The United States of
DES MOINES, Iowa - For months, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has promised a plan to bring health care to every American
She was to make good on that pledge Monday, unveiling a sweeping proposal requiring everyone to carry health insurance and offering federal subsidies [read: spending other people's money] to help reduce the cost of coverage.
Translated: You, Mr. and Mrs. American, will be forced to purchase a product, whether you want it or not, and your taxes are going to go up so that illegal aliens, drug dealers, and multi-generational, career welfare flunkies can get the same health care coverage as those of us who are working hard to make a better life for ourselves and our families, while refusing to rely on the government for our every want and need.
With a price tag of about $110 billion per year, Clinton's "American Health Choices Plan" represents her first major effort to achieve universal health coverage since 1994, when the plan she authored during her husband's first term collapsed.
$110 billion? Why do I find myself flush with skepticism upon reading that? It sounds a lot like the $3.5 billion Big Dig project the people of Massachusetts were sold back in the late 80's.
As if what the country needs now is to be turned into one giant Massachusetts. Speaking of which, how's that "individual mandate" model working out for the Bay State these days?
Massachusetts health insurers are predicting their rates will increase by about 10 percent next year for most residents covered through employer health plans, marking the eighth consecutive year of double-digit premium hikes.
While the increase in premiums is slowing in other parts of the country, many Massachusetts residents will face larger percentage increases in 2008 than they did this year.
Anyone who thinks that number of $110 billion per year is even close to what the actual cost of this plan would be is a fool. Even if you apply the Bob & Doug McKenzie metric conversion formula (Double it and add 30, eh?), you'll still be lowballing it.
And, how's this for spin?
"It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs," Neera Tanden, Clinton's top policy adviser, told The Associated Press.
Yeah, nothing like putting the proverbial gun to back of someone's head and ordering them to do what you want, or else, to make that person feel like they're in control of the situation.
What a complete load of dogshit.
And, we're not talking about one of those dried-up dogshits that's been out in the sun for a week and is real easy to pick up, either. This is one of those real runny ones in the long grass on a hot and humid summer day, right next to the patio where your trying to enjoy a cold beverage.
This plan is nothing more than a massive taxpayer-funded vote-buying scheme, that will do little to bring quality health care to those who need it most, and will economically cripple our nation to the point where we are no longer able to compete in the global marketplace.
And she's OK with that, just as long as it gets her and her husband back into the Oval Office, so they can finish what they started.
In fact, it's one of the central tenets of modern-day leftism in America: We're simply too rich, too powerful, and too free a country, and it's just not "fair". We need to knock ourselves down a few notches, so that we're equal in stature - economically, militarily, and ideologically - to the rest of the world.
Then, and only then, can we all get along, hold hands, sing Peter, Paul & Mary tunes with flowers jammed up our ass, and have peace on earth.
UPDATE: Case in point (via Kim du Toit):
Can our contemporary world be saved from the problems that ail us, from climate change and oil dependency, from AIDS and religious extremism, from poverty and inequality? Foreign Policy, the world’s most prestigious global affairs journal, is tackling this weighty question head on, in a new issue that asks 21 of our earth’s most thoughtful observers to suggest the “one solution that would make the world a better place.”
That "one solution," suggests Howard Gardner, the Harvard-based psychologist whose widely acclaimed books on human intelligence have been translated into 26 languages, ought to be a cap on the income and wealth that any one individual can accumulate.
Of course! Why didn't I think of that?
Liberty, freedom, and common sense? Who needs those outdated concepts fogging up their lives? We should all climb aboard this guy's ideological banana wagon and follow the shining examples set by all those successful, free, and prosperous Communist regimes from around the world.
You know, like...ummmm...
UPDATE II: This just 'bout sums it up.
(via Pilgrim at Say Anything)