Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
ClintonCare 2.0
Bloomberg (via Drudge) reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) will be pushing a new universal health care plan as part of her presidential run
Clinton's dilemma is a case study of a candidate's attempt to convert a potential liability into an asset while opponents seek to make it a fatal flaw. Clinton may have the upper hand as pressure for an overhaul of the $2.1 trillion-a-year U.S. health-care system has grown since the legislative failure of 1993-94.
Costs have continued to outpace inflation, the number of uninsured has increased and fewer employers are offering coverage to workers. The Business Roundtable, led by the chief executives of companies such as General Motors Corp., has joined union leaders in urging coverage for everyone.
The government's accepted role in health care has expanded, with Medicare, the U.S. program for the elderly and disabled, adding prescription drug benefits, and the federal government subsidizing coverage for 6 million children in low-income families.
That Clinton will be doing something along these lines is inevitable, though the absolute lack of details puts most of us in the position of Rhesus monkeys waiting for the next random electric shock. The Bloomberg story notes that John Edwards and Barack Obama have already released plans but, truth be told, I don't recall that at all, or at least any of the details. And in one of the great ironies of recent political moments, it will be quite hilarious if President Bush's massive expansion of Medicare helps make full-blown--and fully-blowing--national health a brutal reality in the years to come.
JBinMO|9.14.07 @ 9:51AM|#
The author seems to imply that it would somehow be ironic if one of Bushes' policies inadvertanly led to biger government. All of his policies are sending us in that direction, and not indavertainly.
|9.14.07 @ 10:26AM|#
We already have "socialized" health care. You would think that
libertarians (assuming they've come to terms with the reality that
we're never going to go to a true "you're on your own" model) would
at least be in favor of reforming the system to make it cheaper and
provide better results.
Also, on more of a philisophical note, couldn't one argue that a
person has more true liberty when he doesn't have to totally take
care of himself? For some reason, I actually feel like I'd be freer
if I didn't have to worry that getting sick might bankrupt me.
enough already|9.14.07 @ 10:32AM|#
For some reason, I actually feel like I'd be freer if I
didn't have to worry that getting sick might bankrupt
me.
Buy Insurance. Leave the rest of us alone.
Russ 2000|9.14.07 @ 10:33AM|#
"Universal" health care is false advertising as no Martians or
Canadians will be eligible.
So the new marketing slogan should be "All-American Health Care!!!
Hooray for the Red White and Blue!!"
The good thing about universal health care is that life expectancy
should decrease under it which will make Social Security a little
more solvent.
Russ 2000|9.14.07 @ 10:34AM|#
I actually feel like I'd be freer if I didn't have to worry
that getting sick might bankrupt me.
I'd be freer if I didn't have to worry that YOU getting sick would
bankrupt ME.
|9.14.07 @ 10:41AM|#
The Business Roundtable, led by the chief executives of companies such as General Motors Corp., has joined union leaders in urging coverage for everyone.
Gee, I wonder why?
BTW, I would love to see health insurance decoupled from
employment. I'm just supercautious on how I'd like to see that
done.
Mr. Spock|9.14.07 @ 10:51AM|#
""Universal" health care is false advertising as no Martians or
Canadians will be eligible."
What about Vulcans?
|9.14.07 @ 10:54AM|#
I'd be freer if I didn't have to worry that YOU getting sick
would bankrupt ME.
Right, and that would be less likely to happen with a health care
system that encouraged preventative care instead of one that
encouraged letting stuff go until you end up in the ER.
|9.14.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Buy Insurance. Leave the rest of us alone.
You didn't see Sicko I guess. Many people have insurance and still
end up broke. Not to mention that millions more either can't afford
it or can't get it because of pre-existing conditions.
Russ 2000|9.14.07 @ 11:01AM|#
a health care system that encouraged preventative
care...
... is called "pay your own way".
|9.14.07 @ 11:03AM|#
"You didn't see Sicko I guess. Many people have insurance and
still end up broke. Not to mention that millions more either can't
afford it or can't get it because of pre-existing
conditions."
So make changes to make it easier for those uninsured to get
insurance, don't put us all under socialized medicine which has
proven to be a disatrous system with its long waiting lists,
rationing, high taxes, less money spent on research and
development.
|9.14.07 @ 11:09AM|#
"Right, and that would be less likely to happen with a health
care system that encouraged preventative care instead of one that
encouraged letting stuff go until you end up in the ER."
