Giuliani's plan also honors the principle of federalism, and acknowledges state sovereignty in the reform of health-care systems. It would offer grants to states to encourage innovation, reduce costs, and enroll more uninsured citizens, while allowing Americans to purchase insurance across state lines.
Senator Clinton's solution to "bring costs down" with government mandates is like squeezing a balloon. One end shrinks under mandates, but the other explodes from government growth. Already, Medicare and Medicaid promise to break the backs of younger generations with steep taxes, and poor quality care for America's children, elderly, and poor.
Furthermore, growing government programs and innovators don't play well together. But our profit driven advances in medicine are proving superior to countries with government controlled health care. Last year a study in the journal Health Affairs reported that the United States came out ahead of European counterparts for innovative drug output, despite theories to the contrary.
If the big spenders, both Democrat and Republican, of recent years have taught us anything, it's that an empty promise of bigger, better government usually means an empty bank. There is plenty of room to improve the private market for Americans with more competition, sustainable lower costs, and more personal choice and savings.
Few Americans dispute that heath care reform is needed. In 2008, voters will have many opportunities to appraise the health-care positions of all candidates. So far, the approach of Hillary Clinton leans most on government. For his part, Rudy Giuliani's proposal pays the most respect to individual choice and the private sector as the keys to long-term reform.