I’m going over Hillary’s health care reform proposals — waiting to see how much overlap there is with Obama – and I came across these proposals:

Finally, insurers would be required to prove they were spending much less on marketing and schemes to avoid providing insurance to high-risk Americans, and more on direct care-giving. Now most businesses and some states have become tough purchasers of health insurance, insisting on fair marketing and cracking down on high overhead. We should follow their lead. One of the things I’ve advocated now for 14 years is a common vocabulary and a common form that every insurance company must use. This sounds like a pretty common-sense idea—so you can actually compare and contrast what you’re paying for—but when I proposed in back in ‘93 and ‘94 it was, shall we say, vigorously objected to. Because we need more transparency and we need that common vocabulary in order to get costs down, and that’s opposite of what the insurers want to happen.

Marketing budget regulation? Vocabulary regulation? Yikes, her bureaucratic reach knows no bounds. You know, for some of us, that which bothers or annoys us – believing that a company spends too much on advertising, or obscure jargon, or multiple forms – does not always require a legislative solution.