When it comes to health care, could there be anything more antithetical to the American ideal than Big Government being completely in charge? Actually, yes. It would be big government creating a system that requires private-sector entities whose interests inherently oppose to "come together" to form "partnerships" for the greater good.
Yesterday I wrote here about the way in which Hillary's plan forces all Americans, willing or not, to obtain health care insurance, and in an Orwellian twist calling it "choice."
More details about Hillary's plan emerge in Davd Brooks's New York Times column [still p.p.v., but free along with the other columnists as of Wednesday when Times Select goes the way of New Coke.]
Writes Brooks [emphasis added]:
[W]hen I spoke with Hillary Clinton yesterday, I asked what her newly unveiled plan revealed about her political philosophy.
The word she kept coming back to was “partnerships.” She described an array of different social entities — individuals, the federal government, insurance companies, doctors and hospitals — coming together and exercising shared responsibility for creating a better system.
It began to sound like a health care loya jirga — indicative of the political vision that has marked so much of her thinking over the years. When some politicians are asked to describe systems that really work, they think of the competitive marketplace. Others think of political combat — good defeating evil. But Clinton, at her most hopeful moments, is a communitarian. When she’s asked to describe a system that works, she describes diverse people coming together around a big table to reach a consensus.
Sounds like Hillary, on the one hand, is preaching "can't we all just get along?" On the other, you sense that when all is said and done, she expects all those sharing-and-caring communitarians to coalesce around her vision for the way things should be -- or else. In any case, as Brooks notes, Hillary's plan runs headlong into what "some politicians" [those that understand economics, human nature and the Constitution, I'd say] think should be the controlling force in health care: the competitive marketplace.
Brooks ends on a curious note, opining that Hillary Clinton’s health care plan is "better than the G.O.P. candidates’ plans (which don’t exist)." This from the Times' resident conservative columnist? Whatever happened to the Hippocratic Oath: do no harm? Give me a good no-plan any day over one that subjects all Americans to the tender mercies of a Big Government here to help us.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Comments Policy
The most frightening words
September 18, 2007 - 06:56 ET by motherbeltThe most frightening words ever: "We're from the government and we're here to help you."
Actually, I think the HRC quote that everyone needs to remember is "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
According to HRC, no one should have more than they need, if someone else needs it. And guess who will decide what constitutes "more than they need" and what benefits the "common good"?
"We're going to take things
September 18, 2007 - 07:53 ET by rimsky"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Didn't she also say something like, "I want to TAKE those profits.." in a speech about the oil companies? She reveals her true socialistic heart more and more everyday.
Yes she did!
September 18, 2007 - 08:12 ET by Seabeach4348In fact, if I recall "I want to TAKE those profits..." were pretty much her exact words, and they were directed at the oil companies. Spoken like a true Marxist!
First it will be oil companies, what next? Is she planning on eventually dictating to us how much money we're allowed to earn, again all for the common good?
Dumb Question
September 18, 2007 - 08:20 ET by SpockI have a dumb question. What happens to my company sponsored health care plan progam if this kicks in?
See my post below
September 18, 2007 - 09:26 ET by JimboIt will tell you what will happen to your taxes and to your coverage, and to the company providing that coverage.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
All of the Democrat plans
September 18, 2007 - 10:23 ET by BruzillaAll of the Democrat plans for "Universal" health care, including Hillary's, aren't universal. If you have a health plan through your employer, you and your employer will continue to pay your premiums. None of these plans provides for any benefits for you. You will, however, be expected to pay additional taxes to pay for the people who don't have health insurance, so you are continuing to pay for your own coverage, plus you're paying for the coverage of others and not getting any benefits.
The danger with this is that companies that do not offer coverage will either need to provide it or pay into a general fund that will help offset costs for the plan. It won't be long before mid-level companies that are eating the lion's share of employee premiums decide it's cheaper to pull their coverage and pay into the pool, which will mean you'll have to accept the reduced benefits of the government plan. This will also hugely drive up the costs of the program because what companies put into the pot won't be nearly as much as people take out.
How many of their millions
September 18, 2007 - 09:34 ET by misterbee241How many of their millions are she and Bill willing to give up? I mean after all, everybody should be able to live on only one million. Why do you need multiple millions?
WTF is a 'Communitarian'?
September 18, 2007 - 08:24 ET by Six String SpiffCommunitarian (Since links do not appear to work)
http://dictionary.re...
Hmmmm... This definitely says it all.
http://dictionary.re...
The American Revolution Continued
A PC way of saying
September 18, 2007 - 08:31 ET by sarcasmo"Communist." It's the same as with "single payer" really-meaning socialist in medicine issues. The left knows just like I do that big government ideas fail, so they need to keep thinking-up and selling new terms for their same old BS to be bought hook line and sinker by the "mainstream" media. Sadly, such blatant dishonsty provably works.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
Hillary Clinton is Hugo Chavez
September 18, 2007 - 08:30 ET by RJin a pantsuit.
Think it's a coincidence that both have "HC" monogrammed on their imperial robes?
