Hillary to delay universal health care... for eight years?

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton told us that there is "no debating the moral urgency of strengthening our healthcare system for children and all Americans."  

The trouble is that she feels that moral urgency less than any other Democrat.  If it's so urgent to her, why is she missing union deadlines for coming up with a universal health care plan?  And why does she want to put off universal health care until a hypothetical second term that she may never get?  

Despite having worked on the issue since the 1990s, Hillary has missed the SEIU's August 1 deadline for introducing a universal healthcare plan:

Hillary seems set to blow one of this race's early deadlines: The Service Employees' international Union's August 1 deadline for releasing a plan for universal healthcare...

[SEIU Spokeswoman Stephanie Mueller] said she didn't consider the first outlines of Clinton's healthcare policy (not to mention 1994) a full plan.

"She hasn’t issued a plan that would cover everyone," she said.

The even bigger problem has to do with the time frame she's setting for universal health care -- the end of her second term.  Who knows if she'll ever get there?  And even if she does, there are very good reasons to get it done a lot faster than that.  Consider the number of Senators up for election in each of the next three election years:

Year  Dem Rep
2008  12   21
2010  15   19
2012  24   9

With so many GOP targets up for election in 2008, we're almost guaranteed big gains.  2010 could be a good year as well.  But with 24 of our people facing election in 2012, our Senate majority will probably be significantly reduced.  We're going to need big numbers in the Senate to pass any plan, let alone a very progressive one.  Even if you're guaranteed a second term -- which Hillary won't be -- intentionally waiting until after 2012 to pass universal health care is madness.  

•  Tips for Universal Health Care... Now

  Waiting until after 2012 is completely ridiculous.  

  by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:24:45 AM PDT

  •  Hillary doesn't need to submit a UHC to SEIU

    or offer detailed plans and solutions on ANY issues. Hillary sold her soul to Murdoch...

    by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:53:59 AM PDT

    •  Nobody needs to submit anything

      to SEIU.

      by Pozzo on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:56:58 AM PDT

      •  Disrespecting the unions

        If it wasn't enough for Hillary's top advisor, Mark Penn, to be the CEO of a firm that helps companies with union-busting, here she is blowing off their requests for a health care plan by a certain date.  

        Do you share the same disrespect for the labor movement that the Hillary campaign does?  

        by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:03:59 AM PDT

        •  Exactly! blowing off SEIU

          by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:09:31 AM PDT

        •  It's not disrepect

          It's call not kow towing. Seriously, who are the unions to demand that candidates submit anything to them and isn't giving in to them pandering?

          by Pozzo on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:11:44 AM PDT

          •  Unions = greatest antipoverty movement in America

            who are the unions to demand that candidates submit anything to them and isn't giving in to them pandering?

            As John Edwards once said, they're the greatest antipoverty movement this country has ever known. Do you know what factory jobs were like before unions really got going?  Go back and read The Jungle sometime.  

            The unions are the best advocates for working people in today's America, and a candidate who doesn't do right by them is no friend of mine.  

            by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:29:22 AM PDT

      •  Thumbing Your Nose at SEIU

        is NOT a brilliant move.  I wrote a very similar diary a couple of days ago at JE'08.  

        Why doesn't Hillary just say she will have a plan ten years from now when she would presumbably be out of office.  Hillary is so in bed with the Drug Companies and Health Providers, Insurance Cos., etc. that she cannot afford to alienate them.  

        by JohnnysGirl on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:18:11 AM PDT

        •  Actually, the SEIU is begging for pandering

          there is no way that Hillary is going to repeat her mis-step in the 1990s.

          I'm fairly certain that no candidate can offer a serious plan and expect to have it implemented.  Universal Healthecare will come from Congress or not at all.

          It may become politically necessary to come up with something that voters can latch on to, but it's unrealistic to make this your pet issue beyond getting a committment to the concept.

          by MaxUS on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:35:36 AM PDT

          •  She can say

            she supports something like HR 1200 with 20% state co-pays on all non-surgical and non-drug items a state wishes to have for its citizens.

            by SingleVoter on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:49:33 AM PDT

          •  I'm confident that no plan has a chance unless ..

            ... the President can say that they won the election running with the plan.

            That is that "mandate" thing that Clinton's Health Care plan lacked ... because he ran on pursuing Universal Health Care, without saying how. So he could not say to Congressman "X", "look, I won your district too, and your constituents thought they were supporting this plan ... don't let them down"

            by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:33:26 PM PDT

      •  The Senate bill hopper

        is the proper place to submit bills.

        by SingleVoter on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:16:06 AM PDT

  •  Health care coverage

    a done deal, and DISPENSED in 8 years.

    That sounds pretty realistic to me.

    How long do you think it should take, from input through design to implementation?

    by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:57:59 AM PDT

    •  how long?

