HillaryCare 2.0

The first time Hillary Clinton was “in office” she tried to come up with a plan for universal health care for all Americans. I was only 14 when Clinton was the head of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, but I remember discussing the speech that her husband, President Bill Clinton, gave in September 1993 in my ninth grade civics class.

He spoke about how millions of Americans "are just a pink slip away from losing their health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their savings." My family was uninsured in 1993. My father was self-employed and couldn't afford the extremely high costs of private insurance.

President Clinton's statement is still true today. Forty-seven million Americans are uninsured. These 47 million Americans cannot afford the cost of coverage, and Hillary Clinton believes her health care plan is going to fix the corrupt system that is health insurance.

The failure of Hillary's first attempt at health care reform was largely due to several conservatives, libertarians and insurance companies lobbying against her "Health Security" plan, calling it overly bureaucratic and restrictive of patient choice.

There's the word that makes people swoon and cringe simultaneously: Choice. It's an interesting rhetoric, as Ezra Klein said in a Slate article.

What is now being dubbed HillaryCare 2.0, Clinton appears to have learned her lesson, calling it the "American Health Choices Plan" or "Individual Mandate" plan. Clinton assures Americans will be able to keep their current health coverage if they wish to do so, while allowing businesses and their employees more choices of health plans.

Crystal Patterson of HillaryClinton.com blogs about some of the highlights of Clinton's plan:

* Affordable: Unlike the current health system where insurance premiums send people into bankruptcy, the plan provides tax credits for working families to help them cover their costs. The tax credits will ensure that working families never have to pay more than a limited percentage of their income for healthcare.

* Available: No discrimination. The insurance companies can't deny you coverage if you have a pre-existing condition.

* Reliable: It's portable. If you change or lose your job, you keep your health care.

As for small business owners, like my father, Patterson says "Hillary would give tax credits to small businesses that provide healthcare to their workers to help defray their coverage costs. This will make small businesses more competitive and help create good jobs with health benefits that will stay here in the US."

This plan sounds too good to be true! Am I the only one who is skeptical? Hardly.

Rich Lowry writes:

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.

Ezra Klein writes:

If I were going to not like Hillary Clinton's health care plan, this would be the case I'd make. As it is, I think the areas in which she's vague are not areas in which she'll fail: No politician will create an individual mandate plan and then not offer adequate subsidies. The resulting outrage from families who couldn't afford healthcare but were legally obligated to buy it would destroy their career, doom their reelection, and kill the plan.

Klein also wrote about the HillaryCare ad now airing in New Hampshire.

Darleen's Place writes:

I won't argue that there are not serious problems with how our current health industry delivers its services and products; however, much of the imbalance is the direct result of governmental policies ...

... policies that Hillary! wants to expand and entrench.

Katherine Kersten of Think Again writes:

"Clinton seems to understand that her new plan must involve no trade-offs, and promise something for everyone. Hillary Care II will apparently require insurance companies to insure everyone. Aides claim that it will mean lower costs, and higher quality health care, across the board... ...Is such a health care heaven possible?"

Calmer Than You Are writes:

"Americans like choice and Hitlery knows that so she is pretending that her plan gives us choice. We can choose to participate or not participate in her health care plan. That sounds wonderful but the government is going to be responsible for financing the new American HMO and employers will no longer be providing health care options to their employees."

Fred Thompson offers his reaction to HillaryCare with this video, saying "What is it that makes liberals think the best way to help somebody is to punish them?”

Red Clay Citizen writes:

"Billary is at it again. "HillaryCare 2.0" - socialized medicine for America - could be on its way to a hospital near you. The alternative? -- apparently the Massachusetts-style insurance connector program proposed by Mitt Romney. The two programs are similar in that the government will require everyone to have health insurance (even illegal immigrants? -- Uh ... Billary doesn't know yet)."

Elizabeth Edwards has her own concerns. She accused Clinton of copying the health care plan outlined more than seven months ago by her husband, John. Edwards said:

"Does Mrs. Clinton's plan seem very familiar to you? Mrs. Clinton has, seven and a half months after John unveiled his health care plan, unveiled a health care plan that is in every material respect just like John's."

