Skip to main content

Hillary Clinton claims to be the health care champion. She claims that she will fight for universal health care as president, and she has used her position in the former president Clinton's administration to justify her position. However, thanks to Andrew Sullivan pointing out an important issue, we can see that Clinton only cares about health care if it is her plan, and not any one else's.

It's a story that few have heard. If it were to spread like the recent stories of her exaggertions, then she may very well lose her chances at the nomination, as universal health care has been her platform for a long period. So, on to the details:

In 1992, a democratic congressman named Jim Cooper from Tennessee introduced a health care reform plan that gained bipartisan support. However, the plan which he introduced did not include a mandate by employers to force this universal health coverage.

At a meeting in 1993 with Cooper and Hillary Clinton however, she gave the concept no respect. Cooper recalls Clinton as being "ice cold" during the meeting.

Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: "We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me."

Further investigation reveals the following:

Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy.

At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton "kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ "

Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as "dangerous and threatening." Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is "a real fraud. I hope he doesn’t make it to this place." According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot.

According to Andrew Sullivan, democrats should be more outraged by this type of behavior. I'll leave that to those who study more on it with the link of the article that gives this information:
http://www.nytimes.com/...

Originally posted to broskeeto on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:45 AM PDT.

Poll

Does Clinton honestly care about health care for every person?

11%17 votes
64%96 votes
23%35 votes

| 148 votes | Vote | Results

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

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

?

More Tagging tips:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment Preferences

  •  I am glad you posted this. (6+ / 0-)

    I did a lot of reading about Clinton's heathcare plan before YearlyKos last summer. I began reading with the assumption that the "harry and Louise" campaign played a role in the defeat of her health plan, and the social science research shows that it did. However, the research also showed that she used bad political judgement throughout. Not only was she hostile to Cooper and other possible plans, her plan was seriously delayed. (For comparison, Medicare and medicaid were rolled out, poaased by congress, and signed in 6 months). By the time if finally reached Congress, it had become a political football for the 1994 election, and moderate Republicans were no longer willing to sign on.

  •  The BIG problem I have with BO's and HRC's (4+ / 0-)

    "Health Care" plans (Damn it, these are INSURIANCE plans, not health care plans) is that they reward the insurance companies who have been screwing us for our $$$ and f'ing up the health care system at the same time.
    If we still have "managed care" does it really matter?
    They are both putting it in the hands of Humana et. al. Who benefits from mandates? The ones that sell the policies. Now they get to sell one to each of us, so we all have crappy health insurance.

    Woofy Woof!

    Do we really expect the insuriance companies to cut costs SO much they lose money?

    As long as they are the providers, we lose.

    "I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." Will Rogers

    by mlandman on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 09:57:46 AM PDT

  •  Clinton: too far left. (0+ / 0-)

    That's your objection.

    FWIW, I agree, which is why I support BHO.  

    "[G]lobalization is...increasing the efficiency of resource allocation through stronger capital markets" - Barack Obama

    by burrow owl on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:00:59 AM PDT

  •  Only if.. (6+ / 0-)

    a candidate supports a ban on direct marketing of prescription drugs can it be said that they are 'serious' about healthcare. Why does Canada have a better healthcare system, lower costs and lower rates of prescription drug abuse? Direct marketing is ILLEGAL, and was also in the US until intense lobbying allowed a change in FDA rules.

  •  Congressman Cooper (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, leema

    was the target of a smear campaign.  The issue was effectively taken off the table with elected leaders who are charged with public policy by the Constitution, and the whole discussion was privatized; Hillary Clinton and the Insurance companies.

    The mandates are the danger.

    You may see true Universal Health care if we get the lobbyists out of washington, which is Obama'a first priority.  A lot of people don't get that he's bent on doing that, cleaning up the violations of the Constitution and all of that is going to be necessary to get anything like a Universal Plan.  This will also require a media that has some effective boundaries from their telecommunications company owners who are also tightly woven.

    That is why Sen. Obama's tactic of NOT running on lobby money is the first step in taking back our government.
    Without that, any other efforts are paltry and putting out minor fires while the whole forest is ablaze.

    Vote for Senator Obama!  He has planned a brilliant campaign that is already changing our nation in positive ways.  We need a clean start and mark my words, once the lobby interests are not enmeshed we will see real progress toward far more intelligent  legislation.  Until we have the nominee and the coattails in place, the full plan cannot really be refined.

    •  Rhetoric (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      planetclaire4

      Does not make fact. Lobbyest out of washington? Heh, reality bites.

      Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08, DE-01

      by LaEscapee on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:29:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But the rhetoric...which is part of the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LaEscapee

        education of me and thee...is the vital first step so that we will select legislators who will fight to bring back regulation and eliminate or at least reduce the influence of lobbyists over and in our government and politicians.

        cynicism is not always reality.
        (although have to admit I vacillate between cynicism and hope myself!)

        •  o/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SarahLee

          hi leema,

          I'm just wondering whether you intend to give us another update about Lynn Woolsey - I looked for a press release regarding her plans on her vote as a superdelegate - no luck.


          ````
          peace

          Coming April 10th! jotter appreciation day - but why wait, when you can rec today?

          by peace voter on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 11:06:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Her campaign office now won't say anything... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SarahLee, peace voter

            and I never got the call back I was told would come.

            But I did get an official letter dated March 14th saying that: "while I remain a strong Hillary supporter, I will cast my vote at the convention for the candidate that is chosen not through back room deals, but by the votes of the American public."

            I have been trying to get her office to define "the American public", but with no success.  

            I should update the diary I guess...but keep hoping for something more definitive....like which American Public?  

      •  This article (0+ / 0-)

        is deceptive, and is clearly intended to misrepresent information to a powerful voting constituency.

        Individual lawyers do contribute.  Maybe there actually are lawyers who value the constitution.

        We have seen a lot of stats draw about individual contributions and conflated into representation of corporations.  Individuals working for firms often do not support their firms policies, and there may be some folks on wall street that are mortified by the drek they see every day.

        A look at Obama's record demonstrates that he is not a suit: you don't spend time as a community organizer if you're full of c---.  I can personally attest to the low monetary rewards of teaching in higher education, and that is a real labor of love.  You have to believe what your teaching.  I also think that his record of legislation is more substantive than what you're reading about in nearly any publication.

        I appreciate your cynicism.  

        I might have voted for Edwards.  I love his wife.  But he didn't have the organizational chops to make it happen, and carping ain't change. Prosecuting bad guys is a noble art.  So is community organization and teaching Consitutional law; and organizing a campaign that is energizing voters.  At least, despite whatever you are trying to smear Obama with, he is not in bed with the likes of Mark Penn and the human rights violations all over the globe that this guy makes his career covering up.

        I will also mention that Obama was legislating against the sleazy mortgage practices before it ever hit the papers.

  •  Both twins oppose single payer (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    planetclaire4, LaEscapee, mlandman

    Both political twins, Obama and Hillary, oppose the ONLY solution to this problem: single payer, which the public overwhelmingly---and now doctors---favor.

    So neither of these two DLC corporate Democrats is willing to lead on this issue.

    Further, they won't even FOLLOW the public and doctors to solve the crisis of health insurance.

    Both of their proposals---to keep HMOs in charge of denying us full, affordable coverage---will actually STOP reform.

    Stop trying to create a difference between Hillary and Barack where none exists; it's a distinction without a difference.

    Obama used to be for single payer before he came out against it.

    by formernadervoter on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:19:02 AM PDT

  •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SingularExistence, planetclaire4

    What Democrats should be outraged at is that is people trying to put forward bogus half measure plans instead of plans that cover all Americans. Seems to me that when it was pointed out...

    They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy.

    It may have been right since the industry invested millions to defeat her plan, which was much more comprehensive. Harry and Louise ads, you know the template Obama has used for his own ads that will in the end destroy any chance of true UHC? Mandates? How do you argue they are fine for people who can't afford them for their children, yet are out of bounds for everybody? What he has done by using the same argument the right has used for years is build a wall that will take decades longer to demolish. All the young people who are decrying "mandates" now fail to realize that it is the same argument the right has used since Truman first introduced the American public to the issue.

    Edwards Democrats ActBlue LA-01, NC-08, IN-06, KY-01, NC-09, IA-03, WA-08, DE-01

    by LaEscapee on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:22:10 AM PDT

  •  Oh, okay (0+ / 0-)

    I'll bet that was a heckuva healthcare plan, particularly if that notable progressive firebrand David Brooks thought so.

    After all, isn't Brooks the go-to guy around here for sensible, rationale, well-reasoned, political commentary?

    Wait - what?  No?

    Oh.  Never mind.

    "I can't come to bed yet! Someone is WRONG on the Internet!" - XKCD

    by SingularExistence on Sun Apr 06, 2008 at 10:37:41 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site