Health care in America is expensive. It's a reality that hits home every month when I open the $1,500 bill from my family's health insurance company. And this is just for our monthly premium — not any of the co-pays we must cover for each doctor's visit.

For any family facing financial realities like mine, it's tempting to buy into the idea of socialized medicine — or as Hillary Clinton puts it, "universal health care."

Crisscrossing the nation this month, the Democratic presidential candidate and New York senator is unveiling a plan she says will ensure that every American who needs health care will get it.

But can her plan possibly work? And would it ultimately improve health care in America?

The answers are both a resounding no.

As far back as 2003, an ABC News/Washington Post poll showed that more than six in 10 Americans supported universal coverage. Support dropped to just four in 10, however, once people were asked whether they'd be willing to suffer the consequences frequently associated with socialist health care, including limited choices when it comes to doctors or prolonged waits for non-emergency services.

The numbers make sense and have only risen in more recent polls. We all want to believe in a future where no one is denied access to health care, but unfortunately, the devil is in the details.

For someone like me, what exactly constitutes "non-emergency care?" As a young child two decades ago, I was diagnosed with a rare vascular condition that has resulted in more than 13 surgeries, temporary paralysis, and countless medical tests. I'm also a Type I Diabetic. The combination leads to increased risks for blood clots. In other words, I'm a health insurance company's worst nightmare.

But my worst nightmare is life under HillaryCare. According to an Associated Press report detailing Clinton's recent efforts to defend her plan on the nation's Sunday morning talk show circuit, she "giggled her way through questions about whether the health care proposal she announced last week amounted to socialized medicine."

I'm not giggling. Without a profit-driven system, I likely would be sitting in a wheelchair right now, possibly as an amputee. I benefit from the talents of an interventional radiologist who developed the surgical procedure that has allowed me to lead a normal life.

In a socialist system, where government would hold down his profits and impose significant regulatory barriers, would he be among the the vast majority of doctors would lose any incentive, along with the essential private capital, to be the most innovative in his field?

While Clinton's plan is being heralded by the left, there is much we still don't know about it. She says it would require businesses to provide insurance for employees, that every individual would be required to carry coverage, and that the wealthy would pay higher taxes to help fund coverage.

Under her plan, she tells us, every single one of America's uninsured could get coverage — and all for only an additional $110 billion cost to taxpayers every year.

But the truth is that the cost of HillaryCare is far from certain, mostly because we have no accurate tally on how many Americans are actually uninsured.

Jessica Peck Corry is a public policy analyst with the Independence Institute in Golden, Colo.

Earlier this year, the U.S. Census Bureau admitted that it has overstated the number of uninsured residents since 1995. Officials say the mistake was due to a computer error—one that resulted in the Bureau revising its previous estimate of 46.6 million to a 2007 figure of 44.8 million. According to Clinton, we've got 47 million uninsured Americans.

In Colorado, the numbers swing even more wildly. Recent estimates have put the state's uninsured population at just over 500,000, while the Bureau pegs the figure at over 700,000. A private foundation publicized its tally last week at well over a million.

Clinton's plan is also vague at best when it comes to coverage of illegal immigrants. According to government estimates, one in 10 people now living in California resides there illegally. Will these people be guaranteed health care coverage at taxpayer expense? What about others who can afford coverage now but opt not to get it?

Economists laugh at the notion that Clinton can fund her program solely by raising taxes on America's wealthiest families. They say she will only raise half of what she needs through a tax hike on the rich. Not only that, but with the average cost of health care per employee already rising to nearly $10,000 a year, one has to wonder whether her proposed mandate that would force businesses to provide coverage or pay into a larger pool wouldn't just be enough to put them out of business.

What will happen to their employees then?

(Part 2 will be published Oct. 4, 2007.)

Editor’s note: Jessica Peck Corry's weekly blogs are part of a feature on The Denver Post's PoliticsWest.com site called "Diary of a Mad Voter." The group blog, published in partnership with NewWest.Net/Politics [1], is intended to give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the '08 election cycle. Check back regularly at www.politicswest.com [2] for "Diary of a Mad Voter."