“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas


Monday, November 19, 2007

Hillary Care v2.1

Still smarting from the spanking she took from the American people over her proposed socialized medicine disaster of an idea back in the 90's, Hillary still fantasizes about seizing control of 1/7 of the U.S. economy, only this time through the back door, or S-CHIP program. Hillary is conniving enough and knows better than to tell the Americans what she's up to, but other democrats aren't that smart. Here's Tom Vilsack, former dem. governor of Iowa, in a rare moment of honesty about universal health-care...

"I think there is going to be a commitment to universal coverage. I don’t think it’s necessarily going to be a sector by sector process. I think you either need to go in whole hog or not. We tried to sort of squeeze the middle here with doing children and doing seniors, and trying to squeeze it. If anything happens, it would more likely look something like this: you would extend eligibility for children from 200% of poverty to 300% of poverty, and create resources to insure the parents of those children.”

300% of poverty plus the parents?--that means that a family of four whose household income was roughly $64,000, would have their health-care paid for by other, more productive tax-payers. Even single adults who make up to $31,000 would be covered. As with all democrat proposals, regardless of how disastrous they might be, it's always for the children. But this new expansion of S-CHIP covers vast numbers of adults too. See where this is going? By incrementally covering more and more of the population, eventually enough voters will be dependent on "government"(read-fellow taxpayers) for their medical care, that it won't matter. Those hand-out voters will continue to vote for the people who guarantee that somebody else pays their medical bills. And the liberals will have succeeded in seizing control of the single largest slice of the American economy besides national defense.

"But Ed" you whine, "what about the poor little children whose parents don't have insurance?"

Fine, if their parents make too much money to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to pay for their own insurance, that's assuming their employers don't generously provide coverage, then cover only the children under 18 or 21 even. I don't have a problem with that. Why not just expand Medicaid if all you want to do is cover the children? But if what you want is to sneak universal, government-controlled, European-style, socialized health-care onto Americans while they're busy playing guitar hero and watching reality TV, then stealthily expanding the S-CHIP program during an election year is the perfect way to go about it.

You see entitlement-minded, MTV Americans have come to believe that employer-provided health-care is a birth right, an obligation. It's not! Employers offer coverage as a negotiating tool to compete for labor, that's all. You don't have a right to coverage by somebody elses money? But this is the mindset that democrats love because lazy, degenerate Americans will support making somebody else pay their medical bills.

I don't care who the nominee is, vote R next November or Hillary-Care v2.1 is right around the corner. It might be anyway.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

I work at a medical supplies company, and I personally see the effects of government medical insurance, Medicaid. If someone with Medicaid owes money, forget it, it gets written off, and the little bit of money that Medicaid pays usually doesn't even pay for shipping. Universalized health care is only going to destroy the medical economy, which means cheaper health care, but crappier doctors, pharmacists, and medical supplies.

Ed said...

True. It is axiomatic that when a commodity is free, peope will not restrict their use of it and there will be immediate shortages and waiting lines. In addition, the quality of health-care will plummet because when the government controls access, they also control compensation to providers. The best and brightest minds will choose other professions besides medicine because it won't pay any more than manager of Hardees.

A vote for Hillary is a vote for getting your spleen removed at Hardees.

That's about what universal health-care will be like. It's like that in Canada and Great Britain already.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and already animals receive faster and better care than their owners. Its so backwards. I heard that in Great Britain, if you bite your dog, you get put to sleep at the local hospital.