As everyone should know by now, our nation faces a dramatic
entitlements crisis that will play out over the next 30 years. Federal
spending has been hovering in a fairly stable manner, around 20-percent
of GDP (Gross Domestic Product), for over 50 years now, since the early
1950s. But the Federal government’s own official projections show that
over the next 30 years or so, federal spending will soar to 40-percent
of GDP, requiring total federal taxes as a percent of GDP to double.
This is due to the exploding costs of the entitlement programs we
already have, primarily Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. […]
The serious point is if you are going to require people to buy health
insurance, then you are going to have to specify exactly what
health-plan people will have to buy to satisfy this requirement. So the
government has gone from telling you that you need health insurance, to telling you what kind
of health-insurance coverage or plan you must have. And with Hillary,
we can assume that this will be no basic, minimum plan. But Hillary
continues to insist that this is not government-run health care.
The author of this NRO article makes quite a few assertions for which, (hopefully) due to the constraints of the medium, he does not support with evidence (“This is exactly what happens with every other country that tries to mandate or provide coverage through government.”). His article, however, superbly explores possible problems facing Hillary Clinton’s newest health care plan.
Parts of her plan are pragmatic – I think the idea of mandated coverage is, in theory, a good one. Forced acceptance by insurers is a very worrying idea, though, as this article discusses.
It’s more evidence that there are very few good answers for our ailing system. Let me know what you’re thinking about HillaryCare 2.0 in the comments.