Townhall.com reported that Edwards calls Clinton's plan "John Edwards' health care plan as delivered by Hillary Clinton."

Reflections by Kris had this reaction to Mrs. Edwards statement:

"She doesn't sound like she's campaigning for her husband, she sounds like she's running her own campaign."

Yes, I too, would like to know why Mr. Edwards isn't speaking up for himself and calling Hillary out on the stolen goods?

To be fair, Hillary's plan is similar to John Edwards'. From the New York Times last February:

The Edwards plan would provide tax credits or subsidies to low-income families who cannot afford health insurance, expand Medicare and the federal program of health care for children, and create a federal health insurance agency that could become the basis for a single-payer system that would eventually do away with private health insurance.

----------

Contributing Editor Dana J. Tuszke also blogs at The Dana Files.

Posted by Dana J. Tuszke at September 20, 2007 10:55 PM
Comments
Comment #233687

I know your topic is health care. That is a very important topic.

I just can’t resist this Elizabeth Edwards think. I think it is so funny that a man that wants to be commander and chief, needs his wife to do his talking for him.

First she goes after Ann Coulter.
Then she takes on Moveon.org.

Now like a mom whose child has been slighted she takes on Hillary to say she isn’t playing with her child fairly.

It will only be a matter of time before Elizabeth Edwards for President bumper stickers start showing up.

I think it is the funniest thing so far this year in politics. We all need something to laugh at.

I only wish I was a political cartoonist.

Craig

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 20, 2007 11:10 PM
Comment #233688

What. The wives of the candidates should just shut up?

Posted by: womanmarine at September 20, 2007 11:16 PM
Comment #233690

Wow Craig, it’s hilarious that the wife of a presidential candidate should say anything substantive.

Posted by: Max at September 20, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment #233692

Dana,

What exactly don’t you like about her plan? Let’s face it, Republicans will bitch and moan and basically forestall progress on any project she’s related to.

Anyway, my mind is blown that you grew up with Clinton and Bush in office and have somehow decided to be Republican.

Posted by: Max at September 20, 2007 11:43 PM
Comment #233695

Womanmarine:

No, I think spouses need to be careful. If not then they make their spouse look small. That is the case here.

In general when one spouse is running for something their wife/husband should be supportive but not overshadow.

Actually right now I like Elizabeth. maybe the wrong one is running!!

CH

Posted by: Craig Holmes at September 21, 2007 12:01 AM
Comment #233696

Dana
Nice peice, its past time to resolve the health care issue.
From Darleens Place
“I would add that most people are over insured. When faced with our employer choices at open enrollment (and we are not allowed to shop outside of our employer) all of the plans cover even the most basic office visit with minimal co-pays.”
Does anyone know what federal or state law prohibits anyone from getting insurance outside of their employer?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 21, 2007 12:13 AM
Comment #233697

Craig:

Guess that’s a personal (mostly male I imagine) opinion. I don’t think it makes him look a bit small. I admire him for having an outspoken wife who he obviously supports.

Posted by: womanmarine at September 21, 2007 12:20 AM
Comment #233700

Anyone notice that this piece is entirely about attacking the messenger?

Billary, Hitlery…where’s the beef?..to borrow an old slogan. We offer no solutions, just hate filled rants.

I suggest some of you take a course on woman’s issues and sensitivity. Hillary IS going to be your next president. She will at least approach the health care issue, which all these big, strong men are so scared of doing.

Is it me, or do I smell fear of castration issues here? Don’t worry, testicle surgery will be covered.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 21, 2007 1:50 AM
Comment #233701

Dana: Your article shows what many other people think but it seems to not show what you think.

Posted by: Richard Rhodes at September 21, 2007 2:29 AM
Comment #233702
Does anyone know what federal or state law prohibits anyone from getting insurance outside of their employer?

I don’t know the exact law, but I know it exists. I attempted to not accept my high cost healthcare that my work was offering, but was told by the insurance companies that I reached out to that they were unable to insure me if I was ‘offered’ healthcare at my current employer. I believe it has something to do with making sure that the group rate does not go too high as lower-risk workers go out of the offered plan to get their own, all that would be left is high-risk workers would even have to pay more.

