The return of HillaryCare
Hillary’s failed attempts at “reforming” healthcare via advocating universal healthcare are front and center again, as today she revealed her ‘new’ $110 billion healthcare ‘plan’:
DES MOINES, Iowa – Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton issued a call for universal health care on Monday, plunging back into a political battle she memorably waged and lost as first lady more than a decade ago.
“This is not government-run,” Clinton said of her plan to extend coverage to an estimated 47 million Americans who now go without.
She called for a requirement for businesses to obtain insurance for employees, and said the wealthy should pay higher taxes to help defray the cost for those less able to pay for it. She put the government’s cost at $110 billion a year.
“Perhaps more than anybody else I know just how hard this fight will be,” said the New York senator.
Dismissing the inevitable Republican criticism, Clinton admonished the crowd. “I know my Republican opponents will try to equate health care for all Americans with government-run health care. Don’t let them fool us again. This is not government-run.”
A front-running contender for her party’s nomination, Clinton drew criticism this time from fellow Democrats as well as Republicans.
“To ensure all Americans have affordable health care will take more than leadership that simply knows how to fight,” said rival Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn.
Addressing a crowd at a medical center in the early voting state of Iowa, Clinton laid out her proposal, with the centerpiece a so-called “individual mandate,” requiring everyone to have health insurance — just as most states require drivers to purchase auto insurance. Rival John Edwards has also offered a plan that includes an individual mandate, while the proposal outlined by Barack Obama does not.
Clinton’s plan builds on the existing employer-based system of coverage. People who receive insurance through the workplace could continue to do so; businesses, in turn, would be required to offer insurance to employees, or contribute to a government-run pool that would help pay for those not covered. Clinton would also offer a tax subsidy to small businesses to help them afford the cost of providing coverage to their workers.
Don’t you love how Hillary on one hand claims this plan wouldn’t be “government run” but when you read on down into the article you see that businesses would be “required” to contribute to a government-run healthcare pool. In fact, the fact that she wants to “mandate” this at all shows that government will have a huge hand in it if she has her way. She must really think people are too stupid to understand what she’s advocating.
What is it with Democrats and mandating “choice,” anyway? Jason at Texas Rainmaker has the answer:
But there are some big differences between health insurance and all the “mandated” types of insurance mentioned above. Health insurance is an inward-facing protection, where the others are outward-facing. This means that one purchases health insurance to hedge against a future out-of-pocket expense for his or her own (and family’s) care. Mandated insurance like auto, malpractice, mortgage, etc is designed to protect others from acts of the insured.
The other big difference is that those other types of insurance (including the auto insurance Hillary refers to) are also examples of “choice” despite being “mandated”. For instance, you only have to purchase auto insurance if you CHOOSE to drive a car. You only have to purchase mortgage insurance if you CHOOSE to take out a loan to buy a house with less than 20% down. You only have to purchase malpractice insurance if you CHOOSE a profession that requires it.
So what about those who don’t drive, buy a home, or practice law or medicine? Should they be forced to buy insurance for each activity anyway? Only then would Democrats’ comparison to auto insurance be relevant.
It’s true the Democrats’ plans are all about choice… so long as it’s their choice we’re talking about.
Brian at Liberty Pundit makes another important point:
It will cost about $110 billion per year, but if there’s one universal constant in government bureaucracy, it’s the fact that it won’t stay at that price for very long. It will rapidly expand until it dwarfs Social Security spending.
In related news on mandating healthcare, the king of phoney himself John Edwards took another step backwards today, promising that as president, he would seek to take away the healthcare benefits of Congress, senior officials in his administration, and himself until his healthcare plan passed:
(CNN) — Just hours before White House rival Hillary Clinton unveiled her massive universal health care plan Monday, three hundred miles east of Des Moines, in Chicago, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards was making a dramatic promise of his own: As president, he would cut off health coverage to top government officials until his health care plan is passed into law.
“To show Congress just how serious I am, on the first day of my administration, I will submit legislation that ends health care coverage for the president, all members of Congress, and all senior political appointees in both branches of government on July 20th, 2009 – unless we have passed universal health care reform,” Edwards said in a speech to the Laborers Leadership Convention.
That’s the way to show ’em, Johnny! If Congress – who I should remind you, Silky Phoney, are supposed to be representatives of the people, not you – isn’t persuaded by your big government ideas on issues like healthcare, it’s very revealing to know that you will issue threats in order to try and get them to bend to your will. Oh, and doing so via submitting legislation to Congress that will ask them to vote against their own healthcare? Brilliant!
Prior/Related: