I think the NAFTA mailing that comes in for secondary discussion in this article is harsh but well within the bounds of basic politics. The health care flier is, however, pretty seriously dishonest as other Obama fans have noted in earlier incarnations. It's simply not the case that Hillary Clinton's health care plan would force people to buy insurance irrespective of ability to pay. What's more, Clinton and Obama have essentially identical measures in their plans to increase the affordability of insurance.
« Partition Trouble | Main | Baffled? »
The Re-Up
23 Feb 2008 05:32 pm
Comments (67)
If that's the case, then Hillary should have made those points, calmly and concisely. Going on a sudden tirade over a two-week-old flier doesn't help her one bit.
(Also, it's not as though Hillary is entirely blameless on this matter; she has consistently mischaracterized Obama's plan as "denying" health care to 15 million people, when it in fact does no such thing.)
All this shows is that she made up the mandate issue as I always thought. If she denies there is any actual requirement or enforcement mechanism to buy health care, then what has she been attacking Obama about at every debate? And if she thinks this sort of criticism is so damaging in the DEMOCRATIC primary, then I know she doesn't think it will pass the U.S. Senate. So it's a fake issue.
Hillary is the one who started talking about wage garnishment, she must have known that was going to kill her healthcare advantage.
Clinton's rant is just bizarre. Those mailers have been around for how long--weeks now? And is this the same Hillary Clinton who sent mailers in New Hampshire distorting Obama's record on choice, so much so that NARAL had to come to his defense? The same campaign which sent mailers the day before the primary in Wisconsin, mischaracterizing his "present" votes? I agree that the healthcare mailers were despicable, but this is very much a "Pot. Kettle. Black" sort of thing.
Sybil for President!
Obama should definitely be called out on his distortions, as he has promised to do politics in a different way. It's important to remember, however, that HRC's plan is a one-size-fits-all sort of plan, under which adults will be forced to buy insurance, whether they want to or not; (even if they'd rather take that extra trip to Vegas, or pimp their ride, or however else they'd rather spend that money.) That essential assault on freedom remains, and, in my opinion, it is not a political winner in the general election in this country.
HRC has attacked Obama on universal health care endlessly...it seems only fair for him to attack her back on the aspects of her plan that may be unpalatable to many people. Not all Democrats want a Nanny State, much to HRC's dismay.
Hillary's plan requires poor people to buy insurance, with the cost eventually offset at some point later by tax credits or rebates.
A refund of money that comes next year is nice, next year, but does fuck-all to offset the pain when the bill comes due this year.
I'm a huge Obama supporter and I agree with this post 100%. And I think those of us that do support him should hold him accountable, so I'm glad to see Yglesias calling him on it. That doesn't excuse Clinton, who has been far, far worse (and her timing suggests more tactics than genuine outrage), but Obama isn't perfect and his health care mailer is disappointing.
Charlie,
It is not incorrect. Hillary herself said she would garnish wages if people do not buy health insurance.
Matt,
Since her plan clearly forces people to opt in, please explain how it is that either: a) it does not do so if people "can't afford" it (allows them to opt out in some manner), or b) there are no possible cases in which people "can't afford" it.
I haven't read the fine print of either of their plans (and I'm no economist or health care expert), but I find it eminently believable that even plans designed to make health care affordable for everyone will end up not doing so in some cases (lack of sufficient planning, bureaucratic stupidity, etc.).
The above, of course, only goes to the point of whether Obama's mailer is in any way inaccurate. My larger difficulty with HRC's complaint here is that it is HER CAMPAIGN that is far more clearly guilty of false accusations on this issue. I fail to understand why anyone seems to think that Obama's campaign should stand idly by when HRC fliers go out that are INTENDED to give inattentive voters the impression that they may be ineligible for the benefits under the Obama plan ("left out," don't "deserve" to be covered, not "universal," etc.).
You and others may not like the fact that many Americans are so intensely (irrationally?) suspicious of the government forcing them to do anything, but they do (I am not one of them, for the record -- full socialized health care would be great to me). If HRC wants to shamelessly try to convince many voters that her plan gives them things that Obama's plan does not (as opposed to simply being more efficient -- still a debatable point), then she has NO legitimate complaint against the Obama flyers here.