Say it with me, now. C-O-M-M-U-N-I-S-T
September 18, 2007 - 08:34 ET by Six String SpiffCome on MSM. You were so CLOSE! Just SAY IT! She along with the MSM should be lambasted for attempting to LIE to the American people by omission of truth. SHE IS A COMMUNIST! Not a Democrat. Not a 'moderate'. Not a 'liberal'. Not a 'centrist'. Not a 'middle-of-the-road-. She's a COMMUNIST! The MSM should be put on trial for conspiracy to defraud the public. But if it hasn't been done now, it never will.
The American Revolution Continued
Liberal, socialist,
September 18, 2007 - 09:32 ET by misterbee241Liberal, socialist, communist, democrat - What's the difference?
Don't forget fascist.
September 18, 2007 - 12:07 ET by mattmDon't forget fascist.
That woman scares me!
September 18, 2007 - 09:15 ET by rbchaffeWhy doesn't Hillary just come out of the closet already and admit she's a communist?
Or at least a socialist? Definition of socialism from Encarta:
1. political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.
Ok, everybody stand and
September 18, 2007 - 09:24 ET by misterbee241Ok, everybody stand and hold hands now and let's sing We Are The World and Kumbaya.
This is a socialist utopian dream, Hillary being the old communist she is.
I dont want her government messing with my health care. What they do to others is their business, leave mine alone. I have one that works that I'm paying for.
More Clinton Socialism
September 18, 2007 - 09:24 ET by JimboI have taken most of Hillary’s own points from a recent Fox News article and analyzed each of them, to expose the true intent of Hillary’s actions:
First, let me start by stating that on average, a well run health insurance company “profits” about 2 cents on every premium dollar they take in. Another 10 cents or so goes toward the administrative expense of sales, billing, paying claims, etc. etc. This number too goes largely unchanged year over year. So why are there double digit increases in health care every year? It has to do where the 88 cents of every dollar goes – to the doctors, hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies. It is this portion of the premium dollar that increases year over year at an alarming rate. The insurance companies cant absorb that type of annual increase, and is to be expected in a capitalistic society (not socialistic!) the increase is passed to the consumer. Hillary’s plan does nothing to address this underlying and root cause of the problem.
Back to Hillary’s points:
_________________
“The so-called "individual mandate" — the centerpiece of her "American Health Choices Plan" — would cost the federal government $110 billion a year and would help provide coverage for 47 million Americans without health care coverage.”
____________________
Even if this figure was remotely accurate in the first year, it will result in tax increases on the middle and upper class to cover the expense. This tax will then continue to spiral out of control in subsequent years for the reasons I described above. It is a train wreck before the train ever leaves the station.
_______________________
"Offering new coverage choices for the insured and uninsured and guaranteeing quality coverage;"
________________________
Huh? She actually has the gaul to think she has the right to mandate which people a private company must insure, regardless of the risk that company would need to absorb or what financial peril it may put a corporation in.
_________________________
"Lowering premiums by removing hidden taxes, stressing prevention and increasing security by ensuring that job loss or family illness won't lead to a loss of coverage;"
_________________________
Removing hidden taxes? Translation – increase of taxes elsewhere, probably for the middle and upper class. Loss of job wont lead to loss of coverage? Translation – health insurance welfare, which would be even more taxes for the middle and upper classes.
______________________________
"Promoting shared responsibility among individuals, providers, employers and government, and forcing insurance and drug companies to end discrimination based on pre-existing conditions and price gauging;"
_______________________________
This can be catastrophic to a private health insurance corporation. For example, a particular health care company may choose to have a premier cancer hospital in their network, so that if one of their existing members is diagnosed with cancer, they will have access to a premier facility for their care. Under Hillary’s plan, every person within a thousand miles would convert to this hypothetical Insurance Company so they could have access to the premier facility (which would not be allowed under current pre-existing condition rules). This would either bankrupt the insurance company, or more than likely drop the premier facility from their network to avoid something known as “adverse selection “. This would be to the detriment of everyone – the patient, the facility, they entire health care system.
____________________________
"Ensuring affordable health coverage for all by providing tax relief, limiting premium payments to a percentage of income and strengthening Medicaid."
_____________________________
MORE TAXES!!!
_____________________________
"I know my Republican opponents will try to equate health care for all Americans with government-run health care. Don't let them fool us again. This is not government-run," she said."
_____________________________
This is my favorite quote of all! She is freely admitting that this plan is not government run healthcare. If so, there can be only one other way to look at it – it is the government directly involved with the running of private enterprise!!
In summary, I can’t believe that some portion of this country is giving serious consideration to electing Hillary and Bill back into the White House. After the endless lies and scandals by both of them, disdain and misuse of our military by Bill, Hillary’s refusal to denounce the Move On ad in the middle of a war, and now this??
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Jimbo
September 18, 2007 - 09:46 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSo why are there double digit increases in health care every year? It
has to do where the 88 cents of every dollar goes – to the doctors,
hospitals, and pharmaceutical companies.
