Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
New at Reason
Ron Bailey dissects the latest incarnation of Hillary Health Care.
Comments to "New at Reason":
John | September 18, 2007, 3:16pm | #
"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."Is that scary language or what? "At this point" there is nothing punitive meaning "I won't say it now in the middle of a campaign but once I get into office you better believe that it will be punative and you can kiss your freedom and atonomy over your healthcare and finances goodbye"
carrick | September 18, 2007, 3:19pm | #
Compassionate Conservatism's approach to health care.Let me just say that I admire sage's persistence with that line. Well done, sir.
JasonC | September 18, 2007, 3:24pm | #
haven't finished the article but wanted to let you know about this typo:by mandating that large employers to continue to buy health insurance for their workers.
Warren | September 18, 2007, 3:33pm | #
This is the shit that burns holes in my innards. Unless RON PAUL (and a pony) is then next president (and vice president), I don't see how anything can stop Hillary. She WILL be the Democratic candidate and I don't see the country electing another Republican (unless it's RON PAUL). I think the Democrats will increase their majority in congress and possibly take over the Senate.Watch the Republicans squeal as she uses the imperial presidency to turn America into a Limousine Liberal playground.
walmart shopper | September 18, 2007, 3:35pm | #
I would rather get all my medical care from aisle 12 at the local wally-world than let hillarious specify my insurance coverage.I didn't RTFA but my guess is that Mr. Bailey probably finds many faults with Sen. Clinton's plan.
carrick | September 18, 2007, 3:38pm | #
Dan, stating the obvious is not a public serviceRandolph Carter | September 18, 2007, 3:39pm | #
I heard elsewhere that under this proposal, health insurance, like a social security number, will be required for employment.So, if you don't have your federal insurance card (and, by year 2 of the Clinton [or Giuliani, or Romney, or whatever] presidency, your national ID card), you can't get a job.
joe | September 18, 2007, 3:48pm | #
I don't like this plan.The link between employment and health insurance is a big part of the problem, not the solution to it.
I predict that the Universal Health Care plan that gets passed in the next few years will come out of Congress, not the White House, and will look more like France's universal health care system than like the Romney/Clinton model.
Which is going to raise the intriguing possibility of Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi getting into a hair-pulling catfight. Hillary's got more bulk, but Nancy's sort of wiry and quick. Five quatloos on the Californian!
An Ottawa Reader | September 18, 2007, 3:48pm | #
Hm. Well, if it's any consolation, single-payer appears to be off the table. Thank the gods you pray to for small mercies.(The Ontario Health Insurance Plan still haven't sent me my replacement health card. Now would not be a good time for me to be hit by a truck.)
Cracker's Boy | September 18, 2007, 3:50pm | #
Uh... maybe I'm missing it, and this is not generally my area of concern but... what about the homeless (unemployed, not paying income taxes so uninterested in tax credits)? For that matter, what about the "at this moment unemployed", whether by layoff or personal choice?So the plan really doesn't address anyone but the "currently employed by an employer who doesn't provide health insurance"; meaning... it's just a payroll tax. Oh well.
CB
Danny | September 18, 2007, 3:50pm | #
I didn't RTFA but my guess is that Mr. Bailey probably finds many faults with Sen. Clinton's plan.Me neither, but I have already found many faults with RB's grammar... I had to re-read quite a few sentences to make sure that I didn't need a new perscription.
joe | September 18, 2007, 3:57pm | #
Cracker's Boy,The plan subsidizes the purchase of health insurance by the unemployed, or those whose emoployers do not provide and insurance plan. It pays for it out of funds currently used to cover the uninsured when they end up in the emergency room, and by imposing a fee on employers above a certain size who don't provide health insurance.
Like the Romney Plan, only federal.
Rattlesnake Jake | September 18, 2007, 3:59pm | #
"I predict that the Universal Health Care plan that gets passed in the next few years will come out of Congress, not the White House, and will look more like France's universal health care system than like the Romney/Clinton model."I predict that the public rejects socialized medicine just as they did in 1994 when they see that cost savings will come about though rationing.
