Clinton favors employing wage theft to enforce "universal, voluntary" health care program
Even at this age, mutual exclusivity seems to be an ungraspable concept
By Jeff Emanuel Posted in 2008 | Economics | Government-run health care | Health care | Hillary! | oxymorons | Policy — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Update: The plot thickens, as the indispensible Grace-Marie Turner reminds us:
Hillary Clinton criticized an individual mandate in 1994, saying, "The individual mandate...makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system."
***
Senator and presidential candidate Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has made “health care for all Americans” a major plank in her policy platform since the beginning of her run for President last year – though, as those who are familiar with the junior Senator from New York and former First Lady’s history will recall, radical changes to America’s health care system have been a cause dear to Mrs. Clinton’s heart for the better part of the last two decades at least.
The program Mrs. Clinton is currently touting as her solution to the problems in America’s health care system – particularly its high number of uninsured citizens – is officially called the “American Health Choices Plan,” though it is less-than-affectionately referred to by some as “HillaryCare II” in reference to her failed attempt to push a government health care system on the nation during the first years of her husband’s presidency.
Under this program, the government alone, with no input from the free market, is responsible for the regulation and management of health care. Oxymoronically, the plan whose formal title includes the term “choice” is built around what is known as an “individual mandate” – a government requirement that all Americans, regardless of income or choice, possess at least a (government-established) minimal level of health insurance.
Read on.
The inclusion of this individual mandate means, of course, that should this plan go into effect, choice at its most basic level – the choice whether or not to have a certain level of coverage (or to have coverage at all) – would be eradicated.
Further, though there would still be Americans who cannot afford health coverage, the mandate would apply to them as well, causing them to be in violation of federal law simply because they cannot afford to comply.
This situation would be exacerbated by the fact that, with every single individual in our nation of the 300 million being required to purchase coverage, demand will become an inelastic element in the economic equation that determines the pricing of health insurance. In other words, prices would continue to rise in response to a new law requiring every person in the nation to purchase insurance regardless of that service’s price.
Mrs. Clinton’s opponent in the Democratic presidential primary asked about this at a debate, saying, “You can mandate [that every American must have health insurance] but there will still be people who can’t afford it. And if they can't afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?”
The question was answered soon after, as Mrs. Clinton told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s Sunday morning show that her “enforcement mechanism” could indeed include “going after people’s wages.”
Mrs. Clinton’s admission that she does indeed intend to force every American to have a government-decreed minimum level of health coverage – and that she intends to enforce this by using the power of government to go after working Americans’ income – belies the “choice”-based title of her proposed program. If government mandates that every American purchase something, and uses its power of taxation and wage garnishment to enforce this, then the resulting system may well be closer to being “universal” than any past program, but any semblance of that program’s having a voluntary nature or allowing “choice” has gone right out the window.
This inability to reconcile the opposing natures of universality and choice (or voluntary participation) is, unfortunately, not a new problem for Mrs. Clinton. In 2005, she gave a speech (which was later reprinted as an op-ed in several newspapers) based on Martin Luther King’s famous “I have a dream” oration. In this speech, she envisioned America’s future after her fictional presidency. Among other musings, Mrs. Clinton said that a look at our country after her terms would show that “our universal, voluntary national-service program includes civil-defense workers who supplement our brave first-responders and share the burden of vigilance at home.”
At the time, she shed no light on just how she planned to accomplish the feat of making her national-service program both universal and voluntary. This would, of course, be quite an accomplishment, as obviously a universal program includes all and is thus not voluntary, and a voluntary program will always be far short of universal.
Likewise with her “universal” health care “choice” plan. The fact that Mrs. Clinton currently intends to build her health care plan through forced enrollment – to the point of forcibly taking earned income from American workers to pay for it – while still invoking the theme of consumer “choice” shows that she has still not learned that “universal” and “voluntary” are mutually exclusive attributes.
In reality, Mrs. Clinton’s individual mandate is a call for government to use its power to force people to accept and enroll in a program they may not want or be able to afford. When the fact that the ranks of our uninsured are filled primarily with people who lack health coverage for precisely one of these two reasons is taken into account, this proposal is shown for the undesirable overreach of government responsibility that it is.
Rather than continuing down this path of bigger and more intrusive government that regulates and interferes in people’s lives and wallets, Mrs. Clinton should spend a few minutes studying the free market and learning how things like choice and volunteerism really work. If she is interested, we can point her in the right direction to get started.
