Monday, November 01, 2004
Sally Pipes talks KerryCare on NRO
[Sally C. Pipes, "No Ill Will," National Review Online, 1 November 2004.]
Would you like your medicine more or less socialized? That's what this election boils down to according to PRI's Sally Pipes:
Kerry has repeatedly claimed that his proposal is "not a government plan." But that's just not true. KerryCare is one of the most expensive proposals in the history of government. It would increase federal spending anywhere from $1 to $1.5 trillion dollars — roughly the GDP of Russia — over ten years.
Twelve times larger than President George W. Bush's health plan, KerryCare would instantly nationalize a large segment of the U.S. insurance industry. And it would vastly expand both Medicaid and Medicare, two of the government programs people complain about most. How does Kerry expect to pay the bills?
Well, his campaign has come up with some very creative budgeting. Kerry says increased taxes on Americans who earn over $200,000 would cover his plan. But that would only bring in about $650 billion over a decade, leaving him hundreds of billions short and making new taxes on the middle class inevitable. For KerryCare alone, the average taxpayer would have to pay $10,000 over the next decade — or $1,000 per year, according to Americans for Tax Reform.
Surely, though, with its astronomical price tag, KerryCare would bring better medical treatment and cover the uninsured. Right? Wrong. Kerry's plan would not solve the problem of the 8.2 million chronically uninsured (out of a total uninsured population of 45 million). Instead, it would mostly address people who already have insurance — shifting up to 18 million people with private coverage into government-funded Medicaid programs and HMOs. In fact, nearly 60 percent of KerryCare would be spent on people who already have insurance. Even worse, about 90 percent of KerryCare's proposed funding would go to state governments, employers, and insurance companies — not to individuals.
Kerry's debate-night promise to give everyone the same insurance package that Congress gets represents a big step towards nationalizing U.S. healthcare. His "health alliance" plan would entail a direct transfer of tax dollars from federal coffers to private business — with the government reimbursing employers for three-fourths of the cost of catastrophic claims over $50,000.
Whereas KerryCare would expand government and subsidize big business, President Bush's proposed reforms take a fundamentally different approach: They put the individual first.
Today, the U.S. government already pays about 45 percent of all health-care costs. In other words, our system is nearly half-way socialized, which is one reason health-care costs are spiraling out of control today. Kerry would take America further down the path to socialized medicine, while Bush would guide us towards a free market.
[Matthew Hisrich, "A Better Alternative to Kerry Plan Already Exists," The Topeka Capital-Journal, 8 August 2004.]
[Sally C. Pipes, "No Ill Will," National Review Online, 1 November 2004.]
Would you like your medicine more or less socialized? That's what this election boils down to according to PRI's Sally Pipes:
Kerry has repeatedly claimed that his proposal is "not a government plan." But that's just not true. KerryCare is one of the most expensive proposals in the history of government. It would increase federal spending anywhere from $1 to $1.5 trillion dollars — roughly the GDP of Russia — over ten years.
Twelve times larger than President George W. Bush's health plan, KerryCare would instantly nationalize a large segment of the U.S. insurance industry. And it would vastly expand both Medicaid and Medicare, two of the government programs people complain about most. How does Kerry expect to pay the bills?
Well, his campaign has come up with some very creative budgeting. Kerry says increased taxes on Americans who earn over $200,000 would cover his plan. But that would only bring in about $650 billion over a decade, leaving him hundreds of billions short and making new taxes on the middle class inevitable. For KerryCare alone, the average taxpayer would have to pay $10,000 over the next decade — or $1,000 per year, according to Americans for Tax Reform.
Surely, though, with its astronomical price tag, KerryCare would bring better medical treatment and cover the uninsured. Right? Wrong. Kerry's plan would not solve the problem of the 8.2 million chronically uninsured (out of a total uninsured population of 45 million). Instead, it would mostly address people who already have insurance — shifting up to 18 million people with private coverage into government-funded Medicaid programs and HMOs. In fact, nearly 60 percent of KerryCare would be spent on people who already have insurance. Even worse, about 90 percent of KerryCare's proposed funding would go to state governments, employers, and insurance companies — not to individuals.
Kerry's debate-night promise to give everyone the same insurance package that Congress gets represents a big step towards nationalizing U.S. healthcare. His "health alliance" plan would entail a direct transfer of tax dollars from federal coffers to private business — with the government reimbursing employers for three-fourths of the cost of catastrophic claims over $50,000.
Whereas KerryCare would expand government and subsidize big business, President Bush's proposed reforms take a fundamentally different approach: They put the individual first.
Today, the U.S. government already pays about 45 percent of all health-care costs. In other words, our system is nearly half-way socialized, which is one reason health-care costs are spiraling out of control today. Kerry would take America further down the path to socialized medicine, while Bush would guide us towards a free market.
[Matthew Hisrich, "A Better Alternative to Kerry Plan Already Exists," The Topeka Capital-Journal, 8 August 2004.]
Comments:
Post a Comment
