“we need to end the on your own society and usher in the we’re in it together society”

She also said that her health care plan called for “shared responsibility”

That said, as Charles Krauthammer pointed out ultimately she is beholden to her own power and socialism and vote buying are almost interchangeable. She may believe the government can solve all your problems or she may believe that promising everyone everything will get her votes.

She can dress up this health care plan all she wants, I know the truth, however many people don’t have the sophistication to cut through the spin, and they may believe that this will work.

Here is how I see her campaign.

http://proprietornation.blogspot.com/2007/10/socialist-or-vote-buyer-does-it-really.html

We’ll additionally need to do something about this phenomenon in order to get health care costs under control:

Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry

For way too long now, this “debate” has centered on “coverage”. This of course benefits no one but politicians and health care insurance companies.

We need a change in mindset that addresses WHY medical costs have increased as they have NOT another plan that will only force the costs to increase more rapidly.

The vast majority of health care services and consumables are commodities. Yet the costs for these have risen at astronomical rates even as compared to oil and education. Why? Because the forces of consumer economics as applied to commodities are confounded by the interposition of health care insurance companies that prevent the consumer from affecting the cost. Meanwhile, the insurance companies themselves become another enormous source of expense – and a huge profit center in their own right, which is absurd. The situation created by this idiocy is bankrupting America.

We can fix the problem if we choose to, by doing something like the following over a period of from 7 to 10 years:

Eliminate the so-called “comprehensive” commodity health insurance plans entirely, as they are directly responsible for the dynamics that have caused this problem. Keep only catastrophic plans for those who feel the need for them, and administer these as group plans through local municipalities (and no more broadly than that). Municipalities have much larger membership pools to bargain with than employers might.
Revert 95% of all monies that were paid by employers to health insurance companies back to employees. Everyone enrolled in a health care plan at work gets an instant annual raise of from $4,000 to $16,000 per employee / family, or more, depending on the cost of the plan they’re in.
Direct the remaining 5% into a state (not federal) level fund that’s distributed to health care providers to recoup costs of providing care to those unable to pay, based on the facility’s need and inversely proportional to the tax breaks they may already be getting in their municipality.
Let the resulting free market economics of direct-to-consumer commodity goods and services force the cost of day-to-day health care, equipment and pharmaceuticals back to a more reasonable equilibrium through profit reduction, cost cutting, salary reduction and efficiency improvements.

This has the benefit of getting medical costs back under control, which should be our real goal. ALL plans to date simply try to “cover the rising costs” without ever ONCE looking at how the current plans allow the costs to skyrocket.

This approach also has the added benefit of making medical insurance coverage more stable – people don’t move nearly as much as they change jobs. Virtually all municipalities have a mechanism for collecting property taxes locally. Premiums can be collected along with those. Renters pay their premium for catastrophic ins., if they choose to carry it, with their car tax.

We can fix the problem if we honestly look at what the real problem is. It’s not “coverage”. It’s the ridiculously high costs, which make “coverage” a virtual requirement for all but the very well-to-do.

In fact, the U.S. Constitution is considerably older than that of almost every European country.

There are those who insist that the U.S. Constitution represents the Wisdom of the Ages, a Holy Writ passed down by the omniscient Founders. On the other hand, Europe has the advantage of not (for the most part) having to operate under a constitutional framework that was created long before the Industrial Revolution.

Europeans work to live. That is wisdom.

Americans live to work. That is idiocy.

Well, we’re still a baby nation, only struggling to walk the talk of our Constitution.

“The pursuit of happiness” and all that anti-capitalistic crap.

On the other hand, the existing individual market makes it literally impossible for those with all but the slightest medical risk to buy insurance unless they are employed by a medium sized or above company. For example, at one time, Blue Cross of Arizona would deny coverage to anyone who had ever taken Prozac!

Many people are one job loss away from loss of medical coverage – not for lack of ability to pay, but because the natural dynamic of the private insurance market causes the companies to offer insurance only to those not yet ill. Many are kept from retiring, or becoming entrepreneurs, or joining small companies by the same perverse system. Furthermore, those without insurance end up paying the retail price for care, while the insurance companies pay a small percentage of that. Put another way, individuals are gouged in pricing by the providers. I saw one case where the retail price was $50,000 and the insurance price was $14,000.

The individual health insurance market in the US is completely broken.

Your proposal to create a risk pool spread across the entire industry at least provide universal availability of coverage. However, rather than spreading the cost across all citizens, it spreads it only across those who choose to be insured – again letting the young and/or risk-prone avoid contributing to the pool. This raises the cost to the insured (or their employers), reducing the incentive to be insured and creating the sort of spiral we have already seen, where the insured pools get smaller as the costs go up, and the costs go up because the pools are smaller.

This statement is baffling, considering a concept at the heart of her proposal.”

Hillary Clinton is advocating socialized medicine. She is, however, employing a deconstructionist interpretation of language to deny the obvious. Needless to add, the leftist MSM and institutions are going along with this rhetorical scam job. Will the American public allow itself to be deceived? This is very possible because many of them prefer to delude themselves.