As liberals almost always do, Hillary Clinton is trying to hide her intentions and claim she's been misrepresented.
This time, she's trying to tell us she's not for socialized medicine, despite having made the biggest push for socialized medicine in American history back in the early '90s.
From the Washington Post:
During a forum at the National Association of Black Journalists convention in Las Vegas, Clinton was asked why as a candidate for president she is "still insisting" on bringing "socialized medicine" to the United States, when people are "pulling away" from similar systems in Canada and Great Britain. Worse, the questioner said, such systems hurt rather than help poor people.
"That was a string of misrepresentations about me and about the systems in other countries," Clinton started. "Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists here heard that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years."
If you have a system where the government owns or controls the industry, you have socialism.
Capitalizing on the ignorance of the average American, and the fact that the average American (like the frog) has been in the ever-warming pot for a long time already, then asked
"Do you think Medicare is socialized medicine?" Clinton asked her inquisitor, who did not identify himself.
Can you say "absolutely"? A program mandated by the government and regulated by the government and paid for by the government, even if individuals do have some small say in the whole process, is socialized medicine. You're smoking something--and it isn't medicinal--if you think Medicare is free market health care.
She then made the outrageous claim that health care in countries such as Canada, where you may have to wait 18 weeks for treatment, is better than we have here. They have a fully socialized health care system in Canada, Britain and other countries, yet Clinton thinks it's better than we have here. So she's told us through her admiration of socialized medicine in other countries, even though she denied it above, that this is what she wants.
Nothing has changed. The Clintons still think we're all stupid.
6 comments:
Bob, how do you feel about socialized police and fire protection?
You're talking apples and oranges, Erin. Protecting the public is a legitimate function of government. It's also one of the few things that government can organize and perform better than the individual. (The military is another one of those few areas.)
It isn't feasible to shop around for a police response if you're house is being broken into, or a fire suppression response if your house is on fire. When you need the police or fire department, you need them NOW.
It is, however, feasible, reasonable and economical to shop around for the doctor and medical facility that you're comfortable with, is most competent, and cheapest. It encourages competition, which enhances quality. It also motivates the individual to do what they can to reduce overall health care costs where possible.
The case could be made for privatization of police and fire response; politics and government regulation has caused the effectiveness of these agencies to suffer, too. But I don't think you'd get the same privatization bang for the buck there. Again, these are emergency services whereas, except for ER services, the health care industry doesn't operate under the same immediate urgency. The necessity of immediate response from these agencies tends to keep government inefficiency to a relative minimum; going to the doctor's office, having tests run, or a non-emergency surgery doesn't have that same urgency which serves to stifle bureaucracy, along with the cost and inefficiency wrought by that bureaucracy.
Apples and oranges, but nice try, Erin.
"Again, these are emergency services whereas, except for ER services, the health care industry doesn't operate under the same immediate urgency."
How about "socializing" ER services? For example, when my daughter was born with pneumonia and had to be immediately whisked from Madison to Sioux Falls, would it make sense for all of the services she required from that point on (to resolve her infection) be covered under a "socialized" program like police and fire? Previous to that point, I had shopped around for the place I thought would be the best and most cost effective to have my child. However, circumstances beyond my control required that my daughter receive further care somewhere else. All control was taken out of my and my husband's hands then.
I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say in your last comment, Erin, but one thing does come across pretty strongly from all you've said. I don't intend to sound mean when I say this, just a candid observation: you really seem intent on having other people pay for your medical bills.
I understand that such a thing is an attractive idea, especially when those medical bills are large. But it's just not right to force someone to pay our bills for us. (I won't go into great detail here on why that's not right, but you can read some of my comments on another thread here if you're interested: http://dakotavoice.blogspot.com/2007/08/military-service-isnt-free-pass.html)
I sympathize with the story you told. My daughter was born with pneumonia or something like that (fluid in the lungs). The whole thing was about $35,000 by the time all was said and done. We had insurance which paid a great deal of it, but I just finished paying off the rest about a year or so ago.
I didn't ask anyone else to pay it, because it was my responsibility to do so. But if for some reason I had been totally unable to pay for it, there are private agencies out there that help people with genuine needs. The difference between these charities and government socialism is that the people and organizations who give their money to these causes do so WILLINGLY out of caring, not because the government gives them no choice.
When we force people to participate in government "charity" we eliminate the blessing from the one who receives it (because it quickly becomes viewed as an "entitlement") and the giver is robbed of the blessing of helping someone because they had no choice in whether to give in the first place.
Such a practice also goes against our Constitutional form of government, and a fuller explanation of that is outlined in the other thread I provided a link to above.
Life unfortunately brings bad things sometimes. But we don't balance the books of cosmic justice by reaching into someone else's pocket and giving their money to someone else.
" . . . you really seem intent on having other people pay for your medical bills."
Nothing could be further from the truth, Bob (but please feel free to call my attention to any comments I've previously made that make you think that). My husband and I faithfully pay our health insurance premiums and consider ourselves fortunate that we are able to make regular payments for the uncovered expenses incurred when our daughter was born. I have no desire to force others to pay for my medical bills (frankly, though, I would be quite happy to have my insurance payments help pay for others' health expenses rather than padding health insurance company CEOs' multi-million-dollar salaries). Like you, we consider it our responsibility to pay these bills, and we are faithfully doing so. We have not asked for charity and no one else is covering these expenses.
However, you stated that it is appropriate for us to socialize police and fire protection at least partially because of the emergency nature of those services. You also pointed out that emergency health situations are not subject to the same competitive forces as non-emergency health care services. That is why I asked if you would consider socializing emergency health services.
The reason I said it seems like you want other people to pay your medical bills is because that's what socialized medicine is: other people paying your medical bills via taxation.
Police and fire services usually involve helping someone who is a victim of an unfortunate circumstance, usually through no fault of their own. Sometimes when emergency services have to help someone because of some negligence on their part, they can often be held financially responsible--especially if they are a criminal perpetrator of some kind.
However, with medical services, those may or may not be through our own fault or negligence...and if it's through someone else's fault, this can often be addressed through criminal or civil litigation.
Which moves into another reason why I don't think medical falls under the same auspices as police and fire. Many times the reason a person needs medical attention, even and especially non-emergency medical treatment, is because of recklessness, poor diet, poor exercise habits, substance abuse, etc. I don't think healthy people really want to pay for the medical treatment of someone who smokes, drinks or does drugs--but in a socialized medicine setting they are forced to.
And emergency room services are already used for socialized medical services under Medicaid, etc. and other programs. There are also people, whether on insurance or a socialized medical program, who will go to ER for treatment whether it's an emergency or not. It may be because they're a hypochondriac, no pain tolerance, or simply because it's more convenient.
So no, I don't think fully socializing ER services is a move in the right direction--it would be the wrong direction.
Post a Comment