In her latest plan to transform the American health care system, Democratic
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton invokes a word she usually reserves
for abortion: choice. It sounds good, but like all things Clinton, you have
to look behind the facade to discover reality.
There are some elements of Sen. Clinton's health care proposal worth
considering, especially the idea that if you like your current health
insurance, you can keep it. And she says this isn't about another big
government bureaucracy. Really? Then why does she acknowledge it will cost
$110 billion annually and require tax increases for those making more than
$250,000? She doesn't need a "new" bureaucracy, but can use the present
dysfunctional one.
In assessing any presidential candidate, one must first learn who that
person is in order to determine whether the individual is trustworthy, a
high bar for every politician, regardless of party. Washington Post
columnist Richard Cohen, a liberal, wrote this about Sen. Clinton: "The
issue with Hillary Clinton is not whether she's smart or experienced but
whether she has - how do we say this? - the character to be president." He
then lists the various "-gates" and other scandals with which she was either
associated, or enabled, during her husband's administration.
Can Hillary Clinton be trusted to do what she says? Yes, when it comes to
the tax increases she will impose on "the wealthy," as one way to fund this
non-bureaucratic bureaucracy. As U.S. News and World Report's James
Pethokoukis wrote, "Šraising income taxes on Americans making $200,000 will
bring in only $50 billion or so, which is already being spent several times
over by Democratic presidential candidates."
What is it about the free market system liberals detest? It allowed Sen.
Clinton and her husband to rake in $20 million in combined book advances. It
provides Bill opportunities to make six figures on the lecture circuit. If
the free market works for them, why shouldn't it work for others? The answer
is that liberals want you to feel good so you will vote for them. Their
policies are based on emotion, not fact, which often leads to disaster. Ask
anyone who put emotion ahead of sound judgment in picking a marriage partner
and you get the idea.