You realize that ‘insurance’ is just a big gamble, right? That the low risk insured are paying for the high risk insured? That behavior is oppositely rewarded monitarily in these schemes…

BTW, I’m curious about this ‘choice’ that Hillary’s plan offers. Does it allow for the ‘choice’ to not have insurance? No? Thanks…

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 21, 2007 2:46 AM
Comment #233703

BTW, can anyone say ‘unconstitutional’?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 21, 2007 2:47 AM
Comment #233713

Neither Edwards nor Clinton’s plan address the core root of the problem facing America, spiraling health care inflation. You don’t solve the inflation problem by raising taxes and the national debt to cover rapidly growing Medicare entitlement spending shortfalls. That just compounds the problem.

America needs NOT FOR PROFIT health care hospitals, clinics, and medical practice associations. When politicians come up with a plan that will incentivize non-profit health care delivery, I will be considerably more amenable to such a reform plan.

Covering the uninusured is right and just, but, foolish in the extreme if it bankrupts the entire nation in 20 to 30 years, which is what these plans and our current system will do.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2007 8:29 AM
Comment #233714

Dana, outstanding article, objectively presented, and very well sourced and cited.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2007 8:30 AM
Comment #233718

Wow we have some real hate for a woman who has an opinion or wants to run for public office. I don’t think this is about healthcare this is about hate!!!!!! Wing nuts accuse people of bush hate. I have never seen such hatred for people with compassion trying to help others have health care. What do you have to offer????? The bush plan????? No health care for poor children!!!!!!! Why can we not focus some hate where it needs to be focused????? How could a compassionate conservative deny healthcare to children?????????? Then spend billions on no bid contracts for his buddies.

What do the wing nuts have to offer????? Stay the course!!!!!!! Huge profits for the heartless insurance companies!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 21, 2007 9:15 AM
Comment #233719

Richard Rhodes, I told you exactly how I felt when I said, “Am I the only one who is skeptical?”

That’s how I feel. Unsure if I believe Hillary can pull this off. Worried that there are hidden agendas and secret clauses.

My intention is to gather the opinions of many people — after all, health care affects us all. It would be selfish of me to just tell you what I think.

What do YOU think about Hillary Care?

David, thank you. I appreciate your comments.

Max, if you must know, I’m a Republican because I’m pro-life. I don’t know a single Democratic candidate who shares my belief — therefore I cannot vote for one. That’s my deal breaker.

Posted by: Dana J. Tuszke at September 21, 2007 9:31 AM
Comment #233720

Dana,

I am pro-life also!!!!!! I want to stop the killing in Iraq!!!!! I do not know any republican that is pro-life!!!!!!! So I can not vote for republicans, that is the deal breaker for me!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 21, 2007 9:40 AM
Comment #233722

as to the pro-life issue, both reps and dems are inconsistant. Reps like Iraq and capital punishment, dems like abortion. But then, dems don’t usually call themselves “pro-life.” It has a way of losing their support from NARAL.

Posted by: Silima at September 21, 2007 10:12 AM
Comment #233727

Pro-Life to me means you do not like killing in any form!!!!!! I think abortion is wrong!!!!! We should not use abortion as birth control!!! I think killing people and stealing their resources is wrong!!!!!!!! We should not be in Iraq!!!!!!! Some times we must defend ourselves, but we should not come on like a drunken bar room bully!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 21, 2007 10:49 AM
Comment #233728

Does it allow for the ‘choice’ to not have insurance? No? Thanks… Can anyone say unconstitutional?

When people who cannot afford healthcare wait until their health problems become serious to see a doctor, the costs dramatically go up. Worse, many of the people without healthcare have been found to be college students who were simply too lazy or didn’t have the foresight to get the insurance. They simply didn’t think about it. Mandatory health insurance will dramatically lower the costs this nation pays. Then there are the costs of determining whether or not someone has healthcare before treating them, which are in and of themselves ridiculously huge.

I’m all for individual choice in most circumstances, but within reason. I don’t want to pay out huge sums of money because someone wanted to opt out of healthcare or, for that matter, didn’t want to wear a seatbelt or motorcycle helmet. The plan, I think, is for the country to pay for extremely cheap healthcare for those that can’t afford it, so I don’t get opting out. This is no skin off anyone’s back and will save the country huge sums of money. Just my two cents.