        If the plan is an insurance company subsidy in disguise, it will take a while to create a law that will con the American people... but, if it is an extension of Medicare to everyone, it will take only as long as it takes people to go to their doctor and present their Social Security card or other federally recognized method of identification.  This is brain surgery only for those who want to delay or obfuscate their true intentions.

      by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:08:07 AM PDT

      •  that is

        one perspective, I guess.

        by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:38:08 AM PDT

        •  the old way vs. the being screwed way

            When I was a kid your went to see the doctor or the doctor came to see you (if you were sick enough), he treated you and you paid and the transaction was complete.  
            With insurance you pay your premium which HAS to be more than what your medical care will cost, then go to the doctor they tells you to go to only if they preapprove your visit, the doctor treats you, and then the company delays paying the doctor for 90 days because of all the paper work.  And this is the best we can do?  Give me a break.
            Why can't I go to the doctor of my choice, when I feel the need, she treats me and sends the bill by EFT (using the coding system the AMA has already created and is being used all over the country) to Medicare and they send her her money by return EFT?  Surely, if we can build a space station we should be able to figure out something this simple.
            But let me give you a hint: we don't do this because of the technological challenge...it's because lazy-assed investors cannot extract their pound of flesh from the transaction.  They have a cash cow and will not let go without the fight of the century...one comparable to the fight to limit the use of tobacco in public places that is still on-going!

          by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:57:09 PM PDT

          •  I agree with you

            but I think your timeline is unrealistic

            by coigue on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:23:07 AM PDT

            •  my timetable

                Well, how long does it take to enroll in Medicare?  My wife received a card from Medicare...a card that was generated from the Social Security rolls based on her coming to her 65th birthday.  All she had to do was keep the card and phone them to tell them which version of Midicare she wanted and if she wanted the prescription drug option.  How long does that take...well I guess you could go to the census records and see how many people will turn 65 on a given day and divide the time in that day by how many cards are needed to be sent out.
                But the bottom line is that once we put medical need AS OUR PRIMARY CONCERN then we can find the time to follow up with the paper work because most everyone qualified for the universal Medicare coverage will already be on some federal database.  
                This is complicated and time-consuming only if we want to sneak some federal subsidy of the insurance company passed the American people or just stiff the American people and not do anything!

              by Steve Love on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:17:29 PM PDT

    •  How long from design to legislation to ...

      ... passing? Well, if you run with a coherent plan, that would be under a year for "a bill to become law". If passed in the first year, fully implemented by the end of the first term is a realistic goal. If "roadblock" Senators have to be knocked aside in the mid-terms, then add a year or two.

      And as Neil points out, if it is a project "for the second term", possibly never.

      This is not the first time a Clinton would have downrated the importance of universal health care. Clinton making NAFTA a higher priority went a long way in undermining his ability to get his plan through.

      by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:38:12 PM PDT

      •  I don't remember that NAFTA had any

        effect on Health Care.

        I thought the what's his name and Louise ads did.

        Shortly after Newt Gingrich did.

        Then we went down a very baaaad path.

        Some of it may be attributed to backlash from proceeding in a way that did not take into consideration all points of view.

        by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:32:24 PM PDT

        •  The loss of political capital certainly did ...

          ... as did the delay, since when the NAFTA fight was at its hottest, it took so much of the Clinton administration's time and effort. NAFTA was a reason why Newt Gingrich was "shortly after", as well as being another reason why Newt Gingrich was at all.

          Now, it was an overly complex, even byzantine, system. That complexity made it harder to make the case for the system, because opponents would tell lies about it, and it would take quite a while to work out whether or not they were lies.

          So with respect to ... Harry? ... and Louise (I never saw those ads at the time), NAFTA was not the only reason why those who had been expected to be "natural" supporters were not making the clamor required to make people doubt the accuracy of the health insurance propaganda.

          And politically, HillaryCare did rely on a miscalculation that bringing insurance companies to the table and devising a system that many would be willing to live with would neutralize opposition from that sector ... those willing to live with it were still not, of course, enthusiastic about it, so they just hung on the sidelines, while the opponents in the sector pursued their propaganda.

          So the loss of political support as a result of NAFTA was only one of the reasons for the failure.

          by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:48:21 PM PDT

          •  not sure about your timeline.

            but I am going to bed,

            Gnight

            by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:33:25 PM PDT

      •  Oh, come on...

          NAFTA as a priority over what his wife was doing?  Are you nuts or have you never been SUCCESSFULLY married?  Any man who sabotages the work of the woman he sleeps with is a fool or just loves to live dangerously..."Gee, Officer, he was sleeping real well until I put that pillow over his head and then he just stopped breathing for some reason...."  :-)
          Hillary's plan didn't pass muster because of a multi-million dollar ad campaign full of lies and half-truths designed to poison the concept in the public's mind and funded by Phrma and others.  It was the same "universal coverage is socialized medicine" garbage that the AMA spread during Truman's day...and anytime when a serious effort is made to stop the rape of the American people by the insurance and pharmaceutical industry.
          Get your facts right before you charge Hillary with such poppycock.

        by Steve Love on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:37:34 PM PDT

•  We cannot afford to wait as

  long as Senator Clinton apparently intends to wait.

  Edwards has a universal health care plan we need to pass ASAP.

  by TomP on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:25:19 AM PDT

  •  Absolutely

    The Edwards plan is awesome -- universal coverage, a publicly run option, and a back door into the single payer system that we're all dreaming of.  

    by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:35:34 AM PDT

    •  uh...

      Edwards = awesome! (check)
      Clinton = all things that are bad (check)

      Ok, we got it now.  Thanks.

      by Caldonia on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:48:33 AM PDT

      •  Does edwards actually promise all this?

        because if he does, then it seems pretty empty to me.
        Empty, pretty packaging.

        by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:42:46 PM PDT

        •  Its in Edwards plan.

          He promises to fight for the plan ... the points mentioned above follow from the plan.

          by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:39:43 PM PDT

          •  we actually need someone who

            won't cause a republican backlash.

            by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:36:22 PM PDT

            •  And for that, we need to deliver.

              We need runs on the board if we are going to build on a Presidential victory. The New Deal established a collection of programs as its legacy, and made the Democratic party the natural party of government for a generation.

              The balance of power of Democratic Senators in the 2006 cohort gives us an extremely rare opportunity to gain real reform, as opposed to defending existing programs and making incremental improvements. In politics, those who take the opportunities presented to them tend to be rewarded, and those who squander those opportunities tend to be punished.

              by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:53:47 PM PDT

              •  agreed 100% nt

                by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:34:52 PM PDT

  •  Plus politically impractical

    The longer a President waits for this kind of major change, the more likely something else will intervene to block it.  Who knows what congress or the economy or foreign policy will look like by then, it is better to take major reform at the beginning.

    by AJ WI on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:20:04 AM PDT

    •  Right

      the centerpiece items, like health care, need to be done, or at least started in the first year. Second term is absurd: what transformative policies are every done in a second term?

      I have concerns about Obama's approach as well, since he would fund his univer-- health care plan by letting Bush's tax cuts expire at the end of 2010, as opposed to JRE, who would roll them back immediately, in concurrence with intriducing his health care plan.

      Would Obama be able to act on health care until before 2011?

      by david mizner on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:24:42 AM PDT

    •  to have it doen in 8 years

      she will  have to start right away

      by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:43:17 PM PDT

•  Pandering to insurance and pharm big corps?

  Hillary has taken more money from the insurance and pharm big corps than any other Dem presidential candidate.

  Just sayin'...

  by NCDem Amy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:29:45 AM PDT

  •  They get what they pay for

    And when they pay a lot of money for delaying health care reform, they get the delays they want.  

    by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:34:20 AM PDT

  •  How can Hillary possibly deliver universal health

    care after the "Hillarycare" fiasco?

    I can't think of a single Dem with less credibility to face the barrage of "Socialism!" attacks.

    by Smallbottle on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:55:05 AM PDT

    •  How's that for blaming the victim

        Hillary's effort is sabotaged by a mult-million dollar ad campaign full of lies and distrotions funded by the industry and SHE LOSES CREDIBILITY????  How does that work on a rational basis???...or are you one of those who blame the woman for being raped?

      by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:26:25 AM PDT

      •  Have a delicious, well-deserved donut for using

        rape to score--well, fail to score--an utterly irrelevant point.

        I have to track down that woman who was just dragged onto the Boston Esplanade, beaten and brutally violated. She'll be glad to hear you found a way to make use of her horrific, life-changing experience.

        Get help. Please.

        by Smallbottle on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:53:18 AM PDT

        •  What planet did you just come from that

          your remark makes sense?  If you cannot follow the debate find someplace else to kibitz.

          by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:33:41 PM PDT

      •  Perfect analogy. n/t

        by Caldonia on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:50:22 AM PDT

        •  really???

          you think blaming rape victims has a place a the table here as rhetoric between Democrats??????

          by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:45:27 PM PDT

          •  Huh!

             What part of anology do you not get?  Blaming Hillary for being victimized by the health care industry is no different that blaming a woman for being raped...is that too deep or are you new to the English language?  ;-)

            by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:38:25 PM PDT

            •  Um. It's not deep at all

              it's offensive.

              Is that too deep for you or are you new to the human race?

              ;-)

              by coigue on Fri Aug 03, 2007 at 10:24:35 AM PDT

              •  what is offensive...

                rape or the denial of health care to the millions of people who cannot afford it???  I find both offensive, in case you are wondering!!!  Why you seem content with the latter and distressed with the former suggests an obsession with sexaul matters that is trumping any sense of social justice.  Perhaps there is a personal reason for that, which is understandable on a personal level, but hardly the basis for public policy.

                by Steve Love on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 11:53:22 AM PDT

                •  assumes facts not in evidence:

                  Why you seem content with the latter and

                  by coigue on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:45:45 PM PDT

                  •  so then

                    why do you have your knickers in a knot?  Surely this is not the first time someone has used rape to illustrate a truth in another field.  If you really are strongly oppossed to millions being denied health care why are you arguing with me about how I make my argument as convincing as I know how and not seconding my effort and IMPROVING ON IT?  
                      If I have assumed "facts not in evidence" what are the facts that you are so compelled to argue with me about?

                    by Steve Love on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 10:41:35 PM PDT

                    •  I don't know

                      I forgot what we were talking about.

                      With two kids, a demanding job, and an exciting turn in my volunteerism, I am afraid that I forgot most of the details of our conversation.

                      The only thing I remember is that i do not think rape is a good, nay appropriate, rhetorical tool. As offensive as the problem is, it is insensitive to those whose lives have been trampled by rape.  But shrug in the big scheme of things it's not that big of a deal.

                      My panties were in a bunch when this conversation started. Now, not so much.

                      I think we agree with each other in essentials, that the state of health care in this country has tragic consequences for too many, and that for the rest of us it represents a large measure of insecurity.

                      Isn't that what counts?

                      by coigue on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:04:54 AM PDT

                      •  Not used flippantly!!!

                        I think we agree with each other in essentials, that the state of health care in this country has tragic consequences for too many, and that for the rest of us it represents a large measure of insecurity.

                        Isn't that what counts?

                        YOU BET!!!!!

                          And I am glad we are coming together.  I don't like to inflict further pain on those already in pain...only on those who are feeling no pain.  :-)
                          As a former psychotherapist, I am acutely aware of the lasting effects rape has and do not use it as a metaphor for all but the most vile of events...such as, I think we agree, the abandoning of millions of sick and disabled to their own devices because we cannot find a way to fund universal health care in what, argueably, is the richest country in the world.

                        by Steve Love on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:20:21 AM PDT

                        •  Oh no.

                          Not another pshychotherapist...my family is crawling with them. My kids cannot draw a picture without it being analyzed to death ;-)

                          Anyhow, I take it all back, if you need the metaphor to emphasize the sheer weight of it, I am sorry I got in your way.

                          Cheers!!!

                          by coigue on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 02:20:15 PM PDT

                          •  I can feel your pain.

                            If you have people in the mind game I can understand where you are coming from...and my kids would understand your kids!

                            Thanks for understanding. I'm also a Texas Aggie and it is said that we are sometimes verbally challenged to evaluate anything without resorting to some kind of barnyard-related explatives, so I try to lift the quality of my language every chance I get and need all the encouragement I can find.  ;-)

                            And CHEERS! to you as well.

                            by Steve Love on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 08:07:54 PM PDT

                            •  fight he good fight Steve!

                              We definitely need your ilk out there in Texas.

                              Take care.

                              by coigue on Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 11:19:01 AM PDT

    •  LOL

      She has MORE credibility.  

      by Caldonia on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:49:23 AM PDT

  •  Hillary and corporate donations

     This means squat!  After the beating she took back in Bill's adminstration I doubt that there is much love between her and that industry, but do you think they have a vested interest in damaging her intergrity by donating to her camplaign?  You betcha!  
     But what if Hillary takes their money, wins with the help of it, and then delivers a health care package that the American people need NOT, what big insurance and pharm want?  Wouldn't that be a kick: hanging the guys with their own rope!  I love it!  Couldn't happen to a more deserving group of people!
      Of course, that will be harder if those of us too politially naive to see such a thing happen keep trying to undermine Hillary's integrity and chances to win in '08.  Does anyone think FOR ONE MOMENT that a Republican president will give us a health care plan that isn't written by the industry?  Hillary is our only hope unless we are willing to wait another 60 years.      

    by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:21:19 AM PDT

•  Unions get to set deadlines?

  Unions issue deadlines to candidates? What balls.

  And not that I care for her much but in her defense I believe that she intends for Universal Health to be implemented and working by her second term, not just simply proposed.

  Has Edwards indicated when he expects his proposal to be implemented and fully functional?

  by 1918 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:30:36 AM PDT

  •  Hillary is very cavelier about it

    ...don't you think? Considering the urgency of the situation and the fact that she may have a Democratically controlled congress if elected, don't you think she could set an earlier goal?

    by born socialist on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:38:06 AM PDT

  •  Edwards will put in place asap

    Edwards said he wont wait but will put Universal HealthCare in place as soon as he's sworn into office.

    "It's not a time for political calculation, it's a time for political courage"

    And, yes, Unions set a deadline for candidates to put out healthcare plans. They are pushing this issue to the top of the agenda and I applaud their work on this.

    by NCDem Amy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:38:06 AM PDT

    •  That is when he will propose it

      not when he expects is to be functioning.