Disclosure: Jeff Emanuel is a fellow with The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Health Care News.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Nicaraguan Communists For Obama — Comments (8) »
Clinton favors employing wage theft to enforce "universal, voluntary" health care program 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
What happens is that since the coverage is mandated, the demand for it is inelastic, which means people will fully demand it (not really demand, but forcibly have to get it) no matter what the price is. As the amount of people signing up rises, costs rise due to a variety of things, which in turn raises prices for all of us and we in turn get forced paying for the increase in price.
Before you get to heaven, you must go through hell, which in my case is the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
Therefore, they can keep rising the price until whatever legal penalty is levied against me for non-compliance is less than the cost of the insurance.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
Some people realize why pay the $2000 and up for insurance, when you can not sign up and receive a $200 or someodd slap on the wrist.
Before you get to heaven, you must go through hell, which in my case is the People's Republic of Massachusetts.
"War is Peace"
"Ignorance is Knowledge"
"Slavery is Freedom"
(with apologies to George Orwell)
...is Hillary's way of solving one of the key defects of her 1993 plan, which is that it threatened the insurance companies, who in turn produced the most effective commercials against the plan?
Seems to me that if I were in the health insurance business, I'd be thrilled to pieces if it became illegal for people not to buy my product. And I would definitely raise my prices.
Thats probably why you are not in the health insurance business.
The product that the insurance industry "sells" is risk. They don't sell widgets, t-shirts or a peaceful way of life.
The risk is much much greater and health, injuries, attitude gets much worse with the lower paid workers. This is exactly why they are not insured by their employers in the first place.
Visit an emergency room this weekend, anywhere in the US. That will open your eyes.
Remember, the higher wage earners pay dis-proportionatley for the services they get in return, and those who benefit pay less for what they receive.
But there is no risk if the Government is going to guarantee it in the end. That's what has led to the current mortgage crisis. One way or another, the Government (us taxpayers!) will [be compelled to] pick up the risk on behalf of the insurance companies. They will ultimately have no risk.
Such a mandate was the centerpiece of the Massachusetts health care plan, which Romney signed into law.
If the GOP challenges Hillary on her health care plan, she's going to throw that right back in the GOP's face and demand to know whether McCain thinks Romney's plan was a good idea.
That's one of the reasons I didn't support Romney. He was touting his experience as a Massachusetts governor, while simultaneously running away from the health care mandate which was his signature achievement as governor there.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
in healthcare reform but some people just refuse to recognize this. A mandate ensures that everyone is covered and protects the private payors, the market, individuals, and healthcare industry. In the case of Romney's (I'm not sure about Hillary's) plan, you have to purchase insurance, or qualify for Medicaid. People who as Jeff said - can't afford it - will be enrolled in Medicaid like they are now. People who can, but choose not to because they'd rather spend their money elsewhere will be pooled with others who aren't covered by their employer, so that they can pool the risk and buy private insurance. If they choose not to, they will and should be, fined, or otherwise penalized. If not, someone who thinks they are young and healthy could get in a traumatic accident and we will all pay the bill. Unfortunately, this happens all of the time.
Without mandates, people will in essence continue to be able to steal healthcare services from hospitals and providers due to EMTALA. If you don't know what EMTALA is (I'm referring to anyone reading this, not the poster), then you shouldn't be engaging in the debate over healthcare reform because you don't understand the issue.
I have heard that Hillary's program is more like the MA plan. If it is a plan that protects private payors, ensures that everyone plays or pays, then that is a good plan and McCain better understand that or he will fail to capitalize on Hillary's past failures. If you just say mandates are bad, then we (Republicans) will lose this issue and personally I don't trust Hillary to not give government total control in the end.
"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."
- Maximus
diet's, or clothes or auto's (don't own a car-garnish wages for one) I get no choice but what Hillary wants you to have)
then you probably don't understand how the healthcare and insurance industries work.
Do you even know what EMTALA is?
If you could take all the clothes, or "auto's" that you wanted without paying for them, then you would have an argument but you can't - they would get repossessed. You can't repossess an appendectomy, or a CT scan but people get these every day and don't have to pay for them when they could in fact pay for them. Hospitals and their physicians can not refuse care period. People can refuse to sell you a car, or clothes. That is why you have to have some sort of fine/penalty for people who just refuse to pay for something that they have the ability to pay for.
See the difference?
"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."
