Hold on to your pocketbooks, folks. "Hillary Care" is back. And yes, having those two words next to each other is an oxymoron. Indeed, the media has been in a frenzy of excitement over the unveiling of her new health insurance plan, the misnomered "American Health Choices Act." Under this plan, every person in America would be required to have health insurance. Jolly idea, you say. What could be better? Everyone covered—yippee! Our health "crisis" is over, solved, finished. Thank you, O Goddess of American Health, Mrs. Rodham Clinton.
As usual, however, whenever one looks at a liberal plan, the cracks in the cake icing begin to appear and it’s clear that underneath all that gloss, there’s something rotten in Denmark.
It’s always fascinating to me that whenever a liberal wants to push something, they throw the word "choice" in there. Usually it means that there is no choice allowed whatsoever. Under her health plan, it would be mandatory to have health insurance coverage. Where’s the choice in that? What if I don’t want insurance? What if I’m a multi-millionaire and want to pay retail for my health care as I go? I know people who aren’t millionaires who do that very thing.
What if I’m a homeless man under a bridge? What if I’m an illegal immigrant? Are government thugs going to corral the homeless man and insist that he buy coverage? "No food, no money? No matter! Give us your shopping cart for this insurance card or we’ll haul you off to the pokey."
It’s rather silly, but these are questions which must be asked. But what about other government requirements, like car insurance? The government requires that, you may say. Yes, but car insurance is regulated by the states. You don’t have to buy it if you don’t want to, like if you ride your trusty bike or use what little public transportation there is available. With Hillary’s plan, you must give your money to some entity (preferably the government) to cover your health care. However unhappy you may be with the current system, Hillary’s idea is far worse
In liberalspeak, the word "choice" never means what most Americans think it means. So much for the "choices" in health care in Hillary’s plan. Just like the "pro-choice" label in the case of abortion. Choice for whom? The dad? The baby? The teenage girl who is forced into an abortion by her mother’s boyfriend who raped her? Yup, lots of choices there. The pro-euthanasia group the Hemlock Society has given itself a new name. Yes, they are now called "Compassion and Choices." Notice that tells you nothing about what their mission is. Sure, euthanasia gives lots of choice to the incapacitated patient who can’t speak and lies helpless while he gets a lethal injection or has a pillow stuffed over his face from a "loving" relative.
Then there’s the issue of cost. It’s only going to cost $110 billion a year. Only! My, what a bargain! Sign me up right here. It reminds me of the Social Security Act. That was only going to cost taxpayers $15 million a year to administer (they said). Look at what it is now—hundreds of billions sucked out of the economy every year. Since when has any government program, especially something as sweeping as this, EVER come close to cost estimates?
Think about it…we spend over $600 billion a year now on our "Ending Poverty" programs (welfare, food stamps, public housing, etc., not including social security). That’s obviously been a great success…not! And she’s trying to convince us her plan is going to be cost effective? Spare me! That money’s got to come from somewhere, and if you grab a mirror you’d be looking at the source—YOU. I’d be surprised if $110 billion a year would be enough to cover the bureaucracy itself needed to administer the blasted program, much less pay any money out. We also know how efficient our government is at stopping fraud, fiscal abuse and the like. Can you say, "Katrina", anyone?
In addition, there is the problem of enforcement, a point touched on earlier. Suppose Joe Citizen refuses to buy health insurance? Is he going to be dragged off to prison like a tax evader, along with his family (since they won’t have it either if he doesn’t buy it). Aren’t our prisons crowded enough? I can see it now…the new prison bad boy…
"Yo, bud, what are you in here for? Robbery, murder, rape?""No, no, something much worse. I wouldn’t buy health insurance."
Another point to ponder is, what happens if you don’t have mandatory health insurance? Are they going to throw you out of the ER? Tell you you can’t be treated anywhere? Yeah, right. That would go over like a lead balloon with our populace. There’s already a stack of government programs to cover the uninsured. Think those are going to go away? Whoever heard of a government program like that disappearing? Ain’t going to happen. How about illegals? They already get free coverage all the time in our hospitals. They’re getting plenty of coverage. What do they need mandatory health care for?
The questions are never ending, but one thing I do know: Any plan endorsed by H. Rodham Clinton is going to be an economic disaster. Osama bin Laden’s goal is to destroy the United States by any means, using terrorism and war to beggar our nation. Hillary seems to have the same idea, except using health care. Perhaps she’s been talking to him in his cave in Pakistan.
There’s no denying our health care system needs revision. But the answer is not, and never has been, more government. Go back to Chappaquiddick, Hillary, and let Joe Citizen take care of his own health.
DeBry is a Richmond Hill resident.