We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Regardless of how she frames it, Hillarycare 2.0 entails a federal take-over of a large sector of our economy - a piece of our economy which is particularly important to us. Why doesn't she focus on the auto industry, and provide us all with government Yugos?
The mythical 47 million uninsured is the excuse. The reason is power, vote-buying, and the relentless need of the Left to control and socialize private enterprise, effort, and achievement - one industry at a time.
The tactic is time-honored: Manufacture a "crisis," then propose an anti-market government solution which strips a citizen of one more piece of his autonomy. Or one more piece of his adulthood, as I often term it, because government-controlled medical treatment is truly the assumption of an "in loco parentis" role.
As I see it, Hillary was humiliated with Hillarycare 1.0. If she is elected, she wants to have a mandate in hand to take over medical treatment this time around.
Bruce Kesler, who is a blogospheric expert on the topic, in Snake Oil Reform - a few quotes:
She proposes that all this will not come at increased government regulation, but ignores that her proposals would gut the private insurance industry while placing the remainder under tight government controls, in effect establishing a semi-private sham for nationalized health care.
She, also, doesn’t mention the uniformity, sluggishness in keeping abreast of the latest developments and the squelching of the incentives to develop them, and ultimately treatment rationing that is inevitable when the overwhelming costs come due of the promises.
But, by then, the promises' hollowness although seen and suffered will be virtually irreversible as the private market no longer exists.
Precisely. Isn't that what always happens? Government programs always create new problems, which then require further government programs to try to fix. He notes:
She proposes expansion of existing government programs to guaranteed coverage for all, but doesn’t mention that the states that have instituted guaranteed coverage regardless of health condition, and community rating to provide the same premium regardless of age, location or condition, have seen sharp escalation in premiums for the younger and healthier, increased government costs, and have not reduced the number of uninsured. (See this multi-year study.)
The way I see it, vast federal programs like this never work, but once they exist, and fail, you can never get rid of them.
... she doesn’t mention that her and others’ figure of 47-million uninsured is inflated by at least double, as it includes a majority who are here illegally or who can afford coverage but choose not to be self-responsible.
Even nationalized health care apologist Ezra Klein notes that all her promises almost sound like she “washes your car.”
All she wants to do is replace private regulation with public regulation. The current health-insurance is totally riddled with regulations, mostly concerned with ways to withold treatment or deny coverage. The continiuing inability of Conservatives or Libertarians to recognize this lends their arguments a certain Alice-in-Wonderland aura. Why should a bunch of corporate bureaucrats decide who lives and dies so their investors can make a few more pennies? I much prefer a democratic system that is at least theoretically open and accountable than one that is unaccountable by design.
"Market-driven" sounds like a religion. Investors are irrelevant on the ground, the issue is who makes the day-to-day decisions about who gets treated and how, who gets denied coverage. It's totally opaque on purpose, and its aim is not to provide coverage but to save money by denying coverage. The ultimate ideal of all business, if you take it to the extreme, is to make money without any expenses; i.e. not provide a product or a service. Health insurance companies can't take it to that extreme, but that's their ideal of a business model. Government has its own dysfunctions, of course, but you can't accuse it of trying to make a profit. It' at least amenable to the democratic process, while business is not as a matter of principle. Private health insurance is every bit as bureaucratic as government, with the added issue that is is totally isolated from the democratic process. Talking to my doctor about this just confirms my views. She absolutely hates the current system, it's dysfunctional in so many ways. Having to deal with a dozen insurance companies, each with their own rules and regulations, is positively insane. Generally, business welcomes government regulation (as long as it can write the details itself) because it rationalizes the playing field. You can see that this is the reason why reform is being discussed in the mainstream media; it's not a "Leftist" conspiracy, it's a business-driven agenda. Whether the broader business world can defeat the Health Insurance industry is another question.
Got news for you, Bubbas; her plan makes just enough sense that we might get it if we don't come up with a better one. And, saying that we'll give you a tax "credit" for health insurance don't do much for the guy making $30,000.00/yr.
The Massachusettes plan is a good start, but we better get cracking.