Good points Jimbo, but you forgot one money grubbing factor: lawyers. Lawyers, like John Edwards, are a big factor in why insurance costs go up so much. They are also a factor in why doctors flee certain states and specialties.
D
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Edwards and Health Care Costs
September 18, 2007 - 09:55 ET by JimboYou are right. I could post on this subject all day long but tried to err on the side of brevity where I could.
As I stated , the 80 cents on the premium dollar goes right back out to the providers of the health care. The cost of that health care goes up on and average of 12-15% per year. That is due to many factors, including relentless increases in the cost of malpractice insurance because of the “John Edwards” type lawsuits and associated awards.
Most people don’t realize the complexity of what goes on behind the scenes of increase in health care costs. Most see it as the health care companies “gouging” (Hillary’s word) the consumer while John Edwards sits in the corner, smiling, and counting his money.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
The insurer I work for works
September 18, 2007 - 10:28 ET by BruzillaThe insurer I work for works at between 16-19%, so I'll back up your data on how much insurers are actually effecting the cost of healthcare. I'm not so quick to blame lawyers as the providers are definately the ones driving the costs. A few years ago we began work on an effort to collect pricing data so we could inform our members of ways to reduce their costs. When the providers got wind of this we had a revolt on our hands. They said that if we continued collecting this data, and provided it to our members, that they would pull their contracts with us and close us down.
Most people have no idea how much their healthcare actually costs, and are clueless as to whether they are getting a good deal or a horrible deal. They think that because insurance is paying for it, it doesn't matter. The truth is that if people shopped around, and forced providers to be more cost competitive, their premium rates would drop.
More good points
September 18, 2007 - 10:39 ET by JimboAnother good point. Providers routinely send their billing staff to classes designed on how to code certain services on bills to “get the most reimbursement possible” from the health insurance payor. More often than not, these practices border on fraud, and many times clearly cross the line.
Here’s another one - Many providers band together to buy expensive equipment like MRI machines, etc. and routinely send their patients to their own radiology facility (unbeknownst to the patient of course) for exams which are many times completely unwarranted.
Here is yet another one – A year ago, I went for a nuclear stress test. The test consisted of about half an hour on a tread mill, an injection with some sort of radio active material, and a scan of my heart with some sort of machine. The whole process took about two hours. Know how much the bill was? $12,000!!!!! My insurance company paid $10,000!!!! And during that two hours, there were 6 other people going through the same process.
Fix that Hillary!!!
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
I still think the only way
September 18, 2007 - 10:49 ET by BruzillaI still think the only way we're going to fix healthcare, in as much as it's broken, is to eliminate insurance all together. The model for this, laser eye surgery, is out there. With no insurance dollars involved, providers had to reduce fees and improve benefits to gain customers. What started out as a $3,000/eye treatement now costs about 90% less, while quality has risen dramatically. If the govies want to really bring down the cost of healthcare, force people to pay for it our of their own pockets. This will get people shopping for their healthcare just like they do everything else, and force providers to compete.
No Insurance?
September 18, 2007 - 10:52 ET by JimboWhat do you do when you need a $200,000 bypass surgury? Or a $400,000 kidney transplant?
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Who says bypass surgery has
September 18, 2007 - 11:11 ET by BruzillaWho says bypass surgery has to cost $200,000? Who says a kidney transplant has to cost $400,000? The providers! There's absolutely no true value to either of these procedures, they just cost whatever the provider wants to charge. So say we did away with insurance. How many people are going to be able to afford to pay $200,000 for any procedure? Not many. So what does the provider do? They can keep to their $200,000 rate and go out of business, or they can do what every other business has to do and say "what's the lowest price we can charge and still make our profit requirements?" You would quickly see providers lowering their charges just to get business in the door, and at that point, as people start shopping their business around, you would see further reductions as doctors competed against one another.
So, back to the core question, how much does bypass surgery actually cost. Time and materials? $1,000? $5,000? Imagine providers charging realistic prices instead of wildly excessive ones. As for patients, we could use flexible spending accounts or healthcare spending accounts to pay for service. I was paying close to $8,000 a year for coverage for my family, and for years we never got sick or had any injuries. So where did that money go? Into some doctor's pockets for treating someone else. If we got rid of insurance, that $8,000 a year would go into my account, for my use. And with a few changes to the tax laws, I could roll that over year to year until I had more than enough to cover most any situation. Now imagine some 18-yr old, who's paying $200 a month for insurance, paying that $200 a month into a HSA instead. Wouldn't that kid be better off with a rollover HSA than just dumping his money down the insurance hole while the benefits he can get with it decline?
A lIttle Naive Bruzilla
September 18, 2007 - 11:21 ET by JimboI concede the point that in a situation void of insurance, the laws of supply and demand will drive down services across the board. But to think that a bypass surgery can be performed for $1,000 is naïve at best. It will still be in a cost range prohibitive to most Americans. That is the basis and true intent of health insurance – to protect someone who finds themselves in such a situation and to avoid having to sell everything they own to stay alive.
Problem is, our health insurance system has run amok for the reasons we have been listing.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
I'm sure that back in 1985,
September 18, 2007 - 11:39 ET by BruzillaI'm sure that back in 1985, if you were to say that in the future you could get both eyes fixed with laser surgery for less than $500, you would be called naive. So how much does a heart bypass surgery actually cost? No one really knows, and providers don't want you to know because most of the current cost is in labor costs and little is in truly tangible costs.
Compare this to how you get your car repaired. You go to a shop, and you get to see how much the repair place charges for labor, generally $40 to $80 an hour, plus you'll get an estimate on the price for parts. The operator checks your car and gives you an estimate. You can shop that estimate around or you can get the service if you think it's a good deal. Despite all the hype and hoopla surrounding healthcare, it still comes down to labor and materials.
We can also compare points of service. If your car needs an oil change, do you have to go see Mr. Goodwrench and pay $50, or can you go to Jiffy Lube and get the same service for $14.95? Do I really need a board-certified physician to tell me I have the flu? Strep throat? That my arm is broken? Or can someone with a much lower labor rate provide me with that level of care... at a much lower cost? I would bet that once insurance went away, you would see doctors much more willing to have PAs or nurses taking care of the "low fruit" issues, while they focused on the more major ones. This would allow them to further reduce their costs and add to their customer base, while still providing fine service.
If I needed to have my chest
September 18, 2007 - 11:50 ET by JimboIf I needed to have my chest cracked open and new arteries sewn to my heart, I am going to go to Mr. Goodwrench, not Jiffy Lube.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
And I think most folks would
September 18, 2007 - 13:16 ET by BruzillaAnd I think most folks would agree with you. You're trying to make broad generalizations, and that's where your argument falls flat. If I need invasive heart surgery. I'm going to pay to see a doctor. But should I have to pay a doctor's rates to be told I have the flu? Or to get a broken arm placed in a cast? No. A nurse or PA can do that just as well as a doctor and for a lot less. So just as you wouldn't go to Jiffy Lube to have an engine rebuilt, they are perfectly fine for an oil change.
You're also looking at fees structures as being static, that if you take away insurance money the fees for service will remain the same. That can not happen... at least not if a provider wants to stay in business. The surgeon who wants to keep charging $200,000 for a heart bypass, when few patients can't afford one, has two choices: lower costs or go out of business. They're going to lower costs.
I just did some quick math, and figured that since leaving the Navy, I've paid just about $117,000 in health insurance premiums, and I've recived about $4,500 in services. That $117k's not a lot of money for today's, insurance-driven, healthcare world, but how much would that buy me if there were no insurance, and I had deposited that money into a flex-spend account, especially if I could rollover that amount and earn interest? I would probably have close to $200k, and medical services would cost about 10% of what they do now. So I could pay $20,000 for that bypass and have $180k still in the bank, drawing interest, instead of having that money being lost to pay for treating somone else. My current insurance, which I'm paying $500 a month for, ends the minute my job ends. My flex-spend account wouldn't.
Your argument is foolish.
September 18, 2007 - 14:35 ET by JimboYour argument is foolish. If you think a surgeon has the ability to lower the cost of a triple bypass to a rate that someone can use pocket change to pay for, keep smoking whatever you had this morning.
You clearly don’t have a grasp on the concept of insurance or the theory of transferring risk across large populations.
Whatever.
Or maybe you should run for President on the platform of “ELIMINATE ALL INSURANCE!!”
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Gee, I guess working day in
September 18, 2007 - 15:31 ET by BruzillaGee, I guess working day in and day out on medical insurance issues and provider reimbursement has made me into a moron on the subject. :) So, once again, my question is how much does a heart bypass operation actually cost. That's a question that you can't answer, nor can I. Why? Because providers have been inflating costs for years. A bandage that costs you and I $1 at RiteAid costs $20 from a provider. A knee brace that costs us $19 at Rite-Aid costs $158 if prescribed by a physician and provided at a hospital. So how much is an anesthesiologist's time worth? $20 an hour? $100 an hour? $500 an hour? It's an hour's worth of labor that anyone can charge anything for, so what's it really worth? It's worth whatever someone will pay for it, and since "shared risk" pays for it, it costs a lot. If it were paid for out of pocket, it would be worth a lot less.
So let's compare our views. You go out and buy medical insurance, and need a heart bypass. The folks you're "sharing the risk with" pay $160,000 of the $200,000 charge, and you pay $40,000 out of your pocket. This is after you've been paying probably over $100,000 in insurance premiums over the years. What happens after that? Your insurance rates go way up, provided they don't drop you, and your benefits go down. Now you're paying more for less coverage. In the end, you've just spent $160,000 of other people's money, you still owe $40,000, and the doctor and hospital make a cool $200,000 providing a service that cost them, what, maybe $10,000 to actually perform. Now suppose you get chest pains after you get laid off, and you're awaiting a new job so you let your insurance lapse (no COBRA), and you're told you need a bypass operation? Now you're out the whole $200,000, and the $100,000+ you put in the pot is gone.
