18 September 2007

Prove What?

Just read the beginning of an AP article from Yahoo about Senator Clinton and her "new" version of, or vision of, "universal health care." Here are a few snippets that really stand out. First, the opening sentence:
Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every
American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal
health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force
individuals into the health care system.

So, no punitive measures, but a mandate? What good is a mandate without punitive measures? What are laws without consequences for breaking them? This opening sentence is a non-statement. If there is a mandate, bet on there being a punitive measure. Otherwise the law is hollow and will be flouted.

But wait. Now that I think about it "universal health care" in this fashion would be much like immigration law at the moment. For the most part, immigration laws are hollow and unenforced, and all for the "humane betterment" of those who are - just to state the obvious - in the US illegally. So Senator Clinton could raise taxes, "mandate" universal health care, take money from private citizens and businesses alike (to the tune of $110 billion a year...and that's low-ball), and then not bother to enforce the mandate. A clever way to get $110 billion a year? Perhaps.

Point two:
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer
that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to
school and has to show proof of vaccination..."

And I just have to scream in my own mind, "What?" I have to do some serious mental gymnastics here, and I'll try to take you, the reader, along. Senator Clinton wants to mandate universal health care. She says that there would not be punitive measures to force people to take health care - contradiction number one (or hollow ring number one, depending on how you read it). She then says that people might have to prove they are insured to get a job or go to school. Sure, there's an "eventually" factor there, but this is a serious contradiction of her previous point, which is a contradiction within itself.

So where is all this going? Your guess is as good as mine. If the US ends up with another President Clinton, I would bet that we will all be "cared for" regardless of our individual druthers. We will be forced to pay for health care, we will be compelled into paying for it.

Ah, liberty. Where will you be in 2009?

1 comment:

kmb said...

it can come as no shock to you that i am a clinton fan. that being said, i read this article and had the same kind of reaction. i'm pretty damn liberal and this plan makes me jumpy. i really do feel that having the OPTION of using a "universal healthcare system" (or call it what you will) is a great idea. i'm not sure it's financially feasible, and i'm really sure i don't want to be FORCED to be insured under penalty of... whatever. (and i think if getting a job hinges on being insured or not, there's a pretty substantial penalty for a hunge number of americans, myself included.) i would certainly like to have more options. i would absolutely like to see major reform of the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. but being forced to be insured or not be allowed to work is remarkably horrifying. also, i don't think forcing people to be insured is the way to change the deeply corrupt and flawed system of health insurance companies in this country.

let me ask you this, though. how is a law mandating health insurance different from a law mandating car insurance? just thinking out loud here...

p.s. new kitten pics?