September 17, 2007
Hillary Care, Part Deux (Frank Donatelli)
Amid appropriate fanfare, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is set to unveil Hillary Care II in Iowa today. The campaign is not revealing many details about the plan, other than the traditional rhetoric that it will provide universal coverage, more affordable insurance and better care. Whether or not these three goals are compatible would make for an interesting discussion, but one beyond our current scope. Though the details are few, here is what we can predict about what Hillary Care II will mean. We can make these predictions with some confidence after a review of her first disastrous foray into healthcare in 1993 and the woolly liberal rhetoric that we are hearing from all of the Democratic presidential candidates.
First, the plan will be hideously complex. This is because of her desire to graft a new federal program onto the current system, which is already plenty complicated. Hillary Care I was sunk in large part by the famous chart that outlined dozens of public and private agencies and programs that would have to interact to make the program function. You can bet that some green eye shade in the campaign struggled mightily to reduce the complexity, but after hearing about the plan, ask yourself: How exactly does this reduce the complexity of our healthcare system?
Second, Hillary Care II reportedly calls for a new federal mandate to require large companies to pay for their employees’ healthcare. She obviously wants the rest of American business to become as uncompetitive in world markets as General Motors. GM, if you don’t know, currently pays more for healthcare for past and present employees than it does for steel. Government mandates almost always get out of control as future generations of politicians seek election by promising more “free” benefits to more and more people. Why would “free” healthcare be any different?
Third, the plan will make individuals more dependent on their employer-provided healthcare, rather than giving individuals more choices to seek their own coverage. Our current bias in the tax code that allows individuals to exclude from federal taxes the value of health coverage provided by employers, while allowing no corresponding benefit to individuals and small businesses who have their own coverage, would remain. Such a system makes it difficult for individuals who leave their jobs to obtain coverage afterward. In a country of high job mobility such as ours, this is a major reason why many Americans are uninsured.
Fourth, the plan will do nothing to make consumers shop more carefully for health services, because third-party payments in the form of government subsidies will increase. Healthcare costs will continue to increase so long as our system lacks incentives for consumers to pay more attention to the costs of their healthcare choices. That is the major reason for escalating health costs in America today, and the plan would do nothing to change that fact.
Fifth, the plan will reportedly require all insurance companies to offer policies to anyone who applies for coverage, even those with preexisting conditions. This can only increase the cost of healthcare for other subscribers, making healthcare less, not more, affordable.
Finally, and most importantly, the plan will require the federal government to become more involved in one-eighth of America’s GNP. Does anyone think that a government that is already overburdened and unable to deliver mail on time, handle natural disasters, educate our children, control our borders, punish and incarcerate criminals — that same government is going to deliver healthcare better and more efficiently than the private sector?
Such a belief represents the triumph for liberals of ideology over the world that the rest of us live in.
12 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
If there is any one theme in Hillary's sorry history it's that she believes in the curative power of government intervention. Her ideas belong on the scrap heap of history, with the discarded socialist systems all over the wolrd. Government should enforce basic private property rules at home and be responsible for common defence, that's it.
You're right, currently the GM and union negotiations are stalled, and the only significant topic remaining is retiree healthcare. GM has essentially been destroyed by the healthcare costs and Hillary wants to repeat that story all over the country. Anyone in Government who promises you comprehensive solutions to complex problems should be listened to with extreme scepticism.
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2007 @ 11:22 am
7: Depending on your political affiliations you may find yourself in waiting line for the cemetary.
8. All your health information may wind up on the front page of a newspaper because like all other government documents your enemies will leak them.
9. You may have to end up paying anyway for immediate health care, since almost all nationalized health care is rationed.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — September 17, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Frank, how about we get out of the hell hole in Iraq, and not have to worry about the cost to the government? Oh sorry, then all the people in our country would be insured which will drive your crowd crazy. I'm waiting for Igor now to weigh in. You used the magic word Hillary, so he should be spitting his venom quite soon.
Government does work, when we let it work. If so many other nations can supercede our own and deliver what is right to their people, the old American ingenuity can do even better. Just like all other programs brought by Democrats that you people fought with every bit of strength that you can muster, the American people will have universal health care. This country is coming back, and in this area we will finally be able to hold our heads high, and put some meat behind you and yours boasting about "the greatest nation in the world".
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 17, 2007 @ 3:41 pm
If someone says in this post, anything about Canadians standing in line, I'll not post anything for about an hour.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 17, 2007 @ 3:42 pm
John Stossel had a great analysis of the healthcare system Friday night. It should be required viewing for all that think governments are best suited to manage our health. Socialism is a failure and private sector health minus insurance companies is the solution we need to pursue. He highlighted doctors that have stopped taking Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurance. These doctors have price lists for routine medical services (much like elective surgery procedures have set up now that insurance will not pay for. Their services and "uninsured" patients are flocking there in droves. The doctors are making as much money as they did with less hassle. Now if we can reform mal practice lawsuits we have a plan for the future.
It was amazing to find that many doctors didn't know how much their services cost! It shows the mentality that must be changed! We need every individual shopping for care and implementing market forces for routine care.
Hillary is no expert on healthcare or anything else if you think about it!
Comment by Rich — September 17, 2007 @ 8:29 pm
Hillary is just distracting from the Hsu affair. It's clear she is in big trouble:
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=274920911474350
Comment by Igor R. — September 17, 2007 @ 9:52 pm
Hillarycare has 110 BILLION DOLLAR pricetag for healthcare subsidies!
That cost will be about $300 for ever man, woman and child in America. How is that going to be more affordable?
Hill is going to force healthcare companies to accept everyone. Is that code for coverage for illegals?
Businesses will pass on the cost of healthcare onto the consumer in the price of their goods until they can't compete with China and America loses all of it's businesses. Then the only job left will be government.
How will that keep democracy alive in America?
Comment by Cheryl O — September 17, 2007 @ 11:26 pm
Cheryl, $300 is such a low-ball estimate. This is a gift that will keep on giving for the Dems, a reason to raise taxes from now till the end of the universe.
Comment by Igor R. — September 18, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Igor, your post is outrageous! I certainly do not remember reading the FBI warns of Beijing influence of the Clintons even after the election, did you?
What constitutes a security risk in this country?
Comment by Cheryl O — September 18, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
Rich, the Stossel report was a pack of lies, just like his global warming report of last year.
Comment by Chris Calbi — September 19, 2007 @ 7:38 am
Hillary has stated that Americans who want to keep their current (mostly private) coverage can keep it if they choose. She does favor expansion of Medicare-a purely governmental/public program-and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-a joint government-private enterprise that provides federally-subsidized private insurance plans. Mrs. Clinton also favors making health insurance mandatory, but private individuals would have the freedom to choose either private insurance or government programs. Notwithstanding the rhetoric about "socialized medicine", "socialism", and "nationalized health care", the current edition of Hillarycare (2007) does NOT turn American health care into a government monopoly or single-payer system, does NOT require private citizens to favor government programs over private insurance, and does NOT include the mandatory insurance cooperatives ("alliances") from the original (1993) Clinton plan. In fact, Clinton had become MORE MODERATE on health care over the years.
Comment by James — September 24, 2007 @ 6:28 am
James get serious, Congressional bills like Clinton's start out with universal healthcare, and end up tacking on stuff until we end up giving all of our technology to the Chinese.
Comment by Cheryl O — September 26, 2007 @ 9:57 pm