Good morning: On my way to work this morning, I tuned in to Neal Boortz, a Libertarian radio commentator?

Question

and he was discussing Hillary's new health care plan. He referred to it as being fascist. What are you're feelings?

I just popped onto his web site and here's what he wrote:

HILLARY'S HEALTH CARE PLAN DUE TODAY
She's at it again, folks. Hillary Rodham is going to give us all of the details for her grand plan to bring the United States into line with the rest of the socialized medicine world.
Rodham will tell us that her plan is going to cost around $110 billion a year. That's a lie ... and she knows it's a lie. Take a look at every medical-related spending program out there, from Medicare on .. and you'll find that the politicians who brought us these programs flat-out lied when they told us how much they would cost. Hillary's $110 billion a year will become $300 billion an year and more before her husband makes his next conquest.
Make no mistake. Every single politician in Washington knows that the surest way to make affordable health care available to every single American is through the private sector. They know that eliminating the regulations that stifle competition, and getting rid of insurance mandates that drive up the cost of even the most basic policies would bring millions of the uninsured back into the ranks of the fully insured. They know that giving individuals the same tax treatment for buying their own health insurance policies that their employers get providing those policies for them would solve much our problem with the uninsured. The know all of these things .. .but they also know one more very important fact. With every private sector solution introduced into our health care system politicians and government lose power ... and that just cannot be permitted.
The goal of these politicians is not to bring you health care. Their goal is to make you more dependent on government ... and them.
http://boortz.com/nuze/index.html

What are your feelings and do you agree with Neal Boortz? If not, please feel free to elaborate.

Answer 1

The fact is that this is another welfare program. And if you look at the track record for any, ANY welfare program, it generally cost between 2.5 and 5 times as much as originally projected. Further, with the advent of every single welfare program, more of our personal freedoms are taken away.

If you look at Hillary's plan real close, you will see that it is based upon the poverty level. So, when those who can't afford that healthcare, who is going to pay for it? At some point the defined level for the wealthy will be less than $100k per year. That means that the middle class of today will become the upper class under Hillary. And so who will pay then? The program will have to be expanded to cover those of us who can no longer pay the taxes required to fund the program along with all our other expenses, namely our own healthcare costs.

Remember you can only squeeze so much blood from a turnip. This program is socialism meant to take away our freedoms and provide government with more control of our lives.

Be afraid, very afraid!

Answer 2

The first thing that needs to be said it that that is an opinion piece, not a news story.

That said, my opinion is that he is mostly right. I, unlike most, do not equate Hillary with liberalism. She is a socialist, like most on the blue ticket. The government screws up every program it takes over - public education being a prime example. The best way to insure affordable health care is through the private sector, not a government takeover. Anytime the government controls anything, costs go through the roof - bureaucrats, graft, no-bid contracts, etc. Tort reform, minimal government control, allowing the importation of drugs, free-market competition, and aggressive pursuit of price-fixers and monopolies will drive prices down faster than more government control and no competition will.

As much as it pains me to say this, Bush's proposed healthcare tax credit (tax credits for low-income families) is probably the best way to go.

Neal Boortz is NOT a libertarian, by the way. He only claims to be one like Hillary claims to be liberal and Bush claims to be conservative. None of them know the meaning of those words.

Just my opinion...

edit:
That Mayo Clinic plan is very well thought-out and an intelligent, middle-of-the-road solution. Thanks for the link Goldenrae9

Answer 3

The belief that the free market economy is the best answer for everything, and that there is no difference between buying gasoline and milk from buying health care is simplistic.

The fact is, people are complaining about there health care and insurance, and it's going to get worse. As Baby Boomers get older, they are going to need more medical care, and that is going to tax our Medical Insurance companies even more.

There is a reason Neal Boortz is more successful at talking about how things should be, and not so successful at getting people to do what he suggests.

Answer 4

Every American needs to hear to David Walker, a man her husband appointed, who explains we can't afford it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Walker_%28U.S._Comptroller_General%29

Agree Neal is a self-serving talking head not a principled libertarian and expect to find Rupert Murdoch holding his leash. The way of propaganda machine is to call something exactly the opposite of what it is. Neal calls it fascism, it is actually socialism.

If there is any truth here it is that the political field is diamond shaped. The more authoritarian you get, the less difference there is between the left and the right. A total authoritarian society would control your every move and economic freedom would be meaningless because you would have zero personal freedom.