The health care flier is, however, pretty seriously dishonest as other Obama fans have noted in earlier incarnations.
No it's not. It's 100% accurate and the link Matt provided doesn't dispute that.
In fact, here's what Kevin Drum said: "There's nothing odious or unfair about this mailer. It's perfectly normal hardball politics. But it doesn't help the progressive cause on healthcare one whit."
So the problem people had with it wasn't that it was dishonest, but that it attacked the idea of mandates which they feel might be our only avenue to universal health care. But there's no way it's dishonest, certainly not to the level the Clinton campaign's mailers have been.
Agreed that the Obama mailer is a bit dishonest, but Clinton's angry response was equally dishonest insofar as:
1) Her proposal doesn't cover everyone since there are no details about the scope/enforcement of the mandate, making her plan, at least at this point, no more universal than Obama's--with a potentially different mechanism down the road.
2) Implying that Obama is against universal health care, when, from what I've gathered at least, his objection is to the fundamental regressivity of a mandate. The Mass. mandate, for example, is very good for low income people, but fairly burdensome on low-middle and middle income people.
Arguably, a mandate, by bringing in healthy people and reducing adverse selection, will slow health spending growth, spread costs equitably, and ultimately achieve universal coverage using minimally regressive tactics. It is equally plausible, however, that with government requirements to purchase insurance and large subsidies, health inflation will grow even more rapidly, which would make a mandate extremely burdensome and regressive or would cause spending on subsidies to insurance companies to spiral out of control.
All of which is a tedious way of saying: There are legitimate, progressive cases for and against mandates, and the debate isn't "universal vs. non-universal" but "is this specific tactic the appropriate way of proceeding."
It's simply not the case that Hillary Clinton's health care plan would force people to buy insurance irrespective of ability to pay.
And Obama's (terrible) ad didn't say "irrespective of ability to pay". His ad was the far more ambiguous "even if you can't afford it". Clinton's plan defines what she thinks you can afford. You might decide differently--if you do, she's going to make you pay anyway.
The assertion in the Obama ad is subjectively defensible, as the concept of what you can afford is basically subjective. But it is ridiculously and counter-productively overheated for a policy option that Obama has admitted might be necessary in the future.
I don't understand the claim that Hillary's mandate won't force some people to buy insurance they can't afford. Are you saying there's some exemption for people who lose their jobs or have a mortgage or credit card bills they can barely afford? What about the family who's car breaks down as the arrival of a new baby increases their expenses while forcing the mother to work fewer hours?
****
Let's be honest.
Those exemptions don't exist.
Mandates aren't about health care; they're about how we spread the cost around.
Me, personally, I'd rather rely on taxes to make the subsidy compelling. That might force Warren Buffet to pay a little more instead of garnishing everyday people's wages. He would too.
Here's my question:
If her plan wouldn't force people who are unable to pay to buy insurance, then is she shading the truth when she says that her plan will cover everyone?
Because it's absolutely inconceivable that there won't be anybody, probably millions of people, who remain unable to pay. Seems like you can't have it both ways.
Obama's health care mailer is nowhere near as odious as the one the Clinton campaign sent out right before the Wisconsin vote:
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/mailer.pdf
"Barack Obama, Which of These People Don't Deserve Health Care?" asks a new campaign mailer in Wisconsin for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, with a picture of seven voters -- a diverse group, as if Benetton also made clothes for retirees.
"Barack Obama's Health Care Plan Leaves 15 Million Americans Without Coverage," says the second page. Then, ominously: "Will It Be You?"
--
The answer, of course, is no. It won't be you. Unless you don't want health insurance.
It's far, far, far more misleading than Obama's, but it has gotten far less coverage.
"HRC's plan is a one-size-fits-all sort of plan"
Uh, it's got more choices than our current system does.
Since when is "being insured" a one-size fits all solution to dying of curable diseases? It's one-size-fits-all like "food" is the one-size-fits-all solution to hunger!
I swear to god, if Hoover ran for President today and promised "a chicken in every pot," the Republicans would scream that it's a socialist one-size fits all solution. That will lead to the end of steak!
