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!
Login | What's Hot
  • 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
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


One of the least noticed but biggest policymaking changes in her plan would transfer health-care regulatory authority from states to the federal government. "I think it ultimately leads to more government-run health care. There is no way around that," said Charles Kahn, president of the Federation of American Hospitals.

Then there is the specter of price controls in her plan, which would invariably lead to health-care shortages, longer waiting periods and poorer service. "In her explanation of the federal rules, Mrs. Clinton says that national rules would help insure universal coverage, preventing persons from being charged 'excessive' premiums, while preventing 'excessive' profits on the part of insurance companies," said Robert Moffit, director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

"There are no explicit price controls, but obviously federal officials will be charged with making sure these objectives are met," Moffit said in an analysis of the Clinton plan.

Clinton insists she would let people keep the private plans they have now, but part of her plan would allow Americans to buy into federal health-care plans -- putting the feds into direct competition with private-sector health insurance, which is the backbone of the health-care industry.

"If there is a public alternative to the private market, the public market is going to have a hard time competing," Kahn told me.

This isn't the direction that health-care reform should be taking. "Instead of socialized medicine," Club for Growth's Toomey said, "we should be deregulating the health-insurance industry and opening it up to innovative reform that increases competition and lowers prices, making health care more affordable for everyone."

For example: Arizona Rep. John Shadegg's Healthcare Choice Act, which would allow insurance companies to comply with any state's regulatory rules and let them to sell plans in all 50 states, is a needed reform.

Another solution to help bring down premium prices is to eliminate the costly web of government health-care mandates that have driven up prices beyond the pocketbook of many Americans. Let insurance companies offer a broader choice of plans under a larger range of prices.

In the meantime, Hillary Clinton's second stab at health-care reform has led to many of the same complaints heard in 1994. Maybe she didn't learn from her mistakes after all.

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | < Previous
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
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.

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(105 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Sep 27, 2007 - 1:45 PM EST
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.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Sep 26, 2007 - 1:44 PM EST
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.
Flag as Offensive
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.