Now with my view, as El' Presidente de Insurance, we have no insurance. You can stash pre-tax money away in an HSA, roll it over, and gain interest just like a 401K. Doctors now have to lower their prices or go out of business. Using LASIK eye surgery as a model, prices drop 90% on most procedures as doctors have to accept smaller profits to stay in business. I shop around and pay $20,000 for my bypass surgery, and I pay for it using my HSA that has about $200,000 in it. At the end of the day I'm not paying any more for insurance since I have no premiums, my benefits are the same, and if I get laid off before the operation it doesn't matter because that $200,000 is mine and not the insurer's money. I get treated, the doctor and hospital make $10,000 in profit, and I have $180,000 still in the bank drawing interest.
Maybe you want to keep paying providers whatever willy-nilly fee they decide to charge, but for me... I would rather keep that money for myself.
What about the other costs?
September 18, 2007 - 18:09 ET by JRHow much does a heart bypass operation actually cost? Well, let's see. Of course there's the fee for the surgeon(s), the anesthesiologist, the assisting nurse(s), the equipment and supplies, and so on. There's a lot more to the cost of the surgery than the physician. To think otherwise is just naive.
It's gonna cost a lot more than it does now
September 20, 2007 - 05:04 ET by SportPoliticswe don't even have the horrifying "baby boomers" retiring and craoking decades later than normal, and add to that the nano pills and genetic treatments coming, and the continual aids like diseases emerging...
One of my clients, her Dad was a local doctor - he did house calls for $5. What he did would be against the law today, and it would cost 3 million bucks in a malpractice suit, but barely 40 years ago it was standard.
There is no stoppnig the medical leviathan. The heart procedures you guys have been discussing were not an "expected cost" for 40% of the population even 25 years ago.
Jarvik< that ring a bell ?
They say medical is 15% of our economy right now. That's 1/6th of the economy. As the elderly (that's almost a dirty word now- we need a new fresh word for the coming majority) multiply - and the costs of the ten thousand prodecures they all need skyrocket in complexity, technology and individuals using them, the costs will spiral beyond anything imaginable.
It's not like they haven't once already. The problem is there is no end in sight. It won't be too long and they'ell be growing organ replacements.
There's already whispers of legislation stopping human/animal biogenetic mixtures.
We know they've dropped cauliflower and silkworm genes/dna splices into various fruits and vegetables...
A 1/70,000th of a spider gene was spliced into goats and created "biosteel" goat milk - the military bought that one for t-shirt thin body armor.
The costs have no end in sight.
If you ask me the worst thing one could do would be to eliminate gigantic investment vehicles like Insurance companies that pump untold billions into the stock market and make enormous monetary investments in who knows what all....
Part of the great "engine" of an economy the USA has is it massive complexity and spiderwebbed intertwining all over the place - I'm not sure it's "efficient" or "productive" all the time, but it keeps a lot of goofballs off the street and in a paycheck buying and spending and investing and moving their buts along, instead of standing around whining like 3rd world liberals.
I'm not for any hitlery changes - not any gigantic big enormous lurching changes that could bring DOWN the entire economy when someone like Hitlery starts MESSING with 15% of the USA economy in one giant liberal commie thrust.
If Bruzer wants a medical savings account, fine, but leave the system alone.
Senators propose legislation ? Right
September 18, 2007 - 09:34 ET by JayTeeSo whay hasn't Hillary Care been bouncing around on the Legislative floor ?
What's the Holdup ? or is the Holdup associated with "Make me President because I will NOT give you Healthcare proposals while I am Senator".
Do your JOB Hillary !!! Propose legislation.....you're a Senator !!!
We would like some Details NOW.....what's the Holdup ?
Running for President is not your legislative responsibility...neither is trashing Generals.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
More Criminal Clinton Behavior
September 18, 2007 - 09:45 ET by JimboAlong those lines, I have posted on this topic before –
After she left the White House, Hillary shows up in NY to run for Senator. She’s not from NY, never was from NY, and knew nothing about NY in comparison to a native NY’er. She chose NY because she knew it was the only state in the union liberal enough, blind enough, and yes stupid enough (I’m a NY’er so I can say it) to elect her into the Senate. She certainly couldn't have gotten elected in her home state of Arkansas! They know the Clintons too well!
Then, during her second term, she needed to run while stating she had not considered running for President. EVERYONE knew this was a lie. Yet, those same naïve and stupid NYer’s elected her to a second term. They did so, even knowing that only a few months later she would leave them figuratively and literally to pursue her White House bid. She has effectively left the State of NY with only one functioning Senator.
To your point, as her current role as NY Senator, a position to which she was elected and currently collects a salary for, if she has what she thinks is the solution to the country’s health care crisis in her back pocket, she has a moral responsibility to begin debating it now as a Senator. If what she has is legitimate, holding it a secret until after the election is criminal.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
GOP Sweep 2008
September 18, 2007 - 09:36 ET by mattmC'mon Hitlery! Keep it up. Nothing will make the GOP look better to the voters than a Socialist unashamedly pushing Socialism!
