Political analysis
"Political Catoons":http://politicalcartoons.com/
Hillary Care
- By NotYourDaddy
- January 27, 2008
Why do I keep picking on poor Mrs. Clinton? Hasn’t she suffered enough (after living with Bill all these years)? I pick on her because she’s a serious contender for the office of President of the United States. And, frankly, that makes me very nervous. It has nothing to do with the fact that she’s a woman. It has everything to do with her political agenda.
Mrs. Clinton’s proposed healthcare plan “requires insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who applies, and bars insurance companies from charging higher premiums to those with pre-existing conditions.”1
It sounds great, on the surface. But what isn’t stated is that, if insurance companies can’t deny coverage to anybody, even those who make lifestyle choices that put them at greater risk, and they can’t raise rates for those with greater risk factors, the only alternative left to them is to raise the rates for those who are generally healthy to cover the much higher costs of insuring those who are not. Making the healthy pay more for health insurance so those who use it more can pay less brings to mind a new twist on Marx’s old motto: From each according to their health, and to each according to their infirmity. — But she also promises to make health care affordable for everybody. And that’s where the redistribution of health melds into (surprise!) the redistribution of wealth.
Her plan “offers tax credits to limit health care premiums to a certain percentage of a family’s income. Cost estimated at $110 billion annually, to be paid for by eliminating the Bush tax cuts for those earning over $250,000.”1
I keep hearing this and, the way it’s always phrased, it sounds like Bush implemented special tax cuts for those earning over $250,000. Sounds kind of like he’s doing favors for his rich buddies, doesn’t it? And that’s exactly what it’s intended to sound like. But, just to be clear, the tax cuts in question apply to everybody, not just to those making over $250,000. What Mrs. Clinton is proposing is to make those who earn “too much” ineligible for them. (And the other Democrats are proposing the same thing.) That was exactly the reasoning behind the Alternative Minimum Tax when it was first implemented in 1969, and only affected 155 taxpayers. In 2000, one million households were affected by the AMT, and it’s projected to be 30 million by 2010. This year, 20% of all taxpayers will be affected by it, some earning as little as $50,000.2
It’s easy to win votes by saying we’ll just get the wealthy to pay for whatever we want, because there are so many more of us than there are of them. The Democrats figure it should be easy to garner support for a plan that sounds like soaking the rich to benefit the rest of us. But just remember, there are a lot of other tax cuts they want to eliminate too, and, chances are, some of them will affect you.
1 CNN Election Center
2 Washingon Post
-
Rate it!
Let us know what you thought of this article. Your feedback drives the quality of our content. Plus, it’s easy!
Rate this article -
Socialize it!
We greatly appreciate you adding us to your favorite social network.
Spread the word
The windup:
“…if insurance companies can’t deny coverage to anybody, even those who make lifestyle choices that put them at greater risk, and they can’t raise rates for those with greater risk factors….”
Yep. And under the current for profit model, sooner or later they deny coverage to everyone. Look at your policy and see what YOUR treatment limits are. One round of cancer and you’re off the books. Sell the house, hock the kids.
I find it disgusting that a corporation makes a profit from limiting my mother in law’s cancer treatments. She paid them every dime they wanted for “lifetime care.”
The pitch:
“Making the healthy pay more for health insurance so those who use it more can pay less brings to mind a new twist on Marx’s old motto: From each according to their health, and to each according to their infirmity.”
We already do that. Hospitals cannot deny treatment to anyone, no matter what kind of poor lifestyle choices they make. This is why I have to pay $5.00 per aspirin. Have you had a cheeseburger lately? Why am I subsidizing YOUR lifestyle choice??
An oldie but a goody.
Any time you want to shitcan a discussion of single-payer healthcare in this country, Drag out Karl Marx and you get a “get out of further discussion free” card.
Try this:
As long as insurance companies get to value their bottom line over your health they will be able to cut you off at their whim, just like they did with Natalee Sarkisian, a teenager denied a liver transplant because it was an “experimental procedure” according to Cigna. She died. Google her name for the details.
Is Hillarycare really Cheneycare in a dress?
I’m with you on the Hillarycare problems, but I don’t see ANYONE on capitol hill acting like they have half a clue about health care, partially because NOT ONE of those droolers know anything about working a job, supporting a family and paying for health care…….they get all theirs for free, to quote notyourdaddy, “even those who make lifestyle choices that put them at greater risk.” Like Ted Kennedy. Or Dick “shotgun” Cheney.
And any elected “official” who doesn’t want to have to think about the problem just uses the “Socialized Medicine” argument not to look like they are doing nothing, even when they are doing exactly nothing about it.
And yet the “socialism” argument gets made over, and over and….
What about this:
Does someone HAVE to make some money at the expense of YOUR health care??
What if we just kick the profiteers out of the loop? How much will the health care cost then?
A health care system with NO middlemen, who, incidentally, create billions of reams of paperwork without adding any value to the work….(OMFG, It’s KARL!!)
We Pay the doctors, nurses and the hospitals what they are worth – what they already make, treat everyone like they are Dick Cheney and live happily ever after. Is this impossible??
