San Diego Union Tribune (CA), October 11, 2007*

No: Her plan limits, not expands, choices

Clinton's plan would increase taxes, create new government-provided insurance, bolster federal regulation, mandate that individuals purchase approved insurance policies and mandate that large employers pay for such policies. The only thing it doesn't promise is a single-payer health care system. That will, however, be the result.

Clinton talks of choices, but her plan is about limiting them, not expanding them. Our current system actually offers many choices, with more coming on line each day.

People can purchase individual insurance; work for an employer who provides insurance; choose, and pay more for, generous first-dollar coverage; and accumulate funds for future use (within a year) with a health savings account.

The insurance industry, where allowed by regulators, is targeting young adults with specially tailored plans. Health clinics are popping up in local malls. Some doctors are making house calls; others are setting up concierge practices.

And yes, some Americans choose not to be insured. They may pay cash for services rendered.

They may be taken care of by a safety net that includes taxpayer-funded neighborhood clinics, charity care at physicians' offices, or free care at hospitals.

With Clinton, the only choice will be to whom to pay the taxes -- to the private but government-blessed plan, or to the government-run plan. Health plan design will be nationalized, as a national mandate requires a national standard plan to meet the mandate's requirement.

When the new bureaucracy in Massachusetts set standards for its mandate, it excluded the current plans of thousands of state residents. They will have to get new plans or face fines.

The individual mandate will lead to new enforcement bureaucracy, even as it fails to achieve universal care. Car insurance is mandatory, after all, even if driving isn't. Yet, nearly 15 percent of drivers go bare.

New government plans will become the norm, as private insurers are forced to charge full prices while the government will hide costs in subsidies. Seniors, after all, think Medicare is a bargain largely because it is funded by current employee payroll taxes and general revenues, that is, income taxes.

Children and young adults will get pushed into SCHIP, a program designed for the near poor. Near retirees will be allowed to buy into Medicare, with generous subsidies to make it affordable.

Everyone else will be enrolled in either a highly regulated plan or the new federal option, or face fines.

The one area of great importance that even Clinton plan boosters note it falls short in is cost control. Other than wishful thinking and subsidies, which merely shift costs but don't control them, it offers little in the way of keeping spending in check. It can't do otherwise.

A system cannot insulate people from the cost of a good or service, make that good or service easily available, and not have expenditures on it explode. Yet that is Clinton's prescription for health care.

In fact, serious health thinkers and commentators on the left all understand the rationing imperative, once insurance is made universal.

The New York Times chided Clinton and the other candidates for not discussing the need for higher taxes on everyone and "more drastic remedies, like limiting the use of expensive new technologies, cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals, or forcing people into health maintenance organizations."

That is the health care future our learned leaders envision for us: paying higher taxes, packed in a government-designed health care plan, and limited in our ability to access new technology? No thanks!

Shreveport Times (LA), October 8, 2007
Sunday Chieftain & Star-Journal (CO), October 7, 2007
Kansas City Star, October 1, 2007
Modesto Bee (CA) October 1, 2007
Charlotte Observer (NC), October 1, 2007 
St. Paul Pioneer Press (MN) , September 30, 2007
Duluth News-Tribune (MN), September 29, 2007
New Bedford Standard-Times (MA) Seotenber 28, 2007