After the 1993 Klinton-Kare debacle the GOP swept Congress. Let's hope history repeats itself.
Educational moment for GOP politicians: It was 13 years ago that the people repudiated Heillary-Kare, yet the Machine keeps pushing it, hoping the people will eventually give up and give in. If only the GOP was as relentless in pursuit of permanent tax cuts, SS reform, MSAs, vouchers etc....maybe 2006 wouldn't have happened.
Quacks like a duck
September 18, 2007 - 09:42 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe question is, will she be called on it? By the media? By her Republican opponent?
If what the majority of Americans get is the Joe Scarborough approach, then she will be successful in avoiding the label and therefore win.
Never Happen
September 18, 2007 - 09:46 ET by JimboHillary will NEVER win the White House. The closer she gets to winning, her 45% disproval rating will be her demise. We havent even revisited all the Clinton scnadals yet, of which she was personally part of many.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Power of the Media
September 18, 2007 - 09:56 ET by Sergeant ROCKYou forget that she has the power of the MSM behind her. NB has chronicled that right here. And that would be the same MSM that got her husband elected. Scandals? That was a 'vast right-wing consipiracy', therfore it doesn't count.
If she wins the nomination, then that 45% disapproval is irrelevant. As close as previous elections have been, it is not out of the realm of possibilities for a Klinton win - especially with the MSM on your side.
With all due respect Sgt...
September 18, 2007 - 10:05 ET by JimboWith all due respect Sgt., I disagree completely.
The MSM is unquestionably on her side and will be right through the election. But what she and her husband stood for, currently stand for, and proclaim to stand for after being elected will not be overshadowed by all the MSM support in the world. Even with undoubting MSM support, her husband never received over 50% of the vote.
I also disagree on your discounting of her 45% disapproval rating. I think that factor will be more relevant than ever if she gets the Democratic nomination. There are people in her own party that will defect, there are people on the Republican side that will become politically active when they never have done so before, etc. Hillary either already knows this or will know it soon, which is why she will try to make an even harder sell than usual to the ultra liberals, the inner city populations, promising the world to these groups through increased taxes, etc, which will further rally her opponent’s base. And once the reality of Bill Clinton once again roaming the White House terrorizing interns sets in, it will be the final blow (pun intended). I see her entering a self destructive death spiral as she gets closer to the election.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Wishful thinking?
September 18, 2007 - 10:24 ET by Sergeant ROCKI hope that you're right. However, I remember hearing much of the same when Klinton first got elected and again when he got re-elected - amindst scandals.
I just don't see a mass defection of democRATS or at least enough to make a difference. Judging by the behavior of their elected representatives, one can conclude that they're all nuts.
We all know what Hillary is about and we also knew what Bill was about - and yet, he was elected twice! You assume that past scandals will bring her down, how? Who will be reminding people of this? NBC? CBS? The right-wing FOX News Channel? Look at the free pass she's getting on the Hsu case. You underestimate the power of the dark side.. I mean, MSM.
I hope that there are enough reasonable people in this country that vote, that will see her for what she is - a Marxist. But, given the state of society as a whole, it is not irrational to assume the worst as a possible outcome.
I feel your pain Sgt. The
September 18, 2007 - 10:49 ET by JimboI feel your pain Sgt.
The first time Clinton was elected in part because of Ross Perot. Not making excuses or discounting your points, but that fact decided the election.
The second time Clinton was elected, not all of the scandals were out yet, the economy was doing well, and most Americans had their heads buried in the sand with regard to terrorism. And I’ll repeat, Bubba never received more than 50% of the vote in either election, so the Clinton machine never received a “mandate”.
There is way too much working against Hillary. Everything from her communist tendencies, Whitewater, Lewinski and the “right wing conspiracy”, travelgate, making a fortune on insider trading of poultry futures while in the White House, stealing government property on her way out of the White house, renting out the Lincoln bedroom, the USS Cole, and on… and on.. and on… right down to the fact that she is a woman. She even has that working against her as I know for a fact there is a portion of America that won’t vote for a female president regardless of her qualifications.
Yes, the MSM is trying to ignore it or sugar coat it at best, but it will not be possible to fool all the people all the time. I can’t wait to see more of Bill and Hillary holding hands and acting like a loving couple. I will literally vomit.
I am putting my faith in the American people to see through this VERY thin veil and pull the proper lever on Election Day.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Faith - Gonna need a lot!
September 18, 2007 - 10:58 ET by Sergeant ROCKI am putting my faith in the American people to see through this VERY thin veil and pull the proper lever on Election Day.
Well, that's a noble thought.. but again, looking around today I'm not as confident, given the successes of the Klinton machine and a woefully ignorant or disinterested population.
Sergeant ROCK - correct
September 20, 2007 - 05:26 ET by SportPoliticsJust imagine if she gets the nomination-- oh wait- she aleady has that sewed up.
Ok, her running mate. Slick Willie himself. lol The entire lib party and all the democrats and the msm would exult in one giant delerious frenzy.
Think about that - I do not believe there is a law against it. The dems and msm speculated on it 6 months ago...
Or she could pick Hussien, the dems then seal their lock on women and minorities for the next 100 years, and in the immediate future ramp up their racism and sexism rhetoric to new enormous shrill decibels. Sally Fields sings on inauguration day, forgetting half the words, and screaming and crying in between holding her head and shaking, as 50 cent and tha f dawg bump n grind rap on her.
I don't subscribe to the Dick Morris is never wrong school of politology.
Too Harsh...
September 18, 2007 - 09:55 ET by heldmywA lot of the commentary is just too harsh... After all, government control of health care could be a good thing!
Just look what it's done for schools! We could enjoy the same quality, bloated inefficiency and lack of accountibility!
Not to mention roads.
And border security.
And...
"Just look what it's done
September 18, 2007 - 12:10 ET by Rackie"Just look what it's done for schools! "
Good. Public schools and now public health care. Sounds benign. Like a tumor, huh?
and...
September 19, 2007 - 00:05 ET by cleverpigFire protection.
There's a good socialist program that works great for all of us. We pay taxes so that we don't need to worry about having a credit card in our pajama pockets outside our burning house at 2 in the morning. Health care should work on the same principle.
}}---> OK, piggy
September 19, 2007 - 00:19 ET by Cool ArrowPlease tell me why should I pay for your health coverage?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
So that I will pay for
September 19, 2007 - 10:56 ET by cleverpigSo that I will pay for yours when you can't afford it.
Have you ever needed the services of the fire department? Do you really curse at your neighbors when they do? Darn them, how dare they use a service that all of us pay for! I haven't used it yet! I want my house to catch on fire, otherwise it's just wasted money I'm paying to the county every year. Same idea.
Cleverpig, you forget,
September 19, 2007 - 18:21 ET by JasonCCleverpig, you forget, asking citizens to pay taxes of any sort automatically makes us a communist nanny-state, even though a disproportionate amount of those taxes goes toward the money-pit of a war that we're involved in. How the anti-tax types (who 9 times out of 10 are war hawks) think we're going to pay for it otherwise is beyond me.
"He was, and is yet, most likely, the wearisomest, self-righteous
pharisee that ever ransacked a Bible to rake the promises to himself
and fling the curses on his neighbors." -Emily Bronte
Silly me. We should just
September 19, 2007 - 19:45 ET by cleverpigSilly me. We should just rely on charity to take care of our military... I've got an Abrams tank I'm not using any more just waiting for a Goodwill truck big enough to get it out of my driveway...
;)
}}---> Dorky Porker
September 19, 2007 - 19:53 ET by Cool ArrowMy healthcare is in the form of insurance rather than a nest egg. I certainly don't see a need to require Oprah to carry health insurance, do you?
Requiring auto liability insurance is understandable. Requiring collision coverage for a car that's paid for is government meddling.
Why should I pay for some crack head's health coverage?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Fire protection is "socialism?"
September 19, 2007 - 09:52 ET by RJHardly. That's a stretch, even for your warped views, cleverpig.
The amount you contribute
September 19, 2007 - 11:05 ET by cleverpigThe amount you contribute to the budget of your local fire department is a percentage of your income or the value of the property you own. If you are wealthier, you pay more, if you are poor, you pay less.
Each contributes according to his ability...
The services you use from the fire department are based on which services you need. See where I'm going here?
and receives according to his need.
How is this not socialism? How is in not wonderful?!
Maybe you have a volunteer fire department in your town-- I'll bet those guys wouldn't mind getting paid for their hard work and dedication if your community could afford it!
Notsocleverpig, you're being ridiculous
September 19, 2007 - 11:31 ET by RJAccording to your warped view, ALL taxes go for "socialism": schools, police, roads, etc, etc.
Your argument is hairbrained....and probably facetious.
--------------
so·cial·ism n.
It's not a black or white
September 19, 2007 - 17:21 ET by cleverpigIt's not a black or white term. Programs can have socialist aspects without actually being socialism. At least the way I've always used the word. I'm honestly not trying to be facetious. I am curious why this system doesn't bother you guys.
Ah, so we're down to YOUR definition of "Socialism"
September 19, 2007 - 18:00 ET by RJTsk, tsk. Of course it's a "black and white term." Socialism is about having "the political power and the means of producing and distributing goods."
Come on. You're the one who said the Fire Department is socialism. Are you REALLY asserting that every time a community pools its money and does something as a group it becomes "socialism?"
I'm asking "what's the
September 19, 2007 - 19:51 ET by cleverpigI'm asking "what's the difference?" Other than using the word "community" which is a very small cousin of the word "nation" I still don't see why you think one system is good and one system is bad other than scale.
For community fire protection, you take the local taxes and a board of supervisors or city council votes on how to spend it in order to get everyone covered. In socialized medicine you take a percentage of federal taxes and a group of congressmen decides how to spend it to provide healthcare for everyone. What is the difference?