      I like JE and I like his plan - I am glad he is taking the lead on this. But passing bills of this magnitude does not happen overnight (or several nights), Health Care Markets will take time to be created, Electronic Medical records will take years, determining the exact size of tax credits and the amount that business' must pay into Health Care Markets also need to be determined and passed into law.

      Given the amount of money on the table, the entrenched forces and the magnitude of the solution, I just find it hard to believe that any can be fully implemented in a short period of time. And by that I mean years.

      by 1918 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:31:50 AM PDT

      •  That's the point.

        The entrenched forces are why piecemeal, incremental steps to Universal Health Care will get nickle and dimed to death ... and spreading the reform over six years means that it is impossible to sustain it as a serious political fight with serious public interest.

        And the entrenched forces are why a "commitment" to a "goal" without a plan, like in 1992, make it easier for big pharma and big insurance companies to undermine the plan.

        A newly elected President is going to be able to get a plan out of committee in the House and to the floor ... and then the fight shifts to the Senate and the Gentleman's Club.

        Whether its possible to get it through in 2009, or we have to knock some obstructionists out of the way in 2010 to get it through in 2011 ... this is the time to get the legislation through.

        by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:53:29 PM PDT

  •  SEIU held the first forum on health care

    back in .... March/April? Can't remember off the top of my head but it was a while ago. Clinton told them she'd have a plan ready in a few months and they took her at her word.

    At some point, any organization has to set a deadline for information to be put into a comparison to send out to all its members. It's not that they won't consider her plan, if she puts one out.  But they might not reprint what they send to their members to include it given the costs.

    If she didn't plan on having it to them by a certain date, she was free to pick up the phone to talk to them about it.  From what their spokesperson has said, they don't consider the pieces on health care she has released to be a full plan, because it isn't.

    Likely, she is looking to create change incrementally so that no one can attack her full plan. One of the lessons she appears to have learned from 1996 is to not give the opposition such a big target.

    Unfortunately, it also means that those of us who are Democrats and are looking at this issue in deciding who to support are left with only a "trust me" to put in the box for Hillary.  Personally, I don't pick my candidates based on "trust me" statements.

    by edgery on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:41:40 AM PDT

  •  We have already seen what that means.

    I do not believe for a minute that any candidate will be proposing a Universal Health Care system in their first year if they do not go into the campaign with a Universal Health Care plan.

    If she goes into the campaign with some of the bits and pieces of a universal health care plan, then some of the bits and pieces is what we get out of the first term. And the extremely large size of the Democratic Senate 2006 cohort means both an opportunity to push for big reforms in the 2009-2012 term, and a big risk of the opportunity for those big reforms closing in the 2012-2016 term.

    by BruceMcF on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:44:39 PM PDT

•  What's the Rush?

  What's the rush?

  If James Lowe can wait 50 years to get access to healthcare to allow him to speak, why can't all of America wait until it's convenient for Hillary to fight for universal healthcare?

  After all, Hillary has scars, and we need for her to heal before she can be bothered with healing America.

  by flubber on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:30:44 AM PDT

  •  That video is amazing

    Fifty years of not being able to speak properly.  My goodness.  

    by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:43:26 AM PDT

  •  Big Business wants Hillary to win

    CNN- to continue the Bu$hCo corporate agenda against the working poor and middle class. Hillary is actively seeking the endorsements of CEOs - while Edwards is on poverty tours exposing the HIDDEN working poor and millions without healthcare.

    by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:57:21 AM PDT

    •  What business wants they may not get

        Every politician wants corporate money for the same reason that people rob banks: that's where the easy money is.   But that does not always translate into corporations getting what they wanted.  If you look at the record of FDR, HST and LBJ you will find that none were rubberstamps for industry but they all took corporate donations.  Money is a two-edged sword: once put in the hands of another it can be used against you as easily as for you.  We also forget that money does not just buy legislation: sometimes it just buys access and celebrity.

      by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:34:36 AM PDT

      •  Well - let me know when Hillary

        goes on a poverty tour that exposes the working poor and the corporations that keep the working poor poor.
        And let me know when Hillary calls on corporations to allow workers to unionize - and actually goes to the plants and stands with union workers seeking rights to unionize.
        btw - corporations also know that candidates talk a good game in stump speeches - but John Edwards has been the most aggressive about workers' rights and the largesse of the corporateers while workers struggle with meager wages.

        by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:21:40 AM PDT

        •  you drive for show and putt for dough

            Hillary does not need to do any of that because none of those things PASSES LAWS.  We do not elect senators to join demonstrations; we hire them to do the country's business and that is pass the law that need to be passed and, if John Edwards IS NOT ELECTED, all his demonstrations for all the good causes with all the right people will be for nought!  
            Anyone who has lived in America and does not know the plight of the poor, the part corporations play in keeping them that way and the struggle unions have to organize new members (BTW I am a union brat!) is too dumb to find their way to the WH if they were elected president.  But, for your information, it is not just corporations that have their foot on the neck of the poor; take a look at the tax code and take a look at the social pressures that the poor put on the poor to stay that way.  Sadly, my dear, poverty would not go away if corporations suddenly got religion.
            And for your information also, Hillary is not for sale and your suggesting such makes you a Republican or God, who can read minds.  

