health care hillary clinton's definition

Here is a letter to the editor that I found that is more closely aligned with what I believe. I don't know who wrote it but I agree with it. Enjoy the article:

health care hillary clinton's definition

Date published: 10/2/2007


WASHINGTON--Once again, Hillary Clinton has unveiled a massive new plan to reform America's health care system. Once again, her plan calls for higher taxes--it will cost more than $110 billion per year--lower wages, fewer jobs, less choice, and worse health care. Sen. Clinton appears to have learned little since the public rejected her last attempt to overhaul the U.S. health care system in 1994.

The centerpiece of HillaryCare II is an individual mandate, which is a fancy way of saying she would force everyone to buy health insurance or face penalties. But where the government mandates that you buy insurance, the government defines what "insurance" is. That means the government will be designing your health coverage, with the help of legions of special interests with more political influence than you have.

If you are among the 85 percent of Americans who currently have health insurance--and are happy with it--but it doesn't meet Hillary's definition of proper insurance, too bad. You'll have to shell out for the insurance she says you should have. A similar mandate in Massachusetts has already led to a requirement that all insurance cover prescription drugs and no plan have a deductible of more than $2,000. Sen. Clinton may say that you can keep the coverage you have now, but if you read the fine print, she doesn't really mean it.

Moreover, an individual mandate will require a huge new government bureaucracy to track and monitor compliance. Think of how hard it will be to track down everyone who moves or changes jobs, let alone every undocumented alien or homeless person, to make sure he has the proper insurance and punish him if he doesn't.

And it's not just individuals who would feel the heavy hand of government. Sen. Clinton would also impose a "play or pay" mandate on American businesses, requiring them to provide workers with health insurance or pay an additional tax. That would simply increase the cost of hiring workers, meaning less entrepreneurship and fewer new hires. Some employers would even have to lay off current employees or reduce wages.

Clinton would require insurance companies to accept all applicants regardless of their health, and charge all applicants the same premiums. That sounds compassionate until you realize that it would dramatically increase premiums for younger workers, who generally earn less, in order to reduce premiums for older workers, who earn more. That turns Robin Hood on his head. It also would increase premiums for those who practice healthy lifestyles to subsidize the reckless.