I wasn't a big fan of the mailer; using imagery that referenced the defeat of her first attempt at health care reform was a little below the belt. That being said, the Hillary campaign has become a case study in projection. She repeatedly comes out and bashes him over things she's even more guilty of. Her entire campaign seems to be an effort to say "hey, you shouldn't vote for him because he's just as bad as me!".
Also, how the hell is her universal health care plan unassailable? If he doesn't believe her plan is optimal and he thinks the way he wants to do it is better, why is he not allowed to say this? Acting like he can't legitimately point out one of the largest differences in their policies is absolutely ridiculous.
Since when is "being insured" a one-size fits all solution to dying of curable diseases? It's one-size-fits-all like "food" is the one-size-fits-all solution to hunger!I swear to god, if Hoover ran for President today and promised "a chicken in every pot," the Republicans would scream that it's a socialist one-size fits all solution. That will lead to the end of steak!
There are currently millions of people who could afford to buy health insurance, who choose not to buy it. Their reasons are varied. Some believe in alternative practitioners. Others may be saving up for a house, perhaps in areas where housing is difficult to afford. Others have a philosophical or temperamental aversion to the concept of insurance. Some live in cabins up in the mountains and wish only that the government would leave them alone.
Coercing all these people, many of whom will never game the system, to buy insurance is a one-size-fits all sort of solution. It's unAmerican, in my opinion. (I'm no Republican; I believe in a progressive tax code, for instance. I just also believe in personal freedom, even on economic issues.)
Does anyone know how much input the candidate themselves have in the design and fine details of these mailers?
Fact is, Hillary is outside the mainstream on the mandate issue and is trying to drum up support with the Democratic base by hitting Obama with this ridiculous flier garbage.
Does anyone out there really want the government garnishing your wages? Regardless of the reason?
Look - single payer is a good idea, but in the absence of that, mandates is just not the answer.
But whatever - the story isn't about mandates, it's about Hillary having a hissy fit over a mailer that went out 2 weeks before, pretending she'd never seen it when we all know she had, and frankly showing again why she just isn't a very good choice to be President, because she doesn't have the temper or the character. Which is of course is why so many Americans despise her in the first place.
How can we expect Hillary to keep her composure as President if she can't do it over a little mailer? Especially when her anger of the mailer is not about policy but rather a desperate panic move attack?
God, after the debate the other night I thought for a minute that she was finally gaining some respect with a graceful fight to the end.
Instead, she does what's in her nature. Which is exactly why she's losing.
Obama should show his class and pull the mailer. He's supposed to be a different kind of politician. Prove it.
She complains that he can't be a fighter, but when he fights hard she feigns outrage. Oh well. I guess this can be filed away in the "be careful what you wish for" box.
I support Obama by money and work completely, but I am ashamed of this attack which has been continued for months. What is wrong with Obama in this matter? Stop this false attack, and apologize! There can be no excuse.
I like the fact that Obama used the Harry and Louise imagery -- for all of Clinton's talk on this issue, it's good to remind people how badly she tried to implement it. Hillarycare failed for precisely the reason Obama said at the debate -- she did it behind closed doors and didn't make allies in Congress or in the public sphere, going so far as to threaten Bradley and Moynihan. She hasn't learned -- the whole premise of her campaign is that she knows better than everyone. Obama's got an ego to be running, for sure, and he's not afraid to have confidence in his judgment. But, he's indicated that he's willing to listen. That's the real story behind these mailers.
I support NAFTA, so that one is unlikely to move me, but if Clinton wants to base her candidacy on the premise that she secretly opposed it for Hannah Montana's entire lifetime, then that's more insulting to our intelligence than her hair is a tribute to Rik Smits.
Jennifer:
A little tip for you... If you're going to try your hand at concern trolling, you should at least go with a different name than the one you always post on.
(Yes I realize there's plenty of Jennifers out there, but I've only seen one posting frequently at Fark, Atlantic blogs and others as an ardent Hillary supporter.)
I agree the ads were misleading. I'll even go so far as saying the Healthcare ad was just plain false. I just don't understand the OUTRAGE. This is pretty standard politics, no? Hillary is pretty tough, no? All of this anger and tit-for-tat seems very childish to me.
I have to say that I don't understand how anyone could say that Obama's mailer is untruthful. I happen to be an Obama supporter but I'm not trying to "score points" here. I am just genuinely confused.
My understanding is that both Hillary and Obama's plans allow everyone to buy into the same health care plan that members of congress have. (is it the exact same provider? or just a similar plan?)
They both also provide subsidies for lower income families.
The main difference is that Hillary's plan includes a mandate for all families to purchase health care, whereas Obama's plan does not. The mechanism for enforcement isn't clear, although Hillary did mention that garnishing wages might be one way to enforce a mandate.
If all this is correct, why is Obama's flyer dishonest? Is the issue that he doesn't go into detail about lower income families who will have subsidized health care?
Is the issue around the concept of "whether they can afford it or not?" Again, I am baffled by people who say that under Hillary's plan, everyone will be able to afford health care.
Let's imagine a middle income family who is stretching their budget in order to, say, send their kid to a pricey college or pay for a mortgage that they probably shouldn't have entered. If you mandate that these people buy insurance, isn't that forcing them to get it whether they can afford it or not?
Not trying to be dense here. I just literally don't understand how this viewpoint can be called dishonest.
Talking about misleading health care mailers ... here is the one she distributed in WI.
http://www.wispolitics.com/1006/080217ClintonMailer.pdf
Hypocrisy much ?
It's not about the merits of the flier.
It's tactically smart for Hillary to play the victim card as she has done before other elections. On the subconscious level a young black man is unfairly attacking a white woman.
But when she won't stand for it she gains the respect of women everywhere and the sympathy of some white males to boot.
The flier itself is just instrument to bring it about. Shame on Obama for letting himself get baited into it. He doesn't need to.
You know what? If Obama comes out in a black mask and tights in the next debate as El Diablobama and clocks Sen. Clinton with a folding chair I'd call it fair play. This...
"The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group mentioned in the Obama stories." - ABC news, 2/22/08
...is totally over the line. I know two wrongs don't make a right and all that but two wrongs in this case would be Obama calling Bill Clinton an corporate slut who flies the globe praising emirs and robber barons all so he can live like royalty. Obama isn't doing that. He released a flier with a guy in a plaid shirt saying 'Gee, Hillary Clinton's health care plan had a mandate? I don't like mandates'. That's accurate. So's the 'Bill Clinton is a corporate slut' part but Obama didn't go there.
The 5% of the people not covered by Obama's plan under the worst estimates may sound like some kind of cruel, craven compromise but it's NOTHING like the human cost in the 16 years since the Clinton healthcare plan failed. The cost of Clinton stubbornness in not accepting any reform that didn't contain a mandate in '92-3 was 200 million+ health years of non-coverage. I wish we had a 5 minute break from the politics of hope for the politics of El Diablobama because somebody sure as hell has it coming.
MY "It's simply not the case that Hillary Clinton's health care plan would force people to buy insurance irrespective of ability to pay."
Yet Sen. New Politics says it is so. He is a politician. A very talented politician. But he he telling a LIE, so he can win.
About universal health care.
When Mat Stoller says, "The health care flier is, however, pretty seriously dishonest" he asserts a blatant falsehood, because Obama's flier states nothing but the truth when it asserts (this being its quotation that Hillary objects to), "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. And you pay a penalty if you don't." That's exactly what an "individual mandate" MEANS. Matt Stoller likes the "individual mandate," and this is what it means. Stoller falsifies.
Such an assertion from Stoller will either be retracted by him, or else he loses all credibility, because there is simply no way in which this assertion of his can even possibly be true -- his statement violates the very definition of an "individual mandate," and so he should apologise for supporting Hillary's libel of Obama on this.
This has nothing to do with whether there should be an "individual mandate." It has to do with defamation, lies against someone, and that's what Stoller is endorsing here.
Matt,
She has gone on record about having an enforcement mechanism that will either be based on garnishing wages or tax returns or some other form.
A quick bit of Googling get you her saying it to none other than Stephannopulous
www.youtube.com/watch?v=e18Qa56tMBU
Political strategists doubtless will talk about this contrived stunt of Hillary's in the future, but it won't change next week's results; she's done.
Political strategists doubtless will talk about this contrived stunt of Hillary's in the future, but it won't change next week's results; she's done.
Sorry, it's Mat Ygesias whom I was criticizing here, not Mat Sto0ller (who earlier today said something simiolar to Yglesias on this). So, here's the correc ted version of my comment:
When Mat Yglesias says, "The health care flier is, however, pretty seriously dishonest" he asserts a blatant falsehood, because Obama's flier states nothing but the truth when it asserts (this being its quotation that Hillary objects to), "Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it. And you pay a penalty if you don't." That's exactly what an "individual mandate" MEANS. Matt Yglesias likes the "individual mandate," and this is what it means. Yglesias falsifies.
Such an assertion from Yglesias will either be retracted by him, or else he loses all credibility, because there is simply no way in which this assertion of his can even possibly be true -- his statement violates the very definition of an "individual mandate," and so he should apologise for supporting Hillary's libel of Obama on this.
This has nothing to do with whether there should be an "individual mandate." It has to do with defamation, lies against someone, and that's what Yglesias is endorsing here.
What MattY Doesn't Know, Part #39391203423
A few days ago, Obama wrote an article in which he not-so-secretly indicated that he supports the SPP, aka "NAFTA on Steroids".
Could The Atlantic bring on at least one blogger who's familiar with these type of issues?
At last we see Hillary stripped bare of the bullshit shells she wraps herself in every morning. It's like she's finally found her real voice. Now it's just a matter of waiting to see whether American voters respond well to the pissy motif in politics.
TLB - Better Obama be down with SPP than McCain being down with OPP.
Both Hillary and Obama are running "health care" plans which put the power of the State behind forcing all the people to support the insurance industry.
This is the unfortunate result of the fact that the insurance folks threw hundreds of millions of dolars at Hillary in 1992, and stand willing to do the same again if, Heaven forfend, someone might come along with a Canadian-type plan.
In Canada, you remember, we have a free-market, and intellectually free, medical care system, but we have abolished the insurance function. Since nine people out of every nine need health care, there *is* no insurance function. (Insurance is about uncertainty, remember? There's nothing uncertain about the fact that everybody needs full health care. Therefore there's no role for insurance companies to take their rake for.)
No offense, but a few weeks ago when Hillary mentioned Wage Garnishment, I thought, oh here we go again. She will not get her heavy handed health care passed in America and the Right will crucify her for her attempt, setting back the cause another 15 years. Also, it's campaign season, campaigns use direct mail. So what, it has a 2% effectiveness rate on a good day. The national press tirade though was much MUCH more damaging to her though...
Back to lurking mode...
It's politics, but it's a strong reminder that Barack Obama is not a particularly impressive candidate on economic issues.
-on health care, he's attacking hard from the right, legitimizing precisely the sort of dishonest rhetoric that the right will use against any health care plan. It should be obvious that the plan you campaign on will be stronger than the plan you actually pass, and Obama's already given up a major method for working out the costs of health care. what will he give up next?
-on trade, it's nice to see Obama taking a less neoliberal line, and claiming to have consistently opposed NAFTA. His support for the Peru FTA and the neoliberals on his economic team, though, suggest strongly that this is posturing for Ohio, not an actual leftist stance on principle.
I voted Obama for his superior foreign policy, but he's really not making it easy for me with this sort of bullshit.
The truly sad thing is to see the nominal left so cowed that they're applauding the reincarnation of Harry and Louise. If it weren't for this exact sort of bullshit, there would be millions more people in America with health care, there would be thousands not mired in debt, tens of thousands not worried about their kid's next illness, quite a few still living. But because it's coming from our pretty-good nominee, the netroots takes to the streets in support of conservative anti-tax bullshit. It's shameful.
Here's the Bush admin's version of the truth about the White House program that Obama supports:
spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp
It's certainly odd how certain people who reflexively doubt anything Bush says take the claims made in that document completely at face value.
For instance, I believe MattY linked to ChrisHaye's "debunking" of the NAFTASuperhighway. I also believe that was before the Canadian government official gave the speech on this video where a Canadian government official hypes the NAFTASuperhighway in an official speech.
Maybe if we all wish hard enough MattY might publish a follow-up.
I'll say one thing for Lone Wacko -- he sure is persistent in his "oddities" (to be polite).
I don't like Obama's mailers, and I don't like Hillary's mailers.
A pox on all the mailers.
P.S. I can't recommend the video linked in my last comment enough, and it's not even one of mine.
