Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, September 24, 2007
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hillary's health-care nightmare
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will Sarah Palin make a run at the GOP Nomination in 2012?


WASHINGTON -- No sooner had Hillary Clinton unveiled her latest plan for universal health-care coverage last week than the Club for Growth was denouncing it as another attempt at socialized medicine.

The title over the economic-growth advocacy group's statement said it all: "It's Baaaaack: HillaryCare Redux."

The New York senator and clear front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination is known for many things. But in the recent annals of federal-reform plans, she is best known as the architect of a fiendishly complicated, government-run health-care insurance system that was so unpopular the Democratic-run Congress refused to bring it up for a vote.

In her second try at wholesale reform, Clinton says she's learned from her past mistakes. But for all her centrist-sounding makeovers and political camouflage, she remains a big-government liberal to the core. Her latest plan would put the all-powerful federal bureaucracy in charge of our private health-care system, lock, stock and barrel.

The elements of an expanding government regulatory nightmare are all here: massive government subsidies, higher income taxes and employer mandates to provide employee health-care coverage no matter what the costs, a sweeping mandate that requires all Americans to buy insurance and a regulatory takeover of the health-care system from the states by the feds.

"With each passing day, the collectivist nightmare that is a Hillary Clinton presidency is crystallizing with frightening clarity," said Club for Growth president Pat Toomey.

The plan she has proposed provides scant details, preferring to paint her campaign proposal with a broad brush. The details, she said, would be worked out by Democratic legislators that rule over health-care policy, people like Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and New York Rep. Charlie Rangel.

But even at this early stage, her plan is riddled with ominous signs that HillaryCare II could be just as bad as the ill-fated plan of 1994 that many in her party could not stomach.

How much would it cost taxpayers? Clinton's price tag is $110 billion a year, but analysts say her plan will cost a lot more than that. A similar plan offered by Sen. John Kerry in his 2004 presidential campaign would have cost about $1.5 trillion over 10 years at a minimum.

Then there are the employer mandates in her plan with the heavy hand of the government forcing businesses to provide health-insurance plans for their workers. But forcing all small businesses to provide health-care insurance benefits for their employees would be a disaster for most of them.

Most small businesses operate precariously on the profit margin and government-mandated costs would bankrupt them. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Lemonade
Lemonade wrote:

"Ahenobarbus
I have heard this 100% tax rate theory before.
Were you the one that wrote it and just pasted it
back on whenever you get the opportunity.

You ask - what is the criteria for deciding where
this point is? Ask a congressperson. ..."

Let me stop you right there. That is a complete intellectual and moral dodge. I was asking for a defense of virrudh's position - and an explanation of the thinking that underpins it. What is HIS criteria for judging where this point is? I assume that each of us is fully capable of offering an opinion here; this is not the special purview of our representatives in Congress, precisely because they are supposed to answer to their constituents. Follow your own logic and your suggested answer is ultimately to ask a constituent. We are all constituents here, so this odd attempt to make a vague reference to a collective other seems to me an attempt to send the issue into Never-Never Land where no one can be expected to provide an answer.

This is a moral and intellectual issue, and I was asking for an opinion. I am not asking what other nations do; I am asking for the reasoning behind it. Another country may be taxed more and/or have a VAT. That is a fact, not an argument. Bringing it up does nothing to say whether it is good, bad, foolish, or defensible.

As far as your definition of a tax, are you aware that "the rest" to which you're referring is "thrown into the kitty" along with the income tax? FICA and Medicare revenue is not kept off-budget. It is spent right along with general revenue. It is a straight transfer of wealth, and there is no guarantee either that you will ever receive anything back from these programs after decades of paying in to them.

Ahenobarbus
I have heard this 100% tax rate theory before.
Were you the one that wrote it and just pasted it
back on whenever you get the opportunity.

You ask - what is the criteria for deciding where
this point is? Ask a congressperson. They are
the ones who make the tax laws, see that it gets
collected, sees that it gets spent, etc. etc.
And presumably they are following the wishes of
their constituents back home.

I could tell you that in comparison to other
western countries, we are in no way overtaxed.
But making actual comparisons can be a very
lengthy process, because some countries such as
France have virtually no equivalent to a city or
state tax, while others do. Here in the US many
cities have no income tax and I believe a state or two collects no tax. We don't have VAT where
as most of Europe does. In our state we have
reduced sales tax on food. I don't think this
is true across the board.

There are organizations that actually do make these studies including Intl Living Abroad,
and if you want to know how much certain countries tax and what those taxes buy, and how
much spendable income you will have left over
(as in, some will have to buy their own insurance and others will not, etc), subscribe to their
newsletter. It is very informative - and non
political.

For your other point - stealing from the rich to
pay the poor (wealth distribution), not everything that comes out of your paycheck is a
tax, even though it is required. MY definition of a tax is that which is thrown into the kitty
and congress decides how it will be spent. The
rest of the stuff - social security, etc. - If you don't put in, you don't take out.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.