Clinton to offer health care plan

Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan

Monday 17 September 2007


Michael D. Tanner, director of health and welfare studies:

Here we go again. HillaryCare is back, and its apparent that Sen. Clinton has learned little since the American people overwhelmingly rejected her last attempt to overhaul the U.S. health care system. Once again her plan, which would cost $110 billion per year in new taxes, calls for greater government control over American health care. If her plan were to pass this time, it would mean higher taxes, lost jobs, less patient choice, and poorer quality health care.

Among the worst features of her proposal:

An individual mandate. Sen. Clinton would require every American to purchase health insurance or face penalties. There are many problems with such a mandate. It restricts individual choice and liberty. It will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. And it sets in motion a whole series of regulatory requirements that will ultimately lead to greater government control of our health care.

An employer mandate. Sen. Clinton would impose a “play or pay “ mandate on American businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax into a government insurance fund. Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers, meaning employers will inevitably hire fewer workers. Some may even be forced to layoff current employees and others will offset their costs by reducing wages or wage increases.

Expanding government programs. Sen. Clinton would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide benefits for middle-class families. Yet studies show that many of those who would be covered by such an expansion already have private health insurance. Thus, Sen. Clinton would simply be moving people from private insurance to taxpayer-funded government care. She would also allow people under age 65 to “buy-in” to Medicare despite the fact that the program is already facing a financial crisis.

Insurance regulation. Senator Clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and would impose “community rating” on health insurance premiums. As a result the young and healthy will be forced to pay more in order to subsidize the older and sicker. And those who practice healthy lifestyles will pay more to subsidize the irresponsible.

With health care, as with so many other things, Hillary Clinton clearly trusts big government more than she trusts the free market and the American people.

- www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=656


​

 

deleted post

 

I'm going out on a limb, and saying the next democrat talking point will be....



".....at least she HAS a plan. Why critique hers when you don't even HAVE a plan ?"

Just sayin'.....

 

That might be true, if the information in KenH's posting is correct. I would think that any proposal by any candidate at this time would need to be refined in order to accomplish its task.

I realize that providing universal healthcare will not be easy nor will it be cheap, but I feel it is necessary and to that end I believe it is doable

 

OK, I'll bite. What are you saying ?

 

The lesson I learned from Walter Reed Hospital is the government is incapable of running a single health care facility. Do you really want the same folks who bring you ABSCAM, Watergate, Lewinskygate, The Iraq War, Whitewater, Cold Cash Jefferson, ......you see where I'm going ?

 

I wonder how this would fair out with the JW and people who desire alternative medicines. I hope it doesn’t come to this.

 

Bingo. Go to a hospital that runs on gov't money and see what quality you get.

Those of you who want the gov't to take care of you...just be aware that they will also dictate to you what lifestyle choices you are to make to acheive their goal.

Also, if Hillary's plan goes into effect, say goodbye to most small businesses. They can't afford the medical costs, as is, so they will close up shop.

Finally, the "healthcare tax" will grow much as the AMT has grown, and will eventually consume the working American populace.

The one good thing that would happen....folks that are coming here from other countries to take advantage of our world-class medical system would quit, stat.

 

Wouldn’t the tax substitute the health benefit deduction from the pay check?

 

"[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy
that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's
life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every
one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination
of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers
of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the
capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few."

-- John Adams (An Essay on Man's Lust for Power, 29 August 1763)

 

What about illegal immigrants? Who gets the privilege of paying for the health care of that 12 million people?

Hillary doesn't even address that problem.

Maybe the plan is amnesty, then coverage.

 

Hillary, I believe, has forgotten what country she lives in and what office she's running for.

I can't believe anyone could seriously consider this woman for President.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6


AP Interview: Clinton on health care By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON - Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."


She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

 

So you pay for personal versus group health insurance? You're going to have lot's of company when Medicare goes bust in 2017. What's my assumption? That the so-called wealthiest nation on earth can't afford to pay for health care for those who need it? Which side of this should Christians be on? Should Christians support an unjust war rather than health care for our needy? Where in the Bible does it say that?

 

It's not the "nation's" job to pay for my healthcare. It's my job.

I, as a Christian, am to help the needy. But I'd rather do it through my giving than through the forcible confiscation and squandering of my resources.

And I do help the needy. And I'm sure that my dollar of benevolence goes many times further than what Uncle Sam's does.

 

I agree completely!

 

You are like a pile of ants. All over the place. You made an asumption about me that was false and unfounded.

And the communistic health care plan the Dems want is not a Christian standard. You will not find that health care plan in scripture.

The war is both constitutional and just. And no one is denying health care to anyone in this country. And it is the best in the world.

 

Since when did it become constitutional for congress to give up it's power to declare war to the executive? That's all the pre emptive war doctrine is, another congressional power usurped by the unitary executive.

Just war indeed, just because powerful lobbies wanted Iraq balkanized and privatized. Mission accomplished!

 

Actually, I would agree that it would be much better if we had no welfare, Medicaid, Social Security, Medicare, etc. but the churches have failed miserably to keep up.

What percentage of the needy do you think our churches currently help? Maybe 3%? So, the choice is not the church versus the government but rather the government versus nothing.

 

Lets see, you are ranting against the government taking over health care, and in the same breath, implying that government should regulate what we put in our bodies. Makes sense to me. On top of that, you are implying that government should put a penalty of premium on insurance for those who eat, drink and smoke in a way you do not agree with.

Are you sure you aren't for Hillary?