Answer 5

whew, theres a lot here to digest.
First off I would lump him in with most of the other talking heads (or voices as the case may be) in the political landscape that just kind of say a lot because its their job to keep talking.
Medicare and Medicaid were lies? Well, how about Bush's prescription drug plan which is well on its way to bankrupting the US Government? I dont see any mention of that or of Bush's complete lack of attention to addressing the burgeoning costs of supporting Medicare or Medicaid once the baby boomers retire en masse.

Secondly, those of you who know me know that I am NO fan of Hillary. I think my history of posting illustrates this quite well. However, as far as the health plan being "fascist" Im just not quite sure what Boortz means. The debate on health care is quite complex with many different sides and angles to it. Its not something that can be summarized easily in a forum such as this.
What I will say is this: using the arguement that "you know it will cost more" is rather unsophisticated even for a talking head. No one really knows what the costs are or how they will be handled. In particular, this point is rendered moot by the obscene speding Bush and Cheney have done since being elected to office. (anyone watch the 60 minutes piece with Greenspan last night?) If the "war on terror" is important enough that our President isnt concerned about "counting pennies" than what arguement can you make against pre-and neo-natal care? Particularly when you turn around and protest abortion.
His random theories about private vs public systems also show a rather naive understanding of the economy and the health care system which I just do not have the time to address here.
I guess my bottom line is this: Your question is specifically directed towards Boortz. Boortz is just like every other "personality" in infotainment. He says a lot because he's paid to keep talking and his words should only serve as catalysts for discussion. They are not to be taken seriously.
Heck, the granddaddy of them all, Rush, flunked out of college - getting an "F" in SPEECH! bwaha! None of these characters are really worth our time. Id rather debate the merits of "Threes Company" and it relevance to pop culture as a reflection of social commentary than spend time on the viewpoints of radio politicos.

Answer 6

Our health system is broken, people are paying these ridiculous prices for substandard medical treatment.

I gave her credit for trying to tackle this tough issue rather than ignoring this, tackling this = war with the health companies. I can't say I agree or disagree with her health plan, but one thing I do know our system is broken and maybe a different approach is better than we have at the moment.

But one thing, she should consider is lifting the bans and authorizing the imports of generic drugs from Canada for a start. Our health industries has already milked too much money from us, the consumers.

Answer 7

I think it's more against Hillary than anything else.

One of the absolut most respected names in health care, The Mayo Clinic outlined a more private based approach to health care, but here are their thoughts:

Mayo Clinic recognizes that national health policy reforms are necessary to deal with problems of cost, access, and quality in the health care system. I attached the link..

Answer 8

I agree with him almost completely. I think he is a little low on the 300 billion it is really going to cost. I see it closer to 400 billion a year. Anytime we include government in another area of our lives, we have more graft and corruption, fraud, waste and abuse. We need to stop this cry for Universal Health Care now, and move to completely privatizing health care for health competition.

Answer 9

Reminds one a little of Moveon.com from last week...because, he has an opinion before her plan has even been released, in addition, for anyone to sensibly talk of her budget proposal, one would need to do a thorough, and complex, financial analysis, which, I doubt the radio broadcaster has performed, and, has even the talent to execute.

Offering health care to Americans is hardly fascist, and, this kind of adolescent rhetoric is on par with General "Betray-Us".

Finally, pundits will spend a million hours hot airing about the costs of any proposal Hillary might make, but, consider this: opportunity costs.

In finance and economics, opportunity costs are are those events having never been dedicated to that have real costs, real prices to pay, associated with not going down any given path in the future. That said, what is the real cost of 40 million Americans NOT having health care.

In business, you almost never just look at the cost of something, you must also take into account the revenue produced by embarking upon a path. Health care for children of parents not affording such an expenditure is an investment in America's future, which, actually might pay a handsome dividend.

We spend 800 billion dollars on military expenditures in the federal budget, 100 to 300 billion on health care for all americans might just be a bargain.

Answer 10

He is correct, but I still don't admire the guy. He hates Ron Paul, and will not let ANY, ANY criticism of Israel slide, even constructive. In fact, that's the only reason I think he hates Ron. If Ron, and Boortz were libertarians as people often assume, don't you think he would support him?

The goal of these politicians, and these newstalk people is simple. To make money, and to polarize and divide people into constant tension and conflict, so they can play sides and call it progress.