As far as Hillary is concerned, I think she’s in an excellent position to actually get universal healthcare accomplished. She’s been down this road, and understands politically that the program needs to be inclusive of a lot of different options in order to be viable. She seems capable of learning from a mistake, something I’ve not seen from any Republicans lately.

Dana, I respect your position on abortion. I only wish this were not the end all be all issue for you.

Posted by: Max at September 21, 2007 10:57 AM
Comment #233730

Rhinehold, the Constitution does not speak to obligatory taxation, mandated insurance coverage, mandatory right side of the road driving vs. left, except to defer to the people’s legislatures and the Court’s review on such matters.

Your purist view which implies nullification of precedent, court rulings, and legislation from the 19th century to the present, is incredibly unrealistic. If the majority of the people through their representatives mandate health insurance coverage in exchange for the legal right to be treated anywhere in the nation should injury or illness befall you, it is both legal and Constitutional if the Court’s say it is.

The Court’s are, according to the Constitution, are the final arbiter of what is, and is not Constitutional in times and circumstances which the drafters could not have possibly foreseen. Your pontificating pronouncement, a priori, that that such a plan is unconstitutional is so far removed from reality as to be humorous. Ha Ha!

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2007 11:15 AM
Comment #233735

Dana,

Good collection of opinions.
I distrust Hillary with every fiber of my being. That comes of having lived in close proximity to Arkansas when he was, then was not, then was again governor there. From the moment I first started seeing ads for him I thought this was a guy who was so slick you couldn’t shake his hand with a vise. With Hilary its prejudice by association. Who could be so morally laissez faire as to stay married to the guy? That said to expose my personal bias, I have to admit I did at least a double-take on the health ‘plan’.

No preexisting conditions exclusions strikes me, as someone who must deal with a couple of those albatrosses hung on the necks of my family, as imminently fair, though. I hear all the time how people don’t want to be burdened with the cost of some people’s medical conditions, but really, if there is not readily available appropriate medical care for people who have such condition while they are manageable, does not the cost of dealing with them in public medical facilities once they become unmanageable still wind up coming out of your pockets?

Market economics are arranged around discouraging some activities or the consumption of some goods by making those costs high. As the availability of some things decreases the price rises and people have to substitute or go without. The insurance industry seems determined to get those with preconditions to opt out of those conditions. What bothers many of us who have them is that the only way we can opt out is to die.

I don’t like Hillary’s plan on several grounds. I’m just hoping that the alternative Republicans support doesn’t continue to insist I and my wife opt out of our preexisting medical conditions.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 21, 2007 11:48 AM
Comment #233742

Oh, come on, people!

Think for once. Not with that government indoctrinated brain of yours…think with the brain that you developed AFTER government schooling (Catholic school, private school and home-schooled people won’t know what I’m talking about here).

Here’s the question:

Do you REALLY want the government to take over health care? REALLY?

The government did a GREAT job with Veteran’s Health Care, didn’t they?

You really want THAT type of health care? Do you?

How about we FIX the health care system we already have…thereby lowering health care costs (and insurance premiums).

How about we demand an insurance policy that fits our lifestyle? Do you need mental health care? Don’t get it in your insurance policy! Do you need pregnancy benefits? Take it OUT of the policy! Don’t need drug and alcohol abuse coverage? Demand they take it out of the policy! Don’t need coverage for HIV/AIDS and other STDs? Don’t get it!

Now, how much cheaper is your policy?

Make health insurance like car insurance. You don’t have a wreck or other claim? Get a lower premium! Charge less for people who are generally healthy and take active steps to stay that way. Charge extra for people who intentionally do stupid things…like smoking, drinking alcohol to excess and eating yourself into obesity!

If you REALLY want government to get involved with health care, how about giving regular people the same tax breaks as corporations get for providing health care? How about expanding health care savings accounts? How about loosening regulations (Couldn’t a Pharmacist give you a prescription for the flu or hay fever or some other common ailment? Why should you have to pay a couple of hundred dollars for a GP to look at your throat and then say, “Yup, you got the flu” and THEN get a prescription?). How about loosening financial or age restrictions for Medicare or Medicaid?