}}---> PorkyDork
September 19, 2007 - 19:58 ET by Cool ArrowYou answered your own question with "local taxes".
Are you not aware you can opt out of Fire Department services by moving to an area that has a volunteer fire department?
I have no big problem with the authority of local municipalities. It's Federal mandates that scare me.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
I've said it twice now, notsocleverpig.
September 19, 2007 - 21:46 ET by RJPlease pay attention for this third time around for what is and is not socialism.
Socialism: "Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."
And: "An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.
Obviously, this has nothing to do with fire departments. (However, even if it did, fire departments are not at risk of being taken over and controlled by a central government.)
Healthcare, on the other hand, is at risk of being taken over....and nationalizing it would be a takeover of a massive portion of the nation's "economic activity."
(I still think you're being facetious. This is way too easy to understand....even for a leftist.)
Okay, I read and understood
September 20, 2007 - 01:02 ET by cleverpigOkay, I read and understood your definitions of socialism. I attempted to avoid getting sidetracked on semantics by explaining what I really meant-- socialistic as a scalable measure. You clearly object to my using the word at all, and it continues to distract from my main question because you keep posting the same thing over and over.
So, let's forget I used the word and address the interesting question, which is why does government control bother you when it is federal but not when it is municiple? Quibbling about words is boring.
You always have the option to move away from a system you don't like. If you don't like the system this country has for healthcare, you can move or you can try to work to change it. Same options as you have if you don't like the system your county has for fire protection. It sounds to me like it is the scale of the operation that you object to, which seems strange. Why is the federal government inherently less appealing than municiple government? They both work on essentially the same principle, that of indirect democracy. Why do you trust your local government to manage your local taxes but don't trust the federal government to manage your federal taxes.
If the issue is just that the federal government has screwed up before, then I would argue that it doesn't have to be that way. Maybe what we need is for all of you who hate the government to be the ones working on healthcare. If you acknowledge that it makes sense to provide healthcare on the same basis we provide fire protection or police protection-- if you need it, you get it, no matter who you are or how much money you make-- then you just need someone to step up and create a system that will keep the government reasonably efficient and honest.
You tend to go on the assumption that a free market is the only thing that will keep an industry honest, but we all know that a free market does not actually guarantee high quality of service or prevent fraud. As long as healthcare is a for-profit industry, it will always be in a company's best interest to spend as little money as possible on their customers while pulling in as much revenue as they can. On good days, that will drive them to streamline healthcare and make it more efficient. On bad days it will cause them to cheat people out of the care they need and people will die. It happens. Not often, but too often.
That's why I want my healthcare run by a government which, while not immune to the drive of money-making, is at least one step removed from it.
Your option DorkyPig
September 20, 2007 - 02:12 ET by Cool ArrowCatch the next innertube to Cuba. There's lots of them left on the beach.
uncleverpig
September 20, 2007 - 05:49 ET by SportPoliticsThe fireman lives next door. If he has an affair with the city treasurer and they steal 10k for a trip to Jamacia together, your other neighbor the alderman catches them, the cop down the street slaps the cuffs on after you punch him in the nose, and the local newspaper covers most of it up as best as possible.
When the FEDS do it, they take the 10k, twice, and noone ever finds out what they spent it on, even though the party in Jamacia happened anyway. 3 years later they send a needs assessment, that must be replied to within 1 year. When the alderman inquires on the books about the 20k, he finds himself personally audited and fined 10k for a 4 year old "slip-up" in a personal deduction, and FBI jails him as a pedophile, which the city treasurer lady gasps at, and her child testifies it to be true after the social worker gets a "doll and hypnotism" regression session that costs the city another 15k. Federal Jessica law is immediately implemented. Amber alerts cost the city another 15k to comply with as soccer moms panic for 6 months, and the fire department loses 2 trucks and a new engine, and one more fireman to the extended costs. Insurance home rates skyrocket and half the city is suddenly without coverage, and most homes burn to the ground now anyway. City officials apply for Federal grants and take bribes trying to prop up the debilitated local economy. Eventually with their redirection of funds and offshore bank accounts stashing the larger sums, a storm comes and the levees cave in. The screaming hordes of communists blame it on GWB and FEMA.
Well, duh, notsocleverpig, I keep repeating the same things
September 20, 2007 - 09:48 ET by RJover and over because you haven't addressed them...what you call getting "sidetracked" is the main argument you began with, which is that fire departments are socialist.
You pretend to understand and respond to my post, but you don't. You completely ignore the points I made about economy, scale, and national control. Instead, you've moved into a full-scale defense of why you love Socialism...gee, that surprises me!
"Why is the federal government inherently less appealing than municiple government?" Because the feds prove every day (largely due to scale) that they are incapable of managing anything efficiently or fairly. Of course, to a Socialist like you, that is of no matter.
Go back to your original premise, pig, and try to prove that when a community joins together to collect money and accomplish something, it's "socialism."