P Brooks | September 18, 2007, 3:59pm | #
" Right now health insurance is made more expensive by some 1800 state and federal mandates. "Government tinkering drives prices higher? I'm shocked.
joe | September 18, 2007, 4:03pm | #
Rattlesnake Jake,Like they did in 1994?
In 1994, on the day the Senate killed health care reform, between 55% and 60% of the public wanted it to pass. Time Magazine released an issue showing their last minute polling, which came out just after Dole killed the final bill through a procedural maneuver.
Lamar | September 18, 2007, 4:04pm | #
Isn't it true that FEHBP health insurance is a fall-back for those who can't get or afford coverage elsewhere? If so, I don't understand Regina Herzlinger's criticism that there isn't enough consumer choice. FEHBP seems like it would be bottom-of-the-barrel coverage, and that kind of coverage doesn't provide consumer choice whether private or public. The choice is between coverage or none.Am I missing something here?
Gilbert Martin | September 18, 2007, 4:05pm | #
"Stretching the car analogy a bit further, Sen. Clinton compares her health care plan to the mandate that all drivers carry car insurance. But it's a bad comparison."Indeed it is , first because it is the state's and not the federal government that mandate car insurance and second the car insurance mandate is for liabilty coverage for the potential damage that a a driver could inflict on someone else (either to their person or vehicle). There is no mandate to carry collision coverage to pay for damage to your own car.
JasonL | September 18, 2007, 4:06pm | #
I want to believe Jake, but I don't. I don't think people will hesitate to take a big fat dump on medical innovation and would put up with lines to get free stuff.My only hope is that the ripple effects on current national systems are horrific when their sugar daddy dries up. When the cost argument leaves, the issue will die.
Cracker's Boy | September 18, 2007, 4:09pm | #
I can't get past the homeless thing here."The plan subsidizes the purchase of health insurance by the unemployed,"
The homeless aren't going to "buy" health insurance, even if it's "subsidized" (meaning free). Or maybe I'm just not giving them credit. Do the homeless vote?
So the homeless will still be showing up at the Emergency room, getting free health care (as they do now). Where is the savings that is "currently used to cover the uninsured" coming from? They're still showing up?
Color me confused... and skeptical... I want SOMETHING... I just don't know what it is yet. (So I'll wait... I don't have to DO something... I just WANT something).
CB
Rattlesnake Jake | September 18, 2007, 4:12pm | #
"In 1994, on the day the Senate killed health care reform, between 55% and 60% of the public wanted it to pass. Time Magazine released an issue showing their last minute polling, which came out just after Dole killed the final bill through a procedural maneuver."That isn't a large enough consensus to radically change our health care system.
JasonL | September 18, 2007, 4:14pm | #
"In 1994, on the day the Senate killed health care reform, between 55% and 60% of the public wanted it to pass. Time Magazine released an issue showing their last minute polling, which came out just after Dole killed the final bill through a procedural maneuver."Voters didn't really seem to hold it against republicans when they killed it though. The hillarycare club seemed to be useful enough to beat on democrats with, at least for a while.
Boy, the picure of Hillary? on drudge right now speaks volumes.
joe | September 18, 2007, 4:21pm | #
Rattlesnake Jake,1. We can quibble about the definition of "radically."
2. Support for health care reform has only grown since then.
3. That 55-60% was for "HillaryCare," not health care reform in general.
JasonL,
Voters didn't really seem to hold it against republicans when they killed it though. The 1994 elections featured the lowest turnout in history, largely because Democrats were demoralized because health care reform didn't work.
Randolph Carter | September 18, 2007, 4:22pm | #
apparently the "elsewhere" where I heard about requiring health care to work was the AP.Rattlesnake Jake | September 18, 2007, 4:23pm | #
"I don't understand Regina Herzlinger's criticism that there isn't enough consumer choice."She believes in people buying their own insurance as opposed to receiving it on the job. The policies would be paid for with tax breaks and subsidies would be given to the poor. This would encourage shopping around for the best policies which would tend to drive their prices down.
Rattlesnake Jake | September 18, 2007, 4:25pm | #
"2. Support for health care reform has only grown since then."If people learn that socialized medicine means rationing and that there are alternatives to socialized medicine, I believe support for socialized medicine will decline.
