Hillary Clinton Goes AWOL on Health Care

[letme]

What are the projected costs for Universal Health ? And a system like Canada,England or something all new ?

 

[lancelva]

Hillary learned in 1993 that it is difficult to enact universal healthcare in one giant move. Instead, it is easier to take steps in that direction. T

That's why she's helped create the State Children's Health Insurance Program (the single largest expansion of children's health care in American history and the Vaccines for Children program (which increased childhood immunization rates to record highs) as First Lady.

In the Senate, she helped champion the SCHIP reauthorization through the Senate last week and has sponsored legislation to end discrimination by insurance companies against people with mental health and substance abuse problems.

Senator Clinton was also an original sponsor of the Early Treatment for HIV Act, expanding access to vital treatment options for low-income HIV patients. She also worked to ensure that the Ryan White CARE Act was fully funded so that those living with HIV and AIDS would have improved access to treatment.

She's also focused on preventive medicine in the Senate, sponsoring and passing legislation to increase funding for the flu vaccine and proposed legislation to combat diabetes, autism, and asthma.

She's also offered many proposals to lower costs by modernizing our health care infrastructure, making it more streamlined and efficient, which will also reduce errors and improve patient care. Senator Clinton also wrote the legislation that mandates the testing of new prescription drugs.

Senator Clinton worked with Senator Hagel to pass legislation promoting Lung Cancer Research and Treatment, urging Bush to declare lung cancer a national public health priority, increase funding for lung cancer research, and appoint an advisory committee to coordinate efforts to cut lung cancer mortality rates in half by 2015.

And, directly from the Senator:

Healthcare Affordability:

One solution to making healthcare more affordable is to allow uninsured individuals to buy into existing health insurance programs. I support efforts that would allow families to buy into the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which would help 5.3 million uninsured parents gain access to insurance and lower prices for healthcare services. I also support efforts to help small businesses provide insurance to their employees using mechanisms such as tax credits and large, voluntary purchasing groups.

I am deeply concerned about skyrocketing prescription drug costs. The price of medications is rising faster than inflation, consuming a larger and larger portion of the incomes of seniors, the chronically ill, and low-income individuals. The increasing cost of these drugs means that many New Yorkers face tough choices about their health, and may do without medications in order to pay for other basic necessities, like food and housing. I believe that we need to make prescription drugs more affordable. I am working on legislation to improve the Food and Drug Administration’s process for approving generic biologic drugs, such as those used to treat cancer. I also believe that we need to make drug reimportation safe and legal.

[...]

One critical first step is to bring our health care system into the 21st century. Right now, technology exists that would allow primary care physicians to push a button and send prescriptions to your pharmacy. It is conceivable that emergency room attendants could access your medical files with handheld computers in the blink of an eye. And, the capability exists to have the latest research in the hands of your doctor in days – rather than years. All these things can be done while protecting patient privacy and in the process save time, money and lives. But the information technology infrastructure simply is not there.

Last year, I worked with Senators Frist, Kennedy and Enzi to introduce the Wired for Health Care Quality Act, which will allow us to use information technology to develop a nationwide, interoperable health information infrastructure to streamline our healthcare system, improve quality, reduce errors, and lower costs. Reducing the administrative costs of our medical system, which currently account for about one in four of our healthcare dollars, will allow us to redirect our scarce resources to more efficiently address other problems in our healthcare system, such covering the uninsured. I am committed to working with my colleagues to enact health IT legislation in the 110 th Congress.

 

[NickCole]

The General's right, Lance -- that's a bunch of politician-speak.

Is Hillary going to unveil a plan during the campaign?

 

[lancelva]

The General's right, Lance -- that's a bunch of politician-speak.

Is Hillary going to unveil a plan during the campaign?

Of course she is. Remember that this is August of 2007. You don't won't to propose something so early that the energy around it will die down before the election. Hell, Bill Clinton didn't even announce his candidacy until October 1991. Trust me, you will see a detailed healthcare plan well before the Iowa caucus.

And the point of my previos post was to show that Senator Clinton was certainly not "AWOL" on healthcare--she's been working on the issue for the past two decades.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

If we haven't learnt about the dangers of the Bush/Clinton dynastic Presidential grab (can you imagine anything worse than 24 or 28 years of these two families trading places in the White House simply because one of the members of the family had been President) then America deserves the awful consequences. Dictatorships do but no country in this day and age should ever elect a President when he or she is only a candidate because of being a child or a spouse of a previous President. This is not democray this is using the family name to buy influence and supporter for a position that they would otherwise never have had.
Personally after the Bush debacle I think the constitution should be changed to prohibit this naked abuse.

This is the article in the NY Times which worried about the Republican candidates and Clinton's lack of substance in light of what we have learnt from elected GWB. It is a warning that we would all do well to heed although some Democrats who admire Bill Clinton it is clear will remain blind to the nonsensical idea of having his wife in the white House in his stead and continuing the debacle of a Bush/Clinton dynasty:

August 6, 2007
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist

The Substance Thing
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Two presidential elections ago, the conventional wisdom said that George W. Bush was a likable, honest fellow. But those of us who actually analyzed what he was saying about policy came to a different conclusion — namely, that he was irresponsible and deeply dishonest. His numbers didn’t add up, and in his speeches he simply lied about the content of his own proposals.

In the fifth year of the disastrous war Mr. Bush started on false pretenses, it’s clear who was right. What a candidate says about policy, not the supposedly revealing personal anecdotes political reporters love to dwell on, is the best way to judge his or her character.

So what are the current presidential candidates saying about policy, and what does it tell us about them?

Well, none of the leading Republican candidates have said anything substantive about policy. Go through their speeches and campaign materials and you’ll see a lot of posturing, especially about how tough they are on terrorists — but nothing at all about what they actually plan to do.

In fact, I suspect that the real reason most of the Republicans are ducking a YouTube debate is that they’re afraid they would be asked questions about policy, rather than being invited to compare themselves to Ronald Reagan.

But didn’t Rudy Giuliani just announce a health care plan? No, he vaguely described a tax cut proposal that he says would do something good for health care. (Most experts disagree.) But he offered no specifics about how the plan would work, how much it would cost or how he would pay for it.

As Ezra Klein of The American Prospect has pointed out, in the speech announcing his “plan” — and since no policy document has been released, the speech is all we have to go on — Mr. Giuliani never uttered the word “uninsured.” He did, however, repeatedly denounce “socialized medicine” or some variant thereof.

The entire G.O.P. field, then, fails the substance test.

There is, by contrast, a lot of substance on the Democratic side, with John Edwards forcing the pace. Most notably, in February, Mr. Edwards transformed the whole health care debate with a plan that offers a politically and fiscally plausible path to universal health insurance.

Whatever the fate of the Edwards candidacy, Mr. Edwards will deserve a lot of the credit if and when we do get universal care in this country.

Mr. Edwards has also offered a detailed, sensible plan for tax reform, and some serious antipoverty initiatives.

Four months after the Edwards health care plan was announced, Barack Obama followed with a broadly similar but somewhat less comprehensive plan. Like Mr. Edwards, Mr. Obama has also announced a serious plan to fight poverty.

Hillary Clinton, however, has been evasive. She conveys the impression that there’s not much difference between her policy positions and those of the other candidates — but she’s offered few specifics. In particular, unlike Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama, she hasn’t announced a specific universal care plan, or explicitly committed herself to paying for health reform by letting some of the Bush tax cuts expire.

For those who believe that the time for universal care has come, this lack of specifics is disturbing. In fact, what Mrs. Clinton said about health care in February’s Democratic debate suggested a notable lack of urgency: “Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.”

On Saturday, at the YearlyKos Convention in Chicago, she sounded more forceful: “Universal health care will be my highest domestic priority as president.” But does this represent a real change in position? It’s hard to know, since she has said nothing about how she would cover the uninsured.

And even if you believe Mrs. Clinton’s contention that her positions could never be influenced by lobbyists’ money — a remark that drew boos and hisses from the Chicago crowd — there’s reason to worry about the big contributions she receives from the insurance and drug industries. Are they simply betting on the front-runner, or are they also backing the Democratic candidate least likely to hurt their profits?

All of the leading Democratic candidates are articulate and impressive. It’s easy to imagine any of them as president. But after what happened in 2000, it worries me that Mrs. Clinton is showing an almost Republican aversion to talking about substance.

 

[mydrew1]

Hillary learned in 1993 that it is difficult to enact universal healthcare in one giant move.

As in us Brits couldn't do it in one day? Wake up.

 

[NickCole]

If we haven't learnt about the dangers of the Bush/Clinton dynastic Presidential grab (can you imagine anything worse than 24 or 28 years of these two families trading places in the White House simply because one of the members of the family had been President) then America deserves the awful consequences.

You make a big mistake if you fail to consider each candidate for what they, themselves, will bring to the job.

It was stupid to vote for George Bush because he's a Bush and it'd be stupid to not vote for Hillary Clinton because she's a Clinton.

Consider the pros and cons of each candidate, then vote for the one most likely to do a good job of dealing effectively with the concerns of our time -- no matter the name or gender or race or sexual orientation or any other external identifiers.

Lance is right, it's early still in the campaign and as long as Hillary provides us with a healthcare proposal before the primaries begin, that's fine. In fact I also agree with Lance that it's better to wait -- closer to the primaries the candidates will need breaking-news kinds of releases that draw attention to their campaign and the race in general.

 

[rottenj10]

In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited user fees and extra billing by doctors...

It pretty much happened overnight. If Canada can do it, so can the United States

Yes those evil doctors are out to get us!!!!!!! They're destroying the social fabric of America!!!!!

Doctors aren't playthings to be passed around for everyone to share. Can't wait until thousands and thousands of people start to refuse dedicating most of their youth to becoming a doctor. Coz if they do, under universal health care you're basically saying "fuck you, you're ours to control".

Universal health care, not just in the "Canada Health Act", but in all its forms, is a slap in the face to the people we need the most.

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Let's cut out the shit and deal with some facts.

Hillary Clinton was tasked by Bill Clinton - in the only thing she was ever placed in charge of while her was President - to come up with a universal health care system. She failed miserably. Bill Clinton's popularity bottomed out as a result of the debate she so ineptly spearheaded. The responsibility for health care was then removed from her by her husband, the President. Shortly afterwards the Democrats lost their majority in Congress. It was a low point for Bill Clinton and she got the blame.

After that, the Clintons went back to an ignoble triangulation tactic which
only served to weaken their liberal base and did nothing for them with
ultra-conservatives. It did allow them to build popularity with the
so-called moderates and independents.

Perhaps this latter same constituency which has given us two terms of G. W. Bush has woken up. But not to her.

The Clintons know where their money is coming from. If they are being evasive on universal health care, it's because they know their paymasters are against it.

Hence Hillary says she hopes something will be done by the end of her SECOND [usually lame duck] term. Fat chance. She won't touch it with a barge pole.

Just another of the problems that comes with all her past baggage. She thinks healthcare is a recipe for another bottoming out. This is why this wife of a former beleaguered President, who in spite of her, accomplished much, cannot lead. On two of the most important issues she has had to face; support for the Iraq invasion and healthcare she has been found wanting.

So why are we asked to put our faith in her now? The only faint echo I hear is that she is Bill Clinton's wife. Even though she has failed us on the major issues of our time.

Why should anyone vote for her? Can anyone give me any rational reason?

 

[opinterph]

I suspect the Democratic House and Senate, strengthened by increased numbers and a Dem in the WH will develop [a universal health care plan] … in the first session of the next Congress.

Comments from televised interview with Charlie Rose; August 6, 2007:

A single-payer system (government-run system) is probably not going to happen, because it is not politically feasible in the United States – in the foreseeable future.

Tom Daschle, National Co-Chair for the Obama Campaign​

Senator Clinton’s plan will require everybody to have healthcare.

As much as we want universal coverage, it shouldn’t just be on today’s broken system.

Do not worry; long, long, long before November of 2008 she will have a comprehensive healthcare plan out.

Gene Sperling, Senior Economic Advisor for the Clinton Campaign​

What are the projected costs for Universal Health?

The Edwards plan will cost 90 to 100 billion dollars each year.

Leo Hindery, Economic Policy Advisor for the Edwards Campaign​

Video archive of the Charlie Rose interview is available at www.charlierose.com

 

[SixPackInBoxers]

Yes those evil doctors are out to get us!!!!!!! They're destroying the social fabric of America!!!!!

Doctors aren't playthings to be passed around for everyone to share. Can't wait until thousands and thousands of people start to refuse dedicating most of their youth to becoming a doctor. Coz if they do, under universal health care you're basically saying "fuck you, you're ours to control".

Universal health care, not just in the "Canada Health Act", but in all its forms, is a slap in the face to the people we need the most.

Well GPs in the UK all earn more than 100,000 pounds Sterling ($200,000 dollars a year). Specialists earn considerably more. In Canada the pay is higher. The patient can select the doctor of his/her choice. The only difference is that instead of billing the patient, who may not be able to pay and therefore goes without medical help and dies in poverty, the doctor bills the state. Of course the state pays with your and my taxes but it does not overlook those who cannot pay. Thus in those systems we all help our fellow being.

But the amazing thing about both the British system and the Canadian one (the latter I think is a bit better) is that the overall cost of medical care is less than it is in the United States per head with still one third not covered there while everyone is covered in both Canada and the United Kingdom. And the care is just as good – often better - and I speak from experience in all three countries.

It is only decent that a universal health care system is available to all and a disgrace that the richest nation on earth is willing to let its disadvantaged be bereft of the most vital thing in sustaining life - access to the care that will help them continue to survive and even be a productive source of wellbeing for others.

This is a question of morality and compassion but more than that of looking after our fellow men and women. It goes to the foundations of all religions - and of none. It speaks of our humanity to man. And it speaks eloquently of the quality of the values of a nation or race. If a nation turns away from this act of utmost probity it is an unworthy one, nay a shameful one, and the richest nation on Earth should not be in that unworthy company.

 

[NickCole]

Still, the fact she's got it pegged as a second term goal pretty much means she isn't worth the vote. She's a sham.

You've made a decision that "she isn't worth the vote" based upon one sentence you read here quoted from an opinion column?

Do you even know the context in which she uttered that sentence? What was the sentence that came before it that may have identified her "second term" comment as meaning healthcare is a priority rather than the way you have interpreted it?

Is there any evidence that any other candidate could implement universal healthcare sooner than a second term?

 

[rottenj10]

Well GPs in the UK all earn more than 100,000 pounds Sterling ($200,000 dollars a year). Specialists earn considerably more. In Canada the pay is higher. The patient can select the doctor of his/her choice. The only difference is that instead of billing the patient, who may not be able to pay and therefore goes without medical help and dies in poverty, the doctor bills the state. Of course the state pays with your and my taxes but it does not overlook those who cannot pay. Thus in those systems we all help our fellow being.

But the amazing thing about both the British system and the Canadian one (the latter I think is a bit better) is that the overall cost of medical care is less than it is in the United States per head with still one third not covered there while everyone is covered in both Canada and the United Kingdom. And the care is just as good – often better - and I speak from experience in all three countries.

It is only decent that a universal health care system is available to all and a disgrace that the richest nation on earth is willing to let its disadvantaged be bereft of the most vital thing in sustaining life - access to the care that will help them continue to survive and even be a productive source of wellbeing for others.

This is a question of morality and compassion but more than that of looking after our fellow men and women. It goes to the foundations of all religions - and of none. It speaks of our humanity to man. And it speaks eloquently of the quality of the values of a nation or race. If a nation turns away from this act of utmost probity it is an unworthy one, nay a shameful one, and the richest nation on Earth should not be in that unworthy company.

Very eloquent crap.

Yes, it's a question of morality. The cause of the health-care mess is government intervention. Stripping away all government intervention will help everyone with cheaper access to healthcare.

And universal health care still screws doctors. Suddenly instead of just charging a patient, you've got to fill-in mounds of paperwork for the government. And when the government realises that costs are rising because everyone can have stupid elective tests for $0, they clamp down even further and impose more draconian restrictions on doctors and the health care industry as a whole. Which makes it worse for doctors and takes the enjoyment out of the job. It will make it much less appealing for students to become a doctor, which further restricts supply while the demand for services is growing because of the free lunch.

You're still screwing doctors over. It is only decent that a system is available that respects the rights of all doctors, who have one of the hardest jobs imagineable, by allowing them to work as they please without government imposition.

 

[lancelva]

If we haven't learnt [sic--unless you are from Britain] about the dangers of the Bush/Clinton dynastic Presidential grab...then America deserves the awful consequences.

The lesson from the 2000 election is that we pay a high price when our President lacks the experience to lead America both at home and abroad. George Bush wasn't ready for the job. Hillary Clinton is ready. The "danger" is electing someone who is too green to be President (e.g. Obama).

Why should anyone vote for her? Can anyone give me any rational reason?

 

[lancelva]

Let's cut out the shit and deal with some facts.

For once, I agree with you. So here it is--you attack Hillary because she was unable to achieve universal healthcare while First Lady yet you also attack her because she has said it will take time to accomplish. Any political scientist will tell you that President Clinton made the mistake of trying to shove through too many things at once in the early days of his first term. That's what caused his popularity to decline and the Democrats to lose Congress (among other things). Hillary doesn't want to make the promise that everything can be accomplished in her first term. Because if you try to do everything at once, you end up accomplishing less than you hoped (especially in regards to healthcare).

If anything, it underscores her experience. She's been there and she knows how the system works. That's what it takes to get things done. They came to Washington in 1993 thinking it would be like Little Rock, but they soon realized that wasn't the case. Things won't be like that this time around.

 

[AngelBoy]

Of all Democrats running for president, only Hillary Clinton's name is synonymous with universal health care. Sadly, though, she's abandoned that as she runs for office in 2008. Unlike Obama and certainly John Edwards, she's not published a plan and indeed she no longer talks regularly about universal health care, and I wonder: is it because she got so badly burned when she tried as First Lady, or because she accepts so much money from the health care industry and the drug lobby?

If elected as president, what health care policies will she pursue? As Paul Krugman wrote in his NY Times column, Clinton said during a debate this past February that, "“Well, I want to have universal health care coverage by the end of my second term.” What will she do in her first 100 days? Her first term? The first 100 days of her second term? Why does she need so much time?

It may not matter, as I suspect the Democratic House and Senate, strengthened by increased numbers and a Dem in the WH will develop their own, and do so in the first session of the next Congress. Still it would be nice if the president started things rolling, as universal health care can't wait for Clinton.

In her autobiography Hillary says she believes in and will work for universal health care – but thinks the only way to achieve this is a gradualist approach.

The reality is that the US President has quite limited powers and has to work with the congress and the states to get anything done. So for many issues trying to get something done in the first 1,000 days is a problem – forget the first 100. With Healthcare its more like the first 10,000 days

For each person that accepts the idea of health cover funded by taxes (which is what universal health care means) – there are others that have very little faith in the government delivering an effective service.

Governments don’t run things well – I’m a Democrat and Hillary supporter – but still know this is true – so to come up with a system that works and doesn’t mean a worse service for all the people that now have healthcare will be very difficult

 

[AngelBoy]

^ If a Dem is elected president, we can assume the Congress will likewise be Democrat. There is no need for gradualism, what is needed is action. Not words, not plans, not promises, but good old pedal-to-the-metal action.