          by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:27:42 PM PDT

•  Go johnny go

  Hopefully everyone sees through the Hillary-Obama dog and pony show and votes for Edwards.

  by born socialist on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:31:08 AM PDT

  •  Murdoch is very influential with the media

    BEYOND News Corp holdings - and so far the electorate seems to be relying on corporations to shape their opinions of the candidates.

    by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:00:22 AM PDT

•  Hillary has Universal Healthcare on our dime

  ...plus she's a multi-millionaire. Why should we vote for her again?

  by born socialist on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:34:02 AM PDT

  •  were you also born naive?

      What has Hillary's wealth got to do with squat?  They are all millionaires!  And as for who pays?  It's always the taxpayer, chum, or have you not noticed where your money is going?

    by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:37:34 AM PDT

•  The unanswered question...

  I haven't heard any of the candidates address one important question: "Where does the money come from?"

  No, not the money to fund the plan, but the money to counteract the "Harry & Louise II" ad campaign that will undoubtedly follow any attempt to create a universal healthcare plan.  The health care industry, I suspect, will spend whatever it takes to defeat such a plan, and I don't see anyone saying how they intend to counter that.  Have I missed something?

  by Bill W on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:36:16 AM PDT

  •  Let them try

    ...in my opinion Americans regard for the health care industry is right up there with cockroaches and republicans, which are one in the same.

    by born socialist on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:41:42 AM PDT

•  There is no way she will bring in universal care

  Listen to her answer this in the debate - she does not promise universal coverage. She is not interested in that fight again. Anyone who thinks universal health care is a priority for America should look elsewhere for a presidential candidate.

  by eugene on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:41:11 AM PDT

  •  "Listen"...

    here from the candidate herself.

    "We don't just need a plan, we need a movement.  We are serious and we are going to get it done this time."

    by Caldonia on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:47:05 AM PDT

    •  Hillary said at the end of her second term

      Hillary clearly stated that she'd implement a healthcare plan by the end of her second term. In fact, she said it at the same AFSCME Forum I embeded a video of above, although I didn't upload her remarks.

      Waiting so long, does not indicate she really believes it's an urgent situation.

      by NCDem Amy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:51:16 AM PDT

      •  No Doubt The Last Day of her

        second term.  

        by JohnnysGirl on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:21:49 AM PDT

        •  Did you listen...

          ...to the link?

          by Caldonia on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:34:26 AM PDT

      •  She talked about political will

        IIRC.  Listen, I remember this whole episode from the early 90's quite clearly.  Her recent comments about a "movement" indicate that we must build a national consensus so strong that it can withstand the BILLIONS that the insurance and pharmacuetical industries will throw up to defeat it.  This means supermajorities in both Houses, among other things, and an actively enraged electorate.

        by jarhead5536 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:28:22 AM PDT

        •  Yes. Thank you.

          People seem to be a bit too willing to believe all pie in the sky promises that candidates make these days.

          This promise is realistic, takes into account the political realities of a HUGE infrastructure that has to be cajolled and then pushedinto making a change that they fear.

          And she has the experience to do it.

          by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:49:34 AM PDT

      •  WRONG

        she said it would be done BY the end of her second term.

        As in, it use by all of us by then

        That is reasonable and it is also achievable in a way that won't piss off half of the country.

        by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:47:27 AM PDT

        •  in use

          not it use

          by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:56:57 AM PDT

        •  Candidates

          need to say they look forward to signing a bill on Inauguration Day on the Capitol steps that will:

          1. open Medicare to all Americans

          2. have age-based premiums for adults under 65

          3. be free with no co-pay or deductible for children under 18 or students under 22 in college

          Premium reductions will be provided to ensure that  all adults will retain at least a decent level of spendable income after:

          1. all governmental and debt/housing/support contractual obligations

          2. all home and car insurance

          3. home heating oil/gas & electric service allowance

          4. reasonable car cost allowance

          5. basic telephone service

          6. all educational expenses

          7. 401-K matching

          8. all uncovered medical expenses

          Financing sources will include:

          1. employer payroll taxes [with full credit for medical payouts made for the lowest paid 90% of company workers]

          2. a national sales tax on non-essentials

          3. an excessive [compared to Western Europe] domestic drug/medical technology sales revenue clawback

          4. 10% state funding of provider services in lieu of Medicaid burdens

          5. tobacco tax and settlement payouts

          6. taxing capital gains from stock options, real estate [with personal residence exclusions], REITs, and medical earnings portion of stocks as ordinary income

          7. a fifty cents per gallon gasoline tax increase

          8. state-level wealth taxes on each resident's wealth above $2 million

          by SingleVoter on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:04:16 AM PDT

          •  That is completely unrealistic

            have you noticed that GW Bush got enough votes in this country to stel one election, and to win outrigt another election?

