Hillary Clinton introduced her national health care plan earlier this week.
She wants to provide affordable insurance for every American, especially the 47 million uninsured.
Clinton’s plan, however fails to resolve why most of these individuals remain without insurance.
Indeed there are some who cannot afford a policy, and these are those that merit government assistance. However, there are others who see it as unnecessary, seeking rather to accessorize their lives than insure their health.
Her policy should promote changes in lifestyle rather than mandating that everyone acquire a policy. Where does personal responsibility for one’s health fit in Hillary’s plan?
A vote for her is a vote for subsidizing destructive behaviors, placing the accountability of the irresponsible on the tax payer.
Hillary has mentioned that her plan will require no new bureaucracy.
However, in reality, her plan will be government care dressed in free market clothing.
She has failed to either mention or factor in who will be overseeing the spending and allocation of $110 billion needed to fund her plan. This giant loophole could serve the purpose of resurrecting her failed 1994 attempt at government run health care.
As Rudy Giuliani noted, Hillary’s plan is a “pretty clear march to socialized medicine”.
Clinton’s plan is basically what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts but on a national level. However, unlike Romney, Clinton’s plan calls for an increase in taxes. Rather than do as Romney did and cut excessive government spending, Clinton’s plan will rely on the rescinding of tax cuts to households with an income greater than $250,000. Clinton would rather stick it to the rich than encourage frugality in Congress.
Because of her health care debacle in 1994, voters should fear the possibility of a Clinton imposed American nanny state.
Nanny states fall dramatically short of resembling anything close to Mary Poppins. If elected, we may need more than a few spoonfuls of sugar to help Clinton’s medicine go down.
Presidential candidate Fred Thompson recently said “a government that is big enough to do everything for you is powerful enough to take everything away from you”.
The freedom to choose to have insurance will be taken away as Clinton will require that everyone purchase a policy, either out-of-pocket or through increased taxes.
Like everything associated with the government, long periods of waiting is to be expected if Hillary’s plan is passed.
A series of lawsuits in Canada regarding long waiting lists sparked a Canadian Supreme Court Justice to rule on this very matter stating: “access to a waiting list is not access to health care”.
Our culture is counter to the one required by a national health plan.
Americans by their very nature are impatient. We cringe every time we are stuck in traffic or experience long lines at the post office. We invented fast food and microwaves because we were in a hurry.
If we can’t wait fifteen minutes for a meal, how on earth are we going to handle months of waiting for health care?
Additionally, why would we want to surrender the oversight of our health to our government, the very entity that has long had the reputation of incompetent management?
If Hillary were serious about the health of Americans, which she is not, she would abandon her indenture to personal liability lawyers and promote genuine Tort reform, thereby minimizing the adverse effects frivolous litigation has on the economy.
Unfounded malpractice suits and under-regulation of the insurance industry have sharply increased medical costs. By regulating the courts, she can regulate health insurance.
But, this is not about the collective health of the nation. This is about pure payback and raw power.
With Hillary Care revisited one can only hope it to be defeated as it was in 1994.
Joseph Haynie is a senior political science major. His column appears Fridays in the Collegian. Letters and feedback can be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org