HillaryCare 2.0

[kat8585]

HillaryCare 2.0

By Rich Lowry

Monday, September 17, 2007

When it comes to health care, Hillary Clinton is never going to let her name be associated with the words "radical overhaul" ever again. Or, if she can help it, with massive bureaucracy or new taxes. That's what happened in 1993 with her health-care plan as first lady, and, as she never tires of saying, she has "the scars to prove it."

HillaryCare 2.0 is an entirely different enterprise, or so she would have us believe. It's the "American Health Choices Plan." It "builds on the current system to give businesses and their employers greater choice of health plans," while imposing "no overall increase in health spending or taxes." It's the all-things-to-all-people, sweetness-and-light, all-benefits-and-no-costs health-care plan of 2007.

It's also a sign of how she has wised up since her famous debacle early in her husband's first term. For a liberal seeking to expand government-run health care, it's not necessary to create new, elaborate governmental mechanisms that are vulnerable to parody and frightening to voters. Simply building on the status quo is enough to hasten us toward national health insurance.

That's because we have a hybrid system of private insurance and government health care that is increasingly tilting toward government. As the conservative writer Ramesh Ponnuru points out, only 12 percent of health-care costs are paid out of pocket, and the government already pays almost half of health-care costs. Liberals need only push this system toward its logical conclusion.

Because the private health-insurance market doesn't function properly, the government is left to pick up the pieces. But it is government policies that distort the health-insurance market in the first place. Ideally, people would pay for their own health insurance, the way they do with, say, auto insurance. But the tax code favors insurance that people get through their employers.

This creates all sorts of problems. Because employers pay for their insurance, for most people the costs of health care are essentially hidden. They have no incentive to shop around for cost-effective plans. Meanwhile, when people lose their jobs, they tend to lose their insurance -- exactly when they probably need it most.

This creates an expensive system that's anxiety-inducing for people who worry about losing their insurance. The way the system is set up makes it difficult and expensive for individuals to buy insurance, which is one reason why 47 million Americans are uninsured.

Clinton's plan would make this ramshackle system worse. She proposes more regulations on insurers and a mandate on large employers to provide insurance coverage or pay a tax. The regulations will make insurance even more expensive, while the employer mandate would only augment the current senseless system of people getting insurance through their jobs.

This means that the private-insurance market would, in all likelihood, continue to break down. And, of course, government will be there to keep increasing its market share. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute points out, Clinton proposes widening the availability of every government health-care program at hand -- Medicare would be extended to the nonelderly; the S-Chip program for poor children would be extended to the middle class; and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan would be extended to all. And all without the taint of a "radical overhaul."

Back in 1993, the burden of proof was on Clinton to prove the necessity of her health-care ideas. Now, the burden of proof has probably shifted to her opponents, and she benefits from the fact that Republicans have endorsed some of her specific proposals (including an "individual mandate" that everyone get insured). In short, she re-enters the health-care debate from a position of strength.

Lately, Republicans like President Bush and Rudy Giuliani have gotten into the game, offering forward-looking ideas to try to create a health-care market where individuals can buy their own insurance. That would be the best health-care reform, but HillaryCare 2.0 looms, more cautious and therefore more plausible than her first act.

[Shortstop]

Greetings...

Hillary....Hillary....Hillary....She tries doesn't she....I am woman hear me roar and all that jazz...

I don't know where I stand on this national health care plan thing yet...I want to watch Michal Moore's film Sicko, but haven't had the chance yet...Prolly will wait until the DVD comes out...But I did catch a news piece with him, it exposed a bit of Moore's "I wanna be in that line..." That line being in the long, long, long, long wait line to see a doctor in the countries that do have national health care....

Here are a few things that are rolling around in my head...To bring no offense to anyone of course....

1. Would we not have adequate money in the budget if we didn't pay for non-citizen's health care needs? OR if we do, charge their citizen country for their care....

2. Throw out all plans but the top 5, rework those and still allows us to choose....

3. Give all people the same retirement benefits that our governement gets....(Okay this has nothing to do with insurance, it's my own little riot.)

4. Put limits with some bending room on the amount of times you could see a doctor each year....This will control costs...Why? Have you ever walked into a free clinic? I have...It's always packed wall to wall...Now just imagine free health care for all and that chair you claim in your doctor's office will fill quickly....If you have never walked into free clinic, do so...Go see for yourself what free health care will bring....

I would love to see the system changed...I would love to see our govenment actually stand up for the American people....The system is broken and only getting worse...It used to be a time where you had no choice but to live within your means, but someone fell asleep at the controls and allowed wild free credit approvals...I can remember back when I was younger in my early 20's, you could not get a credit card if you had a mar on your credit record...

This wild credit spending in all area's by it's citizens and by our government is going to be its down fall....

Edited September 19, 2007 by Shortstop

[forrestkc]

I wonder if anyone that has passed judgement on Hillary's plan has actually bothered to read it themselves.

[kat8585]

I wonder if anyone that has passed judgement on Hillary's plan has actually bothered to read it themselves.

Rush knows someone who has.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5111.guest.html

Have you read it? Are you for it?

[rtwo]

I wonder if anyone that has passed judgement on Hillary's plan has actually bothered to read it themselves.

Yup. And it's terrible.

[forrestkc]

I wonder if anyone that has passed judgement on Hillary's plan has actually bothered to read it themselves.

Rush knows someone who has.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5111.guest.html

Have you read it? Are you for it?

Oh, well Rush certainly would be an objective voice on the matter, wouldn't he? I mean come on, thats like reading a communist op/ed on U.S. economic policy.

I have read the summary of the plan, not the entire plan yet though. Going by the summary, it looks like a good idea and I would imagine that should she be elected, it will have strong support among the American people.

You can read the summary here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/heal...an/summary.aspx

I will say this, at least the Democrats actually have plans to address the problems we have in this county. If you go to the Democratic Candidates websites, you will find real plans and real ideas. This is in contrast to the Republican Candidates having a paragraph of "principles" on a handful of issues. I mean come on, someone ought to tell Fred Thompson that "Federalism" is not going to be the defining issue of next years election.

[kat8585]

Well, liberals seem to think that if it doesn't get government more involved, control and regulate us more, and tax us more to do it, it isn't a real plan to address the issue.

[rtwo]

I wonder if anyone that has passed judgement on Hillary's plan has actually bothered to read it themselves.

Rush knows someone who has.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/sit...5111.guest.html

Have you read it? Are you for it?

Oh, well Rush certainly would be an objective voice on the matter, wouldn't he? I mean come on, thats like reading a communist op/ed on U.S. economic policy.

I have read the summary of the plan, not the entire plan yet though. Going by the summary, it looks like a good idea and I would imagine that should she be elected, it will have strong support among the American people.

You can read the summary here: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/heal...an/summary.aspx

I will say this, at least the Democrats actually have plans to address the problems we have in this county. If you go to the Democratic Candidates websites, you will find real plans and real ideas. This is in contrast to the Republican Candidates having a paragraph of "principles" on a handful of issues. I mean come on, someone ought to tell Fred Thompson that "Federalism" is not going to be the defining issue of next years election.

Hmmm.... yeah. Force healthcare on people, whether they want it or not. Penalize people if their healthcare happens to be better than government standard. Put all the risk on the insurance companies (penalizing them for denying coverage), thereby most likely forcing many companies out of business (thus, by the way, adding to the unimployment lines). Envision a day in which you "have to show proof of health insurance" in a job interview, thereby forcing people who don't already have insurance to be dependent on government before they can even get a job that -offers- health insurance, creating a catch-22 that ensures as many people depend on the government as possible...

you're right, Forrest. Sounds like a super-duper plan. Forget Thompson, I'm voting for Hillary. I'm so tired of running my own life...

[forrestkc]

Well, liberals seem to think that if it doesn't get government more involved, control and regulate us more, and tax us more to do it, it isn't a real plan to address the issue.

Well, if you actually read her plan, you will see that there are tax credits to help pay for insurance in it. So, she would be cutting your taxes.

If you are running for public office, then you are running to govern and you need to actually present some plans for how you plan to do that governing thing. Thats are problem now, this outfit we got right now in the White House is pretty good at politics, but they are not too good at all at actually governing.

[rtwo]

Well, liberals seem to think that if it doesn't get government more involved, control and regulate us more, and tax us more to do it, it isn't a real plan to address the issue.

Well, if you actually read her plan, you will see that there are tax credits to help pay for insurance in it. So, she would be cutting your taxes.

-somebody's- gotta pay for it. Oh, right. The rich again.