Compare Bush's comments to the comments from the Canadian government official, and bear in mind that Obama supports Bush's program.
Ok. I finally watched Hillary's actual talk, and after listening to her exact words, I believe that she meant to attack Obama not on the truthfulness of the flyers, but on the fact that Obama is attacking her from the right on universal health care.
Her point was lost in her angry delivery and her mentioning Karl Rove (who is known for using sleazy tactics, not for being an ideologue). If she'd mentioned, say, Grover Norquist, the point would have made more sense but I suppose the problem is that most folks don't know who he is.
The merits of Clinton's attack notwithstanding, the optics of this display are terrible for her, for reasons others have already detailed.
As a thought experiment, I often like to imagine what the reaction would be to Obama if he had acted like Clinton. What if he had had numerous 'emotional' moments -- intentional or not -- that 'humanized' him; what if he had directly appealed to black voters the way she has appealed to women; what if his surrogates had complained loudly and often about media bias; what if he had accused Clinton of using right-wing frames on him, while ignoring the right-wing frames he had used on her; what if he had changed his slogans and messaging continually, often mimicking his opponents; what if he leveled bogus and somewhat charges at his opponent (including point out dubious ties to "terrorist"); what if he had sat on the same stage as surrogates as they accused her of making money out of cattle futures or driving Vince Foster to suicide; what if his personal demeanor veered from conciliatory to angry in the space of 48 hours.
He wouldn't have survived Super Tuesday. So much for the anti-Hillary media.
Better yet, what if Clinton had run an Obama campaign? What if she talked up hope and change, but indulged in a few negative mailers that hit below the belt?
I think you know the answer to that: She would be lauded as running a brilliant "two roads" campaign, selling a new kind of politics while making hay with the old kind of politics.
How come no one ever calls the F.I.C.A. deduction on their paycheck a "wage garnishment"? A deduction is taken from your paycheck the first day you start working and forever after that until you retire for your future Medicare, and funny, I hardly see anyone complaining they can't afford it.
Do you know that if you haven't paid into F.I.C.A. for at least ten years before you reach Medicare age, then you have to pay a much bigger Medicare premium? Everyone's wages are already "garnisheed" for Medicare coverage, right now; one could argue the way it works is that you're making pre-payments on your account. If you haven't made enough of those pre-payments, you'll get socked with high premiums and deductibles after retirement.
Examples from 2007, I had to research this in the past: if you haven't paid into the system much, your monthly premium for Part A (hospitalization) is $410. If you have paid enough, it's free. With Part B, it's $93.50 a month for nearly everyone (except certain high incomes which are charged up to $161.40.) But yes, you could say that you are paying that FICA tax now so that you don't have to come up with $410 a month more when you retire. It's "wage garnishment" for your future medical insurance, if that's the way you want to look at it.
David Lloyd-Jones 10:23pm
In Canada, you remember, we have a free-market, and intellectually free, medical care system, but we have abolished the insurance function. Since nine people out of every nine need health care, there *is* no insurance function. (Insurance is about uncertainty, remember? There's nothing uncertain about the fact that everybody needs full health care. Therefore there's no role for insurance companies to take their rake for.)
What the hell?! I'm slightly under 30, and I haven't had any reason to visit a doctor since ... well, not since I had my wisdom teeth pulled when I was 17. Meanwhile, other people are not so fortunate as me.
Health outcomes are unpredictable but can be reliably characterized by differing probabilities from person to person.
Any "universal" plan, whether based on single-payer funded by higher taxes, or based on mandatory participation in a private insurance system, forces healthy people to subsidize less healthy people. Maybe this is a goal that our society can democratically endorse. But your description of the situation is odd.
the problem is people don't understand the complete concept of Hillary's plan vs. Obama's. For those of you who are complaining about having a "choice" as to whether or not you have health care, there is no state in the union that does not require you to have car insurance. Why? Because if you're involved in an accident, by you having insurance, it protects the other party if the accident is your fault. You need to think of health insurance the same way. The reason our premiums are so high is because of the millions who don't have it, and who are not turned away when they have a need, so the cost if passed along to the rest of us. The ONLY way premiums can be affordable for all is if EVERYONE carries health insurance. Obama's plan is not realistic, because if everyone isn't covered, he won't be able to make it affordable. It won't work.
