What the hell does "for the first time" mean? Did we have UHC before and no one told me?

Nothing risky about it. The difference is clear on policy grounds. Its one of the few substantive differences. The voters have a stark choice -- Hillary's universal coverage or something less.

I do have to say greg that you do make me laugh. This quote is priceless:

It seems perhaps like a bit of a risky play for Bill to make the health care case in these particular terms, given his administration's high-profile failure to get a health care bill passed in the nineties.

Gee, I don't remember who was in charge of that task force and who was responsible for marshalling it through congress? Do you remember greg? I sure don't. Too funny. Thanks for giving me a laugh today.

Except for the fact that her plan is not truly universal coverage either. Of course, no one in the media will bother calling her on this.

Yeahh, not a strong move coming from those who botched health care reform big time in the 90s with their incompetence.

And I suppose Hillary supports universal health care? Oh wait, hers doesn't cover everyone either, nor did Edwards, in fact, none of their plans were actually universal with the exception of Kucinich.

These disingenuous assholes just think that because they have an unenforceable mandate on already struggling families that that they automatically get 100% coverage, overlooking the obvious fact that mandates don't work, as plenty of policy experts have pointed out.

But hey, desperation is desperation, what else can you expect out of the Clinton campaign but lies and distortions?

Thanks for posting this Greg.

XOXOXOXO
Paul Krugman

I signed up for Hillary Health Care in 1993.

So far it has not cost me a single penny. That is on the pro side for Hillary Care.

On the Con side for Hillary Care; The waiting period for to see a Doctor and get treatments can be a killer. So far, for me, it has been a waiting period of Fifteen Years, and counting. I hope that I live long enough to get in to see a Hillary Health Care Doctor.

It seems perhaps like a bit of a risky play...

Hm, I have to disagree. Her trendline right now is moving towards "losing." As such, if this does not work, she is no worse off than she is if she does nothing. If it does work, however, then she might turn things around and start trending back towards winning. In other words, strategies that are "risky" to a front-runner might not be that risky at all when pursued by someone farther back in the race. This approach may not (indeed, I expect will not) pay off that big, but there is little "risk" involved as it is unlikely to lose her any votes that she is not already in process of losing.

"Offensive" being the operative word.

And also, he's black!

Does Bill purposefully say things that make no sense? He's starting to sound like someone's crazy old uncle. Pretty soon, he'll start all his attacks with, "Back in my day, we used to wear an onion from our belts because it was the style of the times..."

"It would be truly tragic if the Democratic Party walked away from universal health care for the first time in 60 years

And this is a nice way to implicitly acknowledge that that whole thing that went on in '93 was an unmitigated disaster. And yet, the fab 90s is one of the reasons we're supposed to vote for Clinton!

This campaign has some sort of undiagnosed multiple personality disorder going on here.

If you can't accept facts from Bill Clinton, how about John Edwards? CNN (SC) Debate:

COOPER: Senator Edwards, does Senator Obama provide universal coverage?

EDWARDS: No, because the only way to provide universal coverage is to mandate that everyone be covered.

But I want to say, you know, I came out with a universal plan several months ago. A couple of months later, Senator Obama came out with a plan. He's made a very serious proposal, and I'm not casting aspersions on his plan. I think it's a very serious proposal. It just doesn't cover everybody. The only way to cover everybody is to mandate it.

I don't know, I find that whenever I see Bill's face or hear his voice, I immediately shut out whatever it is he is saying (valid or not). It's not fair I know, but I'm at least being honest.

Slightly off topic but someone quotes the Simpsons or Futurama on this site every day (and it makes my day!)

But I agree with CT... Why even say: "It would be truly tragic if the Democratic Party walked away from universal health care for the first time in 60 years" ?

would in fact deny us universal health-care coverage for the first time

No, Bill, that would be you.

Every time they use a phrase like "deny us universal health coverage" or "leaves out" however many people, but don't at the exact same time clarify what they mean (that Obama's plan doesn't include mandates to force people to get health insurance), they are lying to people -- intentionally, cynically, lying to people.

They are lying to people because they know that some people will hear that and misunderstand, that some people will not pay quite so much attention and think that Obama's plan "leaves people out" in the sense that it does not give them the choice to have health care, or that it "leaves people out" in the sense that they might end up without health care because they can't afford it.

Their use of misleading words is not unintentional, and it is not a mistake -- they know that a full and complete explanation would be unpopular to many of the people that they want to scare.

I am very, very tired of this kind of dishonesty in our leaders.

In case you haven't noticed it, and obviously the media hasn't, 'the Clintons' are not running for president, Hillary Clinton is. Every time something comes up that you want to slam her for, 'the Cintons' is the club.

acfma--

I don't understand. The '93 plan was Hillary's. She's touting her experience as First Lady as part of her 35 years. Why is it wrong to slam her (in response to Bill's statement against Obama) over the failure of her plan in '93?

