(Found on kxmb.com. Originally posted on sayanythingblog.com)
Hillary goes off on a reporter at the National Association of Black Journalists Presidential Forum for daring to call socialized medicine…well…socialized medicine
What do you think she’s angry about more, that she’s essentially being called a socialist or that a black man dared wander off the liberal plantation to question her “we liberals know what’s best for you†policies?
A couple of choice quotes from the accompanying article. First up, Hillary objecting to the “socialized medicine†label:
…the audience question came from a freelance writer named Kiara Ashanti, who wanted to know why the Democratic White House hopeful was pushing for, what he called, “socialized medicine.â€
“Why are you still insisting upon moving that system in here when particularly it will hurt African American communities more than anyone else?†Ashanti asked
“Oh, man – that was a string of misrepresentations about me and the systems in other countries,†Clinton began her response. “Number one, I have never advocated socialized medicine, and I hope all the journalists hear that loudly and clearly because that has been a right-wing attack on me for 15 years, and it is wrong.â€
But, it’s not wrong. The health care system Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats support consists of taking wealth from everyone (or, more accurately, the top 50% of wage-earners who pay all the taxes) and redistributing it to everyone in the form of medical care. Wealth redistribution, put simply. And what is socialism if not wealth redistribution? (more…)
The following was found on American Thinker:
By the way, proponents of “universal health care” who often deny that it is socialism are being disingenuous. “Socialism,” according to the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, is
“An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.”
That definition perfectly describes the kind of centralized, authoritarian medical system – universal health care or single payer – that millions of Sicko’s fans are calling for. Unfortunately, it also represents much of the status quo of American medicine that’s already in place, in advance of any future total takeover by the government. Since the mid-1960s and the onset of Medicare, Medicaid, and a succession of other government entitlement programs, American medicine has been substantially influenced (to its detriment) and increasingly controlled by the government. And judging by public opinion polls and the rhetoric that surrounds us, health care is now recognized as “a right” – a belief or article of faith guided by or reflecting that other classic socialist tenet, “cooperation rather than competition.”
I think what really baffles me the most over this is that the same folks who have been complaining about failures of government on how it currently handles the execution of equal justice in this country as it relates to Blacks, its so-called failures as it relates to the handling of the poor, bad management of public schools (again, especially as it relates to Blacks), its failures during Katrina, and finally its so-called inability to fight the current war in the middle east—THOSE SAME FOLKS WANT THIS SAME GOVERNMENT TO FULLY MANAGE THEIR HEALTH CARE!!!
In the words of that great inner-city poet, Fred G. Sanford:”You big dummy!”
August 11th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
I believe Ms. Clinton’s primary objection was the reporter’s attempt to bait her into answering a loaded question.
The subject is universal health care — a version of which we’ve arguably had in this country for 40 years in the forms of Medicare and Medicaid. Socialized medicine, in contrast, is a rhetorical phrase employed by conservatives that misrepresents universal health care as a Federal gov’t single-payer insurance program funded (primarily) by income taxes.
To the best of my memory, Sen. Clinton’s original proposal on universal health care called for an extension of the current system implemented by way of compulsory insurance, where employers and employees share the costs of health insurance from a menu of companies and plans. Conservatives opposed the idea on the grounds of its bureaucracy; Liberals opposed it in favor of a single-payer option. Gov. Romney implemented a variation on Sen. Clinton’s plan in Massachusetts, while the plan implemented in Vermont uses funds derived from income taxes.
“… the same folks who have been complaining about failures of government on how it currently handles the execution of equal justice in this country as it relates to Blacks, its so-called failures as it relates to the handling of the poor, bad management of public schools (again, especially as it relates to Blacks), its failures during Katrina, and finally its so-called inability to fight the current war in the middle east—THOSE SAME FOLKS WANT THIS SAME GOVERNMENT TO FULLY MANAGE THEIR HEALTH CARE!!!”
While your charge isn’t entirely accurate (see above explanantion of universal health care), the objection of said voters isn’t with the government, per se, or certain policies, but with the people currently entrusted with its management.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
To the best of my memory, Sen. Clinton’s original proposal on universal health care called for an extension of the current system implemented by way of compulsory insurance, where employers and employees share the costs of health insurance from a menu of companies and plans.
Yes. And it also guarantees health care to every citizen regardless if they are employed or not–which qualifies it as ’socialized’. Taxes will go up for such a proposal and we all know who carries a hefty portion (or the majority) of the tax burden: The top 5% of total income earners. (on a personal note, my family and I hit a personal milestone in our total income within these past two years. What we had to pay in taxes was just way over the top considering what we get for it in return. On the flip side, when I was working as a security guard, I can assure you that my tax rate was no where near what we are paying now—another discussion).
I also find it very interesting that Clinton was so quickly dismissive of this reporter mentioning how this type of health care is currently being practiced in places like Canada and in the UK where many folks (the poor and disadvantaged are still being left out of getting the type of care they really need. But she is a politician, so I did not expect anything different.
the objection of said voters isn’t with the government, per se, or certain policies, but with the people currently entrusted with its management.
I agree. Which still makes this proposal very stupid (for the lack of a better term). Clinton’s proposal still calls for government to have a greater role in managing health care. Many of the same issues that I listed were also accused of being poorly handled under Democratic leadership. So why all the sudden hope that decades of government failure will all of a sudden vanish under a new president? That saying about insanity comes to mind:”Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results“.
August 11th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
“And it also guarantees health care to every citizen regardless if they are employed or not–which qualifies it as ’socialized’.”
