Clinton health plan provokes questions

Let's take a look at how Sen. Hillary Clinton would fund her universal health care with a "net tax cut for American taxpayers."

According to Hillary's plan, half of the funds for her $110 billion plan will be raised by reducing overpayments and inefficiencies (anyone skeptical about the federal government's ability to reduce waste?) and the other half will be raised by cutting back tax breaks for the "wealthy."

I'll admit skepticism of the federal government's ability to reduce waste. However, that does not mean I don't support innovative ideas.

Clinton highlights specific plans to reduce waste, like phasing out excessive Medicare overpayments to HMOs. This would benefit all Americans and would result in billions of dollars in savings, which I think is a great idea. These savings could then be returned to the American people to spend as they see fit.

Why can't Clinton work on reforming something as wasteful as overpayments from her seat in the Senate? Why does that have to be part of a universal health care plan that is dependent on her election to the presidency?

The other half of the $110 billion would be raised by cutting back tax cuts for the "wealthy."

Why don't they see that these tax cuts motivate individuals and businesses to invest in non-tax sheltered ventures, like providing jobs? Hike up the taxes to unforgiving levels and the wealthy put more money where it is sheltered from income taxes. They can actually afford to pay someone to protect their money.

The 2006 individual income tax and corporate income tax revenues jumped above pre-2001 levels as a result of the Bush tax cuts. It is proven that lower taxes stimulate investment while higher taxes stifle it.

John Witt

Lake in the Hills