- Maximus
Mandates tell me that the government knows my circumstances better than I do. Mandates tell me that the collective is wiser than the individual. Please describe substantive occassions when that has ever been demonstrated to be true.
Every governnmental service interface with the citizenry has long lines of persons awaiting the service. Please tell me why government healthcare would be different.
If you think the healthcare system in this country is an unspeakable wreck now, just wait until the goverment has run it for awhile. Good luck escaping it then.
The government mandates health care providers provide care regardless of the ability to pay. They can't turn people away who don't have insurance. So who pays for that care right now? Everybody who DOES have insurance.
Every governnmental service interface with the citizenry has long lines of persons awaiting the service. Please tell me why government healthcare would be different.
An insurance mandate is not a single-payer government-run system. There's a huge difference there. The government only gets involved in this system if they refuse to buy insurance. For those of us who are responsible enough to already buy insurance, there's no difference.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Those of us who oppose mandates do so because we believe that freedom is more important than security. It's sad that there are some Republicans who think that using the force of government to ensure health insurance is a good thing. Regarding people who use emergency rooms for health care: send them a bill. There is no reason that these people should be allowed to skate for their lack of insurance. Create a payment plan for them so that they can pay for their services. The government can garnish wages after services rendered, if necessary.
Regarding insurance prices: When healthcare is mandatory, prices will rise indefinitely. They will do so because every special interest will lobby to make their interest mandatory. Mental health, OG/GYN, chiroprators, acupunture-you name the treatment. This is already the case now, but at least health insurance is optional; when it is mandatory, it will become worse.
The GOP has become a mere speed bump on the road to serfdom as the thinking of Mr. Riberiao illustrates. Many Republicans think of political expendiency rather than sticking to principles like individual freedom, free markets, etc. Without a serious u-turn, we will live in a servile state that was created by a free people.
to compare an individual mandate to slavery.
My personal belief is that state's should continue to act as laboratories so that we can figure this thing out before the Dems institue socialized/single payor health care.
You can't just send someone a bill, because they don't have to tell you who they are. Unless you think our society is ready to refuse emergency services to people and that just isn't going to happen; therefore, healthcare services do not operate under free market principles.
We in hospitals allow for payment plans all of the time and educate everyone about these plans but once again, if someone just doesn't want to pay then they don't have to tell you who they are.
An individual mandate will make prices go down, not up. The demand for insurance and health care services will not go up because of a mandate. All of the special interests already lobby endlessly to have their interests covered by CMS, for example (like what you gave) mental health - feel free to google Mental Health Parity to learn more about this specific example.
Anyway, an individual mandate in MA isn't just a mandate, it includes a plan to pool together those whose employer doesn't provide insurance. Personally, I believe for young people who qualify that this type of insurance could be just a catastrophic type but either way, they now have the option to purchase insurance at very reasonable prices. If they still choose not to pay, and since we in the hospital industry can't just let them die when they get in a wreck - then they should pay a penalty if they still did not get insurance.
I think it's incredibly ignorant just to hear the word mandate and assume it is slavery and anti-freedom. That's probably the worst line of debate I've heard from anyone on this subject and I debate it all of the time. In MA the mandate has protected private insurance (free market) and private citizens, and prices, etc...
"The time for honoring yourself will soon be at an end."
- Maximus
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
A partial list of mandated payments.
Fed income tax
State income tax
FICA
Medi-care
Sales tax
Property tax
Auto Insurance
Everyone will sooner or later need health care. Everyone needs to be covered and there will always be some who don't want to pay there own way. As with taxes and auto insurance there will always be those who need to be enticed with a stick.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
I am not advocating a Hillary plan.
I had a friend that had a bad habit of only putting in a few dollars of gas in his pickup no matter how much money he had on him.
He ran out of gas repeatedly and would call me to bring him some. I would follow him to the gas station and I swear he would put in a few more dollars in instead of filling the tank.
Finally one day I told him JD today you learn to walk, and you can continue to walk until you learn to fill your tank.
I don't know if he really learned but he quit calling me for gas. Sometimes you have to make the alternative to paying more painful. Do you think my friend would buy health insurance on his own? Not a chance! What would you do with a guy like that Neil?
I'm glad someone finally got her to answer the enforcement question, because I think it's an important point. Can you explain this more -
"In other words, prices would continue to rise in response to a new law requiring every person in the nation to purchase insurance regardless of that service’s price."
I don't understand how this is accurate if you still have competition among insurance carriers to provide the coverage.