Clinton Vows to create Universal Health care for Americans

[naked gent]

I think as a matter of politics if a newly elected president is to have any success in addressing a big problem like health care, especially if we're not talking about reform around the edges but the creation of a whole new system, then that president had better come into office with more than 43% of the vote.

Reagan had more luck cutting taxes with a democratic house than Clinton did with healthcare and a democratic congress.

Reagan also beat Carter decisively which I think explains the different results.

 

[NickCole]

I think as a matter of politics if a newly elected president is to have any success in addressing a big problem like health care, especially if we're not talking about reform around the edges but the creation of a whole new system, then that president had better come into office with more than 43% of the vote.

Reagan had more luck cutting taxes with a democratic house than Clinton did with healthcare and a democratic congress.

Reagan also beat Carter decisively which I think explains the different results.

No it's more complicated than that.

To understand the mechanics you really have to go back to Lee Atwater and how he changed the political climate in national politics. Because from Lee Atwater it travels to Bush, Rove, DeLay and on and on. It's a complex web of smarm and deceit and dirty tricks that comes very close to making a mockery of reasonable analysis that you describe. And don't be fooled into thinking it's finished.

That's the primary reason I'm backing Hillary Clinton. She's smart and competent and hard working, and all that's important. But mainly she'll be able to do battle against the vile BushRove machine that has destroyed so many. I think that's the main reason they hate the Clintons so much and try so hard to destroy them.

 

[Kulindahr]

BushRepublicans who have access to the health care they want are opposed to universal healthcare. With BushRepublicans issues never have meaning beyond their own individual need.

The rest of us recognize that the patchwork health care and healthcare insurance situation in the US isn't working for a lot of Americans, it's been a growing problem for some time now and needs to be addressed.

BushRepublicans pretend we're talking about socialized medicine (naughty words in the US) but that's not the case. As some in this thread have suggested, what probably will be designed is something like the systems put in place in Massachusetts and California.

How about a little honesty, instead of painting with your false generalizations? You imply that everyone who isn't a "BushRepublican" (a word that in your usage seems to mean anyone who doesn't agree with you) is enthusiastic about government getting even more deeply involved in both the insurance business and the health system.

I am not a Republican of any variety. Nor do I have access to the healthcare I want. That does not mean I have any interest in universal health care programs of any variety. I'm not interested in any program that will give the government easier access to more personal information about me, because anything the government gets its hands on is eventually used to increase its power.

Perhaps the government should begin by addressing the problems it has caused. The greatest is the shortage of doctors. Yes, that's caused by the government, which has unconstitutionally approved a monopoly on the supply of medical personnel. That monopoly is called the A.M.A., and it's about the only outfit the government recognizes as a legitimate certifier of doctors. And the A. M. A. makes certain to allow only enough medical schools with only enough graduates to keep competition low so they can keep prices high.

 

[Kulindahr]

Don't worry, it's not the first time a Bush supporter doesn't know what I'm talking about. I am well aware that Democrats were in control of Congress and that conservatives opposed the bill. Democrats didn't oppose the idea per se, but they broke into factions and proposed their own versions. As for the moderate Republicans I made reference too--they were needed to help compensate for defections within the Democratic majority. And some, including John Chafee (Linc's dad), seriously considered reform. They would never sign on to a Clinton plan, however, since the Republican leadership wanted to punish Clinton and in turn win back a majority in Congress by portraying themselves as "anti-Clinton" at a time when Clinton was losing popularity.

As for the "dirt" word? So I accidentally left of the "-y"--big deal. It's like the same mistake you make when you leave the "-ic" of Democratic--except, in your case, it's intentional.

Democrats split into factions because many of them knew that the mess Hillary had cobbled together would be a leviathan that would do what government does best -- work poorly, and have numerous undesirable consequences.

And BTW, leaving the "ic" off the end of that word is intentional on the part of a lot of people, because the party that calls itself "Democratic" isn't. In reality they're the party of an intellectual self-appointed elite with massive wealth, who cater to certain special interests in order to have a mob who will cheer for them.

 

[Kulindahr]

True.

And now the Democratic majority has passed legislation telling Bush when to stop his failure of a war.

Come a long way, baby.

And just where is the Constitutional authority for them to direct the course of a war? I thought that the President was the CIC.