We tried that with HMO's thinking it would bring down prices. It
didn't. It increased costs because people started going to the
doctor over every little thing because they had the feeling they
were getting their care for free. The same thing is true with
socialized medicine. People get the feeling that it's free so they
go to the doctor over every little thing. This raises costs. When
people start complaining about the high taxes, the government has
to start rationing services in order to control the costs and high
taxes.
|9.14.07 @ 11:14AM|#
You didn't see Sicko I guess.
I think we should coin a term for the logical fallacy of using
Michael Moore "documentaries" as evidence.
Wait, I know!
IGNORANCE!!!
|9.14.07 @ 11:15AM|#
So make changes to make it easier for those uninsured to get
insurance, don't put us all under socialized medicine which has
proven to be a disatrous system with its long waiting lists,
rationing, high taxes, less money spent on research and
development.
Except it hasn't. In many other countries, it's produced better
results with less costs.
enough already|9.14.07 @ 11:18AM|#
You didn't see Sicko I guess. Many people have insurance and
still end up broke.
You don't read the newspaper I guess. Many people under universal
health care system wind up crippled or dead waiting for their turn
to come around due to rationing.
Shut up with the fucking platitudes and try to show some positive
business case for forcing the entire population to live under some
form of universal care.
|9.14.07 @ 11:22AM|#
"We already have "socialized" health care. You would think that
libertarians (assuming they've come to terms with the reality that
we're never going to go to a true "you're on your own" model) would
at least be in favor of reforming the system to make it cheaper and
provide better results."
Socialized medicine would not provide better results. It hasn't in
the countries it's been tried. The only reason it would be cheaper
would be through rationing.
We can reform the system by giving more power to patients. Give the
poor and elderly vouchers to shop around for lower priced health
care. They would get to keep what they don't spend. Allow doctors
and hospitals to advertise. Create high deductible and catastrophic
insurance policies and allow medical savings plans to pay for
routine care. If patients shopped around for their medical care,
the competition would bring down prices making health insurance and
medical costs more affordable. Tort reform would bring down medical
costs, something Hillary and Edwards are opposed to because of
their ties with lawyers. Those without insurance could be given tax
breaks for health insurance as Giuliani proposes. There are lots of
things we could do without having to resort to ruinous socialized
medicine.
|9.14.07 @ 11:26AM|#
"Except it hasn't. In many other countries, it's produced better
results with less costs."
I know of no other country where it has produced better results and
again, the lower costs are brought on by rationing which results in
lower quality care.
|9.14.07 @ 11:33AM|#
"Also, on more of a philisophical note, couldn't one argue that
a person has more true liberty when he doesn't have to totally take
care of himself?"
A person has more liberty when he can buy his own insurance and go
to whatever doctor he wants. When patients are the customers and
not the government or large insurance companies, there is better
care given to them. In countries with socialized medicine, there
are fewer doctors and more patients coming in for every little
routine ailment. Doctors aren't able to devote much time to each
patient. One of the proposals of Hillarycare was that hospitals and
clinincs would be paid to hire fewer doctors in order to bring down
costs.
|9.14.07 @ 11:33AM|#
How many Americans are encouraging their children to become doctors now? I suspect not many. If the trend toward government run health care continues, I would surmise the best and brightest will not be drawn into a career that will be populated by the same type of people who find teaching at the public schools or delivering your mail desirable.
|9.14.07 @ 11:38AM|#
I know of no other country where it has produced better
results.
What about, say, the 36 countries rated above us by the WHO?
|9.14.07 @ 11:45AM|#
I'm still waiting to hear why my 'deduct health insurance premiums from your income tax/negative income tax for the working poor' idea won't work.
|9.14.07 @ 11:55AM|#
"I know of no other country where it has produced better
results."
"What about, say, the 36 countries rated above us by the
WHO?"
It all depends on what the rater considers as important. WHO finds
cost and egalitarianism as important so they weighted their ratings
heavily on those bases. Like I said before, those countries have
achieved their lower costs through rationing. I personally rate
qaulity of care and money available for reseach and development
highly. In those areas, US health care is second to none.
|9.14.07 @ 11:55AM|#
I've lived in countries with National Health Services. And
speaking from my own experience, I'd much rather be back in Japan
rather than dealing with the goddamn US health system.