            What does that say about half of the voters?

            by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:06:42 AM PDT

          •  by the way

            I too would love this. After waching SICKO, i really pined to move to France.

            I still do sometimes.

            by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:07:41 AM PDT

            •  france can do it so can we

              one of the things that really bothers me is that when americans who dont know any better say its unrealistic to have universal healthcare. these places that you talk of in sicko--france, canada, even australia--these countries are NOWHERE NEAR as rich as we are.

              WE CAN DO IT. its a matter of leadership. hillary is already telling you  that she doesnt have that type of leadership. and for once, i believe her.

              by AmericanHope on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:20:45 AM PDT

              •  I did not say it was unrealistic

                I said it was unrealistic for a President to make it happen on their first day.

                and it's not about the money....it's about the vast numbers of people who currently disagree with you and I in this country.

                They need to be convinced, or at least a good proportion of them do.

                by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:37:53 AM PDT

                •  let me be clear: its ALWAYS about the money

                  if there is one thing you should know about politics, its that its ALWAYS about the money.

                  that being said, bush has shown that we you get into office and you want something done; you do it. you dont wait til you feel comfortable about your standing in the polls.

                  this is one of the (many) ills of clinton-ian politics. the inability to simply act on values and not worry if something is poll-tested correctly or not.

                  bty, about 80% of the country agrees with us. yet (another) problem i have with hillary. like on the war, (where 75% agree with us) im sick of her saying/campaigning that things cant be done b/c lots of people dont agree with her.

                  show some leadership. FIGHT FOR US.

                  by AmericanHope on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 11:41:28 AM PDT

                  •  i don't think it was the ill of Clintonian

                    politics. Especially since Bill and Hill came into the WH with a bang and Hil took on health care exactly as fast as many are advocating now. Then Bill tackled gays in the military. Then we got the Republican revolution.

                    Do we REALLY have to re-invent the wheel? In this game I am afraid it's not what 80% of Americans want, it's what the majority of VOTERS want.

                    And enough voters can be convinced, as I was saying below, with information and using the bully pulpit. That's where leadership comes in, but it does take time.

                    by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 12:58:16 PM PDT

                    •  80% of voters do want healthcare

                      it has nothing to do with the voters, coigue. it has to do with politicans doing whatever it is that corporations supporting them want. and hillary has made it pretty clear that she's the corporate candidate (check the trail of the money)

                      i think back when bil got elected he may have wanted to go left, but he has LONG LONG since given that up. he (and she) realized that it was a lot easier to get elected if you shilled for big biz, so thats what the choose to do.

                      there really is enough support RIGHT NOW for universal healthcare. constantly pushing off  b/c a candidate claims there isnt support is a bunch of BS.

                      DO THE RIGHT THING. thats leadership

                      by AmericanHope on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:34:22 PM PDT

                      •  she is doing the right thing

                        she is trying to make a change that will really happen, not make promises that will piss off so many that we will end up shifting back to the right.

                        All the Dem candidates want to do the right thing.

                        What you really mean is:

                        Do it the right way.

                        What I mean is, get it done...in today's political climate, with the realities of today's healthcare induc=stry power.

                        Who has the finesse to do that?

                        Not someone who makes an executive order on the same day they are inaugurated.

                        That's a fantasy.

                        And I think any candidate who claims to want to do that KNOWS it's a fantasy.

                        by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:40:16 PM PDT

                        •  stop being so afraid of your own values

                          "she is trying to make a change that will really happen, not make promises that will piss off so many that we will end up shifting back to the right"

                          80% of the country AGREES with her. the only people she will piss off is that 20%. who are reflecting corporate values. coigue, these are the people you WANT to be pissed off at you. these aere the people that would rather save a penny than save your child's life.

                          by AmericanHope on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:50:46 PM PDT

                          •  why don't you stop

                            talking as if you know me.

                            Do you even understand how much control, not 20% but 1% have over this country?

                            Don't even try to tell me that someone can get into office and flip a switch and everything will be France.

                            That's just.....fantasy.

                            And I don't appreciate your mis-characterization of my position. If I was afraid of my own values (gag what a stupid thing to say) I would not be living them, nor would I be as involved as I am. And I am. Up to my eyeballs.

                            So show a little respect, please. That is a prerequisite to any useful discussion.

                            by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:58:53 PM PDT

                            •  respect?

                              . those 1% of people that control this country do NOT NEED to be appeased further. your hillary is intimidated by them through her 'experience' over the years.

                              fact is, france was once controled by rich people too. but they had the courage of leadership to stand up to those folks. you act like france is some out of this world nation-its not.

                              the clintons teach us to be afraid of our own values. that if we do too much of what we think is right, the country wont like us.

                              the clintons are wrong. if we do a lot of what we think is right, the country will support us.

