Hillary Campaign Demands Obama Take Down Ad, Accuses Him Of False Advertising

Comments (67)

brewmn wrote on November 30, 2007 12:08 PM:

I don't know about the "politics of hope," but the politics of "slime and whine" are very much alive, thanks to Hillary.

Apparently, it's not enough to disagree with your oppoenent. You must also accuse them of criminal conduct as well.

Michael wrote on November 30, 2007 12:11 PM:

It's that right-wing attack machine from clinton II. She sure is a good republican.

Keith wrote on November 30, 2007 12:12 PM:

Can you smell that? Desperation....

DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 12:13 PM:

That is so silly I almost find it charming.

Anyway, as I pointed out elsewhere: obviously Clinton has calculated that she needs to drive down her rivals' scores on issues like honesty and ethics to match her own. So, I expect we will continue to see this sort of thing over and over.

tt wrote on November 30, 2007 12:19 PM:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Mandates and Mudslinging

I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security “crisis.” Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

pk wrote on November 30, 2007 12:23 PM:

Krugman wants another shot at a post in a Clinton administration. I guess he's forgotten that it was Hillary that prevented him from getting it in Clinton I.

His stridency in campaigning for Hillary in recent weeks, not to mention his complete turnaround on social security (and his refusal to address said turnaround) is telling.

Seth H. wrote on November 30, 2007 12:30 PM:

He's saying it'll cover everyone who can't afford it, she's saying that's not covering everyone, which is true. A lot of people in this country have more than enough money to get health insurance, so much money, in fact, that they'd rather just pay for their health care than put up with the headache of an insurance company. She's criticizing Obama's plan for not making sure they have insurance, too? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Keith wrote on November 30, 2007 12:31 PM:

The way this debate is shaping up, people forget that there is a very interested party that hasn't really been consulted: health insurance companies. They are going to be the ones tasked with providing insurance and my guess is, as a for-profit business, they are going to want to make a PROFIT doing so. The president of AETNA is all for mandates, provided that the government scales way back on the mandatory coverages. So you'll have insurance, just not very much of it.

Arguing about mandates without talking about the other half of the equation is misrepresenting the realities.

Allsburg wrote on November 30, 2007 12:38 PM:

I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking this is a tactical mistake by Clinton. All it does is draw attention to an actual policy position of Obama, and how Clinton would rather whine about it than talk about her own policies.

DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 12:39 PM:

The other subtext to all this, which Krugman avoids discussing, is that actual enforcement of an insurance mandate is not just about enrollment, it is about paying the premiums (because the economic benefits of making healthy people get insurance won't arise if they aren't actually paying for it).

So you can bet that certain people are just licking their chops in anticipation of saying that mandates mean wage garnishment, or worse. And that is a large part of why cobbling together "universal" health care with insurance mandates may not be such a smart idea.

poetry wrote on November 30, 2007 12:43 PM:

Barack Obama is being UN-truthful about his own healthcare plan and UN-truthful about the healthcare plans of his Democratic rivals.

And, sad to note, Obama is using Republican talking points to UNFAIRLY and INACCURATELY bash his Democratic rivals.

Here's how Paul Krugman -- who knows more about economics than any of you Obama-apologists do-- sees it.

---------------------------------------------------------
"Mandates and Mudslinging"

by PAUL KRUGMAN
The New York Times
November 30, 2007

[excerpt]

Second, Mr. Obama claims that mandates won't work, pointing out that many people don't have car insurance despite state requirements that all drivers be insured. Um, is he saying that states shouldn't require that drivers have insurance? If not, what's his point?

Look, law enforcement is sometimes imperfect. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement: "Their essential argument," he says, "is the only way to get everybody covered is if the government forces you to buy health insurance. If you don't buy it, then you'll be penalized in some way."

Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama's bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don't have insurance, they won't be penalized -- they'll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.

That's actually a terrific idea -- not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don't know it.

poetry wrote on November 30, 2007 12:44 PM:

Sorry, here's the link to the Krugman column:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

donna L. wrote on November 30, 2007 1:01 PM:

This posturing by the Clintons on healthcare is just a distraction from the biggest issue facing this country -- IRAQ. Of course the Clintons want to change the subject -- so people do not focus on the fact that they BOTH supported this insane, futile war. What better occassion to "turn up the heat" on healthcare mandates when you don't want people to notice that Bill is now lying about his position on the war!

Any healthcare plan that has been proposed is going to be subject to revision and compromise during the legislative process. If any healthcare proposal actually makes it through congress, it sure as hell won't be exactly what ANY of the candidates are now proposing. Details will change -- including mandates.

So please folks, let's stop falling for more Clinton bullshit and demand accountability from them on the most urgent problem -- what to do about IRAQ and the on-going "war" against terrorism. If we keep draining our coffers in Iraq and then continue with the same beligerant, stupid foreign policy in Iran -- that the CLINTONS have endorsed, there won't even be any money let to enact universal healthcare in this country. Here is another thought: perhaps failure on healthcare is the Clintons' true intention. It happened last time they had power, and its likely to happen again if we are stupid enough to give them a second chance.

DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 1:01 PM:

poetry,

As I noted elsewhere, Krugman is an excellent economist, but his political commentary is highly suspect.

And again, his response to enforcing mandates simply does not address the issue, even as he explains it. Here is what he says about mandates:

"Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it."

OK, so the key to making mandates work is making sure "everyone pays in, even if they're currently healthy." But how do you enforce that? Does automatic enrollment solve that problem?

Of course not. Automatic enrollment doesn't mean people have to pay the premiums, and paying the premiums are what means everyone is paying in even when they are healthy.

So automatic enrollment is a red herring. The question remains what, if anything, you are going to do to force people to pay those premiums. And that is a very scary question from a political perspective.

jds wrote on November 30, 2007 1:05 PM:

HILLARY IS THE DISHONEST ONE!

HILLARY'S PLAN DOESN'T "COVER" ANYBODY!

Her plan is to make us all "cover" our own butts by just making us buy insurance!

morris1030 wrote on November 30, 2007 1:09 PM:

Regarding Obama's flawed Healthplan: he has been deceptive about this and I ask that you read Paul Krugman's OPED piece in today's NY Times that takes his plan apart and compares its flaws against both Hillary & Edwards plan which cover All.

Obama's plan categorically leaves millions uncovered, and he dishonestly accuses HRC of something He is actually proposing himself. Krugman points out that he is using talking points from the GOP playbook. Of course, Obama is confusing the issue and blaming HRC through misinformation and deception.

I strongly urge readers to see today's Krugman's NYTimes article on this.

.

poetry wrote on November 30, 2007 1:18 PM:

DTM:

Everyone pays into Social Security.

Right?

Furthermore, the administrative costs to run the Social Security program are one-half of one percent.

Show me any private health insurer who has such low administrative or overhead costs.

Krugman adds:

- - -

And it's not just a matter of principle. As a practical matter, letting people opt out if they don't feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else.

Here's why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance -- then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn't turn them away, because Mr. Obama's plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.

As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn't sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.

In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that "the reason people don't have health insurance isn't because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it," he's saying something that is mostly true now -- but wouldn't be true under his plan.
- - -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

NamelessFaceless wrote on November 30, 2007 1:19 PM:

Holy smokes. People keep on bringing up Krugman's piece even after people have already discussed it repeatedly in this very thread. We are aware. We just disagree with him.

Jan wrote on November 30, 2007 1:19 PM:

DTM, sorry but your post is unbelievably uninformed. Start with your own "OK..." and go from there.

Why don't you just go to any web site (but Obama's) and see how all the other candidates answer your questions about universal healthcare?
The answers are THERE.

I'll give you one push in the right direction:
Right now we spend BY FAR more in healthcare than any other developed nation; and, after spending the MOST, we also have the WORST healthcare of any of those developed nations!

PART of the problem is that people w/out insurance go to emergency rooms. So, EVEN IF WE JUST FRIGGIN' HAND THEM THE MONEY FOR THEIR PREMIUMS, our NET COSTS as a nation will drop dramatically.

And, again, that's just the BEGINNING of all the details that are available to you on each candidate's website.

Why ask us your string of questions when you could so easily find out the answers for yourself?

destor23 wrote on November 30, 2007 1:21 PM:

Fine, but then both Clinton and Edwards should take down all of their healthcare advertisements until they explain how they'll enforce their mandates.

This should cut both ways. If Clinton and Edwards don't have an enforcement mechanism then there plans aren't universal either.

RalphB wrote on November 30, 2007 1:21 PM:

Barack Obana: a 'reformer with results' uh uh a 'uniter, not a divider'. Oh I forgot, that was that W guy.

I wish the Obama supporters could just admit that he's running Bush's campaign from 2000. Empty rhetoric and trust me BS. It's really pathetic that people seem to be falling for another one.

destor23 wrote on November 30, 2007 1:24 PM:

Whoops, Edwards is in the clear. He'll enforce his mandate by just signing people up when they file their taxes or if they show up at a doctor's office. How will Hillary enforce?

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on November 30, 2007 1:25 PM:

I cannot stand it when any one in my party acts like a thug. Senator Clinton lost this round with me.

RL wrote on November 30, 2007 1:29 PM:

It's inevitable in these threads that SOME HILLARY SUPPORTER will wade in and YELL AT EVERYONE in ALL CAPS to SETTLE DOWN and just toe the HILLARY LINE.

They all seem EERILY SIMILAR. As if all written in the bowels of the HILLARY SMEAR MACHINE CAVE, er headquarters. As if a THOUSAND HILLARY MONKEYS are seated at a THOUSAND KEYBOARDS.

DonnaG wrote on November 30, 2007 1:29 PM:

Um, I think that when Obama says he has a plan to cover everyone, he is speaking of long term. It would be good for folks to listen to his words on the trail when he is asked about this and speaks of being pragmatic in beginning at a certain level and working toward universal health care.

Hillary cannot take his ad out of that context without appearing dishonest. And, yes, I personally am furious with the idea of her idea of creating a new bunch of poor folks beset by the government if they cannot pay for insurance under her insurance industry friendly plan.

Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 1:33 PM:

The Washington Post reported, "For people who want to get health insurance and make an effort to do so, Clinton and Obama have almost exactly the same plan: increasing the number of poor who can qualify for Medicaid, offering tax credits or subsidies for people who need help paying their health care bills and requiring insurance companies to offer everyone coverage, with the government subsidizing those who can't pay the full amount. So the 15 million people without insurance under Obama's plan would be a combination of relatively well-off people who choose not to purchase health insurance and people who qualify for public programs like Medicaid who don't sign up. It could be a struggle for Clinton to find someone who wants health insurance but doesn't qualify under the Obama plan, because it's not clear such a person exists."

poetry wrote on November 30, 2007 1:36 PM:

Allsburg :

You wrote: "Clinton would rather whine about it than talk about her own policies."

That is absolutely not the case.

I watched a program during which she explained her healthcare program in great detail.

Here's the transcript: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/101807_presforum_clinton.pdf

Here is some info on the forums:

"The Presidential Candidate Forums, organized by the Federation of American Hospitals and Families USA, feature candidates being interviewed by a panel of prominent journalists from ABC News, National Public Radio, the Wall Street Journal, and the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer. The forums, taking place at the Kaiser Family Foundation's Barbara Jordan Conference Center, will be taped for broadcast by MacNeil-Lehrer productions and webcast by kaisernetwork, Kaiser's health news and information service."
http://presidentialforums.health08.org/

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Upcoming Live Webcasts
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.)
TBA

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.)
TBA

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas)
TBA

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.)
TBA

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Archives (transcripts are available at: http://tinyurl.com/2jzhvu )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Gov. Bill Richardson (D-N.M.)
November 19, 2007

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
October 31, 2007

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.)
October 25, 2007

Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio)
October 25, 2007

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.)
October 18, 2007

Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.)
September 24, 2007

poetry wrote on November 30, 2007 1:42 PM:

Anonymous:

How about the "people who qualify for public programs like Medicaid [but] who don't sign up" because they are unaware they qualify?

At least Edwards has a plan to "automatically" enroll the uninsured "in an insurance plan."

Krugman: "Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama's bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don't have insurance, they won't be penalized -- they'll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html

colonpowwow wrote on November 30, 2007 1:47 PM:

AlwaysTiptheWaitress wrote on November 30, 2007 1:25 PM:
"I cannot stand it when any one in my party acts like a thug. Senator Clinton lost this round with me."

I can just tell be your handle (and your posts) that you were champing at the bit to vote for Senator Clinton up until now.

Oh, and now we've all gone and messed up and lost you with our bulliful bullying bullsquat. What will we ever do now? Boo freakin' hoo!

moondancer wrote on November 30, 2007 1:49 PM:

I'm praying for torpedoes to the Clinton juggernaut. I have to think the dems have enough sense to help scuttle this GOP-lite candidate.

GordonsGirl wrote on November 30, 2007 1:50 PM:

The point that many are missing is that Obama's trying to be fiscally responsible. He has put forward a sensible solution to a tremendously difficult problem.

Clinton has yet to explain precisely how she's going to fund her program. How DO you force insurance on those who can't afford it? It reminds me of Bush's tax savings accounts. If you don't have $2,000 to put into it, no health insurance.

I agree that these attacks could seriously backfire. Let's see how the Obama campaign handles it. In the meantime, this is a classic example of what we can expect if Clinton's the nominee - attacking the opponent rather than explanations of how she'd actually govern. She almost makes Bush 43 look transparent.

DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 1:50 PM:

poetry,

It would indeed be possible to propose a new payroll tax that would be used to pay for universal health insurance that people would automatically get. That is not, however, the plan being promoted by Clinton or Edwards.

Jan,

Again, it would indeed be possible to give everyone a subsidy/credit which they could use to pay their health insurance premiums. That is also not, however, the plan being promoted by Clinton or Edwards.

destor23,

But the problem is not really enrollment, but rather actually making healthy people who did not voluntarily purchase health insurance pay the premiums. Has Edwards explained how he would enforce premium payments?

By the way, with or without a mandate, automatic enrollment for any eligible public programs is a good idea.

Michael wrote on November 30, 2007 1:56 PM:

Actually, I am disappointed in all the dem plans. The only way universal healthcare will work is to cut insurance companies out of the action and expand medicaid to cover all. Otherwise, it won't work and ends up being an insurance company welfare program. In addition, having the government run the program will help industry and help increase the health and well-being of americans in general. By way of example, just look at what is going on in the western european countries.

Who will accomplish this? Definitely not clinton II. She is owned by the insurance industry. She would never do it. Obama might and so might any of the other candidates, but not clinton II. Sooo, Anybody But Clinton II if you want health care for all.

destor23 wrote on November 30, 2007 2:00 PM:

DTM,

Yeah, you're right that the problem is making healthy people pay even if they'd rather opt out. I'm not sure where I come down on that, though. Obama might well argue that in his plan, not forcing such people to pay is a feature, not a bug. A lot of people might agree. Americans don't like to be told what to do.

Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 2:03 PM:

Insurance companies still have to make profits. I suspect what happens is there will be some BASIC coverage provided to everyone, but an explosive growth in supplemental insurance. Are any of the candidates talking about that aspect?

Social security provides minimal retirement benefits, and I suspect that's what's going to happen with universal health coverage. Until you take profits out of health care, we aren't ever going to have universal health care in the way that most of you are contemplating.

DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 2:09 PM:

destor23,

Of course, Krugman is right that any health insurance system which lets some people opt out, no matter how affordable you make it, is likely to lead to higher premiums for the remaining people. That is because healthy people will be more likely to opt out of any such system.

On the other hand, as you note forcing people to pay premiums for health insurance that they did not voluntarily choose may be very unpopular.

So, there really is not a simple solution to this problem (unless of course you are willing to dump the individual insurance model entirely, which is not an unreasonable proposal).

Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 2:48 PM:

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/30/post_2.php

votenic wrote on November 30, 2007 2:51 PM:

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

The Only Poll That Matters.

Results Posted Every Tuesday Evening.

poetry wrote on November 30, 2007 3:02 PM:

GordonsGirl wrote on November 30, 2007 1:50 PM:

"Clinton has yet to explain precisely how she's going to fund her program."

--

Have you made any effort to find out (or is complaining just easier?)?

Here, again, is the transcript to the Presidential Healthcare Forum where Hillary Clinton explained in detail how she would pay for the plan: http://www.kaisernetwork.org/health_cast/uploaded_files/101807_presforum_clinton.pdf

pacc wrote on November 30, 2007 3:24 PM:

O-Bomb-A is lying about “preconditions”

O-Bomb-A is lying about his attack Pakistan plan.

O-Bomb-A is lying when he denies repeatedly saying “Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in southeast Asia”

O-Bomb-A is lying about Social Security

O-Bomb-A is lying about Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan

and

O-Bomb-A is lying about his own healthcare plan.

Paul Krugman's argument against O-Bomb-A includes: "he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points."

Kae wrote on November 30, 2007 3:39 PM:

O-Bomb-A is lying when he denies repeatedly saying “Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in southeast Asia”

So, what, Obama has more experience in foreign relations apart from living overseas for four years? Wouldn't that be a... good thing?

Ah well, I guess it is good that a fair and impartial observer can make such claims. -K

jcr wrote on November 30, 2007 3:54 PM:

Senator Clinton is my Senator (NY), and I don't care how good her healthcare plan is (her current one is copied from Edwards). She can say anything she wants, and she will never get my vote. Dems need to take responsibility for the Bush fiasco--and when the country needed her the most, she didn't just keep quiet, she actively supported Bush's policies just so that she could appear "tough." In NY, she supported R candidates and when Lieberman was in trouble, she sent Bill to campaign for him. For many, she has already ruined her political career. She and Bill should go away. No more cynicism, triangulation, and lies.

Anonymous wrote on November 30, 2007 4:52 PM:

Actually this is just a political stunt, he says he has a plan to cover everyone . . . which, to the extent, they elect to participate, they are eligible for coverage. The ad is factually and substantively accurate.

DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 5:01 PM:

I actually found my answer:

"For the few people who refuse to pay, the government will help collect back premiums with interest and collection costs by using tools like the ones it uses for student loans and taxes, including collection agencies and wage garnishment."

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20071128-health-care-mandate/

I applaud Edwards for his honesty, although I think this is a bad idea on the substance.

vdomeras wrote on November 30, 2007 5:08 PM:

Clinton and Edwards have plans that allow Medicare to compete with private providers and it has a mandate that all will have coverage. Obama's plan doesn't have either. If he were as smart and transparent as he claims to be he would either explain why his plan is better for the country or make adjustments to it, rather than stubbornly stick with the plan that the insurance companies would hope to get as a compromise with Edwards or Clinton.

DTM wrote on November 30, 2007 5:30 PM:

vdomeras,

Why do you think insurance companies would object to a mandate in which the government automatically enrolled people in their insurance plans and then used collection agencies and wage garnishment to make sure those companies got their premium payments?

I suspect a lot of industries would appreciate that sort of mandate ("Here is your mandatory new car. The IRS will be collecting your new car payments from your wages, or sending a collection agency around if you do not have wages. Have a nice day!").

Keith wrote on November 30, 2007 6:51 PM:

At the end of the day, I think the differences come down to: can you attract more bees with vinegar or honey? Obama is arguing honey; Clinton/Edwards are arguing vinegar.

kjoe wrote on November 30, 2007 7:56 PM:

Is Hillary still running that ad on trust or healthcare or whatever it was---the one where she has the guy in his forties getting a bone marrow transplant for her son-----because all he had to do was CALL HER?

JC wrote on November 30, 2007 8:52 PM:

why did krugman and hillary start this one?
how will she ever get the votes?
how will it be enforced?
what about defaulters?
what about mandated coverage?
i wish she had pushed for a real debate on the issue instead of just calling obama a liar.

NCSteve wrote on November 30, 2007 8:53 PM:

I'm sorry, but arguing about which of these three plans is best is ridiculous. Whatever we get, it isn't going to look much like any of them, though it may well take pieces out of all of them.

First, Congress passes plans, not the President and I guaren-damn-tee you that whoever wins, whatever Congress passes will not look much like what was proposed.

Second, all three of these plans are more cautious than what will be passed in 2009-10. Although all of us dirty f'ing hippies commenting on the blogs are ready for single payer, here's a little call from the clue phone: most of the independents, and a substantial minority of the "don't always vote in the primary" type Democrats aren't. I know some of us think that the netroots alone can win elections without any help from those wishy-washy ol' self-described moderate GDI's, but I think Senator Lamont might take issue with that.

By January 20, 2009, the country as a whole's view on what's best will almost certainly be different. Once they buy into electing a Democrat president again, they'll be more ready to buy into our vision in general, especially as things continue to get worse under our current train wreck. By then, they may well be in "for god's sake make the private insureance pain end and just give us the goddam socialism already" mode. But you can't just spring it on them because I can tell you they just aren't there yet.

That's the point of all three plans. If you let the R's wave the red flag of dirty Swedish socialized medicine at us in the debates, the GDI's, after the last thirty years of Republican operant conditioning, will respond like Pavlov's dogs.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on November 30, 2007 9:53 PM:

Clinton's critticism is a good one. Obama needs to stop claiming universal coverage while 5 to 10% of Americans will fall through the cracks in his plan . . . AND

Clinton needs to cease lying to the American people and register her party affiliaton as Republican . . .

Truth in advertising can be a bitch.

Jen wrote on December 1, 2007 3:56 AM:

The LA Times is reporting that under Hillary's plan, family coverage could cost about $12,000/yr.

Yes - $12,000 per year.

According to the US Census Bureau, the median HOUSEHOLD income in this country is about $46,000/year (GROSS), and she wants families to spend $12,000 on just healthcare insurance?

Is she crazy? That's $1,000/month.

She is so out of touch, it is ridiculous. Voters ask for affordable healthcare and she proposes a healthcare police state where we will be fined for not purchasing her ridiculously expensive plan.

I actually WANT Hillary to keep up with her very public argument about MANDATES. People don't like being FORCED to do anything. She will go down in flames.

Democrats' battle shifts to healthcare:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-health1dec01,0,246288,full.story?coll=la-home-center

DemAC wrote on December 1, 2007 12:33 PM:

Michael,
The stupid lie that Hillary Clinton somehow be in bed with the insurance companies will not be any truer because it’s repeated tirelessly by disingenuous people. This is the very same insurance industry that spent something 70 million dollars in the nineties to smear Hillary Clinton when she began to lead the fight for universal health care.

If you for once would bother to pull your head out of your ass to check the facts you’d soon discover, much like everybody else who has checked the facts, that there is nothing in her Senate voting record or Hillary's American Health Choices Plan to suggest that sort of connection.

Now, on a strictly personal note, I have personal experience from single payer systems in Europe and I’m all for it, these systems for the most part work excellently. However, as things currently stand in the US, for the moment I really think single payer is an impossible sell. Hillary Clinton’s Health Plan gives Americans the choice to preserve their existing coverage, while offering new choices to those with insurance, to the 47 million people in the United States without insurance, and the tens of millions more at risk of losing coverage.

As Americans come to experience universal health care I’m confident that Americans will warm to the idea of a single payer system. But the sensible thing to do is to start with the most pressing matters first – universal coverage. Then we can discuss the (huge!) practical and political benefits of developing a universal single payer system. I’m confident that with Hillary Clinton’s American Health Choices Plan we can win the election and move forward on health care. No other candidate has nearly as good credibility among the American electorate on the issue of health care.

Michael wrote on December 1, 2007 1:23 PM:

Hey demac, notwithstanding the attacks. Decent post. Now, I agree with what happened in the early nineties. The result with the clintons is if you can't beat em, join em. Also, keeping insurance companies in the loop results in a huge industry give away, that's why they support her current plan.

Now it is absolutely true about her being in bed with the industry. She has raised a ton of caaaaassssh from them during her time in the senate and while running for president. Check out this link:

www.thefreelibrary.com/White+House+contenders+Romney%2c+Dodd%2c+Clinton%2c+lead+in+insurance...-a0164949547

Lie my butt, get your facts straight. She only trails mitt the flip and dodd in industry contributions and it's not by much.

On another note, single payer is the way to go and it would work with the right type of leadership. Companies want single payer, because it is a huge cost and people would go along with it with the right leadership, which in my opinion won't come from clinton II based on the clintons' track record.

DemAC wrote on December 1, 2007 1:40 PM:

Michael,
A ton of cash!!!??? By your own link she has collected $253,725! Less than Chris Dodd!

You think in a multi-million campaign year, in a cycle when the entire election will have a turover around five billion dollars that $253,725 is a ton of cash!!!???

Get real Michael, get real.

Or better: just quit your stupid, stupid crusade against Hillary Clinton. We’re here. We’re progressives. We support Hillary Clinton. Get used to it.

Cheers

DTM wrote on December 1, 2007 1:47 PM:

DemAC,

I agree with your general setup (single payer is the way to go in the long run, but the way to get there in America is to start by providing a viable public system alongside the current system and let Americans see the difference).

But that is precisely why this attack by Clinton against Obama for failing to endorse her mandate scheme is so ridiculous. First, without also endorsing measures like wage garnishment and collection agencies, mandates simply do not lead to truly universal plans (as in fact some Clinton advisors have acknowledged). Second, this whole issue over mandates basically comes down to exactly which compromise is the most politically viable, while recognizing that all of them fall far short of the ideal on the substance.

So this is ultimately a political, not substantive, issue: what will people accept right now? And that is in fact an important issue, but not in the way that Clinton has presented it.

Michael wrote on December 1, 2007 2:22 PM:

Ok, demac, I told myself that I wasn't going to play with you, but I liked your support of a single payer system. I don't have time right now to do a complete search and to add everything up, but here are some points concerning the link, which of course your just spinning due to blind love of clinton II.

(1) I believe it was the first quarter of the year and she received more money than the rest of the republican field behind mitt the flip. Interesting, but not surprising as she is more of a republican than a democrat.

(2) Micheal Moore pointed out in sicko that she was one of the leading receipients in the senate, before her presidential run and I recall it was around a grand total of 650,000 to 700,000. Just adding the figures of the 1st quarter and her senate "career" and you are talking about a cool million.

(3) Add in the second and third quarters and I would say she probably has received a couple of million at this point. That may be chump change to you, but that's real money to most.

Now, the question is why give all that cash to clinton II? Just because she is clinton II and they blindly love her, like her supporters. Nope, it's to keep the carriers on the doll from taxpayer dollars if she by blind luck gets to the presidency.

As they say, love is blind and you clinton II lovers are so blind it's ridiculous. It would be nice if people started talking about these issues and the true track record of the clinton I presidency, not the rose colored glasses version. Progressive, she's as progressive as mitt the flip or Mr. 9/11. She is bush lite and should be running in the republican primary. When will dems start to see this?

DemAC wrote on December 1, 2007 2:56 PM:

Michael,
Of course you can’t add everything up, you never can. From the very link you yourself supplied to substantiate that Hillary Clinton receives a ton of cash from the insurance industry one can not only read that Chris Dodd receives more the does Hillary Clinton, but also the following, and I quote: “Campaign reports filed by the candidates in April with the U.S. Federal Election Commission show the overwhelming bulk of industry contributions were made by individuals employed by insurers, producers or other insurance-related firms. Just $32,900 came from industry political action committees.”

A lot can be said about our campaign financing system, but I’d rather have that discussion with persons who respects facts and reality. However, even if the total amount collected from people working in the insurance industry, at the most, should amount to, and I quote you: “a couple of million at this point” that’s still really a piss in the ocean. For example: in the last quarter alone the Obama campaign netted around 25 million and the Clinton campaign around 26 million. That doesn’t count the spending of independent groups such as the labor unions, Emily’s list etc. And that’s just the netting of one quarter, Michael.

Since you lack keen understanding of the system of contributions it’s also important to note that such contributions from individuals come with no strings attached. Even if some individuals would rather keep the current dysfunctional health insurance system, there is simply no way of tying their personal contributions of a few hundred dollars to such a demand. Anyhow it obviously would seem very counterproductive for such an individual to support Chris Dodd or Hillary Clinton when there are plenty of Repubs around, happy to preserve our bad insurance system.

Your little outburst on progressiveness again goes to show that your hold on reality is perilous at best. Hillary Clinton has voted on legislation in the US Senate for seven years now, and her lifetime voting on all issues is rated the 11th most progressive in the Senate by the ADA. For example, her voting record shows that especially on labor issues that are most vital to corporations, she votes 100% for workers and union issues, directly opposing corporate interests. Her voting record in the Senate on progressive issues gets a score of over 95% according to ADA.

This, I think, will end my exchange with you. Talking to you apparently avails to nothing and if you really cared, you would have started to educate yourself by now anyhow. I suppose in the future we can expect more demeaning and insulting attacks on Hillary Clinton revealing an utterly flawed view on reality.

Michael wrote on December 1, 2007 3:26 PM:

Clinton II lovers, Ughhh. Love is truely blind. I actually had hope for you demac. "Progressive senate record"???? Give me a break. Is invading a sovereign country based on lies progressive? Is giving the king carte blanche on iraq and iran progressive????? Oh, that's right the woodstock museum and the national forest in puerto rico are progressive causes. Crawl back under that rock.

DemAC wrote on December 1, 2007 4:02 PM:

Michael,
Just a small ante:
The Woodstock museum and the national forest in Puerto Rico may or may not be Progressive causes; they are anyhow not included in the ADA rating.

Since you otherwise have only insults and no facts; that will be all.

Michael wrote on December 1, 2007 4:41 PM:

Since you keep coming bac demac and I keep saying I won't bother, I will anyway. I have two more points on your "progressive cause" bs.

(1) dcshungu, a regular poster and fellow clinton II lover repeatedly points out how centrist and non-progressive clinton II is. Seems kind of counter intuitive.

(2) Since I am so illiterate and uniformed, might I suggest a progressive powerful read to you. It's by robert reich, clinton I's labor secretary. It's called Supercapitalism. In sum, it explains why clinton II will never work as president, not intentionally by the way, for the good of our country. I suggest you read it or at a minimum listen to his recent NPR interview. It's very informative.

This is coming from an uninformed, left-wing, wacko, commie, pinko, who has no brain.

DemAC wrote on December 1, 2007 8:13 PM:

Michael,
I consider myself centrist and progressive. Progressive because I strongly believe in a strong government, a good government that is including, universal and redistributive. The aim of government ought to be to increase equality among citizens, not to foster inequalities. Centrist because I strongly believe that a majority of Americans actually share these sentiments. Many do not vote, many are not politically engaged at all, but I believe firmly that progressive views are the average American opinion; are centrist in the best meaning of this word.

I’ve read “Supercapitalism” by Reich. I’ve also read “The Shock Doctrine” by Klein. So what? Forgive me, but that the intelligent observations and thought provoking ideas in these two books somehow would prove that Hillary Clinton wouldn’t be an excellent President is just misrepresentation.

The only way you can reach such a conclusion is to read such books with a fixed mindset; that is you’ve already decided in advance that Hillary Clinton (of all people!) represents the enemy, the multinational corporate greed or whatever, and then are you projecting this onto her. As me and many others have showed, now and again, you don’t have any factual base for these allegations!

For what strange reason can you view Edwards or Obama as “allies” but not Clinton? Their political records don’t really differ that much… The only thing that really differs is your projection of all kinds of corporate capitalistic evil onto Hillary Clinton. But when facts come into play it doesn’t hold up!

Jim Martin wrote on December 2, 2007 3:23 AM:

pacc, will you stop with the O-Bomb-A thing already?

It's beyond puerile, and it's also telling that none of the HRC supporters around here have called you on it.

For the record: I'm not a big fan of either HRC or Obama, although I remain persuadable on either one.

Jim Martin wrote on December 2, 2007 3:29 AM:

poetry wrote on November 30, 2007 1:18 PM:

DTM:

Everyone pays into Social Security.

Right?

Furthermore, the administrative costs to run the Social Security program are one-half of one percent.

Show me any private health insurer who has such low administrative or overhead costs.

A fantastic argument for single-payer. Medicare's overhead is, I believe, also somewhere between 0.5% and 3%.

So why aren't Obama, Clinton and even Edwards at last check supporting single payer?

