Hillary Care version 2.0

One of the greatest concerns among American Citizens today is the issue of health care. Many Americans are crying out that health care is not affordable and inaccessible to the poor. With this gap in affordable health care, they claim, suggests that America is leaving the needy behind to be abandoned.

But we have a great proclaimer of a solution!! Hillary Clinton is proposing a great health care plan that would solve the issue of leaving behind those in need of the ability to receive the medical attention they would need; and according to her website it would be done even at a tax break to the lower class!! Or would it?

The first method of paying for this great health care plan, Senator Clinton proposes, is to eliminate the tax breaks that the Bush administration granted to those who make over $250,000. This, she claims on her website, will pay for the differences needed. Will it? Will it really?

What her web site does not tell you is that the health care plan is at a whopping $115 billion. What she also does not take into account are some basic laws of economics. Let us consider what will really happen if a national health care plan is put into place. Let us then consider the implications for the common citizen.

In the current tax brackets people who make over $150,000 are already taxed over %50 of their income (give or take, I do not recall the exact figure, but it is not far from off). The liberals like to scream and shout at large businesses and factories for shipping their manufacturing over seas where it is cheaper to produce. So what is the answer of the liberal? To tax them more! The answer of the liberal is to make it more expensive for them to produce, driving farther the incentive to move their businesses elsewhere. Further, by the time the income of the business has reached to employees to pay them, it has already been taxed well over a dozen times. That money is taxed on income, taxes are paid on goods needed, taxes on land are paid, business taxes are paid, the money is filtered down where it is income taxed again, and so on and so forth. These tax breaks to not make big business taxed "less" than any one else. These tax breaks only make it so they are not taxed an unfair amount; further helping to give incentive to keep factories and production here in the United States where they belong.

That being said, the issue continues:

Will the common citizen honestly not have to pay? Hypothetically speaking, if raising taxes on big businesses does not drive them out of the States, where is the money for those taxes that they have to pay going to come from? Do people honestly believe that big business is going to, or even afford to, fork out $115 billion a year and not change anything? What that is called is a rise in the cost of production. What happens when a firm has a rise in the cost of production? Less money is available. What does that mean? That means less people can be employed. That means lay offs. What else? That means less efficient production and potentially less production which the firm will have to balance out as what is worth the sacrifice. None the less, where will the wallet truly get hit? The wallet will get hit right in the pockets of the common citizen. The prices of goods will HAVE to rise. When the prices of goods rise, then the consumer will have to pay more.

When the prices of goods rise, small business will also suffer. Why will small business suffer? Where do small businesses attain their goods? Very very very few small businesses are self sufficient. The supplies for small businesses will also rise in price which means that, in fact, small businesses will still being paying near full price for the health care that they will be allegedly receiving tax breaks to provide. Albeit they are paying the full price indirectly, they will be paying it.

That is just the beginning! Let us take a minute to honestly consider for a moment, what truly happens when the price of goods "drops"? What happens when a "small group of people" are paying for a good that is accessible to all? How many people, when offered for example, a pizza for $5 dollars will likely buy one or two, but when the same pizza is on sale for $2 they buy as many as they can to stock up?

How many people already are driving up the price of health care because they live under the delusion that they need to take their child to the hospital every time the child has a sniffle? And what happens? Nine times out of ten the doctor prescribes some medication that is truly not necessary. This misuse of the medical system on the part of parents drives up the demand for medical usage which drives up price. Further, the over prescribing of medicines that are not needed drives up the prices from pharmaceutical companies due to an increase in demand. Do keep in mind that there are many many other causes of the outrageous prices, but these issues do help contribute.

Now, what does this have to do with anything? If health care is provided free of charge or at very little price, how many more people are going to make unnecessary use of medical facilities? The number will increase dramatically! Senator Clinton's proposal is based primarily on the current average use and "rationality" of people in the market as it stands. However, there is nothing rational about bringing a child into the doctor for a common cold and the irrationality will only increase when people do not have to pay for it.

Let us also consider, if John Doe is paying great amounts for his health care and sees that he can get far cheaper health care through Hillary Care 2.0, why should he keep his own? Are people honestly going to continue to pay for their own health care while paying for a federal health care system that they are not using? Of course not!

Senator Clinton's plan calls for Insurance companies to no longer deny care for prior conditions. While it does seem unfair to deny people insurance, what is honestly going to happen when people with existing conditions are allowed to purchase health insurance? Have Clinton supporters honestly taken into account the enormous stress and weight that will be placed on the health care system due to these people?

These are just some of the issues that will rise with the implementation of Senator Clinton's health care plan and, Barack Obama's plan, while appearing less expensive, will also amount to a far greater financial burden than expected.

What about the moral ramifications and taking into account personal responsibility in Hillary Care 2.0?

What about the man who is 60 pounds over weight? What about the man who is overweight because he won't watch what he eats, consumes way too much alcohol, and smokes like a chimney? Sounds a little extreme? Honestly think about it, how many people do you know that fit this description? I know dozens by myself. Should it be the responsibility of the tax payer to pay for care and services for a people who have done nothing to take care of themselves?

Do you feel that it is your responsibility to pay for that man's (or woman's) triple bypass surgery and further care because that person did nothing to take care of themselves? Senator Clinton sure seems to think so.

What about abortions? Is it your's or my responsibility to fund second, third, fourth abortions for women who won't keep their legs closed (I don't even believe in supporting the first abortion, however some people do believe in helping someone who "makes their first mistake")? Let us be honest, are women who become pregnant out of wedlock honestly going to be paying for their own abortions? Very very rarely. In fact, in most cases it will be women trying to have abortions in secret so as to prevent parents (or even spouse??) from finding out.

The fact is, Hillary Care 2.0, while carrying the disguise of providing affordable care at the expense of the rich, will truly be funded by the people who can least afford it through prices of goods. The fact is, Hillary Care 2.0 is going to contribute enormously to raising the unemployment rate (which will increase the number of people who will be using the government health care and increase the strain and cost). The fact is, Hillary Care 2.0 is going to greatly inflate the cost of health care and pharmaceuticals as, over use will rise as well as the fact that programs that are subsidized (which is what this really is) are usually able to increase price to absorb more money from the government. The fact is, Hilary Care 2.0 will effectively do nothing more than promote irresponsibility at the expense of the tax payer.

Hillary Care 2.0 is a benevolent plan, but is not a sound answer to the health care issue. Hillary Care 2.0 will do nothing more than contribute to a Government failure which will effectively cause economic chaos in the United States.

When considering your choice for president, please think about this; please consider the ramifications of what could arise by your vote. Don't vote by the party line, vote by the issue. Not all Republicans are conservatives, and many Democrats want to drive the US into a socialist state. Careful consideration of ALL candidates must be taken into account.

For the sake of what is good for the United States, vote conservative.
For the sake of what is good for the people, vote conservative.
For the sake of defense, for the sake of health, for the sake of wealth, vote conservative.

Me? I say vote for Mike Huckabee.