It seems that neither major party is terribly impressed by the document they're supposed to protect and defend and all. So why should we trust a plan by any of them to take care of something as personal as our health?

 

[NickCole]

And just where is the Constitutional authority for them to direct the course of a war? I thought that the President was the CIC.

Congress has the Constitutional authority to write and pass legislation, and to appropriate funds.

This past November American voters gave control of Congress to Democrats and made it clear they wanted an end to our military involvement in combat in Iraq. That was a tall order, considering as you point out that Bush is CIC.

Stunningly, Democrats have figured out a way --a proper and appropriate way totally in sync with the authority granted to them through our Constitution-- to give the American people what they asked their representatives to deliver. That's what they're supposed to do.

It seems that neither major party is terribly impressed by the document they're supposed to protect and defend and all.

To the contrary, Congressional Democrats have demonstrated full respect for the Constitution.

So why should we trust a plan by any of them to take care of something as personal as our health?

They're not going to take care of our health.

Universal healthcare is to insure that all Americans have access to healthcare that won't bankrupt them. Taking care of our health is our own responsibility.

 

[naked gent]

No it's more complicated than that.

To understand the mechanics you really have to go back to Lee Atwater and how he changed the political climate in national politics. Because from Lee Atwater it travels to Bush, Rove, DeLay and on and on. It's a complex web of smarm and deceit and dirty tricks that comes very close to making a mockery of reasonable analysis that you describe. And don't be fooled into thinking it's finished.

Sorry Nick but its not complicated its quite simple in order to achieve significant social change you need a mandate to do it. The two presidents in the last century to do that were FDR and LBJ and both won with huge majorities.

If you think thats not so rather than mention Atwater (who I agree along with Newt did change the tone in Washington) show me a president who received less than 50% of the vote but still managed to achieve social change.

Congress has the Constitutional authority to write and pass legislation, and to appropriate funds.

This past November American voters gave control of Congress to Democrats and made it clear they wanted an end to our military involvement in combat in Iraq. That was a tall order, considering as you point out that Bush is CIC.

Stunningly, Democrats have figured out a way --a proper and appropriate way totally in sync with the authority granted to them through our Constitution-- to give the American people what they asked their representatives to deliver. That's what they're supposed to do.

Drifting off topic while I consider the war foolish I don't think the democrats should be dictating whats to be done. Someday there will be another war and I just don't like the precedent.

Were Bush adding 100,000 troops to the fray I'd think differently but at 20,000 or so I think congress should defer, especially since timetables or not we're not sending more troops there so if the surge fails we'll be out soon enough anyway.

And I have NO sympathy for american voters who decided in 06 that they were tired of this war. The war vote that mattered came in 04, if they feel they made a mistake then I'd say perhaps they should pay more attention to what they're voting on.

In a democracy votes carry consequences and if you can't take the time to fully consider those consequences then stay home.

 

[NickCole]

Sorry Nick but its not complicated its quite simple in order to achieve significant social change you need a mandate to do it. The two presidents in the last century to do that were FDR and LBJ and both won with huge majorities.

Although universal health care will be a significant change, it really can't be compared with the significant social changes FDR and LBJ accomplished. Universal health care is specific rather than wide in scope, everybody's been talking about it for years, health care systems have been effectively in place in several countries for a long time, and because it's the #2 concern of voters every presidential candidate will address it.

If you think thats not so rather than mention Atwater (who I agree along with Newt did change the tone in Washington) show me a president who received less than 50% of the vote but still managed to achieve social change.

Universal health care won't need any more of a mandate than Bush's prescription drug benefit did.

Drifting off topic while I consider the war foolish I don't think the democrats should be dictating whats to be done. Someday there will be another war and I just don't like the precedent.

Democrats are not dictating it. The American people did, last November.

Were Bush adding 100,000 troops to the fray I'd think differently but at 20,000 or so I think congress should defer,

It's not the number he added, it's that his "new" plan was only more of his old plan that has failed repeatedly.

especially since timetables or not we're not sending more troops there so if the surge fails we'll be out soon enough anyway.

You don't know that.

And I have NO sympathy for american voters who decided in 06 that they were tired of this war. The war vote that mattered came in 04, if they feel they made a mistake then I'd say perhaps they should pay more attention to what they're voting on.

