|
There's a must read WSJ editorial out today that details the fight between Obama and Hillary over HillaryCare II. here's a sample from the editorial:
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama agree on most policy issues, but that makes their rare differences all the more revealing. To wit, their running scrap over Mrs. Clinton's "individual mandate" for health care, which Mr. Obama has now had the nerve to expose for its inevitable government coercion.
Mrs. Clinton's proposal requires everyone to buy health insurance, along with more insurance regulation, a government insurance option for everyone and tax hikes. Mr. Obama likes all that but his mandate would only apply to children. He argues that the reason many people aren't insured is because it's too expensive, not because they don't want it. Mrs. Clinton counters that coverage can't be "universal" without a mandate.
But then Mr. Obama had the impudence to defend his views. His campaign distributed a mailer in key primary states that claimed the Clinton plan "forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it." It also featured an image of an anxious couple at a kitchen table.
The Clinton apparat went apoplectic, claiming the flyer evokes the famous "Harry and Louise" commercials. A common article of liberal faith is that this "smear campaign" doomed HillaryCare in 1994, as opposed to, say, its huge cost and complexities. But never mind.
Yet if Mrs. Clinton's plan is better because it has a mandate, how does it work in the real world, where some people still won't be able to afford insurance, or would decline to acquire it? At a recent debate, the Illinois Senator drove the point home, asking Mrs. Clinton, "You can mandate it but there will still be people who can't afford it. And if they can't afford it, what are you going to fine them? Are you going to garnish their wages?" And in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, Mrs. Clinton conceded that "we will have an enforcement mechanism" that might include "you know, going after people's wages."
There aren't many differences between Hillary and Obama so it's important to point out a difference as significant as this. Hillary admitted to George Stephanopoulos that they'd "have an enforcement mechanism" in her new plan:
I'd like to take this a step further by comparing HillaryCare II to Ronald Reagan's governing principles. As I said yesterday, Ronald Reagan had a great libertarian streak in him. Here's how he worded it in his Farewell Address:
Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.
Comparing Hillary's governing philosophy with Reagan's governing philosophy is the starkest contrast imaginable. It isn't difficult to say that Reagan's We The People approach is more appealing that HillaryCare's dictatorial approach. Let's compare the essence of Hillary's philosophy to Reagan's philosophy. First Hillary's statement:
"we will have an enforcement mechanism" that might include "you know, going after people's wages."
Now Reagan's statement:
"We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us.
Reagan's governing philosophy is the polar opposite of Hillary's. Reagan thought it best that citizens should make the most important decisions in their lives. Hillary thinks that it's best if bureaucrats did the deciding for people because it's relatively easy to control government but it's almost impossible to control individuals.
The bottom line is that we should aspire to a nation that liberates individuals and restricts the government, not vice versa.
Comments welcome at LFR. |