Look, the bottom line is this:

I DO NOT WANT GOVERNMENT IN MY LIFE ANY MORE THAN IT ALREADY IS! Big Brother has absolutely NO BUSINESS sticking his nose in my medical records for ANY reason whatsoever!

Those of you who think 1984 is a work of fiction, who don’t mind waiting 6 months for a C.A.T. scan, who won’t care if your hairlip isn’t repaired because it’s an “elective” surgery (etc., etc., etc.)…Universal Health Care is for YOU!!!

Posted by: Jim T at September 21, 2007 12:21 PM
Comment #233748

Reading this blog and others leads to an interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, liberals no longer trust our military; on the other, are willing to place their trust in the executive branch of government, led by HRC, to manage our health care with an annual cost much greater than any other government expenditure save Social Security. What is the basis of this trust in HRC? Her vast experience with her failed Health Care Plan early in the Clinton presidency? She got that wrong but will do better next time. OK, why not apply this same forgiveness to President Bush and the Iraq war. Nope, that won’t work, he’s a Republican. Sounds like political racism to me.

Posted by: Jim at September 21, 2007 1:08 PM
Comment #233750

Jim,

Let me see.
1. Hillary trying to help people with getting healthcare, but failing.
2. Bush sending thousands to their death in Iraq for oil.

Yes I think that they are about on the same level as far as mistakes go.

I think I can forgive and forget!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Outraged at September 21, 2007 1:21 PM
Comment #233759

David,

While I agree not for profit medical care is the only real solution to the healthcare cost spiral, it will not pass in the next Congress. Hillary is smart to approach it this way. Please note the Republican rants posted here. She WILL be our next president and she will begin healthcare reform. I liked Greenspan’s remarks on Bill Clinton’s long term fiscal policies and would expect the same from Hilary. We will however be stuck paying for Idiot George’s Iraq fiasco for some time to come.

The Republicans have chosen to ignore the people on Iraq and Healthcare. They’ll continue to whine until they can figure out why no one wants them in office.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 21, 2007 2:25 PM
Comment #233764

Oh, for goodness sakes! As though there were no “not for profit” millionaires!

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 21, 2007 2:43 PM
Comment #233776

Lee, not for profit medical care does not mean making doctors, nurses, and specialists work for free or low salaries. You are confusing not-for-profit organizations with socialized government health care delivery as in the USSR, where the government hired medical personnel and set the caps on their salaries and income. That is not what not-for-profit health care organizations are.

St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital is not for profit. Their medical staff is paid competitively. What is absent is an extremely high salaried board of directors, outrageous salaries for management, and investors taking a percentage of revenues, raising the total cost of their health care delivery.

The Land Grant University of Texas Research and Training Hospital and Clinics is not for profit. Doesn’t mean their employees are paid less competitively. It means they can provide anywhere from 20% to 50% more health care per dollar revenue because their revenues are not eaten into by investors and scalpers at the top and are spent on providing more health care, training, and research per dollar of revenue than a for profit center.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2007 3:22 PM
Comment #233779

alien, while I agree with much of what you say, I don’t agree Hillary is a slam dunk. I have seen many, many elections where polling front runners lost.

Second, it is up to us, the citizens and voters to make health care inflation the ELECTION issue, because no medical health care reform without addressing and fixing this problem, will succeed in overcoming the Medicare/Medicaid crisis coming for the American people and their economy. If Hillary gets away with this dodging of the real primary issue, by band-aiding the health care insurance coverage issue, then the American people deserve precisely what they will get. A bankrupt government and health care system which provides quality health care only to the wealthy who can afford it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 21, 2007 3:28 PM
Comment #233783

Jim,

Let me see.
1. Hillary trying to help people with getting healthcare, but failing.
2. Bush sending thousands to their death in Iraq for oil.

Yes I think that they are about on the same level as far as mistakes go.

I think I can forgive and forget!!!!!!!!!