ChrisO | September 18, 2007, 4:26pm | #
Any form of socialized medicine is going to suck, but HillaryCare II is one of the most gimmicky, unwieldy things I've ever seen.Of course, I suppose there is no good way to steal from one person to pay for another's health care.
J sub D | September 18, 2007, 4:28pm | #
Me neither, but I have already found many faults with RB's grammar... I had to re-read quite a few sentences to make sure that I didn't need a new perscription.It's a blog, not a term paper!
Stevo Darkly | September 18, 2007, 4:29pm | #
I have already found many faults with RB's grammar... I had to re-read quite a few sentences to make sure that I didn't need a new perscription.Perhaps Ron would hire you as his editer.
joe | September 18, 2007, 4:31pm | #
Rattlesnake Jake,Universal health insurance is not Socialized Medicine, if we're using words with their common meanings. National Health Care, a la Britain, where the providers work for the government, is very unpopular already.
And plenty of people have plenty of experience with HMO-based rationing as it is. You mean some bureaucrat might decide to deny payment for my procedure? Not really an effective counter-argument there.
How does Hillary define "American"? | September 18, 2007, 4:32pm | #
I don't know why Reason would be complaining. This plan would probably cover IllegalAliens and thus would be a massive giveaway to not just crooked employers but to the MexicanGovernment as well.I knew there was some angle to this I was missing. The Mexican Government. Yeah. It all makes sense to me now.
| September 18, 2007, 4:41pm | #
But will it include MentalHealthCoverage so that Lonewhacko can get TheTreatmentHeNeeds?Rattlesnake Jake | September 18, 2007, 4:41pm | #
"Universal health insurance is not Socialized Medicine, if we're using words with their common meanings. National Health Care, a la Britain, where the providers work for the government, is very unpopular already."When the government takes control of the health care system, it's socialism. Maybe fascism would be a better name for it when the doctors aren't hired by the government, but leftists would be even more upset with that title.
"And plenty of people have plenty of experience with HMO-based rationing as it is. You mean some bureaucrat might decide to deny payment for my procedure? Not really an effective counter-argument there."
HMO's were created by an act of Congress in 1973. Socialized medicine is nothing but a big HMO. All the problems that we have with our health care system are problems that were created by the government. Why have more government involvement? Why not give power back to patients and doctors where it belongs? Why would government know better what is best for us? Do we really want more of a nanny state which isn't really taking good care of us when in order to control costs, they engage in rationing of services.
SP | September 18, 2007, 4:46pm | #
Joe,If you would, elaborate more on your prediction. Why is Congress interested in passing their own plan?
The Ugly Merkin | September 18, 2007, 4:55pm | #
I want kyle and Eric Dondero to fight to the death.Kyle, I didn't watch that video from your previous thread postings and I'm not going to watch it now. Get a life.
Donderoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo would be the winner. At least he acutally has comment of sorts.
Besides the announcer wants to say. "And the winner is Donderooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"
tk | September 18, 2007, 5:00pm | #
JasonL -The Mexican Gov't angle makes sense, if that poster is currently in.... Peru:
Giant Meteorite hits Peru - Mysterious fumes "sicken" Villagers and mutate them into Natasha Henstridge-like Species People (ok, I just added taht last part)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20838944/?GTI=10357
John C. Randolph | September 18, 2007, 5:07pm | #
Let's be very clear on what that cunt intends to do: this is a proposal for a massive power-grab, that will kill people.-jcr
joe | September 18, 2007, 5:21pm | #
Yeah, our health care outcomes might come to resemble those in France or Germany.Why, the death toll could be in the negative thousands annually!
joe | September 18, 2007, 5:24pm | #
SP,For one thing, because every health care reformist is going to have their own plan, and there are a lot of them in Congress.
Also, because there are so many problems with the Hillary/Romney model.
Third, because the passage of the bill in Congress will require it to move through a large number of chairmen and other power brokers, who aren't going to like having a bill handed to them.
And fourth, because Nancy Pelosi is more liberal and less corporate than Hillary, and also more popular.
Obviously, any form of NHC is a sweet, sweet deal for foreign governments, even including those that aren't open about their plans to send people here to get money back. In the case of Mexico, they get money back and they avoid having troublemakers around who'll try to reform their system. And, with NHC they'll get even more money and it will be easier for their citizens to live here illegally.
