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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm the first poster, it was totaly worth it.
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.
Free health care... AND A PONY!!!!!
The (current) GOP has no standing to complain about socialized medicine.
Hugo Chavez in a pants-suit.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
""Universal" health care is false advertising as no Martians or Canadians will be eligible."
What about Vulcans?
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.
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.
a health care system that encouraged preventative care...
... is called "pay your own way".
"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.
"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.
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!!!
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.
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.
"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.
"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.
"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.
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.
I know of no other country where it has produced better results.
What about, say, the 36 countries rated above us by the WHO?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
You guys think I can copy right the name "Billery"? Has someone already beat me to the punch ?
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.
"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.
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.
"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?
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
It still amazes me how liberals try and try to put George W. Bush in charge of their health care.
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...
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.
"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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/why_the_us_ranks_low_on_whos_h.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/08/another_bogus_report_card_fo1.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/09/cuba_has_better_health_care_th.html
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".
Of course that's nonsense because the money for all government programs come from tax dollars.
Don't forget inflation!
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.
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.)
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.
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.
Gives new meaning to "what's good for General Motors is good for the country," eh, Paul?
Here's a hint: It's coming. There's no stopping it.
Might as well lay back and think of England.
Interesting that sixty years ago GM was talking Hayek and today they're talking Hillary. I hold out little hope for the Republic.
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.
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.