Posted by: Outraged at September 21, 2007 01:21 PM

Outraged…sorry, you missed the point even though you danced around the edge. Bush invades Iraq for Oil…Bad. Hillary promotes free health care to get elected…Good. Please be clear, I don’t accept your premise about the War on Terror being about oil. Do you accept my premise that Hillary’s “free” health care is about getting elected?

Posted by: JIm at September 21, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #233790

Not for profit medical care.

Posted by: David R. Remer


I will have to agree with you on this issue. What you are describing does make a lot of sense to me!!!!!! We do need to cut the insurance companies out of dictating medical treatment and leave that up to doctors and patients!!!!! People blinded by dollar signs do not always make the best decisions for patient care.

We should have some kind of account ability, but not some one so bias.

Posted by: Outraged at September 21, 2007 4:03 PM
Comment #233798

Outraged…sorry, you missed the point even though you danced around the edge. Bush invades Iraq for Oil…Bad. Hillary promotes free health care to get elected…Good. Please be clear, I don’t accept your premise about the War on Terror being about oil. Do you accept my premise that Hillary’s “free” health care is about getting elected?
Posted by: JIm at September 21, 2007 03:47 PM

Jim,

No one said anything about free healthcare!!!!!!!!

I do not care for Hillary’s healthcare program because it still includes insurance companies!!!!!! I like David R. Remer’s plan much better than Hillary’s!!!!!
His plan, address the root of the problem with our present system (profit).

I answered your comment about forgiveness that is all I commented on.

Posted by: Outraged at September 21, 2007 4:17 PM
Comment #233815

Max:
“Wow Craig, it’s hilarious that the wife of a presidential candidate should say anything substantive.”

It seems that a lot of Republicans would prefer that married women behave like silently adoring, well dressed twits who are never so bold as to voice their own personal opinions. When they’re not married (and not real likely to ever get or stay married) however, then they like them like Ann Coulter: loud, brash, cruel, rude, shameless and without a shred of human decency.

womanmarine:
“Guess that’s a personal (mostly male I imagine) opinion.”

But thank goodness that opinions like that seem to be going the way of the dinosaur.

“I don’t think it makes him look a bit small. I admire him for having an outspoken wife who he obviously supports.”

I’ll second that wholeheartedly. I also think it’s clear that Elizabeth Edwards days of standing on the sidelines are over. She did that for years, but now that she’s been made to face her own mortality, she’s clearly decided that with the time left that she has, she might as well mean what she says, and say what she means. More power to her!

Craig:
“No, I think spouses need to be careful.”

You mean careful like Laura Bush is careful? Smilingly mouthing platitudes with an utterly vacuous look in her eyes? Or do you mean careful the way that Ari Fleisher meant careful when he said: “all Americans need to watch what they say, watch what they do”? I think you must have meant the first, the “little wifey” routine, rather than the second which is a desire for a police state where people are afraid of speaking their minds, right?


“If not then they make their spouse look small. That is the case here. In general when one spouse is running for something their wife/husband should be supportive but not overshadow.”

Only to those who insist that people should model their behavior on strictly traditional and caricature-like roles of male and female. Lots of men don’t want silent, dimwitted “little wifey’s” these days (thank goodness), nor do men think they look small when they have strong, smart, opinionated women as their partners in life.


David Remer:
“America needs NOT FOR PROFIT health care hospitals, clinics, and medical practice associations.”

Nail on the head there! Give that man a cigar.

Outraged:
“What do the wing nuts have to offer????? Stay the course!!!!!!! Huge profits for the heartless insurance companies!!!!!!”

Yeah, that does seem like all they’ve got. I don’t think the public is real excited about it either.

Max:
“Dana, I respect your position on abortion.”

I can respect Dana’s position on abortion — for Dana. When people don’t respect other people’s right to hold a differing opinion for themselves, and the ability to make choices based upon those opinions, I feel they are no longer interested in respect being a two way street. Instead, they are trying to remove the idea of freedom, and attempting to push everyone into authoritarian territory. I can’t respect that at all.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 21, 2007 5:02 PM
Comment #233821
Rhinehold, the Constitution does not speak to obligatory taxation, mandated insurance coverage, mandatory right side of the road driving vs. left, except to defer to the people’s legislatures and the Court’s review on such matters. A small matter there, David. The federal government is limited to what the constitution says it can do. Not allowed to do whatever they can get away with that doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights, of which this program of Hillary’s does, by requiring that all citizens must purchase healthcare.