I believe the reason Hillary was so outraged today is because she sees Obama as being covert. It wasn't the facts that were in the ad that were so upsetting, it was the WAY the ad was presented, with the same image of the two everyday people sitting around the table that the extreme right wing machine used to derail Hillary back in the early '90's when she was trying to put together universal health care. And, the flyer was misleading in the same kind of way. It left out important facts, such as the fact that she really hasn't committed to any sort of sanctions for those who refuse to buy health insurance.
It is Obama who is supposedly running a campaign taking the high ground and running his campaign on changing the very kind of politics that he is, behind the scenes, by sending out these mailers, actively participating in. I think every democrat should be outraged.
I've also noticed that he's changed his message. Now, instead of saying he is going to bring about change in washington, he's now talkign about the fact that "change won't happen overnight." and "change will be hard." You bet it will!! That's exactly the point Hillary has been trying to get across. She HAS been an agent of change for 35 years with the work and the legislation that she has accomplished. Obama, on the other hand, has 3 years of experience as a community organizer.
Also, I think he is hypocritacal to attack her on two major issues, neither of which he was even IN the Senate to vote on! One was the Iraq war resolution and the other was Nafta. He makes it appear as if she voted for Nafta. She was not in the Senate at the time, and in fact, in a biography being written about her by Carl Bernstein, he says that she did not agree with Bill Clinton about NAFTA and it was the source of a huge disagreement between them. If she had been in the Senate at the time, she would never have supported or voted for NAFTA. And, if Obama had been in the Senate for the Iraq War vote, chances are he would have voted for it just like the majority of the other senators did who were shown evidence behind closed doors that Sadaam had reconstituted his nuclear weapons.
I think those of you who are supporting Obama should simply do some research on him, find out who he really is, and what he's done and accomplished and if you still believe he's the right guy for the job, then go ahead and support him and vote for him. But, don't vote for a movement. Vote for a president.
Every retiree's Social Security check has a deduction taken from it for Medicare hospital insurance, whether you want it or not. I'm retired and don't know a single person who objects to that, and no one calls it garnishing. It's our health care system administered through our government of the people, by the people, and for the people. It belongs to we the people. It works. It's just. It makes sense. Democrats had to fight hard to create it and will have to fight hard to extend something like it to all Americans. It only works, however, if we all share in it and each take our share of the responsibility for supporting it. Of course there are programs that provide additional medical expense support for people who are low income or suffering hardship. It's that simple. The non-hospital part of Medicare is voluntary; you don't have to sign up for it, but if you do, you pay a premium (and there are supports for people who can not afford it), but we ALL share in supporting it through our tax dollars. That's what it means to be a citizen.
I wonder, actually, if all Clinton's fuss about this mailer is actually an attempt to shame Edwards out of endorsing Obama (or an attempt to tip Edwards towards endorsing her).
Quite few comments in the "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander" vein. You know the whiny: "If Hillary is criticizing Obama's plan, why can't he criticize hers."
What nonsense. The point is that she has a UNIVERSAL health care plan and he has republican-lite. Every progressive should be jumping up and down on Obama about two things. His stupid plan and his dishonest attack on the only universal health care left.
Obama's natural move would be to apologize, plagiarize Hillary's plan (like he has done so many times before), and give a few more ba-rock concerts.
What to do with the fake-progs (i.e., Obama supporters)? I haven't got a clue. But I suspect that the cliche', "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" is going to be in vogue by 2009 and I'll be a charter member of the Dump O-bomb-ba, Draft Hillary 2012 movement.
Acronym of the day: FUBO
I think this boils down to: the mailers aren't false, but they're really harsh.
About universality, insurance mandates, and the left-right continuum...
I actually think using the traditional left-right grade on health-care twists and contorts the differences. I'm a 100% single-payer kinda guy (which many would say is far left), but I don't see Hillary's plan as closer to me than Obama's. To me, Obama isn't attacking from the right.
Neither plan from Obama or Clinton actually insures everyone (efficacy of mandates isn't complete); so the issue isn't about universality. Now, you can argue about a 5 to 10 million difference in uninsured. But I believe insurance systems will always have cost problems and political problems that only single-payer systems can clear.
