Snake Oil Medical Reform

Democracy Project, September 17, 2007 - Bruce Kesler wrote,

Hillary Clinton’s latest campaign pledge on health care reform is another of the chicken-in-every-pot variety we get from almost all politicians: Everyone in the United States will have top-flight, affordable medical care and it won’t cost us more (unless one includes taxpayers, and those deemed “affluent” by Democrat standards).

This Plan covers every American - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured and the tens of millions of workers with coverage who fear they could be one pink slip away from losing their health coverage - with no overall increase in health spending or taxes.

She proposes tax subsidies to individuals and small employers to offset the costs of insurance, which will be required of all. She doesn’t mention the high penalties that would be needed to enforce mandated coverage.

She proposes that Bush’s tax cuts be rolled back, but doesn’t mention the corresponding roll back in productivity and tax revenues that results from reduced incentive to succeed.
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.)

She proposes that costs of health care won’t increase because she will accomplish more than the current major efforts to increase efficiencies and effectiveness of health care delivery:

Most Savings Come Through Lowering Spending Due to Quality and Modernization: Over half the savings come from the public savings generated from Senator Clinton’s broader agenda to modernize the heath systems and reduce wasteful health spending.

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.

Oh, and 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.”

The devil will be in the details, if Hillary, and others, ever get down to presenting complete honest analyses rather than stump rhetoric.

Hillary keeps repeating the word “choice” in describing her plan. The New York Times' politics blog comments:

Her choice of words also reflects her evolution and her recognition that she needs to appeal to a broad spectrum of people who don’t want their most personal decisions to be decided for them, and to try to assuage (or at least hold at bay) some critics. The “choice” word will be perceived as code, in an effort to address the absolute balking of people who don’t want their personal physicians — even in the wake of health-maintenance organizations and beyond — taken from them.

The question is whether voters will choose to be fooled by her.