No precedent set, that I’ve been able to deterime, can make that requirement and be constitutional. Even motor vehicle liability, which is not what you must get to protect yourself but what you must purchase to protect others if you choose to operate a motor vehicle, can not require a citizen to get coverage on their own persons AND it has to be implemented on a state level, not a national level, because it would be unconstitutional to do so.

So, can you provide me with the precedent, ruling or constitutional clause that allows for this requirement? If not, it is, patently, unconstitutional.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 21, 2007 5:18 PM
Comment #233823

Bah, mucked up that quote so bad it is hard to read so I apologize for reposting…

Rhinehold, the Constitution does not speak to obligatory taxation, mandated insurance coverage, mandatory right side of the road driving vs. left, except to defer to the people’s legislatures and the Court’s review on such matters.

A small matter there, David. The federal government is limited to what the constitution says it can do. Not allowed to do whatever they can get away with that doesn’t violate the Bill of Rights, of which this program of Hillary’s does, by requiring that all citizens must purchase healthcare.

No precedent set, that I’ve been able to deterime, can make that requirement and be constitutional. Even motor vehicle liability, which is not what you must get to protect yourself but what you must purchase to protect others if you choose to operate a motor vehicle, can not require a citizen to get coverage on their own persons AND it has to be implemented on a state level, not a national level, because it would be unconstitutional to do so. And it doesn’t apply simply by being an adult citizen, you have to choose to operate a motor vehicle and be bound by the results and taxation of that agreement.

So, can you provide me with the precedent, ruling or constitutional clause that allows for this requirement? If not, it is, patently, unconstitutional.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 21, 2007 5:21 PM
Comment #233824
I can respect Dana’s position on abortion — for Dana. When people don’t respect other people’s right to hold a differing opinion for themselves, and the ability to make choices based upon those opinions, I feel they are no longer interested in respect being a two way street. Instead, they are trying to remove the idea of freedom, and attempting to push everyone into authoritarian territory. I can’t respect that at all.

Ah, Adrienne, such a great explanation of libertarian principles. You make me proud. :)

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 21, 2007 5:23 PM
Comment #233833

Rhinehold:

I guess they just didn’t consider that bleeding by leeches would bankrupt anyone in 1776. Ah well, times do change.

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 21, 2007 5:47 PM
Comment #233836

David,

Only Tenet and Shaq do slam dunks.

Of course, the election is still far off. As of right now, it’s hers to lose, and if I were laying odds I’d give her 3:1

Posted by: alien from the planet zorg at September 21, 2007 5:49 PM
Comment #233846

“Ah, Adrienne, such a great explanation of libertarian principles. You make me proud. :)”

That’s big of you to say Rhinehold, since you know very well what a raging liberal I am! ;^)

Posted by: Adrienne at September 21, 2007 6:29 PM
Comment #233851

alien,

You said:

“I guess they just didn’t consider that bleeding by leeches would bankrupt anyone in 1776. Ah well, times do change.”

Yeah…well, a good leaching in 1776 only cost a couple of chickens…unless it was a MAJOR leaching, and then that cost was a pig.

Rhinehold and Adrienne said:

“Ah, Adrienne, such a great explanation of libertarian principles. You make me proud. :)”

That’s big of you to say Rhinehold, since you know very well what a raging liberal I am! ;^)

That’s the beauty of us libertarians. We are conservatives (Neil Boortz). We are liberals (Bill Mahr). We are centrists.

You are certainly welcome in our ranks any time you care to join us.

Posted by: Jim T at September 21, 2007 6:49 PM
Comment #233861

Jim T:
“You are certainly welcome in our ranks any time you care to join us.”

