Skip to main content

(H/T to Taylor Marsh's "Welcome to The Show.")

Before the Saturday caucus -- from which my hospital nurses and I were disenfranchised (I had a ruptured appendix, abscess and peritonitis) -- I was furious to see Obama TV ads promising health care for all. Only Hillary's plan brings universal care that requires all sign up or retain a plan, to make it economically viable (ex: preventive care dramatically lowers costs for undetected chronic diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure).

MyDD's Todd Beeton -- who is tirelessly traversing the country reporting on the campaigns and events -- wrote a must-read, "Obama's "Universal" Healthcare Deception," noting that John Edwards also sensibly included mandates. Beeton quotes Obama's stump speech:

My opponents think the government should force you to buy healthcare. I believe that the reason people don't have healthcare isn't that they don't want it, it's that they can't afford it.

"The line would often get a big cheer but I haven't heard it lately," Beeton observes.

In the wake of John Edwards's departure from the race, Hillary has been hitting Barack harder on the fact that her plan offers universal healthcare while his, by definition, does not. So Obama has changed his rhetoric on the stump, now throwing the term "universal" around with abandon when describing his healthcare plan, as he did both the other night at the Virginia Democratic Party Jefferson Jackson dinner and at today's University of Maryland rally. What's worse, he used fear mongering to attack Hillary's plan, saying flat out "she's going to go after your wages," referring to the tricky enforcement of a mandate healthcare system.

This is extremely problematic, for one thing, because Democrats using right-wing scare tactics on healthcare against other Democrats will, as Paul Krugman has pointed out, set back the universal healthcare cause. ... Read all.

Beeton points to the "Q and A from the FAQ on his plan from [Obama's] website":

Q: I don't want the government telling me what doctors to see or what treatments to get. Will the Obama plan force these kinds of decisions on me?

A: Senator Obama agrees with you. His plan will not tell you which doctors to see or what treatments to get. Under the Obama plan...no government bureaucrat will second-guess decisions about your care."

Beeton's take:

"Government bureaucrat" as villain? Are you kidding me, who wrote this, Karl Rove?

Sometimes I wonder.  It's not a surprise that Karl Rove, David Brooks, George Will, Peggy (yech) Noonan are so besotted with Obama.  They know that Obama will be so easily malleable and controllable, whereas Clinton is a true fighter, and highly experienced in dealing with the brutal attacks and incessant tactics designed to wear down, and water down, the president's plan.

Then Beeton addresses a core problem that Obama -- and his followers -- have, which is the dishonesty of his claims as well as his spurious attacks on Clinton's health care plan:

But there's another problem that Obama's supporters will have a problem coming to terms with, which is that it's simply intellectually dishonest.

Obama doesn't inherently have a problem with mandates. What he conveniently leaves out from his criticism of Clinton's plan is that he thinks mandates are perfectly fine for children.

The dishonesty is not stopping Obama. Now he's got a false radio ad running in the Maryland/Virginia/DC area:

NARRATOR: Barack Obama. An economic plan that jumpstarts the economy, with tax cuts for middle class families and seniors. A health plan that lowers costs by $2500 for a typical family and provides universal coverage.

From the FactHub:

Top independent health care experts have concluded that Sen. Obama's plan is not universal and would leave at least 15 million people without coverage. Leaving so many people out will drive up costs for everyone.

Last night, Beeton covered Bill Clinton's speech at George Mason University:

One notable section of his remarks for me was when he spoke about healthcare as the biggest, if not the only, policy difference in this primary. He said most experts say that Obama's plan will leave 15 million uncovered. He talked about the unique place we find ourselves in where doctors and nurses and business are all united behind universal healthcare. "Now is not the time for the Democratic Party to give up on universal healthcare."  He said "Neither of their plans is going to leave healthcare unaffordable to anyone, but you have to cover everyone." He framed her mandate health care plan as uniquely progressive: "We put in so those that need it can take out...Those of us who are lucky enough to be well off should pay our fair share." That's what America is about, he said.

I loved this line from President Clinton's speech that Todd jotted down:

My case for her is: she's a world-class change-maker. My case for her is that she has the best positions on the issues and a good grip on what to do to turn these ideas into positive changes in your lives. My case for her is that she will not forget the look in your eyes that I see tonight...She won't forget your hopes and dreams when times are good or bad.

THEN there's the enormous political fight and administrative task of trying to propose a health care plan, even one as anemic as Obama's (which opens the path for Republicans to water it down even more).  Obama was asked on 60 Minutes about his managerial experience.  His response was laughable.  Via Politico's Ben Smith:

For Obama, heading Obama for America is his executive experience.

And, from the Politico/WJLA interview, is this key observation about the fight in Hillary Clinton:

Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down.

Having already conceded the fight over universal health care -- and opened a vulnerability to less-than-universal care that the Republicans can exploit -- Obama would be subjected to relentless pressure from Republicans and lobbyists, and would find himself having to cave in, over and over, to get any kind of health care plan passed.  And I predict it'll be sorely wanting in the real health care reform and universal protections that every middle- and lower-class American desperately needs.

Don't give me the one who promises this and that, but whose plans have already set in motion the inevitable path for defeat or severe watering-down from Republicans and lobbyists. GIVE ME THE CHANGE-MAKER!

Originally posted to SusanHu on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:55 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Having had to use our health services .... (24+ / 0-)

    so much this past year, I am passionate about this issue.  It is personal to me.  And you should hear the nurses who cared for me!  They are desperate for universal health care so that the people who end up in hospitals can get preventive care before they need to end up in the ER.

    Tips and comments are welcome!

    •  Susan it's very personal to me too . . . (16+ / 0-)

      It is my only issue, and truth be told, both candidates and plans worry me--alot.

      Let's be honest, even if they won't--we need single payer. Period.

      Can you tell me does Clinton commit to giving us afordable and guaranteed healthcare by the end of her first term?

      I did a diary the other day on Obama's stump speech, he says he will do it by the end of his first term, there were a lot of comments to the effect that Clinton has said her plan will be up and running by the end of her second term.

      Can you clarify this? Or ask the campaign to.

      Thanks.

      •  According to Rashi Fein. (11+ / 0-)

        Clinton's plan is clearly superior because it would achieve universal coverage. It's significantly defective, however, because it doesn't deal with costs on a sustainable basis.  For that, we need a single-payer system.

        Obama's plan doesn't even try for universal coverage, and it, too, doesn't deal adequately with costs.

        Rashi Fein is Professor of Medical Economics, Emeritus, at Harvard Medical School, and co-author of The Health Care Mess; How We Got Into It and What It Will Take To Get Out, from the Harvard University Press.

      •  it's first on her domestic list (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        denise b

        although she's a multi-tasker and she'll be calling forth the experts, professionals, retired professionals on all her priorities, this is simply her first priority. No one can guarantee what congress will look like and how hard it will be to get a bill passed, if either of them promise something that requires congressional support (unlike exiting Iraq) the promises are only intentions and best work. She has the experience getting legislation passed, obviously. the problem with Obama's plan is who is it that can leave themselves out. Everyone' been focusing on fairly affluent self-employed young adults who are libertarian or economic pubs, who will "game the system" if they can opt out. But the most worrisome demographic is the under-employed parents, who'd rather forgo anything to give a bit more to their children. These people are not gamers of systems, they'll more likely avoid treatment all together than show up at some ER when they didn't purchase insurance, under Obama they'll be fined and made to pay back old premiums. That's scary and to my mind heartless. Hers can lead to single payer if enough of us get the government plan, the one that is like medicare.  Hers projects the lowest cost, since those more affluent self-employed's will be caught up when they file income tax returns.  And hers reduces the profits in medical care, which will drive the sharks into new areas to cheat and get rich.  

    •  Because nurses are always the best health care (0+ / 0-)

      finance experts you can find . . .

      The Campaign is Dead. Long Live the Campaign.

      by SteamPunkX on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:58:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Clinton is not proposing (7+ / 0-)

      universal healthcare, and I think you know it.

      She is proposing universal coverage which is entirely different.  Her plan will require people to pay a corporate insurer every single week, but it does nothing to make sure that people will be able to afford what the insurance won't pick up, and it does nothing to make sure they simply won't deny claims.

      If you have information to the contrary, I'd love to see it.

      But the insurance companies have gotten enough of my hard earned dollars already.  Single payer socialized medicine is the only way to go.

      Please explain why Hillary thinks it's okay for insurance companies to make billions in profits off the misery of others.

      "I'd rec you if I could." - cometman

      by cometman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:07:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  And the blogger circle jerk continues... (1+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Inland
    Hidden by:
    NewHampster
  •  For the love of God (19+ / 0-)

    Sometimes I wonder.  It's not a surprise that Karl Rove, David Brooks, George Will, Peggy (yech) Noonan are so besotted with Obama.  They know that Obama will be so easily malleable and controllable, whereas Clinton is a true fighter, and highly experienced in dealing with the brutal attacks and incessant tactics designed to wear down, and water down, the president's plan.

    Just. Stop.

    -dms

    Having trouble finding stuff on Daily Kos? This page has some handy hints and tricks.

    by dmsilev on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:56:05 AM PST

  •  Right (20+ / 0-)

    Senator Hillary Rodham (D-N.Y.) mocked Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) tonight for his high-flown rhetoric, suggesting she would fight important fights when he would back down.

    And where was she during the FISA fight today?

    2+2 = 5 : For Extremely large values of 2

    by Eidolon on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:56:34 AM PST

    •  that is his history, after all (0+ / 0-)

      he talks big and he backs down. Think nuclear power accident reporting legislation, first he waters it down and he still doesn't pass it. Think all those 'present' votes. What has he accomplished other than reading speeches written by JFK''s speechwriter, really well, from a monitor, dressed nice and looking spanking clean?  I don't see anything.

  •  False advertising (19+ / 0-)

    Hillary is NOT promising universal health care. She is instead offering mandatory insurance. As too many Americans are aware, insurance does NOT equal health care. Insurers make a game of finding ways to deny legitimate care and claims to their policyholders.

    Obama's plan sucks, but at least it won't bankrupt millions the way Hillary's plan will.

    Funny you mention nurses. The head of the California Nurses Association wrote a must-read article explaining how mandated insurance is fundamentally a right-wing, neoliberal policy.

    To say that the only way to provide universal health care is to drive people into the arms of private insurers is to close down truly progressive options at the outset. It's about as right-wing as it gets, which is why most mandate plans came originally from Republicans.

    I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

    by eugene on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 09:58:44 AM PST

    •  other nursing unions (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      catfish, Owllwoman, JoeySky18

      have endorsed her.

      "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:00:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  HRC promises us an invoice, not health care. (6+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clonecone, rick, tmo, eugene, evilrick, Tonedevil

      She's indicative of the problem: she sees money going into the pockets of insurance companies as the same thing as health care.

      She voted for the war.

      by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:01:09 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  sorry, eugene. (12+ / 0-)

      you still don't have your facts straight, and it's not for lack of correction. hillary's plan is a combination of public and private insurance. and you're right- there will be some japanese soldier from WW2 out there on an island somewhere who won't get insurance, so it won't cover everybody. it'll cover a lot more than the "sign up if you want to" obama plan, though. about 15 million more.

      Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

      by campskunk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:02:50 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Coverage isn't the point (9+ / 0-)

        People need health care. They need to be able to afford to see a doctor. To get their teeth cleaned. To get an eye exam. To get their twisted ankles set.

        How does Hillary's plan provide for any of that?

        You are assuming merely having insurance guarantees affordable access to all of that, which is a cruel joke for the millions of Americans who know it not to be true.

        I'm not part of a redneck agenda - Green Day

        by eugene on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:05:50 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It does with various subsidies. (0+ / 0-)

          If she's calling it a human right ---that means the state is going to play an ever incresing role in her plan.

          "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

          by Salo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:08:37 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But nobody knows how much. She won't say. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            clonecone, tmo, brklyngrl

            She sweetens the invoice with subsidies, which she won't even estimate.  That means we've got an unlimited government payout to insurance companies in exchange for health care to be named later.

            I don't understand why anyone would be EXCITED by this pig in a poke.

            She voted for the war.

            by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:11:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  oh dear. (0+ / 0-)

              If she's a s big a scoailist as the republicans fear she'll increase state involvment  massively.

              "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

              by Salo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:13:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I am (0+ / 0-)

              When my COBRA runs out in September, I'm going to be looking at something like $10K/yr for the only policy I'll be able to get due to preexisting conditions. If I could get into the federal employees plans, as Clinton proposes, I would get MUCH better coverage at MUCH lower cost. It would save me from having to spend my life savings on health insurance while waiting to be eligible for Medicare. If we wait for single payer, I and millions of people in the same boat may get no help for many years. I would be ecstatic if Clinton's plan was enacted.

              Most of the problems with insurance companies can be dealt with by more regulation.

              "There -- it's -- you know, one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." --GWB

              by denise b on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:14:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Eugene, there always has to a place to start. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          denise b, Lashe

          I am not going out tomorrow and run a marathon if I haven't trained for it.  After all of the years that insurance and pharma have increased their political will on Congress, it is not going to be an overnight fix.  If all Americans can at least get coverage for health care, that at least is a start.  But any plan better have some good solid teeth to make insurance providers not able to turn away those in need, can not drop someone for getting ill, if that can be done, it is a start.

          Everyone wants instant this and instant that.  Universal healthcare for a population of 300, 000,000 people will be a huge undertaking.  

          You won't get the perfect health care plan all at once, it would/will be like herding cats to even get a start on universal, single payer in Congress.  It is going to take steps, and we are going to have to push and shove for each and every one.  Is that fair?  No, and no one ever told me life would be fair.

          Even John Edwards plan, and the best one by far, would have many roadblocks thrown in its way to getting done.  It would never have been implemented overnight and maybe not even in one term.

      •  Since when (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tmo, eugene

        is extorting payment for overpriced coverage from those who don't want it a liberal goal?

        Make up the funding gap with progressive taxation, not regressive mandates.

        Mandates are not necessary to handling free riders. Either a fixed window for enrollment, or financial (dis)incentives, can encourage enrollment without mandating it.

        The goal is to pass a plan that makes health care more affordable. Electively including unnecessary mandates hurts that goal by alienating people who might otherwise back health care reform. Obama will be more able to work with Congress to deliver health care reform.  

        •  What makes this mandate different? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          linnen, denise b

          Does Obama favor allowing me to opt out of SS? What about auto insurance? This are both big ticket items that are mandated.

          Am I not forced to deal with those bastards at All State, State Farm, and so forth for my auto insurance (and home owners insurance which the finance companies mandates). Just how different is healthcare? I would bet dollars to doughnuts that there is just as much competition in healthcare insurance as there is in auto insurance.

          •  Nobody mandates you get auto insurance (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eugene

            for yourself -- your minimum required coverage is for the guy you hit (and his car).

            SS is presented as a "saving for retirement" plan. It's not, I agree, but that's why people are willing to pay in. Ditto Medicare, which young workers already pay into. Trying to sell a new mandate for health insurance isn't going to fly politically.

          •  Apples and oranges, then apples and something... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eugene

            ...that isn't even a fruit.

            Social security isn't insurance. Fundamentally different forces are at work here--no one profits from social security, a mandate there doesn't force you to give money to anyone but the government for any purpose but distribution to protected citizens.

            I'm sorry, but in my view insurance companies are the problem, and they shouldn't be codified into the system. Regardless of whose healthplan we support, it should be a move toward a single-payer system. Obama's plan places ever-increasing regulations on insurance companies, expands government-paid healthcare, and does it without validating them the way Clinton's plan does.

            I'm okay with restricting my personal freedom for the benefit of my community, but not for the benefit of Aetna.

          •  You can choose to not drive a car (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            eugene

            Geez, am I tired of seeing this analogy! Auto insurance isn't even CLOSE to health insurance. You can choose not to drive a car. You can choose a less expensive car that will cost less to insure. You can choose to live in a less car-burglary prone area that will again cost less to insure.

            You can't choose to not have a body. And you can't choose to have a less expensive body, like if you were born with a life-threatening disease, or if you sustained a traumatic head injury (like my mother-in-law) that will need treatment for the rest of your life. Big difference.

            And your social security dollars don't go straight into a corporation's profit and loss statement. Again, big difference.

            A word after a word after a word is power. -- Margaret Atwood

            by tmo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 12:45:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  He says not all should get health care (0+ / 0-)

      only people who have insurance should get health care. But he says some may not want to buy insurance.

    •  Serious question regarding "private insurers" - (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      eugene, Lashe

      The company I work for has a fully funded pension plan and provides health insurance. The company gathers several bids from various providers and allows employees to select a level of coverage. The company offers their own plan and in the past self-funded medical plans when that was the most economical option. In short, there was and is competition.

      How does a mandate in and of itself drive everyone to an insurer tht is over priced? Edwards and Hillary (and I believe Obama) all offered assistance programs for the low income and Edwards offered the the ability to opt for a government plan. It seems to me that this effectively increases competition and would advantage me (a person with a healthcare plan that I pay a portion of the cost with my employer covering roughly 3/4's of the cost) due to competition driving costs lower. Also there are economies of scale in all business models I am aware of so that a system with more members benefits (assuming of course that you don't want to exclude those with medical "risks" and lower costs by covering only a pool of healthy individuals).

    •  false indeed (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clonecone, eugene

      Clintons "plan" is not for universal health care, but for universal profits for the insurance companies.  The only thing that it guarantees is that the insurance companies will take 10-20% off the top of every dollar that goes to actual health care.  And then there's another guaranteed 10-20% for big pharma.

      Sure there's a "expanded medicare" cop out . . . but all that means is that the high-cost cases get passed on to the taxpayers, leaving even more gravy for the "mandate insurers".

      The "Clinton plan" is a welfare plan . . . welfare for the insurance companies.

      None of which is to say that the "Obama plan" is any better . . . just to say that the "Clinton plan" is not just flawed, but fundamentally wrong.

    •  this is a stange new talking point? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linnen

      Is Obama suggesting you say that having insurance is'nt the same as getting sick and going to a doctor? This is very weird.  

  •  The future of health care (5+ / 0-)

    depends a lot more on the configuration of Congress than on which Democrat is in the White House.

    I don't want to say that the candidate's campaign health care proposals are completely irrelevant, but they are a lot less important than many seem to think.    

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by johnny rotten on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:00:03 AM PST

  •  it's universal because... (5+ / 0-)

    ...because....because they SAY it is! honest, all those self-employed young adults are gonna run out and sign up voluntarily! every one of them!

    Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

    by campskunk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:00:06 AM PST

  •  "provides universal coverage" (8+ / 0-)

    Is not the same as universal healthcare. "universal coverage" means everything is covered for the individual.

    And you called him a liar because you don't understand the most basic of terminology in healthcare?

    Another low diary.

    •  It's mandatory insurance, as eugene points out (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      john al jr

      what you get for your bill is one of those things that HRC is going to work out with the insurance companies later.

      She voted for the war.

      by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:03:54 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh i know.. (0+ / 0-)

        .. I was mainly pointing the part "The dishonesty is not stopping Obama. Now he's got a false radio ad" was comparing apples and oranges. The add days coverage, the diarist was saying he was dishonest because his plan isn't universal healthcare, clearly they are separate phrases, with completely different meanings.

  •  Obama: He'll say anything and change nothing. N/T (5+ / 0-)

    -5.38/-3.74 I've suffered for my country. Now it's your turn! --John McCain with apologies to Monty Python's "Protest Song"

    by Rich in PA on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:01:20 AM PST

    •  Very well reasoned. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, Tonedevil, redcardphreek

      I see you've done your homework to support that use of universals.

      The Campaign is Dead. Long Live the Campaign.

      by SteamPunkX on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:02:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Other than your snide and dirisive comments (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        linnen

        to others, where is your well written discussion on your preferred health care plan?

        •  It's spelled "dErisive" (0+ / 0-)

          This isn't well-written, unless you count propaganda as well-written.  It's facty & truthy.  Other commenters have done a fine job of destroying this drivel, I didn't feel it was worth my time.

          Here's a question for you: have you actually compared the two candidates proposals for yourself?  I did, and I made my own decision.  This crap "appeal to authority" that so many clinton posters are engaged in doesn't impress me.

          The Campaign is Dead. Long Live the Campaign.

          by SteamPunkX on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 11:29:41 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  HRC's 35 years of change on health care!!!!! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clonecone, Tonedevil, john al jr

      Picks it up in 93, botches it, puts it down, picks it up again in Nov 2007, and will put it down after March.

      35 years of spinning her wheels.

      She voted for the war.

      by Inland on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:05:45 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is the kind of talk that is killing (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zbctj52, stitchmd, Montague, Lashe, Rumarhazzit

        democrats. Hillary failed to get universal health care in 93. She backed away from it and tackled it in other small, incremental ways -- SCHIP, FMLA, Veterans' health insurance, first responders care. She's been working to address the health care problem in America since forever. And it is shameful for Obama supporters to attack her for this because it damages the chances of any change in our health insurance access being made.

        If you'd been denied access to health insurance because you were sick you'd understand that insurance companies are the arbiters of life and death, of wealth and poverty and it's time for that to change.

  •  Yes let's have Hillary (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, Inland

    try to ram through her plan once again by force of will alone like she tried in the 90's and set back getting it done a few more election cycles.

  •  Why do all the Clinton diaries (6+ / 0-)

    point me to opinion writers while the Obama diaries point me to polls, money and endorsements?

    The Campaign is Dead. Long Live the Campaign.

    by SteamPunkX on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:02:05 AM PST

  •  It is disingenuous of Obama to claim his (6+ / 0-)

    heathcare plan is universal. It is not. Hillary should call him on it everytime he says it...

    I proudly support Hillary Clinton for President...

    by Rumarhazzit on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:02:16 AM PST

  •  Mittencare (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    clonecone, rick, brklyngrl, john al jr

    Basically the same thing Romney passed in Mass...and free money to the big insurance companies.  No thanks.

    OH-16: John Boccieri will finally end 36 years of Regula Rule.

    by marcvstraianvs on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:03:53 AM PST

    •  nope. (6+ / 0-)

      the massachusetts plan was all private. hillary's in a public/private mix, with the pubic competing with private to hold costs down. little thing you missed ;-)

      Hillary 2008 - Flying Monkey Squadron 283

      by campskunk on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:06:16 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mittencare is Obamacare (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lashe, Rumarhazzit

      with a mandate.

      Hillarycare, OTOH, makes public insurance central to her policy. Obama, not so much. He has gone back and forth on his public option.

      If your goal is to opt-out, by all means, Obama's plan is superior. It's far more expensive per new enrollee, too, so the opt-out thing makes sense.

      •  Yes, the opt out thing is great for young (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Pacific John, linnen, Abby Kelleyite

        healthy folk who feel invinceable - until they're not. Suddenly healthcare looks pretty good, and with no "pre-existing condition" clauses to stop them, they will enroll when they need it, not before. How will Obama's plan treat these people who are suddenly in need of healthcare? Everytime he's asked about it he stumbles, fumbles, and mutters something about "penalties." I like Hillary's plan better - everybody in.

        I proudly support Hillary Clinton for President...

        by Rumarhazzit on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:16:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's not only young people who opt out. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Rumarhazzit

          In my business, I work with a number of contractors - successful contractors. It's very common to hear, "why should I buy insurance, I've never been sick a day in my life."

          Now, with my own younger employees, I can't even get them to fill out the damn forms, even though I pay for it, and it is free to them. A large portion of the time, my kids won't sign up for free insurance until the get injured, sick or pregnant.

          •  Pacific John .... right on (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            linnen

            My company offers a basic, no cost to the employee plan. It is not much of a plan but it is "free". Most younger employees take this option. Most also do not participate in our generous 401K plan and those that do seldom take advantage of the full company match. Because early participation is so key in any retirement plan the company is debating making participation mandatory.

  •  The change maker... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    forrest, Kitsap River, Lashe

    was pushed out early in the primaries  - that of course was the champion for single-payer, medicare for all (H.R. 676) who was not even allowed to participate in the "health care" debate sponsored by health insurance provider/profiteer AARP.

    Unfortunately, single-payer is not on the table wrt our two candidate left standing and we are all the pooer for it.


    `````
    peace

    "Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind" — JFK

    by peace voter on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:04:03 AM PST

  •  H.R. 676 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    forrest

    There it is, folks. The answer to the problem. Call your critter. You'll be glad you did, someday.

  •  Good job Susan, Rec'd (4+ / 0-)

    Those of us in the Medicial profession, and those who gain experience through illness, know Hillarys plan is superior. No one is listening through. Group think has taken over.

    "Though the Mills of the Gods grind slowly,Yet they grind exceeding small."

    by Owllwoman on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:11:58 AM PST

  •  Experience with Failure (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    john al jr

    Hillary set out to fix the health care system in the 90s. The result, today, is nothing short of a disaster.

    She failed because she couldn't (or wouldn't) stand up to the corporations and lobbyists.

    Expecting Hillary to go up again the corporations and lobbyist is like expecting Dianne Feinstein to vote against Mukasey's or Roberts' confirmation. Ain't gonna happen.

    With that kind of "experience" I'll take my chances with Obama.

  •  IMO we won't get100% Obamacare or Hillarycare (0+ / 0-)

    So there is no real point to this argument.

    There will be changes made to both plans, and we will endup with a mishmash of the two with some horrible stuff we haven't even thought about thrown in to make it palatable for big pharma and the insurance industry.

    But this will still be better than what we have now, and what we would get under the republicans. It is a start. We will at least be going down the right path.

    My jaded opinion is, unfortunately, getting sick in America will still cost more than anywhere else in the world, and there will still be people left to fend for themselves. There is still way too much money to be made in America with the status quo, and the status quo still wields alot of power.

    Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

    by Sherri in TX on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:28:57 AM PST

    •  Teh mandates (0+ / 0-)

      are the honey to make the medecine go done.

      Once there is a public programme (in exchange for mandates)that people can access people will abandon the piratatic insutrance firms in droves.

      "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

      by Salo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:41:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree with that point (0+ / 0-)

        which is why, in the end, I'm going with Obama. I think he will be able to pull more votes in the election, getting a bigger mandate.

        I also think the rightwing media will have alot harder time attacking Obama on this issue, than they would Hillary, and there is a greater chance that he will be able to pass a better bill. Hillary and Healthcare in the same sentence makes rwingers go nuts. I'm counting on Obama's leadership/speaking skills to be the difference in what kind of bill we get.

        IMO, More time will be spent tearing Hillary down, that getting something done, if she is elected. It's an unfortumate truth that has nothing to do with her abilities.

        Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

        by Sherri in TX on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:54:15 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly .... so why open with a weaker program? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linnen

      I do not see how Obama can take a lesser position then negotiate/bargain something better with the republicans (who basically want nothing). Seems to me that you end up with some half-assed program that noone likes.

  •  the problem with obama's healthcare (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    linnen, Salo, Lashe

    My issue with Obama's healthcare is that all he does is criticize hers for not being good enough, but is not offering a solution himself.
    And Clinton's proposal is not good enough, but it's better than what he has put on the table.
    In theory I like a single-payer system, but let's be realistic, it will fall flat on its face.  Americans are weary of anything with even a whiff of socialism.

  •  oh for a Hawk who'll do SinglePayer (0+ / 0-)

    Like Nye.

    "It's a race to decide who the British goverment will follow blindly for the next 4 years" Kennedy/Kerry '08

    by Salo on Tue Feb 12, 2008 at 10:42:39 AM PST

  •  I knew it wouldn't last. Back to crap. (0+ / 0-)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site