Hillary Clinton announced her own version of a "universal" healthcare plan, today.  Like the plans put forward by Edwards and Obama, it will cost the tax payers between $100 and $150 billion every year, and this money will mostly be paid to the insurance companies.  HIllary's announcement on Monday does not outline any specific steps that will reduce costs, she does have some plans to shift more of the burden on to people who use less services.

The only catch for the insurance companies is that they won't be able to deny coverage to patients with pre-existing and expensive health conditions - of course, the upside is more customers and more money.  With limits on premium differences for healthy and unhealthy individuals, the net effect is that middle-income people will be forced to pay through taxation and increased premiums regardless of whether or not they see the doctor.  It is yet to be announced if Hillary's plan will include mandatory check-ups and mandatory treatment, but owning insurance will be mandatory.  The penalty for not having insurance has not yet been named, but will probably be limited at first to forfeiture of government benefits.

The insurance and drug companies should be particularly excited about this proposal, because it guarantees tens of millions of new customers and hundreds of billions in corporate welfare over the next few years.  Lower income families will be able to use as many services as they want and only ever pay a set percentage of their annual income toward out of pocket costs.  Small businesses will get tax credits for providing medical insurance as well, so this plan looks like it has the popular support to overwhelm any real discussion of the flaws in our medical system, including:  excessive lawsuits, a profit-driven drug industry with a hundred million addicts (errr, patients), and the general fact that our medical system has become more about building long-term customers rather than curing people.

Can those issues be fixed with more legislation and more money?  I sort of doubt it.  For every promise that's been made in the last forty years of federally subsidized medicine, there has been an incredible growth in bureaucratic and legal problems and a relative decline in the quality of American health compared to European health.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Guest User   | Unregistered | 2007-09-17 23:12:55 She tells us that mandatory health insurance is no different than mandatory auto insurance. She needs to be reminded that a driver's liscense is a privledge, and conditions have been attached. Now she is telling me my right to exist, or refuse medical attention is not a right under the constitution? Reply | Quote

Guest   | Unregistered | 2007-09-18 08:05:12 don't worry, Huckabee is bringing the nanny state to the Republican party, too. He wants to ban smoking in all public places, nationwide. Here's a solution to the health-care problem, force people into being healthy by threat of law. cya "freedom" Reply | Quote

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Website:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.12

Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.