Gilbert Martin | September 18, 2007, 5:42pm | #
Another thing about all these socialized medicine schemes is that the cost to the taxpayers for the program is always vastly underestimated at the outset.Hillary claims it will cost $110 B a year. It's likely to be far more than that.
Just go back and look at the costs per year projections for Medicare put out by it's propenents in 1965 when they were trying to get it passed.
Those actual annual costs far far exceeded those projections.
Lavinia Weissman | September 18, 2007, 6:29pm | #
Excellent analysis. Thank you.Cesar | September 18, 2007, 6:37pm | #
TLB-IF this plan passes it actually wouldn't be that different from how Mexico handles health insurance.
Cesar | September 18, 2007, 6:50pm | #
Isaac-Actually, I probably said the wrong thing. Since this bill isn't too different from how the IMMS (The Mexican health care system) is, he will think the bill was written by Calderon in a nefarious attempt to make our laws more like theirs.
Also, he wouldn't listen to me anyway. I've been to Mexico. And have Mexicans in my family. And even have a latin name! I could be OneOfThem.
Grand Chalupa | September 18, 2007, 7:11pm | #
So tell me, which is worse, libertarians, a one in a million chance that someone will listen to your phone call to Pakistan in Urdu or a 100% chance of a tax hike and the government controlling your health care?And you people complain about Guilliani!
Jesus fucking Christ, when the pantsuited bitch is micromanagaing our lives you all will be just as much to blame as anybody.
Chalupa, this health plan is actually very "Republican". I don't see how its different from Romney's ideas.
Grand Chalupa | September 18, 2007, 7:16pm | #
Fuck Romney too. Gimme Guilliani, or any other Republican. The Repubs need to control congress but if we can't have that we must do everything in our power to make sure the Democrats never control both branches.I thought you liked Romnney? Anyway I think Giuliani has similar ideas about health care, too. There seems to be a Republican-Democrat consensus on health care now, unfortunatley.
I'm not to keen on going to war with every Muslim country on the planet as Giuliani wants to do, either.
Grand Chalupa | September 18, 2007, 7:22pm | #
Guilliani earned a special place in my heart when I heard him say at a debate we must resist the urge to "socialize medicine". Romney got universal coverage in Massachusetts, no Republican has come out and said we need universal coverage at the federal level.Cesar | September 18, 2007, 7:56pm | #
Guilliani earned a special place in my heart when I heard him say at a debate we must resist the urge to "socialize medicine".And Bush told me in 2000 he'd like a "humble foreign policy". I'm not going to be fooled again.
SIV | September 18, 2007, 8:36pm | #
Cesar,There seems to be a Republican-Democrat consensus on health care now, unfortunatley.
I'll disagree with the Republicans on that.
I answered your question back on yesterdays RP thread.
Cesar | September 18, 2007, 9:03pm | #
I'll disagree with the Republicans on that.Me too, and this adds to another disappointment I've had with the GOP. If Team Red would act like they did in 1994, I'd be more than happy to vote for them. But they've been way to "compassionate conservative" for me in the last eight years.
I answered your question back on yesterdays RP thread.
And I've responded to it.
Does anyone think the unstated freedom of association can be used to rule this unconstitutional? If I start a religion that forbids health care can I tell McHillaromnobamniani to go pound sand? Will Christian Scientists be required to pay up for something they may never use? I for one will be happy to convert just to take it to the Supreme Court of Jebus and the United Statists.
Grand Chalupa | September 18, 2007, 9:40pm | #
And Bush told me in 2000 he'd like a "humble foreign policy". I'm not going to be fooled again.Bush DID have a humble foreign policy, that is before 9/11.
Anyway, what's your point? If your not going to believe anything then why pay attention to what the politicians say at all? Guilliani has never shown or stated anything that indicates he wants the federal government more involved in the HC system.
iih | September 18, 2007, 10:02pm | #
Heard HRC on NPR today saying that her health care program will not involve any new government agencies and is essentially privately run -- the Massachusetts way that Romney signed into law. And the dishonest Romney jumped today to accuse her of being a socialist (which she is, but I am criticizing the hypocrisy and flip flopping of Romney).Cesar | September 18, 2007, 10:03pm | #
Bush DID have a humble foreign policy, that is before 9/11.Are you saying 9/11 "changed everything?" I don't buy that line of shit.