Bill Clinton's administration put forth a major effort to fulfill a campaign pledge to provide universal health care. Their opponents played very nasty and dishonest politics. It failure to pass was the failure of all progressives in the United States.

So now it odd for Bill Clinton to push for the same thing? The Clintons previous effort for a worthy cause is something to be proud of in my opinion. They took a chance. Some people are willing to do that.

what a flaming liar our 42nd president was and is. look, no one so far who has gone around touting Hillary's health care proposal over Obama's has addressed the main flaw of Hillary's plan - that it is un-passsable in Congress. as long as coverage is mandated, Republicans will filibuster. it's just that simple. these things have to pass Congress! there is zero chance, in the world, that the Repubs will let Hillary's plan pass. Obama's will have a chance to pass, hers will have none. Bill Clinton knows this as well as anyone. and does he really think the HMOs and insurance companies are "in line" and on his and her side? how deluded is he?

I expect Hillary will deliver universal health care about the same time she closes down our bases in Iraq.

I wonder in the aftermath of SC- what, if any, is the Bill Affect on this primary?

As far as the Universal Health Care politcal talk is concerned- there is a reason why people haven't resonated, though Clintons have been clamoring about health care every stop;

Among those who can think, not many think Hillary has ability to make Universal Health Care a possiblity in this country;

Is it just me, or is Bill Clinton looking more and more like some kind of evil clown these days?

(Ronald McDonald on PCP?)

Sorry for lowering the discourse - but I needed to get that off my chest.

I think Bill waas alluding to the fact that we finally have the alignment we need to get it done.
We certainly didn't have that in the 90s did we?
No kudos for even trying? Go "hit" on Obama for his "mandates " on the children he promises universal health care. Be Fair!

“OBAMA” is a Republican in a donkey suit.

He supports the upper-middle class, not the poor, average Americans searching for HOPE, you must be able to see through all these nice spoken words………………..
It’s amazing to me that people are voting for “Obama” someone that does not follow our country’s traditions, no hand during the pledge, “a Muslim past”. It’s kind of scary to see how someone can give such wonderful speeches and the media can be so biased of Hillary and he gets a free ride with free media coverage, just crazy… he’s a dreamer without any substance and HOPE is not going to change this country’s direction based on WORDS.

WAKE UP TEXAS, WE HAVE SOME WORK TO DO….OBAMANIA IS A FALSE HOPE THAT SPELLS TROUBLE…….

Great job, Hillary on your win in New Mexico! Continue to campaign and reinforce to the average American worker that Obama continues to give invigorating speeches, but has never provided a plan to improve health care. Also, he has never addressed the high gas prices, heating bills, grocery bills. I applaud Obama for motivating speeches but we need someone who will produce and who actually has a plan to help the middle class struggling families. The term “Change” is only a word if you don’t have a plan!

Do your research as to who’s zooming who “a lion in sheep’s clothing”
Obama, Clinton Donating Heavily to Superdelegates’ Campaigns
by Associated Press
Thursday, February 14, 2008
The study tracked donations received by members of Congress from the candidates’ leadership PACs and from their candidate committees. It tracked donations made to governors by examining the presidential candidates’ expenditures.
Among the findings:
— Since 2005, Obama’s committees gave $228,000 to superdelegates who have endorsed him, $363,900 to those who were still undecided, and $102,400 to those who have endorsed Clinton.
–Clinton’s committee’s gave $95,000 to superdelegates who have endorsed her, $88,000 to those who were still neutral, and $12,500 to those who have endorsed Obama.
Email Misrepresents Hillary’s Legislative Record
There is an email circulating that grossly misrepresents Hillary’s legislative record, as well as the record of Sen. Obama. (Various versions appear on the Obama campaign website here, here, and here.)
The email only gives Hillary credit for bills where she was the original sponsor and have also been signed into law. Here are the facts. In her time in the Senate, Hillary has sponsored 21 bills that have become law including:
— a bill that extended the availability of unemployment assistance.
— a bill which established a program to assist family caregivers.
— a bill that provided benefits to public safety officers who were killed or injured during the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
But Hillary’s accomplishments in the Senate are not limited to bill sponsorships. Among her many other legislative accomplishments:
— Hillary worked with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to expand access to health care for the National Guard and Reserve.
— Hillary passed an amendment that created a national program for teacher and principal training and recruitment.
— Hillary used Senate rules to force the Bush administration to make emergency contraception, also known as Plan B, available over the counter.
Meanwhile, the email gives Sen. Obama credit for every bill he introduced or signed on as a co-sponsor, whether or not they became law. The reality is, since Sen. Obama joined the Senate (applying the same standard the email applies to Hillary) he has sponsored two bills that have become law:
— a bill that sought to promote democracy in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
— a bill that named a post office.