And despite what some bottle-baby Democrats may say, the political support from the voters is there -- what's needed is for Clinton to stop worrying about her Mark Rich type friends and do what the people want.

Leaping into “Good Old Action” is often a way to fuck things up very quickly.

A lot of the voters don’t want to pay more taxes for universal health care unless this will be run efficiently and well.

Huge government departments just aren’t good at running things – mostly they just like fighting with other huge government departments.

Maybe you should give Hillary some credit for having learned something about this issue 15 years ago?

 

[NickCole]

No, I made the decision that she isn't worth the vote on the basis that she is not worth the vote.

That's not a basis, it's a conclusion.

It isn't just this, but, for instance, when she said she would continue taking money from lobbyists, because they are people with concerns, but that she "won't listen to them."

What you place in quotes is not what she said.

She said this: "... lobbyists represent real Americans; they represent nurses, they represent social workers, corporations that employ a lot of people. So the idea that a contribution is going to influence you; I just ask you to look at my record; I've been fighting for the same things; my core principles have not changed; but I do want to be the President for everybody; I want to represent the entire country ..."

Here's video of her saying it (because I've taken out a few inconsequential words here and there):



She doesn't say she won't listen to them, she says they won't influence her agenda, that she has fought for the same things whether or not she received lobbyist money from a particular source.

And you know what? She's right. Look at her record: her agenda has not changed to accomodate lobbyist contributions. Lobbyists are Americans just like you and I are, and they have a right to contribute to the candidate of their choice just like you and I do.

Furthermore, something she didn't say but is true and should be said is that there is no way a Democratic candidate can compete with Republican candidates unless they are hugely wealthy or take lobbyist contributions. No possible way. So if you want Republicans to win every election because they can out-raise Democrats and smother Americans with their deceitful propaganda, you better be ready for an America that's what Republicans have brought us the past seven years rather than what Clinton brought us the eight years before.

The moderator went on to ask who supports changing the whole system so that every candidate gets equal campaign money from the government and takes no other campaign contributions. Hillary Clinton boldly raised her hand.

I don't get how anyone of any degree of intellect (without being paid to support her) is convinced she is worth the vote. Like I said, the only draw to her by most here is something as insubstantial as her husband or her gender or her money since she pays them.

That's not true and you can read through the many threads here to find reasons to support her candidacy that are about her with or without her husband being present. But it's also true that she is married to Bill Clinton and that's an asset that is not "insubstantial." In choosing a candidate we ought to take all elements into consideration -- intelligence, work ethic, how eager are they to be informed, and most definitely what experience and tools they'll bring to the job.

 

[NickCole]

"In choosing a candidate we ought to take all elements into consideration -- intelligence, work ethic, how eager are they to be informed, and most definitely what experience and tools they'll bring to the job." Lancelva did this too; I notice "leadership" is not included.

You keep changing your objection to Hillary Clinton, never defending your last one that I go to the trouble to address.

As for Hillary Clinton's leadership ability, she's been demonstrating that ever since she gave her famous rip-roaring Commencement speech for her own graduating class at Wellesley.

If you don't recognize that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a leader you don't know what leadership is.

Such fanboyism for the wrong choice... 2004 all over again.

Fanboyism???



I've been criticized plenty over the years but the shallowness of fanboyism is so foreign to who I am it almost feels like a compliment!

And I don't know what your reference to 2004 is about but comparing Hillary Clinton to John Kerry is laughable.

 

[iman]

"In choosing a candidate we ought to take all elements into consideration -- intelligence, work ethic, how eager are they to be informed, and most definitely what experience and tools they'll bring to the job." Lancelva did this too; I notice "leadership" is not included.

Such fanboyism for the wrong choice... 2004 all over again.

Actually, there was nothing wrong with the Dem's 2004 choice. The election turned on side issues, gay marriage, values, etc.