THIS MONDAY, Senator Hillary Clinton decided to share her new plan to provide each and every American with health insurance. Clinton formed the new plan in such a way as to avoid any of the nominal points of contention with her previous proposal, which failed to make it even in the Democratic Congress of the early nineties. Even the name of the program, "The American Health Choices Plan," implies some greater freedom and inspires support. Unfortunately, Clinton's notion of "choice" is a bit skewed.
Clinton's first plan failed largely due to two issues. First was a fear of the huge bureaucracy that would be required to run it. A market-supporting American aversion to giving up current successful health insurance plans constituted the second. To solve these issues, the American Health Choices Plan allows individuals to keep their own health insurance if desired and avoids overt government regulation. Instead, health insurance would be required by law, and businesses or individuals unable to bear the burden themselves would receive subsidies or tax credits.
Before even addressing the financing of the potential legislation, it is worth taking a look at the first premise -- health insurance will be mandatory. This is the first instance in which it doesn't seem like any choices are being increased. In fact, it seems reasonable to say that forcing Americans into something is giving them less of a choice in the matter. Maybe it is in the best interest of each individual to have health insurance, but this is immaterial. If somebody decides they have the money to deal with health concerns independently or would rather take the risk of not having insurance, there is no reason to ban that decision. Perhaps it isn't an intelligent decision, but the government doesn't seem to routinely use the intelligence of a decision as the gold standard and basis of legislation. You have the right to be dumb if you like.
If you are able to provide yourself or your employees with satisfactory health insurance, the new plan allows you to keep that plan. In Clinton's words, "You can keep the doctors you know and trust. You keep the insurance you have, if you like that. But this plan expands personal choice and keeps costs down."Unfortunately, the two parts of this statement are targeted at two separate groups. Those who can afford health insurance that they are happy with are indeed permitted to keep it. However, choices are expanded and costs decreased in the form of subsidies and tax credits only for those who are not part of the first group.
If you can afford your own insurance, however, you don't get to choose whether or not you want to also pay the taxes to keep costs down for other people. Costs aren't kept down for these individuals. In fact, it seems pretty obvious that their costs are higher than necessary since they are forced to cover the health insurance of other individuals. The people who are gaining choices are those who aren't earning them, quite literally.
This is how you can tell that the government is fundamentally confused. The American government was founded on premises roughly equating to the protection of life, liberty, and property; the government is ideally supposed to protect citizens from having their life or property stolen. Yet the proposed plan outright takes money from every taxpayer, supposedly to protect the lives of sick people. However, the protection of life does not imply the perpetuation of life, unless the government is supposedly preventing your life from being stolen by a bacteriovirus, which seems a bit of a stretch. Rather than being an agent of protection, the government becomes an agent of theft.
Perhaps the most ridiculous thing Clinton said in support of her new plan was aimed at getting the support of those who use the health system most of all. Clinton promised new regulations that would "eliminate discrimination" against those with health problems. The twisted use of "discrimination" has reached a new height; now, charging a substantial amount more for health insurance for people who will use more of it is unacceptable discrimination. This is like eliminating discrimination against people naturally not athletic by extending athletic scholarships to everybody at the University and letting the resultant burden fall on the athletes themselves.
Even for those who do not so staunchly believe in property rights, even for those who support some kind of universal health care system in America, Clinton's proposal cannot be the answer. The plan violates a citizen's right to opt out of health insurance altogether, simply shifts the burden of health insurance to citizens who earn their own insurance, and adds to the mix a misguided belief that logic and profit-seeking constitute discrimination. Perhaps there will be more hope in Hillary's third draft.
Jason Shore's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jshore@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | 11 hours agoTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 5 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