First of all, it is much, much quicker and cheaper to deal with
something when you catch it early on. The Japanese health system
makes it very easy to get checkups--businesses and governmental
agencies in fact have "health days" where a clinic in a truck shows
up and everyone gets tested.
Second, a sizable percentage of the $$ that is paid in the US goes
to administrative costs, arguing with the health provider,
incompatible recording systems, etc., etc., and so forth. This is
Inefficient--something that I would expect Libertarians to
understand the problem with.
Third--the system is BROKEN in the US. "Pre-existing conditions"
being used to deny insurance (or price it far beyond the actual
risk involved). The shenanigans of the insurance companies are
abysmal("Hi, we're going to yank your coverage for pregnancy and
childbirth. Oh, you're two weeks from being due? Tough luck.") And
good luck getting a decent price for simple tests, even WITH
insurance and copays.
Stop whining about "oh, but the free market will fix everything!"
People are seeing RIGHT NOW what the so-called "free market" is
providing and they don't like it. And making comments about how you
don't want to pay for their expensive surgeries just makes you
sound like a fool--you WILL be paying anyway--either through
insurance, or because they go to the ER and you will be paying with
higher taxes. Scream all you like about the "unfairness" of
this--if you want to avoid the problem that much I suggest you move
to Somalia. Start thinking about how a Libertarian-styled Universal
Health Plan, because that's what's coming down the pipe, guys.
Either FIX the present problems or SHUT UP about them, ok?
|9.14.07 @ 11:56AM|#
What about, say, the 36 countries rated above us by the
WHO?
Yes, because things like the number of women you have in your
parliament are really related to health care. Or not.
|9.14.07 @ 11:58AM|#
"I'm still waiting to hear why my 'deduct health insurance
premiums from your income tax/negative income tax for the working
poor' idea won't work."
It would work. Socialistic Democrats just don't want it because
they want to be in control of our medical decisions.
|9.14.07 @ 12:00PM|#
I personally rate qaulity of care and money available for
reseach and development highly. In those areas, US health care is
second to none.
What's your evidence for that? One would think that if quality of
care was best here, then we'd have the world's healthiest
population. But nobody thinks that.
Now, people in this debate do tend to forget that there are really
two aspects to consider: quality of care and availablity of care. A
place like the US ranks very high in the former and low in the
latter. Cuba is probably the other way around. The top ranked
country, France, ranks highly in both.
|9.14.07 @ 12:07PM|#
"I'd much rather be back in Japan rather than dealing with the
goddamn US health system."
Japan's health care system isn't like the typical socialized
medical system which the Democrats are trying to bring here. The
Japanese actually pay more out of pocket expenses for their health
care than we do in both medical premiums and deductibles.
The Artist Formerly Know as Tr|9.14.07 @ 12:07PM|#
You guys think I can copy right the name "Billery"? Has someone already beat me to the punch ?
|9.14.07 @ 12:10PM|#
People are seeing RIGHT NOW what the so-called "free market"
is providing and they don't like it.
I really have to wonder what twisted logic would lead anyone to
conclude that the US health care system is anything like a free
market.
|9.14.07 @ 12:17PM|#
"if quality of care was best here, then we'd have the world's
healthiest population. But nobody thinks that."
Factors such as diet and drug use have a lot to do with a country's
health. These are problems with the US which our medical services
have nothing to do with.
Regarding availability of care, just because some people may not
have insurance doesn't mean they don't have availability of care.
They can always go to a charity hospital. That 45,000,000 figure of
the uninsured is highly exaggerated anyway. It has been found that
among the uninsured, about 40% are illegal aliens, 40% are below 25
and choose to not be insured, and 8% are independently wealthy and
feel no need for insurance.
|9.14.07 @ 12:21PM|#
some light and less heat:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3055/
Plus, among many, many methological inconsistencies with the WHO
longevity study is that new borns who are less than 5 days old are
not counted in computing life expectancy. As a newborn dying plus a
70 year old gives a life expectancy of 35 years, even a very small
number of newborn deaths skews the data.
|9.14.07 @ 12:22PM|#
"I really have to wonder what twisted logic would lead anyone to
conclude that the US health care system is anything like a free
market."
And to the extent that there are problems with our health care, it
is due to government. Why turn to more government as a
solution.
Incidentally, concerning France's health care system, they don't
have the large minority population that we have in this country. It
is easier to control costs and provide better quality care if you
don't have a large minority population.