So what is the path from here to single-payer? Lot's of different ideas for that question, but I certainly am not convinced that Hillary's plan is a better path than Obama's.
It's simply not the case that Hillary Clinton's health care plan would force people to buy insurance irrespective of ability to pay.
-Matt
The ad says "even though you can't afford it". Of course Clinton's health care plan would force some people to buy insurance even though they think they can't afford it; otherwise there would be no one who needs to be forced. Matt is arguing that if they think they can't afford it but the government says they can afford it, therefore they can afford it.
"It's simply not the case that Hillary Clinton's health care plan would force people to buy insurance irrespective of ability to pay."
Who decides if you have the ability to pay? I assume the government. What if you disagree?
What nonsense. The point is that she has a UNIVERSAL health care plan and he has republican-lite.
If you think Obama's health care plan is Republican-lite, your conception of the ideological scale is really, completely skewed.
Obama's natural move would be [...] plagiarize Hillary's plan (like he has done so many times before)...
It certainly doesn't seem to me as though much of his core issues or policy proposals have been taken from Sen. Clinton.
What to do with the fake-progs (i.e., Obama supporters)?
How insulting. I'm certainly not a fake progressive, and I doubt most of his other supporters are (not the "party activists" Sen. Clinton derided as the natural born caucusgoers, nor the blogospheric participants). Is this what your argument has come down to?
I haven't got a clue. But I suspect that the cliche', "The bigger they are, the harder they fall" is going to be in vogue by 2009 and I'll be a charter member of the Dump O-bomb-ba, Draft Hillary 2012 movement.
Yeah. You get right on that.
"there is no state in the union that does not require you to have car insurance."
You can not use this analogy for mandatory health insurance. You have a choice with car insurance. If you don't want to pay, you don't drive a car. No one has a choice with health insurance, if you are alive you will have to buy insurance.
"there is no state in the union that does not require you to have car insurance."
You can not use this analogy for mandatory health insurance. You have a choice with car insurance. If you don't want to pay, you don't drive a car. No one has a choice with health insurance, if you are alive you will have to buy insurance.
TLS:
Try getting around in most places with out a car. It ain't happenin'.
Obama's points are accurate on health care. Hillary decides what you can afford, and fines you or "goes after your wages" if you refuse to buy what she deems affordable.
And check her plan descriptions. As I wrote here, she has separate plan descriptions for woman and various ethic groups on her site. The plans promise different things, and each group - especially women - get promises that they'll get favored treatment when it comes for Hillary to decide what you can "afford"
It isn't universal, single payer health care for everyone. It is all about mandates and subsidies to buy private insurance, and is thus worse than what we have now. Both plans are bad - Hillary's is worse.
"there is no state in the union that does not require you to have car insurance."
That "mandate" only applies to w-2 serfs and people with assets to lose - not everyone. Think illegal aliens buy insurance? And last time I checked, there is a (not small) line item in your policy that covers for injuries at the hands of uninsured motorists.
Lets first mandate - truly mandate - everyone to buy auto insurance. Then, when that is successful, we'll move onto health insurance.
Lets first mandate - truly mandate - everyone to buy auto insurance. Then, when that is successful, we'll move onto health insurance.
Posted by Sweating Through Fog | February 24, 2008 10:48 AM
Oh puhleez, not at all a convincing talking point, try another. Lots of people work for cash under the table so they don't have to pay taxes, too, and many do it without ever being caught. You never get 100% compliance, even under the tightest totalitarian state.
"Lots of people work for cash under the table so they don't have to pay taxes, too, and many do it without ever being caught. You never get 100% compliance, even under the tightest totalitarian state."
Sure. And Hillary's fairy tale assumes we will get the "affordability" of 100% compliance. Of course no totalitarian methods will be needed - human nature will change when Hillary gets elected.
Comments closed March 08, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Just as a political matter, though, I don't know how you go from this to this within the space of 48 hours.
I am honored--really honored--to be on this stage with Barack Obama so that I can discuss how he's such a VILE shameful fascist liar in the mold of Karl Rove. And whoever wins, we'll be just fine.
It's bound to give people whiplash.
Posted by southpaw | February 23, 2008 5:45 PM