2008 Woodie Awards
Hillary Clinton's health plan threatens individual freedom and quality of care
Brendan Block
Issue date: 11/9/07 Section: Forum
- Page 1 of 2 next >
I suppose Americans would think they have been gagged if they heard about Senator Clinton's $110 billion yearly cost of her universal health care plan. Unfortunately, the reality is that as Americans see Hillary's possible ascendancy as the next president of the United States, her ideas will possibly lead to future policy. As she has headed on the national stage, however, her ideas are gaining hazardous substance.
The danger of another Clinton presidency is not that her intentions are bad, but her means of changing the system are so extreme. For someone who complains about government spending in the Iraq War and knowing that as president she will need to deal with the expenditures of the global war on terror, how can she see room for her costly health care plan?
Britain's National Health Service illustrates the high risk involved in universal health care. Stephen Bundred Chief Executive of UK's Audit Commission sees poor management in the NHS.
"A total of 31 percent, or 104 out of 335 organizations, were failing to meet minimum requirements on finances… Almost one in 10, or 27 organizations, scored bottom marks and needed urgent attention," said Bundred.
The more interesting question arises in analyzing Britain's model when focusing on dentists. NHS dentists are able to divide their time between government hours and private practice hours. Not surprisingly, many dentists choose the private practice, and many people go untreated, leading some people to even have to pull their own teeth.
The argument against "Hillarycare," as dubbed by opponents, focuses on individual freedom. Her plan, requires all people to buy health insurance, including the young and healthy, and also requires all firms to offer health care, whether they can afford it or not. Another goal in implementing her plan will be to roll back the tax cuts for the rich (those who make $250,000 or more).
Imagine, under Clinton's plan, a 23 year old perfectly healthy person is now forced to pay premiums for health insurance, causing unneeded stress on lives of younger and struggling Americans. Sure, Clinton wants to reduce or offer free health care to those who cannot afford it, but it seems highly constraining on individual freedom.
The danger of another Clinton presidency is not that her intentions are bad, but her means of changing the system are so extreme. For someone who complains about government spending in the Iraq War and knowing that as president she will need to deal with the expenditures of the global war on terror, how can she see room for her costly health care plan?
Britain's National Health Service illustrates the high risk involved in universal health care. Stephen Bundred Chief Executive of UK's Audit Commission sees poor management in the NHS.
"A total of 31 percent, or 104 out of 335 organizations, were failing to meet minimum requirements on finances… Almost one in 10, or 27 organizations, scored bottom marks and needed urgent attention," said Bundred.
The more interesting question arises in analyzing Britain's model when focusing on dentists. NHS dentists are able to divide their time between government hours and private practice hours. Not surprisingly, many dentists choose the private practice, and many people go untreated, leading some people to even have to pull their own teeth.
The argument against "Hillarycare," as dubbed by opponents, focuses on individual freedom. Her plan, requires all people to buy health insurance, including the young and healthy, and also requires all firms to offer health care, whether they can afford it or not. Another goal in implementing her plan will be to roll back the tax cuts for the rich (those who make $250,000 or more).
Imagine, under Clinton's plan, a 23 year old perfectly healthy person is now forced to pay premiums for health insurance, causing unneeded stress on lives of younger and struggling Americans. Sure, Clinton wants to reduce or offer free health care to those who cannot afford it, but it seems highly constraining on individual freedom.
Be the first to comment on this story