Health care has problems, but no crisis for drastic change
Hillary Clinton is attempting to solve a phony crisis-health care. Yes, we’ve got a problem, but it is not a crisis, and its solution should not be concocted in a crisis atmosphere. It’s the usual liberal modus operandi. They overstate a problem and work
society into a frenzied state in order to justify their invariable, big-government solution. What Hillary and Bill are about to do is undermine the best health-care system in the world in the name of fairness and equity.
The Clintons stirred up
passions and fear by citing the misleading statistic that 37 million Americans are without health-insurance coverage. A CBO study, however, shows that 51% of those were uninsured for less than four months. Many others choose not to be covered.
There
was no health-care crisis in this country, at least not until Hillary got her mitts on it. And the problems we have-like escalating costs-were caused primarily by the very kinds of liberal interventionist programs Hillary is now proposing.
Government intervention-specifically the Medicaid and Medicare programs-is the biggest reason costs are escalating in health care today. When Medicare began in 1965, it cost taxpayers about $3 billion per year. It was projected back them that by 1990 the
price would rise to $9 billion per year. The 1990 bill was actually $67 billion per year. The pointy-headed theoreticians who devised this program made the mistake of assuming they were operating in a zero-sum game. They never imagined that the very
creation of their program would increase demand for medical services.
What happens when the government pays for all medical care is that limits must be placed on the amount of care that can be offered. Thus, with Rodhamized medicine, you will always
have rationing of care in one form or another. Government is not the solution, Ronald Reagan used to say. Government is the problem. Further intrusion is not the answer. Competition is. We need deregulation, not more government control.
Drug abuse & unsafe sex cause AIDS, not homophobia
Ever since the AIDS crisis became politicized I have been leery of those who claimed that their primary purpose was to find a cure for the disease. My doubts were confirmed in January 1990. AIDS activists had begun to employ a strategy of confrontation,
accusing various government agencies for the spread of the disease. This was a transparent attempt to deflect attention away from the drug abuse and unsafe sex, which are responsible for the spread of over 90% of all cases of AIDS, & focus blame for the
disease on so-called homophobes who opposed sufficient funding for research and a cure. As a result, the notion evolved that money-and only money-could rid us of the horrors of the HIV virus.
[Because some organizations won’t accept help or money from
conservatives], there’s good money and bad money in the fight against AIDS. This established that there were some things more important than a cure; that ideology mattered as well! If you were a conservative you had no place in the fight against AIDS.
