, of the remaining uninsured, about 10 million are non-citizens, including an unknown number of illegal aliens.
So, when the numbers are dissected, the health care "crisis" comes down to, according to some estimates, fewer than 10 million Americans who lack long-term access to health care coverage. Yet to deal with this problem, Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically change the way the rest of us receive our health care.
Clinton's plan would force insurers to offer coverage at the same rates to everyone: smokers would pay no more than non-smokers; drug addicts and alcoholics would receive the same rates as the abstemious; obese people would pay the same as the physically fit -- even though all of these behaviors affect health and can be avoided. The consequence would be higher rates for those who choose to behave responsibly.
Moreover, to pay for the estimated $110 billion cost of the new Hillary Care, Clinton would raise taxes. First, she'd wipe out most of the Bush tax cuts, and then she'd tax employer-provided health care plans themselves for those she deems "rich."
Clinton likened her plan of forcing all individuals to purchase health insurance (and requiring the government to pay for those who ostensibly can't afford it) to some states' requirement that drivers maintain insurance in case they injure someone in an accident. But the comparison couldn't be farther off the mark. Car and property insurance don't cover routine maintenance, and premiums are tied to actual risk. You don't submit claims to your car insurer for tune-ups or brake repairs or to your home insurer for painting your house or putting on a new roof. And your premiums depend on whether you are a good driver and how much your house is worth.
But most people expect their health insurance to pay at least a portion of the cost of visits to the doctor for routine care when they get the flu or need vaccinations for the kids, and they don't want to pay more if they choose unhealthy lifestyles.
We do need a new system -- one that rewards individual efforts to stay healthy and provides incentives to get regular, prophylactic care. But Hillary's plan doesn't come close to doing that and will only result in higher taxes and rationed health care.
HillaryCare, a subsidiary of Whitewater Conglomerated.
It is a system that costs more than any other in the world, still doesn't cover everyone and achieves lower bang for the buck than any other system in terms of macro-economic relevance (i.e. life expectancy).
If a system that covers everyone and is cheaper and more effective can be implemented why not? The rest of the industrialized world does better than the US on this one.
The voters will be poorer and the witch will be richer.
I'm afraid we'll have to disagree here. The biggest difference between the US and most of the "rest of the industrialized world" is that in the US any level of healthcare is available at any moment to those who can afford it - through wealth or insurance alike.
I lived in New York State for many years. You have no idea how much cross-border traffic came in from Canada to avail themselves of the for-profit, non-governmental health care.
You are welcome to your opinion, FRiend, but I cannot say I share it.
When Hillary lived in the Whitehouse and trotted out a socialized medicine plan based on the Canadian system, she was politely told to shut up and go away. The fact that tens of thousands of Canadians continue to come to the US for health care kinda tells me that our system works better than theirs and I see little in the way of a compelling arguement to change.
And when your liberal friends use the worn out “The are 40 million people with no health insurance” arguement, use these two rebuttals:
1) Not having health insurance does NOT mean they are denied health care. There’s a big difference between the two assertions.
2) If they don’t have health insurance, whose fault is that? That’s probably a choice you made. Perhaps you didn’t study in high school and didn’t invest in yourself enough so you qualify for a job that provides health insurance. Or maybe you decided to buy a new car or a 50” plasma TV instead of health insurance. In either case, it’s not my problem...it’s the result of choices you made now or years past.
In my mind, health insurance is not a right...it’s something you earn as part of being a productive member of society. If you don’t earn enough to buy insurance, I fail to see why that’s my problem or why my tax dollars should be used to reinforce your current or past bad decisions.
Did you even read the article?
“If a system that covers everyone and is cheaper and more effective can be implemented why not?”
And......do you have any proof from any reliable sources to defend this statement:
“The rest of the industrialized world does better than the US on this one”
My mother in-law, during a recent check-up, learned that she had a "suspicious-looking" lump in her breast. Within two days' time, she had visited three doctors, including one breast cancer specialist. She is scheduled for a biopsy today, after which she will have a follow-up visit with the specialist next week, as soon as her results come back.
To top this off, she is the wife of a farmer. They own catastrophic health insurance, and pay for most things out of pocket. It serves them well.
In how many other countries is the type of healthcare described above, available? In Canada or the UK, could she have seen that many doctors, including specialists, and receive a biopsy with results so quickly? I don't believe so.
“Clinton’s proposal is short on choice but full of government mandates, including a new directive that every American purchase health insurance.”
I think “Choice” would be great for Americans.
I choose to take the taxes that are being taken from me to pay for other peoples health care and apply that money to a plan I will use.
Choice!
|
|
|
My dad suffered a cardiac arrest in July - within one hour he was having an emergency heart cath with 5 stents to open up blocked arteries and despite it being “the big one”, due to prompt care, he had little damage to his heart pumping function. If he had been a candidate for bypass surgery, he would have had emergency surgery right then. A month later, a test revealed the need for a pacemaker - he found out on Friday and the pacemaker was put in on the following Tuesday.
In contrast, a friend of mine’s godfather (British) has had two serious heart attacks in quick succession. He is on a 4 month waiting list for by-pass surgery. We hope he makes it to surgery.
I’ll take American health care over any other country’s in a ‘heartbeat’.
All Hitlary cares about is Controlling our Lives in as Many Ways as she can, and ‘Healthcare’ is just a Means to an End. :(
Somebody’s going up in flames! Good post!
Laughing at the tagline...once I read it out loud!
Read it or mis-read it? ;-P
Re: your tagline...that’s why Fred Thompson’s gonna beat her.
I have to disagree with you as well. Maybe it is because I am a new American that I still know that it is NOT the job of the Federal Goverment to look after my health. If you want the ‘goverment’ to be your healthcare providor, then your STATE should do it. We live in a country made up of 50 INDEPENDANT states. You cannot expect someone that lives in a very rural area to pay the same as someone that lives in a very expensive city like Chicago, NYC or LA.
I also cannot understand the mentality of people that moan and bitch about how the goverment wastes their money, how they want these same idiots to now tell them when and how they can be medically treated. This is ludicrous. There is no way in hell I want a politician (scum-of-the-earth) to tell me how to spend my money. They will not use the same healthcare they will force on us!
The only thing I think we should have is that if someone goes to the emergency room for a public horpital, that they should be treated and NOT charged 10s of thousands of dollars for it. It should be a small nominal fee. It is, afterall, a PUBLIC hospital. Private hospitals can do whatever they want. This way uninsured people will always have a place to go for treatment.
:))
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.