That's fine for a civics class or college debate but there are real lives being lost and real bodies being maimed every day. As much as voters might be "tired of this war," the real issue is the damage this war is doing to individuals and families, both here and in Iraq.

I wish voters had realized what a disaster Iraq was in 04 as well. I was very frustrated that Bush & Co's propaganda machine continued to be so effective at convincing people that failure was success. But I see no reason to punish people for being hoodwinked by disingenuous hucksters.

In a democracy votes carry consequences and if you can't take the time to fully consider those consequences then stay home.

The votes in 06 ought to carry as much weight as those in 04.

Rather than wag my finger at voters who let Bush & Co take advantage of them in 04 I'd rather send kudos to the Democratic Congress who got their shit together to address the concerns of voters in 06.

 

[NickCole]

Democrats are gaining ground with the U.S. public as the party they trust to improve and reform the U.S. healthcare system. Senator Hillary Clinton is most trusted on this issue overall, largely because of high levels of confidence among Democrats. She and the Democrats are more trusted now than they were in March 2006, while trust in President Bush declines. ...

The survey found more trust in Democrats than Republicans, with 50
percent saying they trust Democrats to come up with good policies for
improving and reforming the U.S. healthcare system "a great deal" or "to
some extent," up from 45 percent in 2006. By contrast, 28 percent of adults
say they trust Republicans "a great deal" or "to some extent," compared
with 31 percent last year.

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-26-2007/0004553647&EDATE=

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/ne...thnews/HI_WSJ_HealthCarePoll_2007_v06_i04.pdf

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/news/newsletters_wsj.asp

 

[naked gent]

Universal health care won't need any more of a mandate than Bush's prescription drug benefit did.

Thats a fair point.

You don't know that.

Perhaps not but whatever the possibility is, that coming into an election yr with an unpopular war that more troops would be sent there, its a teeny tiny one. Even now I think the republicans plan on bringing this to some kind of resolution before 08 so as to avoid forcing their candidates to support a war that will doom them to electoral defeat.

The votes in 06 ought to carry as much weight as those in 04.

In foregin policy presidential elections carry more weight than off yr elections, especially in times of war. Again my objection is that I don't like the precedent. Its bad enough that we're probably going to hightail it outta there and allow the iraqi's to kill each other until fatigue sets in, I don't want to make that any more likely to happen again in the future than necessary.

 

[NickCole]

Perhaps not but whatever the possibility is, that coming into an election yr with an unpopular war that more troops would be sent there, its a teeny tiny one. Even now I think the republicans plan on bringing this to some kind of resolution before 08 so as to avoid forcing their candidates to support a war that will doom them to electoral defeat.

I don't see much sign of that.

In foregin policy presidential elections carry more weight than off yr elections, especially in times of war. Again my objection is that I don't like the precedent. Its bad enough that we're probably going to hightail it outta there and allow the iraqi's to kill each other until fatigue sets in, I don't want to make that any more likely to happen again in the future than necessary.

It's not that I don't see your point or its validity, but there are people dying and being maimed and two years is a long time. And even though you're right that this should be determined during a presidential election, the truth is polls made it very clear in 06 that Democratic control of congress came out of the people's desire to get out of Iraq. I think in that specific instance the people elected have to respond to that call. I think that's part of what a representative democracy is about.

 

[lancelva]

And just where is the Constitutional authority for them to direct the course of a war? I thought that the President was the CIC.

Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

 

[texpatriot]

Day-hem Lance!

In your haste to highlight in bold all of the things that you wanted to make in your point, you missed the most obvious:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States...To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years; To provide and maintain a navy; To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces; To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress...To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

It would appear that there are clear "separation of powers" written within the U.S. Constitution, and FUCK mein fuhrers "signing statement."

 

[lancelva]

Day-hem Lance!

In your haste to highlight in bold all of the things that you wanted to make in your point, you missed the most obvious:



It would appear that there are clear "separation of powers" written within the U.S. Constitution, and FUCK mein fuhrers "signing statement."

Thank you for making note of those things. I didn't highlight the things that seemed obvious--but with this crowd, it is often necessary (and proper) to lay things out like they do in elementary school, I suppose.