Cato Scholar Comments on Hillary Clinton's Health Plan

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Monday 17 September 2007

Michael D. Tanner, director of health and welfare studies:

Here we go again. HillaryCare is back, and its apparent that Sen. Clinton has learned little since the American people overwhelmingly rejected her last attempt to overhaul the U.S. health care system. Once again her plan, which would cost $110 billion per year in new taxes, calls for greater government control over American health care. If her plan were to pass this time, it would mean higher taxes, lost jobs, less patient choice, and poorer quality health care.

Among the worst features of her proposal:

An individual mandate. Sen. Clinton would require every American to purchase health insurance or face penalties. There are many problems with such a mandate. It restricts individual choice and liberty. It will require a massive new bureaucracy to enforce. And it sets in motion a whole series of regulatory requirements that will ultimately lead to greater government control of our health care.

An employer mandate. Sen. Clinton would impose a “play or pay “ mandate on American businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax into a government insurance fund. Such a mandate simply increases the cost of hiring workers, meaning employers will inevitably hire fewer workers. Some may even be forced to layoff current employees and others will offset their costs by reducing wages or wage increases.

Expanding government programs. Sen. Clinton would expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to provide benefits for middle-class families. Yet studies show that many of those who would be covered by such an expansion already have private health insurance. Thus, Sen. Clinton would simply be moving people from private insurance to taxpayer-funded government care. She would also allow people under age 65 to “buy-in” to Medicare despite the fact that the program is already facing a financial crisis.

Insurance regulation. Senator Clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and would impose “community rating” on health insurance premiums. As a result the young and healthy will be forced to pay more in order to subsidize the older and sicker. And those who practice healthy lifestyles will pay more to subsidize the irresponsible.

With health care, as with so many other things, Hillary Clinton clearly trusts big government more than she trusts the free market and the American people.

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=656

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

got the cliff notes?

Daniel

:energetic:

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hillary's Health 2.0: Expect Big, Expensive Things

When any other Democratic candidate announces a health-care reform plan, it’s a thoroughly wonkish moment in the campaign. When Hillary announces hers, as she will today, it’s high drama: See, she’s tackled the subject once before, as First Lady, and destroyed the congressional Democratic majority in the process. The plan Clinton is set to propose this time centers on the “individual mandate,” which sounds totally empowering but is actually a Clintonian way of saying health insurance will be a requirement akin to auto insurance. Instead of tearing down the existing system, the plan expands it in every direction. The companies now offering health care to their employees will be able to simply continue to do so; those that don’t will have to either start or chip in toward a federal health-care kitty. The remaining uninsured get a tax credit to buy coverage, and the criticism you’ll hear from every Republican for the next thirteen months (oh, God) is that this two-step transaction is somehow limiting and invasive.

More exciting, the health-care-plan rollout is a way to check the candidates’ compatibility. Should Hillary get the nomination, John Edwards’s potential-veep stock would go up, since his plan is very similar to hers. Not so Obama’s; Barack thinks the “individual mandate” approach would overburden working-class families. At least all three agree who’s going to pay for the plan: Say bye to Bush’s tax cuts for the rich.

[Jasman0717 9]

With health care, as with so many other things, Hillary Clinton clearly trusts big government more than she trusts the free market and the American people.

Lot mental giants in big goverment

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

seriously though, the concept insurance is to pool money to help those in the pool. now, because it IS a for profit industry, they are looking to squeeze "costs" out (read as "ppl who are ill, have pre-existing conditions, etcc). so the argument that healthy folks will be footing the bill for ill ppl is wrong, is well, correct, as in DUH. eventually, healthy ppl will get sick and rely on the new healthy mebers to help with the now ill member.

i am sure ther e folks out ther who can explain it better than i. but i do see that the industry has been goping to the extreme profit side.

Daniel

:energetic:

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

so the argument that healthy folks will be footing the bill for ill ppl is wrong, is well, correct, as in DUH. eventually, healthy ppl will get sick and rely on the new healthy mebers to help with the now ill member.

Yes, insurance is, by definition, sharing of risk. If we didn't share the risk, we would have no need for insurance.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Regardless of how it's packaged, this country is ready for some kind of universal healthcare.

Here's my proposal:

* Require all employers to provide a minimum coverage healthcare for it's employees.

* Subsidize the insurance premiums for small businesses on any amount above an acceptable percentage.

* Offer tax incentives to both individual and businesses who purchase more coverage.

This would still allow choice for both employers and individuals to seek out different care providers.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I found this comment on a blog, thought I'd share.

I can't believe that any progressive would find this plan "sound." This plan leaves in place the worst actor in our health care system, the insurance companies, and even partially subsidizes them. If you really want a plan that gives people "choices," single payer is the way to go. Instead, we get "choices" about which personal insurance plan we want to be forced to buy! That's not choice. Individual mandate plans are completely antithetical to social justice, and present the most blatant opportunity for "capture" I've ever seen. I'm sure that the "public-private" entity regulating new devices will be subjected to significant political influence, just as whatever regulatory body that sets the "income percentage" will be.

In addition, Senator Clinton's plan appears to impose a regressive tax on the middle class! I know coastal elites won't understand this, but forcing a family of four in the midwest to pay $1200 per month for health insurance will be poorly received. This plan is an insurance company giveaway, and if this is the best the Democrats can offer, its time for progressives to start a new party. This is a neo-liberal joke.

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/...illary-pla.html

[Dan J 277]

Regardless of how it's packaged, this country is ready for some kind of universal healthcare.

Here's my proposal:

* Require all employers to provide a minimum coverage healthcare for it's employees.

* Subsidize the insurance premiums for small businesses on any amount above an acceptable percentage.

* Offer tax incentives to both individual and businesses who purchase more coverage.

This would still allow choice for both employers and individuals to seek out different care providers.

Ironically, those afraid of a social health care system, are afriad of loosing choice. But do you really have choice right now? You choose your employer sponsored plan, or you choose to pay much more for healthcare on your own, or you choose to have no health care.

Some people get locked into thier job, not because they like working there, but they don't want to loose the health benefit their employer provides.

In my opinion, health insurance should be taken out of the employers hands. They have the option to subsidize the cost if they want. But the consumer gets to choose if they want the state provided plan, or go with a private insurer. And they will keep their insurance, even if they change jobs.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

a big proble with any proposal is that all of the details are not worked out. even if they are "planned", eventuall the details are changed or interpreted differently. soooooo, we really do not know how things will change.

we do know some things. eg... med cost is very high. ins comps seek profit over coverage. may folks are w/o coverage. USA is richest nation on earth.

Daniel

:energetic:

Edited September 18, 2007 by AnaAndDaniel

[Ban Hammer 13,360]

so if you can't afford the coverage, what then? debtor's prison?

soon it's gonna be ""ver ah you insurance paypers......."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

ins comps seek profit over coverage.

Obviously. Their primary responsibility is (and should be) to their stockholders. The only way to change that is to nationalize the insurance industry. And no one is getting elected if they say they're gonna do that.

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

so if you can't afford the coverage, what then? debtor's prison?

soon it's gonna be ""ver ah you insurance paypers......."

and what if you are into "alternative medication"?

is there an insurance for that?

Daniel

:energetic:

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

so if you can't afford the coverage, what then? debtor's prison?

No. Not debtors prison.

Mandatory euthanasia

[AnaAndDaniel 0]

so if you can't afford the coverage, what then? debtor's prison?

No. Not debtors prison.

Mandatory euthanasia

no. the "donor pool".

Daniel

:energetic: