News Snipet 'Blog

 
PREPARE!
Do Something!
Find Elected Officials
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

See Issues & Action
Select An Issue Area:


Contact The Media
Enter ZIP Code:

or Search by State

Other things
Find Affordable Care!"
Other things
HILARYCARE
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Hillary has advantage in healthcare debate Ralph Bristol March 27, 2007

Ignore Hillary Clinton at your own risk. At campaign stops in Iowa and elsewhere, the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president is telling her audience that "We're going to have universal health care when I'm president - there's no doubt about that. We're going to get it done." She knows she tried it before and failed, but this time she'll be president, not co-president, and "I believe we're in a better position today to do that than we were in '93 and '94. ... It's one of the reasons I'm running for president."

Make it THE reason she's running for president. If she's elected president, HRC has an excellent chance of moving the U.S. closer to European style socialism than any previous president, save FDR and LBJ.

People are fearful of health insurance companies. It's not just poor people, but some wealthier people too. Health insurance companies have been famous for loving you when you're well, and hating you when you're sick. Once you've lost your insurance, for any reason, you can either be "rated up," meaning you have to pay much more because you have high blood pressure or some other common ailment, or you can be labeled "uninsurable."

This week, the state of California accused Blue Cross of violating state law when it canceled individual health insurance coverage after policyholders got pregnant or sick. The state fined Blue Cross $1 million dollars, the equivalent of a parking ticket for you and me, since Blue Cross's parent company, WellPoint Inc., rakes in $57 billion a year in premiums. WellPoint insists it did nothing wrong. Perhaps it didn't, but the practice improves the environment for the adoption of socialized medicine, euphemistically labeled "universal healthcare."

The healthcare payment system in the United States is sick – very sick, but socialized medicine is exactly the wrong cure. It's the equivalent of trying to lose weight by going on a beer and ice cream diet. It doesn't work. Trust me. I've tried it.

As healthcare expert Devon Herrick correctly testified to Congress recently, "a primary reason why health care costs are soaring is that most of the time when people enter the medical marketplace, they are spending someone else's money." I like to call it OPM (other people's money). Because they are spending OPM, they consume more than they would if they were spending their own money, even if they had plenty of their own money to spend. The more we spend on health care, the more we have to pay in health insurance premiums, the higher the premiums go, and the fewer people can afford health insurance.

The key to controlling health care spending, and lowering health insurance premiums so that more people can afford it, is to require everyone to spend their own money first. Every healthcare decision should cost enough to make us think about that decision at least as much as we would whether to purchase a pair of shoes, and if so, which pair.

Universal healthcare, aka socialized medicine, takes us in exactly the opposite direction. The overall cost of healthcare will go up, but Hillary won't care because taxpayers will pay the bill collectively, and the tax system can easily dump most of the bill on those with "the ability to pay." That's the central tenet of Marxism, which is fully engrained in out federal income tax system, and the Marxist politicians among us want it engrained in out healthcare system as well, just like Europe. They don't care that the cost is more, because they plan to shift most or all of the cost to the top half, third, fourth, or 10 percent of the population.

In time – not much time – the system will become so costly that it will be impossible to pay the bill, so the government will do what all other governments have done with their socialized medicine. They will begin rationing healthcare. Rather than having individuals ration their own healthcare, the government will ration it for us. We will have long waits for routine surgical procedures. Some will be unavailable.

It also won't bother Hillary, and others who think like her, that healthcare is being rationed. At least we are all being treated the same. To a Marxist, it's better that everyone suffer than that some suffer more than others based on different levels of personal success.

I doubt that conservatives and Republicans are ready for the 2008 healthcare debate. Hillary's message is simple – "You go to the doctor, and we’ll pay the bill." The conservative rebuttal is not as simple. Voters are rather simple-minded.

The 50% of the people who pay only 4% of federal income taxes would not want that to change. If those same 50% can get the same healthcare as everyone else and pay only 4% of the nation's healthcare bill, do you think they'll take that deal? I do. Hillary does to. She's betting her political future on it. It’s not a sure bet, but I won't bet the house against her.

Hillary in 2008

posted by Jack Mercer @ 3/29/2007 07:27:00 AM  
5 Comments:
  • At 3/29/2007 01:26:00 PM, Blogger Dan said…

    Jack,

    I dont know what to think of the health care debate. I know a good sum of money comes out of my paycheck for health insurance and my copays are ridiculous, but to me it is worth it, because I never know when an emergency may arise, I have good doctors who do a fine job. I do not see the government being able to solve any problems though. This is the Hilary Machine warming up. And Obama is becoming yesterday's news, if he hasn't already. Iraq War debate? Health Care debate? Education? I havent seen or heard Obama in the news for almost a couple of weeks now other than the Youtube Big Brother ad story- you would assume he would want to be out there, front and center, taking a stand on issues. Hilary has remained steady as far as Im concerned, hasnt done too much or too little. I think she is well on her way to being president. Many Democrats may not like her because of her position on the war, but when it comes down to it, I dont think any Democrat has a chance against her and they would never vote for a Republican over her.

     
  • At 3/29/2007 06:55:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Hi Dan,

    I have always said to never underestimate the ambition of Senator Clinton. She will get 100% of the Democrat vote, and 99% of any minority worried about entitlement. She will promise everyone everything. This has been my position since before the 2000 election, and I still stand by it.

    Will a Hillary presidency be a good thing? I have no idea. If she is able to advance her ideology I would say not. If she has a majority in both houses then I suspect we will witness government like we never have before.

    I think the only Republican that has a chance against her is Guliani.

    -Jack

     
  • At 3/29/2007 07:07:00 PM, Blogger whig said…

    Jack, you wrote, "The healthcare payment system in the United States is sick – very sick, but socialized medicine is exactly the wrong cure. It's the equivalent of trying to lose weight by going on a beer and ice cream diet. It doesn't work. Trust me. I've tried it."

    Are you saying you've tried socialized medicine and it did not work, or that we should trust you because you tried to lose weight on a beer and ice cream diet?

    Wondering...

    We do need universal health care, and universal food and shelter. Whether provided by the state or the church, whether provided by charity or private enterprise, everyone must be provided with the needs of survival if we are to have a healthy society. This is consistent with the social gospel.

     
  • At 3/29/2007 07:29:00 PM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Ha!

    Like that, Whig :)

    I have lived in both Canada and Australia. I have seen socialized medicine on many scales, and it is possible for it to work somewhat in very small nations. But in a nation of this size and complexity, the cost is going to be staggering and the infrastructure would be damaged tremendously. From experience, both Canada and Australia have lousy healthcare. When I was in Canada, most of the people I knew there would come across the border to the United States and pay full price for services, procedures and medicines that they ordinarily were not provided. All socialized medicine programs go that way--there are no exceptions.

    I'm not sure exactly what you mean by social gospel, but I don't believe in forcing my religious beliefs on anyone. Jesus didn't either. He never once advocated the government legislate morality, and I don't believe we should.

    When we start legislating morality, we interfere with man's free will. Legislating through force of governmental (jail, penalties, etc.) what should be personal moral decisions is wrong. Taking by force a struggling family's income to pay for someone else's healthcare is the same as telling homosexuals that they can't marry. Charity should be a personal choice just like who one chooses to marry.

    Today we already have social medicine in the United States. Anyone can walk into an emergency room in any hospital and get treatment and not have to pay for it. The poor already have healthcare. What Senator Clinton proposes is that everyone, rich, poor no matter what will have free healthcare and she will force everyone else to pay for it. It will eventually bankrupt the nation, and bring us to our knees. Then comes fascism.

    -Jack

     
  • At 3/30/2007 08:37:00 AM, Blogger Jack Mercer said…

    Oh, Whig, a quick note. This article was written by a friend, Ralph Bristol.

     
Post a Comment
<< Home
 
About Me

Name: Jack Mercer
Home:
About Me:
See my complete profile

"Snipet" (pronounced: snipe - it) is not a word.It is a derivative of two words: "Snipe" and "Snippet".


Miriam Webster defines Snipe as: to aim a carping or snide attack, or: to shoot at exposed individuals (as of an enemy's forces) from a usually concealed point of vantage.


Miriam Webster defines Snippet as: : a small part, piece, or thing; especially : a brief quotable passage.


In short, "Snipets" are brief, snide shots at exposed situations from a concealed vantage point.

WARNING! With due reverence to the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment there is NO comment policy on the News Snipet.

Other things
Archives
Politics
Template by

Free Blogger Templates

BLOGGER

free hit counter