(I believe Edwards at least wants to use the market by allowing anyone who wishes to buy into Medicare -- or choose a private health insurer if they prefer. This belief is based on hearsay, though, and I haven't checked the specifics of the Edwards plan. If true, I imagine it has the health insurers very, very scared.)

vdomeras wrote on December 2, 2007 2:59 PM:

DTM:

A mandate, coupled with the inclusion of Medicare as an insurer that people can choose for their coverage makes the insurnce companies compete with a system which people like and which has historically had one-tenth the claims-processing overhead that private companies have. Eliminate other costs and profit distributions that the companies have and they will not see the Clinton or
Edwards proposals as good deal.

The key is both a mandate and the inclusion of the Medicare option. Otherwise we have the giveaway situation that you describe, and which we have now with Medicare part D.

Jim Martin wrote on December 3, 2007 5:36 PM:

DemAC, over at this threat I objected to your attacks on non-HRC supporters as follows:

People write disapproving things about BushCo. The response from the BushCo sycophants: You're a Bush-hater, writing anti-Bush rants.

People write disapproving things about Hillary Clinton. The response from DemAC: You're Hillary-haters, publishing anti-Hillary rants.

QED.

You responsed in part:

I offer pacc's post in this thread, and pacc's similar posts elsewhere, referring to Barack "O-Bomb-A". No hell has broken loose, either here or elsewhere.

For example, in addition to the present thread, I refer you to this thread, in which we find some of the following pearls of wisdom:

pacc wrote on November 19, 2007 1:46 PM:

It's worth repeating... O-Bomb-A got snookered - AGAIN.

It's called inexperience.

It's not so long ago O-Bomb-A was just a part-time State Senator. BO would be a disaster on the national ticket.

pacc wrote on November 19, 2007 2:59 PM:

O-Bomb-A is exposed - AGAIN - for being a rube. Worse, he is a sleazy campaigner, as well.

Democrats of all stripes reject the O-Bomb-A campaign style - his race-baiting wife, his setting gay Americans against black Americans, his smarmy attacks again Bill Clinton, his mud-slinging false innuendos - anything to try to turn the spotlight away from him and his nothing campaign.

O-bomb-A would be a disaster on the national ticket.

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 3:16 PM:

I have to say that what this confirms is that Obama supporters are just dumber than fucking fenceposts. There is a level of stupidity and gullibility in this thread that is just hard to understand.

if someone they hate clinton and she's consorting with whoever, or cause wars whereever, I subtract 20 points from my estimation of their intelligence. If they proceed to advocate for Obama, I take another 20 off.

Congrats, Doug Feith, you aren't alone anymore. Obama has managed to drag all sort of dumbasses into the Democratic party.

Anonymous wrote on November 19, 2007 3:49 PM:

Only if you're advocating for Obama. The stupidest and the most corrupt Dems I've ever encountered all seem to be working for Obama. The volunteers and the staff for everyone else seems to be pretty normal.

But Obama supporters just lap his words up and have no idea that they are at odds with the rest of the world.

You are the stupidest fucking people I've ever encounted. Mean, skanky and dense.

Congrats.

Boy, I'll be glad when this joker gets his hat handed to him. The public humiliation is going to be incredibly gratifying.

it's not that I'm pro-Clinton. It's that I'm now anti-Obama and his dumbass supporters.

There's lots more in that thread. It's obvious who's attacking whom, and at what decibel level. One thing was quite clear: all hell did not break loose, as you claimed, when this kind of anti-Obama and anti-Obama-supporter invective was posted.

And you, DemAC, the supposed guardian of respect and civility, said not a single word when all of it was posted.

I think JenJen summed it up nicely:

Very cute, Anonymous. If you're not falling for the "Resistance is Futile" Clinton campaign, you're now "dumb as a fencepost," "stupid," "gullible," and (wait for it!!) a "dumbass."

Got it. Looking forward to seeing how that works out for you next November.

While I'd vote for a cherry red stapler if it were the Democratic nominee, if this is what the Clintonistas think of their fellow Democrats, it's going to be one nasty, uphill struggle.

And I'm not even an Obama supporter.

Jim Martin wrote on December 3, 2007 5:48 PM:

I wrote:

DemAC, over at this threat I objected to your attacks on non-HRC supporters as follows:

I meant "this thread", of course.

I also screwed up a blockquote of one of pacc's usual bile-filled posts dragging Obama and his supporters in the gutter, about which, DemAC, dcschungu, and other Clintonistas, have, predictably and consistently, said nothing, even while whining and complaining bitterly about far milder treatment of their own candidate.

The following text should have been blockquoted:

pacc wrote on November 19, 2007 1:46 PM:

It's worth repeating... O-Bomb-A got snookered - AGAIN.

It's called inexperience.

It's not so long ago O-Bomb-A was just a part-time State Senator. BO would be a disaster on the national ticket.

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)