                              the country is waiting for that leadership.

                              for some reason you think this is disrespectful.

                              by AmericanHope on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 03:28:59 PM PDT

                              •  i do not act like any of those things

                                stop pretending like you know me, and stop loading my words with your pre conceived notions.

                                Don't you get it?

                                I am on your side.

                                by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 07:29:34 PM PDT

                              •  Are you nuts or Karl Rove?

                                the clintons teach us to be afraid of our own values.

                                   This is a couple who were bushwacked by some of the wealthiest people in the world and had to face down the roar of the super religious media and a House of Representatives dead set on running them out of town...and you talk about someone AFRAID OF ANYTHING? What planet did you just get here from.
                                   The only people who's values need questioning are people like you who hide behind pseudonyms and snipe at politicians who have to put up with your crap.  When God dies and turns the world over to you then you can put in your two cents worth, in the meantime, show some class and stop making Rove and his thugs look good.

                                by Steve Love on Sat Aug 04, 2007 at 08:51:07 PM PDT

                                •  heh.

                                  well said

                                  by coigue on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 04:47:41 PM PDT

                                •  to the gutter, the clintonites go

                                  in the gutter already? its gonna be a long 6months. you guys are sad. very

                                  by AmericanHope on Sun Aug 05, 2007 at 05:49:21 PM PDT

                                  •  Only following the leader

                                      If you don't want us so-called Clintonites to go to the gutter, then STOP LEADING US THERE!  Suggesting that the Clintons "teach us to be afraid of our own values" is so pattently bullshit as to not deserve a response except that experience shows that if we do not clean out the barn the stuff gets so deep the cattle cannot get through the door.
                                      Show respect and you will be shown respect.  Act the ingrate and you will be treated like one.

                                    by Steve Love on Mon Aug 06, 2007 at 11:58:24 AM PDT

    •  She needs to be the movement... and she won't

      I hate seeing Democrats talk about how a movement has to be in place before some policy change happens.  We can't wait for the movement -- we have to be the movement.  

      That means coming out with ambitious plans and rallying public support for them.  Running around with no plan is no way to build a movement.  

      by Neil Sinhababu on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:56:12 AM PDT

      •  Did you listen...

        ...to the link?

        by Caldonia on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:11:29 AM PDT

        •  Yes, I listened to the link.

          I also heard this the first time when the SEIU forum first aired.

          And . . . I agree with her.  Voters need to make health care their primary issue.  That is why I am supporting and voting for John Edwards.  

          I don't want to hear about her scars.  I don't want to hear that she wants to have a conversation.  I don't want to hear that everyone will have a plan.  I don't want to hear about fear.  I don't want to hear about cautious baby steps.

          I want the specifics of a universal health care plan NOW so that I know it is the priority of the candidate.  I want that candidate to move into office with an undeniable mandate from the voters so that Congress won't play games with it.  I want universal health care.  Therefore, I want John Edwards for president.

          by ashlarah on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 06:59:41 PM PDT

      •  Very definition...

        ...of movement is not one person.  

        by Caldonia on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:43:42 AM PDT

      •  So wrong

        she is not talking about protests.

        She is talking about serious organization.

        And government needs to take input from people and the industry. This should not be a hegemonic decision. That was (arguably) the problem the first time around.

        by coigue on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:52:59 AM PDT

  •  ear to another rail

    You must have your ear to a different rail than I do because health care and the war are the two hot button issues and Hillary is out in front on both or will be when she is elected.

    by Steve Love on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:39:54 AM PDT

•  position papers

  i gather its both fashionable and prudent to follow candidates' statements to the press or huffpost charts for guidance on 'evolving' isshues. however the top tier dems have published. HRC in may 2007. i like to archive these seminal views ... for later comparisons.

  HRC (116KB)
  JRE (132KB)
  BHO 5/29 (48KB)
  BHO 5/30 (88KB)

  by MarketTrustee on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:41:15 AM PDT

  •  Better link for JRE's UHC plan

    http://johnedwards.com/...

    Edwards has the only truly universal healthcare plan.

    by NCDem Amy on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 09:45:58 AM PDT

    •  Gaze upon HR 676...

      The Conyers/Kucinich plan for Universal Single Payer Not for Profit Health Care for all Americans.

      I know the the supporters of the big three can't be bothered by the fact that the best plan out there is Dennis', but they should have the smarts not to call theirs' the only one.

      by rjones2818 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:02:26 AM PDT

      •  abolishing the Insurance industry overnight

        isn't wise. Edwards plan leads to single payer.

        by annefrank on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:04:23 AM PDT

        •  The sooner the better,

          although they will probably start selling supplemental insurance as soon as Single Payer's instituted.  They may even find something else that they'll tell us we need insurance for.  I have no fear for the insurance companies.

          by rjones2818 on Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 10:16:27 AM PDT

          •  Obviously, Edwards doesn't fear the insurance cos

            since he rails about them 24/7.