Jeff: Thanks. It means he is going to win TX? Great!!!

I could say Clintons are parasites in democratic suit, but again not all parasites are dangerous.

Just Kidding- I still love the Clintons, but again I'm talking about the 90s.

In now famous words: Just Chill!!!

Bill's absolutely right, it will be tragic if we get a Dem president who squanders this opportunity. Obama doesn't give a sh*&@ about universal health care. It's not part of his policy program, and he won't work for it. That would get in the way of his goal to "bring everyone together" and change "the tone" in Washington.

It astounds me that the so-called progressive netroots have thrown their support behind this guy, easily the least progressive of the Dem contenders.

Do you Obama supporters even care about this? What about the Edwards' supporters who now support Obama? I strongly doubt that after 4 or 8 years years under Obama we'll have anything close to universal health care.

Of course many of you respond, "well, the Clintons failed when they tried before." Their response is to try, try again, under more favorable political conditions. You lose some battles, but keep pushing. But many of you seem to imply that Obama is better because unlike the Clintons, he won't risk such a failure.

But that's okay, things won't be all bad under Obama. He'll 'fix' social security, and who knows, maybe we'll even have a Secretary Schwarzenegger.

Me personally I think that her plan is very dangerous to your average Americans. It works on the concept that, if everyone is paying for health insurance then companies will charge less because they will make more.

Anyone ever see a corporation pass up millions in profit increases?

You know, just like how oil companies looked at there record breaking profits and decided, "wow, we better lower the price." Yep, that sure did happen.

She would have to mandate that the companies lower there prices, and with the pretty pennies they have put in her pockets that will never happen..

It's no wonder the health care industry is lining up behind her plan.

jrockett2 said "Their opponents played very nasty and dishonest politics."

That is the first time I've heard that as an explanation for the failure of Hillary's healtcare reforms in the 1990s. I heard that she was secretive, mean and arrogant in the way she tried to force feed her views to Congress, insisting on all or nothing. And she not only got nothing then, but the Republicans took over Congress, and healthcare reform has not been viable since.

As a Senator, has Hillary introduced her plan? Is she working day and night as a Senator to persuade her colleagues on this issue?

The Clintons are co-founders with the Bushes of the current era of dirty, divisive, dishonest politics, to their benefit and the detriment of the nation. Any voter who blieves the Clintons or the Bushes deserves what they get.

SENTINEL- Wisconsin's largest circulating newspaper interviewed both Obama and Hillary before making their endorsement.

http://www.jsonline.com/

On their web site they posted video interviews that they conducted with Obama and Clinton before making an endorsement. They quizzed them about everything from Iraq to poverty;

You may want to pay a visit, olenly if you're open minded. There is a lot of substance beneath his style.

Hillary Clinton, 6/21/94 (NYT): "Hillary Rodham Clinton demanded today that supporters of national health insurance stop focusing on their own particular concerns and start telling members of Congress that they want legislation with nothing short of guaranteed universal insurance coverage."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503E0DD133DF932A15755C0A962958260

Great negotiating strategy Mrs. Clinton. Nothing like telling people to stop focusing on their own concerns and start supporting yours -- that's a brilliant negotiating strategy. Playing chicken AND LOSING isn't the kind of experience we need in the White House.

Bill Bradley had a plan achieve 96 percent coverage within 5 years with a trigger (mandate) to require people to buy health insurance in 5 years. The Clinton response? They threated to veto the bill.

96% insured since 1999 would have been a damn sight better than what we've had in it's place. The Clintons all or nothing approach has been great...at delivering nothing.

It's simple. It means what he says. The policy of the Democratic Party, ever since it was the last, unachieved universal program of FDR, since Truman failed at it, since LBJ (you remember him?) passed universal health care for seniors, ever since Nixon proposed one big HMO, ever since Hillary tried to get her program through -- the policy of the Democratic Party has been to get universal health care passed. And now Obama is apparently walking away from it when we have the chance; when, yes, industry is largely for it as well, and when it's not likely that the health insurance industry would put up a huge fight, now Obama is running ads that look like Harry and Louise. If he wins the White House, it seems likely that he would have a massive wave of support for a good period of time; and he's not willing to contemplate spending some of that capital on making universal health care a reality? Seems an awful lot like he's sacrificing the issue to get those young and independent voters in, and maybe to induce more Republicans to vote for him. Seems a lot like pandering to me.
It's the one big issue keeping me from jumping onto the bandwagon. Why on earth is he doing this? What's so frickin' "transformative" about this? Seems to me a little like Clinton's "third way," no? In fact, he reminds me a lot of Clinton, 1992.