OR: what about this:
We look at the healthcare systems worldwide. Find the best one in the world. (Hint – WE AIN’T IT!) And model ours after THAT one.
WAHHH – it’s too expensive!!! SOCIALISM!!! (I can hear it now…)
Yeah? Well, as it stands now the health care system HERE is going to take everything you have when you are oldest and most frail.
And the insurance company that took all your money for all those years?They’ll show a profit, sucker.
Maybe it’s time we surgically remove heath care from the Insurance racket.
It coudn’t hurt. And maybe aspirin would cost just $3.00 per.
210 days ago by Scumby
brilliant analysis! scares the crap out of me
210 days ago by Kyle
Well, Scumby, as much as you’d like to take the profit out of the healthcare system, how do you expect anybody to work if you don’t pay them? Oh yes, I understand you want to “Pay the doctors, nurses and the hospitals what they are worth – what they already make,” but you do realize that they’re all making a profit, don’t you? It’s not just the insurance companies who make money. And I assume you, yourself, are gainfully employed, and that you make a profit from your own labor. I realize capitalism is evil, and profit is bad, but everybody always wants more money. For better or for worse, that’s human nature. (When was the last time you turned down a raise?)
So, you’re fine with paying doctors, nurses, and hospitals what they already make, and you’re free to cut out the middle man, if you want, by not buying the insurance you so despise. But the problem is that, as you point out yourself, without insurance, one bout of cancer will surely wipe you out. That’s why so many people choose insurance. But nobody says you have to. — Unless Mrs. Clinton gets elected, that is. Then you have to, because she says so, whether you like it or not.
I think I understand your sentiment that, because healthcare is necessary, it ought to be free. Well, not free, exactly, but you think the government should provide it for you. Just like the government provides all your other basic necessities, like food, clothing, housing, heat… — Oh, but they don’t, do they? (Unless you’re on welfare. But if you’re on welfare, you already have medicaid coverage.) So, do you think the government should be in the business of providing everybody with housing, food, medical care, etc., because all of those things are undeniably necessary to survival? Perhaps we should all just turn over our entire paychecks to the government and let them take care of our every need?
After all, why should some people have better houses than others? Shouldn’t there be some minimum house that’s provided to everybody? And shouldn’t the governmenbt give every citizen three meals a day, with appropriate portions from each of the basic food groups?
210 days ago by NotYourDaddy
Well, Scumby, as much as you’d like to take the profit out of the healthcare system, how do you expect anybody to work if you don’t pay them? Oh yes, I understand you want to “Pay the doctors, nurses and the hospitals what they are worth – what they already make,” but you do realize that they’re all making a profit, don’t you?
Yep. Hospitals, administrators, doctors, janitors all makin’ money just like I am.
It’s not just the insurance companies who make money.
Nope. But it’s the insurance companies that SPECULATE FOR PROFIT in health care. They show a profit for doing absolutely nothing except pooling resources and taking a massive cut. Speculating on the profitability of a diamond mine is one thing, speculating on the profitability of heart disease is kinda disgusting.
Repeat after me: The insurance racket is not health care. The insurance racket is not health care. The insurance racket is not health care.
And I assume you, yourself, are gainfully employed, and that you make a profit from your own labor. I realize capitalism is evil, and profit is bad, but everybody always wants more money. For better or for worse, that’s human nature. When was the last time you turned down a raise?
Again with the “filthy commie” red herring. I NEVER stated that capitalism is evil, profit is bad. Never will. What I will say is that it’s time to kick the middle man out of the exam room.
So, you’re fine with paying doctors, nurses, and hospitals what they already make, and you’re free to cut out the middle man, if you want, by not buying the insurance you so despise.
Right. I’ll just show up at the emergency room, have myself taken care of at three times the price of preventative care, and ignore the bill. Perfect.
But the problem is that, as you point out yourself, without insurance, one bout of cancer will surely wipe you out.
What I said was one bout of cancer wipes you off the books – you lose your coverage, and then it’s time to sell the house, rent out the kids….
That’s why so many people choose insurance.
I don’t know anyone who “chooses” insurance. People buy it because under the current way of doing business, that HAVE to, or prepare to become homeless.
But nobody says you have to. — Unless Mrs. Clinton gets elected, that is. Then you have to, because she says so, whether you like it or not.
So the problem you have, really, is being told to do what you already do. :~)
Here is the fallacy. Clinton will NEVER get her little health care scheme passed because behind the smoke and mirrors, the same corporations that are making the profits now will be making smaller profits, then. They will never allow that to happen. They’ll call it socialized medicine. The K-street rangers will work 24/7 to keep it from coming to fruition. As an additional problem with her plan, there is another tasty morsel of government BS to put up with.
Let me spell this out: Hillarycare is NOT what I am advocating. I will never endorse Clinton OR her newest idiotic scheme with or without health insurance. Ever.
Further, I am ONLY talking about health care, and the burden that the current “for profit” model brings to the table, both operating table and kitchen table. Please try to separate principles from personalities, and keep that effin’ Hillary out of it.