Coverage of low-income unemployed persons, the elderly, and their dependants and/or wards of the state was to be continued as Medicare and Medicaid under the Clinton plan. The ‘guarantee’ you write of protected access to insurance which, as I’ve written, would have required employees and employers to subscribe to one of multiple, private health insurance plans. That doesn’t meet the description of ’socialized’, Duane.
“I also find it very interesting that Clinton was so quickly dismissive of this reporter mentioning how this type of health care is currently being practiced in places like Canada and in the UK where many folks (the poor and disadvantaged are still being left out of getting the type of care they really need.”
Universal health care in Canada, many European countries, and other industrialized nations (e.g.; Australia) differs from the Clinton plan in that non-U.S. plans are mostly publicly financed. The Clinton plan did not include public financing. I suspect Sen. Clinton’s blowing off the reporter was rooted in his misrepresentations of fact, including his collateral point about coverage for the poor in other nations with universal health care.
Taken at face value, the Clinton health care proposal is an attempt at reforming a social safety net system that is both openly recognized as dysfunctional and insufficient for current and future needs. I wouldn’t classify that as a ‘failure’, however, and I think those who would aren’t in command of the facts, benefits, or challenges involving the country’s health care policies. A new president can improve the system with careful and judicious use of their political capital.
August 11th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
The ‘guarantee’ you write of protected access to insurance which, as I’ve written, would have required employees and employers to subscribe to one of multiple, private health insurance plans. That doesn’t meet the description of ’socialized’, Duane.
Actually, the ‘guarantee’ applies to her claim that “every American would be insured under her plan” — her claim, not mine. Again, all of this being managed by the government as I mentioned earlier.
The Clinton plan did not include public financing.
Nor has she excluded the possibility.
To this very day Clinton has not fully stated where she is going to get the money to insure 47 million Americans who do not have insurance (which I find also pretty interesting because it also leaves open the door for her to repeat her husband’s move back in ‘97 to locate and insure millions of children who were eligible for medicaid, but not enrolled in the program). Nevermind the fact that a good percentage of that number is made up of folks who have turned down coverage for various reasons including already having coverage under a spouse or parent. But according to the Clinton rhetoric machine, 47 million uninsured is a government mandate.
We have not even touched how this relates to illegal immigrants (many border states are already getting federal money to help with the the rising cost of health care for illegals.
Finally, here is Clinton’s response to a very simple question during the South Carolina debates: “How would you pay for your plan?” Her response:
So again, she does not rule out pouring more taxpayer money into her health care plan. Other than that, she completely avoided a very simple question.
A new president can improve the system with careful and judicious use of their political capital.
Yep! Just like:
Bush II
Clinton
Bush I
Reagan
Carter
…
August 12th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
I hope you are not arguing that the current system is fine… Because that is just ridiculous…
August 13th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Certainly not. There is plenty of room for improvement. And frankly, I like Clinton’s idea of doing what we can to improve the existing system “as-is” before we start throwing money at the problems. The big problem with her presentation of plan is that she has not ruled out the possibility of repeating Bill’s actions on this same issue in the past.
Overall, the problem with Universal health care/socialized health care -whatever you want to call it – is that you cannot call for every American to be insured with health care and not have quality go down. Just ask some of the Canadians who cross the border for medical attention. Taxes will also have to go up with no real assurances that those who need it the most will get the best of care.
Bottom line, I would prefer to do what we can to improve the existing system rather than giving more of that responsibility to politicians who are more concerned about their own job security.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:08 am
I usually agree with a lot of stuff you write about but I think you are way off on this one bro…
>>>
What actions??? What does Bill have to do with this?
>>>
Quality go down?? Really… Seems like to me if you don’t have health insurance or you have a crappy HMO then your quality would probably go up… Not down. I think many in the black community would fall into this category..
And what exactly do you mean by go down?? I work for a fortune 500 company and I supposedly have good health care.. If I want to see a “Good” doctor I still have to wait sometimes weeks… I don’t see how who changing who is paying the doctor will change this..
And why can’t you call for every American to be covered… You wouldn’t say that about fire or police services. We are talking about life and death here. People should not have to be rich or about to die before they go see a doctor.
>>>
I have asked Canadians and I haven’t come across one that would take our health care system over Canada’s.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
What actions??? What does Bill have to do with this?
See my previous comments. Bill Clinton back in ‘97 proposed to have every child who was eligible, but not signed up for Medicare to manually add them to the system. Again, as I stated earlier the 47 million that is often quoted includes MANY individuals who choose not to have coverage with Medicare for a number of reasons (already under parent’s coverage, spouse, just want the extra money in their check, etc.) Hilliary regularly touts the work she did while her husband was in office regarding universal health care. I have yet to hear her suggest that she would not force taxpayers to pay the health bill for every person that is uninsured. Also as I mentioned earlier, she not firmly said that illegals would not be included in her plan.
I don’t see how who changing who is paying the doctor will change this..
Placing government in charge of anything that should be handled by the free market gives them very little incentive of improving the quality of service they provide. Case in point, King/Drew hospital in LA. Both the local and state government has funneled MILLIONS of dollars into that hospital yet quality has never really improved for decades. Ask anybody in the area and they will tell you that the main function of this hospital is not providing quality health care but job security. The same goes for similar hospitals in urban areas.
You can also check out this link I found on Wikipedia. You can pull a lot of things from it: both for and against your position (read about wait times) –
Canadian and American health care systems compared
Again, this is not to suggest that our current system is completely fine. It just means that if you think that change comes hard now under our current system, wait until government is given more control over it.
#