The Persistence Of Bad Ideas
Mark Davis looks at HillaryCare 2.0 and finds it is just as bad an idea now as it was back in the 90s.
The tone of much of the coverage seems to be: She tried to make changes, deserves credit for the attempt, it's too bad she failed, and maybe she'll succeed this time.
But what if her proposed changes, then and now, are a horrible idea?
Let us set aside every positive or negative opinion we have of Mrs. Clinton for an objective examination of whether America's world-dominating health care system is hurt or helped by a vast increase in government involvement.
I think you sense my answer. In 1993 and today, she pays lip service to American health care, calling it the best in the world. In the same breath, she still proposes meddling in ways that can only denigrate that quality.
Her zeal is based on one of the great myths of modern times, the mistaken belief that we have a health care "crisis."
To be sure, some people face monstrous health care costs without the safety net of insurance to protect them, but most of the 47 million Americans who lack health insurance have bypassed it by choice. Plenty of healthy young people and couples choose to forgo premiums to free up money for other things.
We can consider that a dangerous gamble, but it does not constitute some blight of victimization requiring a government solution.
Anyone may reasonably observe that the U.S. health care system has problems. But most of those problems rest in how health care is paid for, and none of those ills get better with layers of new federal obligations.
The whole "debate" on health care hinges on the conflation of two completely different issues. Health insurance is one, access to care is the other. They are not at all the same. The number of uninsured in the US includes people here illegally and people who refuse to buy available insurance, not just those who can't afford it. So even that issue is being treated dishonestly. The other thing that is not talked about in all the feel-good rhetoric coming from the politicians is a simple one: the Federal budget is already heading for a disaster with the mandates for Social Security. Adding yet another hugely expensive (and undoubtedly grossly inefficient) program will not improve that situation one bit.
By mockinbird, September 20, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
Sheesh!
Hillary Clinton’s ideas are not progressive; they are regressive.
Here’s a truly progressive idea.
Instead of citizens donating to her campaign, she should pay us to listen to her. $108.00 per person for those who show up at an appearance. Now, that’s truly top down, just like her ideas. C’mon Hillary,
Pony up, Mony down.
Now, where IS that bourbon?