I think I understand your sentiment that, because healthcare is necessary, it ought to be free. Well, not free, exactly, but you think the government should provide it for you.
Again with the commie inference. I NEVER said that the government needs to do this. The implication that it is either for profit insurance or socialism. On or off. Free trade or Communism. Repeating this mantra is REALLY specious and intellectually lazy, and frankly beneath the obvious level of intellect and work you put into your original piece.
No one “chooses” insurance. The costs of health care is so off the charts that you HAVE to pay your local insurance mob guy a little “protection” to help soften the blow. Once you hit the limit: Insurance gone.
Just like the government provides all your other basic necessities, like food, clothing, housing, heat… — Oh, but they don’t, do they? (Unless you’re on welfare. But if you’re on welfare, you already have medicaid coverage.) So, do you think the government should be in the business of providing everybody with housing, food, medical care, etc., because all of those things are undeniably necessary to survival? Perhaps we should all just turn over our entire paychecks to the government and let them take care of our every need?
The almost final leap into knee-jerk commieland. Apparently you’re tired and want to just cut and paste Bill O’Reilly so you don’t really have to consider and discuss the idea that our current system is broken beyond all repair.
After all, why should some people have better houses than others? Shouldn’t there be some minimum house that’s provided to everybody? And shouldn’t the government give every citizen three meals a day, with appropriate portions from each of the basic food groups?
That’s great – that final effort to push the commieland model out the window, take it to cartoonish extremes, to finally complete the ridicule of the red herring you waved around at first, while avoiding the points I made earlier……
OR, why don’t you just say: We have to have some people starve to death on the streets so we know we’re doing OK. They just made bad lifestyle choices, so they need to suffer.
How about this:
I’m thinking along the lines of a non-profit organization that administers insurance. I’m thinking that there are a couple million good people in the health care/insurance company interface that could come up with good ways to get this non-profit underway and get the health care dollars to the pockets of health care providers. No government interference, no socialism, just good old American know-how.
That’ll never work. The insurance companies will never allow themselves to be picked apart like that. Assassinations will occur, both metaphorical and literal.
Now you can call THAT idea socialism. I’m just thinking out loud.
There needs to be a very serious discussion of this health care system, and very soon. Apparently you aren’t ready or willing to get involved with having one as long as attention can be diverted to the beauty pageant we call politics, and continue to endorse the status quo by picking apart the stuffed shirts presented as Presidential or Congressional choices. Good luck with that.
Sometimes perception is reality, sometimes, it ain’t.
209 days ago by Scumby
Scumby, the whole idea with any insurance is that, when something catastrophic happens, it’s so expensive that most people can’t afford to deal with it. What insurance companies do is take that risk for you. They say, you pay me $X, based on our assessment of how much we’ll have to pay out if your risks materialize. You can afford $X per month, and it’s worth it to you to pay that so you don’t go bankrupt in the event of a catastrophe. (This is true of all types of insurance, not just health.)
Catastrophes will happen to a certain percentage of the population, and insurance companies need to have a lot of capital on hand to be able to pay the costs when those catastrophes come about. They do that by collecting premiums from a lot of people on a regular basis. If you would rather take the risk, don’t buy health insurance. But show me one area where anybody is willing to take enormous capital risk without any profit? It just doesn’t happen. Non-profit organizations are not in the business of incurring risk. Charities may spend a lot of money providing assistance for catastrophe victims, but they’re not contractually obligated to do so. If they don’t have enough money, the victims don’t get assistance. Insurance companies are in a very different situation.
Health insurance premiums are high because health care costs are high. <b>Not vice versa. </b>The fact that you pay high insurance premiums has no effect whatever on the cost of doctors’ salaries, hospital administration, diagnostic testing and equipment maintenance, drug research and development, etc. These are all intrinsically very expensive, and the reason health insurance premiums are so high is because it’s so expensive when they have to pay your medical bills. The only type of insurance that impacts the actaul costs of medical care is malpractice insurance, which is exhorbitant, and that cost gets passed on to the consumer. The way to fix that is tort reform.
Why do people always claim they have no choice, when they don’t like the choices they have? You do have a choice. You don’t <i>have </i>to buy insurance. I know a number of people who don’t. I do, but that’s my choice. I know that I’m not going to go bankrupt from paying a couple of hundred dollars a month for insurance, but I very likely would if I were to encounter a major medical catastrophe. It’s not worth the risk to me, so I pay someone else to take that risk.
You think Mrs. Clinton’s plan would result in health insurance companies making less money? I’m not so sure of that. She never proposed putting a cap on the amount they can charge. She just said they can’t charge more if you have higher risk factors than if you don’t. So they’ll end up charging more for everybody. Of course, the goverment will provide tax credits to anyone who pays more than a certain percentage of their income, so it will cost the poor less than it might otherwise cost them, but the insurance companies will still get the money. It’s just that the government (e.g., the taxpayers) will be footing the bill. And everybody will be <i>required </i>to buy health insurance. It seems to me like a pretty sweet deal for the insurance companies. But not so sweet for the taxpayers…
209 days ago by NotYourDaddy