If your not going to believe anything then why pay attention to what the politicians say at all? Guilliani has never shown or stated anything that indicates he wants the federal government more involved in the HC system.
Wait until after the primary.
iih | September 18, 2007, 10:09pm | #
If I start a religion that forbids health care can I tell McHillaromnobamniani to go pound sand?Why invent one? Islam forbids outright socialized health care (and most kinds of insurance policies -- cars, homes, etc-- that involved "distributing the cost of the risk"). But that is for another thread.
All foreign students and alien residents (legal of course!) have to have health insurance -- at least that was what I was told when I first came to this country, even though I did not want it.
Grand Chalupa | September 18, 2007, 10:25pm | #
Are you saying 9/11 "changed everything?" I don't buy that line of shit.It didn't change "everything", it changed Bush. The record backs it up.
Cesar | September 18, 2007, 10:58pm | #
Chalupa-Do you feel like going to war with every nation between the Indus River and Suez? Elect Giuliani.
War does more to expand the scope of the state than any other government action.
iih | September 18, 2007, 11:22pm | #
Greenspan's on John Stewart -- that is quite a scene!iih | September 18, 2007, 11:42pm | #
And Obama is proposing Taxes by $80B:http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/09/18/obama_proposes_80_billion_in_t.html?hpid=topnews
iih | September 18, 2007, 11:45pm | #
Should read: "And Obama is proposing taxes cuts of $80B"Gilbert Martin | September 19, 2007, 8:11am | #
"War does more to expand the scope of the state than any other government action."I don't think so. Government domestic social programs expand it more than any other action. Far more money has been spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid than has been or will be spent on the Iraq war.
Not A Pirate | September 19, 2007, 10:15am | #
TrickyVic | September 18, 2007, 4:56pm | #Kyle, I didn't watch that video from your previous thread postings and I'm not going to watch it now. Get a life.
TrickyVic | September 18, 2007, 4:57pm | #
Donderoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo would be the winner. At least he acutally has comment of sorts.
TrickyVic | September 18, 2007, 4:58pm | #
Besides the announcer wants to say. "And the winner is Donderooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo"
Sheesh, talk about getting a life...
Greg Scandlen | September 19, 2007, 12:21pm | #
Ron,You wrote: "Individual mandates could be the cornerstone of a complete privatization of health insurance, giving consumers more choices and much greater control over their health care needs."
The first choice is the choice to buy the product at all. Right now consumers are saying they do not find value in the health insurance products that are available. They are not wrong. Forcing them to buy something they don't value eliminates their ability to send an important signal to the insurance industry.
Greg Scandlen
daniel k | September 19, 2007, 12:35pm | #
Not to be too much of a cockeyed optimist, but it may be that people in the future outsource their medical care. There already is a substantial "tourist" medical industry in India and Thailand, which will probably increase. A doctor overseas handling your care over the internet, with an office stateside with a nurse/physian's assistent will be an option, just as most goods people buy are made overseas.What will government do? Pay sky high prices for domestic care and consequently deny care due to lack of funds, or reimburse foreign providers? At some point, true costs and true value will become apparent
Seamus | September 19, 2007, 4:52pm | #
"Stretching the car analogy a bit further, Sen. Clinton compares her health care plan to the mandate that all drivers carry car insurance. But it's a bad comparison."Indeed it is , first because it is the state's and not the federal government that mandate car insurance and second the car insurance mandate is for liabilty coverage for the potential damage that a a driver could inflict on someone else (either to their person or vehicle). There is no mandate to carry collision coverage to pay for damage to your own car.
That's one good point. Another is that there's a world of difference between the government mandating that you buy insurance as a condition of being permitted to own a car that operates on the public highways and the government mandating that you buy insurance as a condition of living.
Cesar | September 19, 2007, 5:07pm | #
I don't think so. Government domestic social programs expand it more than any other action. Far more money has been spent on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid than has been or will be spent on the Iraq war.
Economic planning didn't become vogue until after World War I. A lot of the New Deal "reforms" were based on war time planning.