Another bad aspect of socialized medicine is the high taxes. Those
high taxes have resulted in a chronically high 10% unemployment
rate in Europe. Do we really want to bring that here?
Mike Laursen|9.14.07 @ 12:32PM|#
We already have "socialized" health care. You would think
that libertarians ... would at least be in favor of reforming the
system to make it cheaper and provide better results.
Several commenters on Hit & Run have said the same
thing. Of course, their ideas for reforming the system are very
different from Hillary Clinton's.
... couldn't one argue that a person has more true liberty when
he doesn't have to totally take care of himself?
More security, perhaps, but not more liberty. When considering
something like a national single-payer health care plan, there are
other factors one would want to consider: the cost in taxes, the
likely quality of the health care, possibility that the plan will
be abused to infringe on liberties (some examples: only allowing
doctors to work for the government, refusing to provide abortion
services, bans on smoking or eating certain foods).
|9.14.07 @ 12:40PM|#
Incidentally, concerning France's health care system, they
don't have the large minority population that we have in this
country. It is easier to control costs and provide better quality
care if you don't have a large minority
population.
France has quite a few Algerians and Moroccans.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.14.07 @ 12:41PM|#
I don't recall that at all, or at least any of the
details...
Johnny's money quote:
[The plan] requires that everybody get preventive care. If you are
going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor
for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that
you are OK.
mandatory colonoscopies for everyone
Mike Laursen|9.14.07 @ 12:43PM|#
How many Americans are encouraging their children to become
doctors now? I suspect not many.
Hang out with some Chinese-American or Indian-American (India
Indian) families. You'll meet plenty of offspring studying to
become doctors with their parents' strong encouragement.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.14.07 @ 12:50PM|#
I really have to wonder what twisted logic would lead anyone
to conclude that the US health care system is anything like a free
market.
When I was a boy my parents could afford to pay for doctor visits
and minor surgery (like when I got my tonsils removed or my head
sewed back shut) out of pocket. Then the good people of America
elected LBJ and everything went to shit. There are lots of varying
factors in the equation but the single, major change since I was a
kid is that the federal government got into the medical business in
a huge way.
It isn't that we're worried that the so-called free market in
medicine will go away, it's already gone. We're worried that St
Hill will turn what we have into a bottomless abyss of VA-type
hospitals and care on a par with what one can expect from any Navy
hospital.
I have two doctors. A sweet young thing and an old guy with a soft
lilt who'll sit with you for an hour if you want. I love them both.
And that's my choice not hers.
|9.14.07 @ 12:51PM|#
It still amazes me how liberals try and try to put George W. Bush in charge of their health care.
Lurker Jack|9.14.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Rattlesnake,
It has been found that among the uninsured, about 40% are
illegal aliens, 40% are below 25 and choose to not be insured, and
8% are independently wealthy and feel no need for
insurance.
Got a link? Please note, I'm not doubting you; I could use the
source info for some personal discussions...
Mike Laursen|9.14.07 @ 1:41PM|#
It still amazes me how liberals try and try to put George W.
Bush in charge of their health care.
I know. I have a liberal friend who is strongly in favor of
socialized health care and abortion rights. I pointed out
that as soon as a Republican is in charge of the socialized health
care, he's going to try to prevent any abortions from being
provided by that health care system. It hadn't occurred to her
before.
|9.14.07 @ 2:01PM|#
"It has been found that among the uninsured, about 40% are
illegal aliens, 40% are below 25 and choose to not be insured, and
8% are independently wealthy and feel no need for insurance."
"Got a link? Please note, I'm not doubting you; I could use the
source info for some personal discussions..."
I saw it on Fox News. I don't remember what their source was.
Billy Beck|9.14.07 @ 2:13PM|#
"Also, on more of a philisophical note, couldn't one argue
that a person has more true liberty when he doesn't have to totally
take care of himself?"
Dan, you ignorant waterhead, if you want to play philosopher, then
you should try hitting all four corners of your fucking stupid
bullshit and account the for person forced by government to take up
that slack.
Asshole.
|9.14.07 @ 2:23PM|#
Dan, you ignorant waterhead, if you want to play
philosopher, then you should try hitting all four corners of your
fucking stupid bullshit and account the for person forced by
government to take up that slack.
Actually, my ideal plan would not be paid for by one single person.
