Bill Clinton Thinks Obamacare Is “Crazy” but His Wife’s Solution Is No Better

Bill Clinton is out and about campaigning for his wife, Hillary Clinton, and he said something shockingly honest – and TRUE – while giving a speech yesterday.

He ripped into the Affordable Care Act for flooding the health care insurance market and causing premiums to rise for middle-class Americans who do not qualify for subsidies:

So you’ve got this crazy system where all of a sudden 25 million more people have health care and then the people who are out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week, wind up with their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half. It’s the craziest thing in the world.

Clinton went on to say that his wife’s healthcare plan is better – in part because it includes allowing people to buy into Medicare and Medicaid.

On the other hand, the current system works fine if you’re eligible for Medicaid, if you’re a lower-income working person; if you’re already on Medicare, or if you get enough subsidies on a modest income that you can afford your health care.

But the people that are getting killed in this deal are small business people and individuals who make just a little too much to get any of these subsidies.

While Clinton is correct that the Obamacare model “doesn’t make sense” and “doesn’t work here”, is his wife’s proposed “solution” any better?

Or…are retired physician and former politician Ron Paul’s ideas about healthcare better?

That video is from 2009. Prophetic, wasn’t it?

In the clip above, Clinton claimed that that market-based solutions would not solve the country’s problems with insurance costs and coverage.

But, America hasn’t had a true free-market healthcare system in decades – if ever, as Dr. Paul explained.

In an August 28, 2016 column titled The Right Lessons from Obamacare’s Meltdown, Dr. Paul clarifies this point:

Many Obamacare supporters claimed that the exchanges created a market for health insurance that would allow consumers to benefit from competition. But allowing consumers to pick from a variety of government-controlled health insurance plans is not a true market; instead it is what the great economist Ludwig von Mises called “playing market.”

Regarding expanding the use of Medicare and Medicaid, Dr. Paul wrote:

Government has no legitimate authority to take money from taxpayers to fund health care or any other type of welfare program. Government-run health care also does not truly serve the interest of those supposedly “benefiting” from the program. Anyone who doubts this should consider how declining reimbursements and increasing bureaucracy is causing more doctors to refuse to treat Medicaid and Medicare patients.

Medicaid patients will face increasing hardships when, not if, the US government’s fiscal crisis forces Congress to make spending cuts. When the crisis comes, what is more likely to be cut first: spending benefiting large corporations and big banks that can deploy armies of high-powered lobbyists, or spending benefiting low-income Americans who cannot afford K Street representation?

But what about the poor? How would they obtain health care without government intervention and programs?

It is a common myth that, prior to the current welfare state, the poor went without health care, as Dr. Paul explains:

Private, charity-run hospitals staffed by volunteers provided a safety net for those who could not afford health care. Most doctors also willingly provided free or reduced-price care for those who needed it. The large amount of charitable giving and volunteer activity in the United States shows that the American people do not need government’s help in providing an effective safety net.

There is no reason to believe that the poor would suffer without government intervention in the health care system. Americans are more generous than you’d think: In 2015, donations from individuals, families, estates, foundations, and corporations reached an estimated $373.25 billion.

In a June report, Giving USA Foundation Chair W. Keith Curtis, president of nonprofit consulting firm The Curtis Group, said:

If you look at total giving by two-year time spans, the combined growth for 2014 and 2015 hit double digits, reaching 10.1 percent when calculated using inflation-adjusted dollars.

But these findings embody more than numbers—they also are a symbol of the American spirit. It’s heartening that people really do want to make a difference, and they’re supporting the causes that matter to them. Americans are embracing philanthropy at a higher level than ever before.

Delivered by The Daily Sheeple

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).

Contributed by Lily Dane of The Daily Sheeple.

Lily Dane is a staff writer for The Daily Sheeple. Her goal is to help people to “Wake the Flock Up!”