Hillary: There She Goes Again

Washington, DC (TLS). U.S. Senator and Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton has made yet another remark that displays her utter contempt for American free enterprise and her desire for a socialist makeover of the U.S.

Speaking at a symposium on health care in Las Vegas, Hillary stated the following: 'We’re going to change the way we finance the system by taking away money from people who are doing well now.'

Asked to whom she was referring, Senator Clinton went vague (as usual), although she did mentioned insurance companies. She then proceeded to state that she has discovered what went wrong with her first proposal to socialize health care in the early 1990s--a proposal that was Dead On Arrival on Capitol Hill, even before Republicans took control of Congress with their 'Contract with America.'

This is not the first time in recent days that Hillary Clinton has made overt remarks leaving no doubt concerning her views on American capitalism. Several weeks ago Clinton raised eyebrows when she began berating the oil companies because of their highly successful profit-margins--which is normally viewed as a good thing for the economy and stockholders.

Yet Clinton stated, 'We are going to take that money and put it into a fund that will finance the discovery and development of alternative sources of energy.'

The question is, why is this any business of government? Private enterprise does these things much better, more effectively, and in a much more cost-efficient manner.

In addition, the profits of the oil companies do not belong to Hillary or Washington politicians, though they would like to think so. The profits belong to the stockholders, who benefit when a corporation is successful. Lucrative companies that make big profits are good for America, given that most of our jobs come from this source.

Those profits pump billions of dollars back into the economy through higher paychecks, a more stable stock market, and happy shareholders who then use those dividends to spend on goods and to re-invest in American business.

Hillary would end all of that by assuming that the profits companies make are fair game for money-hungry politicians who need to buy off sectors of the population.

However, perhaps the most damaging result of all from Hillary's vision of a socialized system of economics in America is the devastating effect it would have on American health care. With all of its weaknesses and blemishes, America's health care system is the best in the world, bar none.

And it did not happen through government.

Rather than totally dismantling the entirety of our stellar system of health care in this country, why not 'fix it' where it needs to be fixed rather than 'throwing the baby out with the bath water?'

Proposals that aim to bolster our nation's health care delivery system at its weakest links are much to be preferred over any proposal for a so-called 'single-payer system,' i.e., government-provided health care and insurance. The nightmare of the British system should lay to rest any doubt that this is a train-wreck in the making.

For example, The Census Bureau estimates that there are are 44.8 million people without health insurance in the United States--roughly 15% of the population. This means that a whopping 85% of the population is covered under a variety of health insurance programs.

In short, roughly 256 million Americans are covered under various private health insurance programs and the government-run Medicare program for Seniors, most of whom have supplemental riders from private companies.

256 million Americans have coverage. A mere 44.8 million do not.

Why should an overwhelming majority of the American population dismantle the most successful health care delivery system in the world in order to benefit a small minority, giving us the nightmarish scenario of waiting lists for routine surgical procedures, often resulting in unnecessary deaths due to the backlog?

Prudence dictates that rather than ruining a perfectly good system that well-serves the 256 million who enjoy its benefits in order to cover a comparatively small minority, a better option is to find a way to provide coverage to those who lack it in an efficient, cost-effective manner, while maintaining the integrity of the current system.

American free enterprise is the best way to provide that coverage. This gives patients choices. They can choose from a variety of health plans that best suit their individual needs.

It is ironic that Hillary, Obama, and company are touting the benefits of government-run socialized medicine in the wake of the Walter Reed Army Hospital debacle.

If one wants to see up-close and personal just what a government-run health care system would be like, one need look no further than Walter Reed with its rats scurrying underneath patients' beds, filth on the walls and in the floor, and its deplorable state of disrepair.

Is this what we want in the United States?

I would be willing to bet that the 256 million Americans who benefit from the present system would answer with a resounding NO.