Thanks for the offer Jim, but there doesn’t seem to be nearly enough simple compassion for people among Libertarians (overall), for this Liberal lady.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 21, 2007 7:46 PM
Comment #233863

David,

I was simply making the observation that there seems to be a lot of money to be made not making any money. As long as you claim the money over which you have control does not belong to you, a la any number of 501c3 organizations, you can have all the power and prestige of being rich with the added prestige of pretending not to be rich. Depending on whether your point of view is boreal or austral that is either one step up or one step down from being a politician, where the money you distribute is blatantly someone else’s but you still get credit for being generous with it.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at September 21, 2007 8:01 PM
Comment #233869

“Dana, I respect your position on abortion. I only wish this were not the end all be all issue for you.”

Max, ending a human life is not to be taken lightly. If our politicians do not respect life — INCLUDING THOSE IN IRAQ — then I cannot vote for that person.

HOWEVER, Iraq is a very, very difficult situation. I despise war, but I distinctly recall several DEMOCRATS voting to go to this war, too. So before you all star throwing “pro-life” terminology around I suggest you rethink your position.

I’m against capital punishment, too. I don’t feel any one of us has the right to play God.

As far as Iraq, I think our soldiers are held in a special regard in God’s eyes (and this is MY OPINION), they have no choice but to defend themselves. Kill or be killed, I suppose. I don’t believe anyone else would do differently. Those that could are stronger than most.

Posted by: Dana at September 21, 2007 9:02 PM
Comment #233871

Also, Max, I know that you weren’t throwing around such terms. I meant the “you” collectively toward other commenters. It’s hard to keep track today.

Posted by: Dana at September 21, 2007 9:07 PM
Comment #233880

All,
According to the link in Danas post to Red Clay Citizen, Dr. Larson and other free market types offer the following free market solutions to the health care crisis

“1) Build a national connector that sells insurance plans from all states.

2) Create a small business pool within the connector so that small businesses can get rates similar to those available under ERISA.

3) Permit single state registration — that is, permit any plan registered in one state to be sold in all states.

4) Delay the mandatory insurance requirement for three years so that we can evaluate how well these free market reforms have worked.

5) Preserve Medicaid for the poor - instead of expanding it (for example, via NC Kids Care) to the middle class.

6) Eliminate price controls — and let the free market and competition make private coverage truly affordable.”

The problems I see with this is they want to keep health plans dependant on employers. They also want to rid the individual states of any say or oversight in insurance plans offered by any company anywhere. They also want to keep the poor in a seperate insurance plan that would still have to be funded by all of us. Seems to me the insurance companies are a large part of the problem not the solution.
Does anyone know of any price controls other than the Repub instigated control of prescription drugs prices to benefit the drug companies. Who is keeping the free market and competetion from making privare coverage afordable now?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 21, 2007 10:22 PM
Comment #233917

Dana
Nicely put together article,

CH
Sorry smart outspoken women scare you.

All
The problem with the HC proposal is basic. It keeps insurance companies as the health care solution. Insurance companies ARE the problem.They provide NO healthcare but only drive up cost. The Edwards plan gives cunsumers a choice of either a government single payer plan,like medicare or a privete insurance plan. If the private plan can compete so be it but they would not be able to cherry pick or deny claims based on pre-existing conditions.
Accuratly defined,niether plan is “socialized medicine”. “socialized medicine” means the government owns the facilities and healthcare workers work directly for the government. We have an example of the,the VA system,with mixed results at best but it is considerably less costly than a private alternative would be.Single payer is NOT “socialized medicine”, but actually the compromise position.

Posted by: BillS at September 22, 2007 12:03 PM
Comment #233921

All
I wonder sometimes what would happen in a truly “free ,market” approach. Too the Red Clay list add
1. Eliminate the AMA’s anti-trust protections.

2. Allow price advertizing.

3. Require written estimates for services.

4. Reguireing posted prices for services.

5. written warentees

Posted by: BillS at September 22, 2007 12:18 PM
Comment #234057

BillS, you needn’t look any further than the illegal drug trade to see the closest thing to true free market in operation. To the victor go the spoils, and protect market share with all the resources one can bring to bear, which ultimately leads to monopolism as in the drug cartels as existed in Colombia.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 23, 2007 3:05 PM
Comment #234280

Again, with the misstatement of what a ‘true free market’ is. There are no such things as monopolies in a true free market, yet the illegal drug trade depends upon them.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 25, 2007 12:29 PM
Post a comment