Sorry, I kind of thought that was understood.
|9.14.07 @ 2:26PM|#
"couldn't one argue that a person has more true liberty when he
doesn't have to totally take care of himself?"
An example of leftist thinking. Don't take care of yourself, let
the government take care of you.
|9.14.07 @ 3:27PM|#
Dan T here are three links to articles written by John Stossel
concerning the supposed benefits of universal healthcare and the
WHO data. I agree with him that the data is misleading that the WHO
used. Links to Stossel follow.
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/another_bogus_report_card_fo1.html
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/cuba_has_better_health_care_th.html
|9.14.07 @ 3:50PM|#
None of the arguments for socialized medicine convince me of it's value. Why should I have to help pay for people who don't have their own insurance coverage. Everything has a cost. I remember watching Michael Moore talking about "Free" healthcare. Of course that's nonsense because the money for all government programs come from tax dollars. The government doesn't produce squat so any programs like that are going to hit taxpayers in the pocket and I would prefer to keep my money and spend it on things I like spending it on. Helping others should be a personal choice not something mandated by "do-gooders".
Mike Laursen|9.14.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Of course that's nonsense because the money for all
government programs come from tax dollars.
Don't forget inflation!
DannyK|9.14.07 @ 4:48PM|#
The healthcare system was in a mess back in the Clintoncare days. Now things are worse in several important ways. If somebody had managed to "fix" healthcare between 1994 and 2007, this wouldn't be an issue. As it is, Hillary is in the fortunate position of a candidate whose pet issue has gone out of fashion and come back into relevance in a timely manner.
|9.14.07 @ 5:18PM|#
Did I pay more out of pocket totally in Japan in coverage and
everything? Maybe. The fact is that my salary was quoted to me
originally when I got employment as what I would be making AFTER
taxes and health stuff was taken off the top--from my viewpoint the
only thing I saw as expenses were the minute charges (300-1500 yen)
I got at clinics. (BTW--this is standard in Japan--salaries are
quoted after tax/benefits are taken out.)
And I DID have the comfort that I was never going to be suddenly
thrown out of the system based on some health insurance deciding
they wanted to yank my coverage or some yahoo of a bureaucrat
decided my treatment wouldn't be covered.
I bet most Americans would be quite happy to sign up for such a
system. Plus the fact that the more people you have in the system,
the more you can spread the risk over a larger population and the
more accurate you can be about predicting costs.
(My solution would be a two-fold system: a National Health System
that everyone is automatically born into and which gets to nag you
about eating your veggies and insisting on your having checkups.
When you are 18, you can opt out of this and go to the private
insurance system instead or no health insurance at all (with
separate hospitals.) You get a deduction from your taxes, obviously
. The catch is, you can not ever come back on the NHS unless you
demonstrate you are of at least the same health level as an average
person within the NHS system of your age.)
Paul|9.14.07 @ 5:38PM|#
The Business Roundtable, led by the chief executives of
companies such as General Motors Corp., has joined union leaders in
urging coverage for everyone.
Can I call 'em, or what? The corporations are getting on board
faster and faster. Stick a fork in it, boys, it's done.
Mike Laursen|9.14.07 @ 5:53PM|#
Plus the fact that the more people you have in the system,
the more you can spread the risk over a larger population and the
more accurate you can be about predicting costs.
This is a trap folks fall into when discussing nationalized
healthcare. In the business world, successful companies take
advantage of a growing customer base to reduce their risks, predict
their costs better, and realize other economies of scale.
But that requires hard work. Competition is the motivation. In the
government world, size doesn't mean economy of scale. You just have
to look at the educational system to see that.
|9.14.07 @ 6:10PM|#
Gives new meaning to "what's good for General Motors is good for the country," eh, Paul?
|9.14.07 @ 8:33PM|#
Here's a hint: It's coming. There's no stopping it.
Might as well lay back and think of England.
The Wine Commonsewer|9.14.07 @ 10:34PM|#
Interesting that sixty years ago GM was talking Hayek and today they're talking Hillary. I hold out little hope for the Republic.
Mike Laursen|9.15.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Might as well lay back and think of England.
Hmm. OK, but I think I'll just pay for my own dentistry out of
pocket, thank you very much.
|9.16.07 @ 10:52AM|#
All of this wailing about "socialized medicine" ignores, out of ignorance of deliberate misdirection, the fact that no one is proposing a government takeover of health care, just universal health insurance to pay for care provided by private providers. France, not England.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245