Hillary-Care is back! Our former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, in her quest to become our next president, has introduced a new health care plan as part of her campaign. Here is an AP article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6
The article tells us that Hillary wants to make it mandatory for all Americans to purchase health insurance, but says there will be no punitive measures to force people into the system. Is it me, or is this an obvious contradiction? How can something be mandated by the government but have no legal consequences? She wants to make it so that "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination." Hmmm...business owners might love this idea, but can it possibly work? Many people have health benefits through their employers. Is this type of policy really going to result in more people having health coverage? Elsewhere, the article says that Hillary intends to build on the current employer-based system. But wait -- isn't this another glaring contradiction? If we'll need proof of health insurance to get a job in the first place, then why will we need an employer-based system?
Here is the scary part of the article:
That's a huge thing to gloss over! In case you don't remember the health care plan that Hillary and her husband Bill tried to push through during the first two years of Bill's presidency, I'll remind you of some "mandates" which were hidden in that massive big-government plan, the published form of which ran over 1,300 pages:
1. Under the original version of Hillary-Care, all Americans would have been assigned to mandatory health alliances. Each person would have been required to only use the health alliance they were assigned to. If any American dared to choose their own doctor, the penalty would have been a mandatory 15-year prison sentence. The plan would have also created other outrageous new laws too numerous to mention.
2. Also, many new taxes were involved in the plan, including a whomping 12% national sales tax, as well as major tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol. (At the time, the latter ideas were called "sin taxes". Liberalism truly is a secular religion.).
Hillary is obviously trying to portray her new plan as being very different and less restrictive than her original disastrous plan was. Don't believe it. The Clintons (yes, both of them) will try to portray this new health care plan as all things to everyone in order to get it passed through Congress. Once they achieve that goal, Hillary's true socialist and totalitarian nature will rear its ugly head, and the American health care system (which, despite its problems, is the best health care system in the world) will be put under government control. As one commentator once put it, health care will be handled with all the efficiency of the postal service -- and with all the compassion of the I.R.S.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_ap_interview_6
The article tells us that Hillary wants to make it mandatory for all Americans to purchase health insurance, but says there will be no punitive measures to force people into the system. Is it me, or is this an obvious contradiction? How can something be mandated by the government but have no legal consequences? She wants to make it so that "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination." Hmmm...business owners might love this idea, but can it possibly work? Many people have health benefits through their employers. Is this type of policy really going to result in more people having health coverage? Elsewhere, the article says that Hillary intends to build on the current employer-based system. But wait -- isn't this another glaring contradiction? If we'll need proof of health insurance to get a job in the first place, then why will we need an employer-based system?
Here is the scary part of the article:
Her health care plan would require every American to buy health insurance, offering tax credits and subsidies to help those who can't afford it. The mandatory aspect of her proposal, however, gets glossed over in the ad.
That's a huge thing to gloss over! In case you don't remember the health care plan that Hillary and her husband Bill tried to push through during the first two years of Bill's presidency, I'll remind you of some "mandates" which were hidden in that massive big-government plan, the published form of which ran over 1,300 pages:
1. Under the original version of Hillary-Care, all Americans would have been assigned to mandatory health alliances. Each person would have been required to only use the health alliance they were assigned to. If any American dared to choose their own doctor, the penalty would have been a mandatory 15-year prison sentence. The plan would have also created other outrageous new laws too numerous to mention.
2. Also, many new taxes were involved in the plan, including a whomping 12% national sales tax, as well as major tax increases on cigarettes and alcohol. (At the time, the latter ideas were called "sin taxes". Liberalism truly is a secular religion.).
Hillary is obviously trying to portray her new plan as being very different and less restrictive than her original disastrous plan was. Don't believe it. The Clintons (yes, both of them) will try to portray this new health care plan as all things to everyone in order to get it passed through Congress. Once they achieve that goal, Hillary's true socialist and totalitarian nature will rear its ugly head, and the American health care system (which, despite its problems, is the best health care system in the world) will be put under government control. As one commentator once put it, health care will be handled with all the efficiency of the postal service -- and with all the compassion of the I.R.S.
posted by Liberty Bell Blues | 5:57 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home