Will Hillary Cave on Health Care?

It's conventional wisdom that Iraq is the issue that will hurt Hillary Clinton's run for the presidency, but if she offers vague rhetoric and half-way measures on health care, it could destroy her campaign.

It's conventional wisdom that if Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign falters with Democratic activists in places like Iowa and New Hampshire, it will be over the issue of the Iraq war. And her vacillations on the war.

Yet the dividing-line issue in the upcoming primaries may turn out to be not Iraq, but health care. And just like on Iraq, the Democratic base is in no mood for timidity and half-way measures and vague rhetoric. Most rank-and-file Democrats support government-provided national health insurance: enhanced Medicare for All.

And that's no secret to the candidates. This is how the Washington Post described Hillary Clinton's recent, maiden voyage into Iowa as a candidate:


In keeping with her expressed desire to hold a "conversation with Iowans," Clinton asked at one point for a show of hands from the audience, asking them to declare whether they preferred an employer-based system of insurance, a system that mandates all individuals to purchase insurance, with help from the government if necessary, or one modeled on the Medicare system. Overwhelmingly the audience favored moving toward a Medicare-like system for all Americans.

A show of hands in almost any roomful of Democratic activists will produce the same result: they want a single-payer "Medicare-like system for all Americans." According to the Post, Clinton told the Iowa group: "I'm not ready to be specific until I hear from people."

Pressure from the base on Clinton and other Democratic contenders to get specific will intensify in the early states -- mobilized by groups such as Progressive Democrats of America, Healthcare Now, National Nurses Organizing Committee and Physicians for a National Healthcare Program. So far, none of the sitting senators seeking the nomination are supporting Medicare for All, though former Sen. John Edwards may be coming close. Rep. Dennis Kucinich for years has been a leading supporter in the House.

That single-payer is the rational, cost-effective way to reform healthcare is an easy case to make --and was eloquently argued last month by respected Democratic party activist and lawyer Guy T. Saperstein. Despite spending twice as much money on healthcare as other industrialized nations, our system fails to cover 47 million people and generally performs poorly. Experts point to the main cause of the failure -- a private insurance bureaucracy that soaks up nearly one-third of all healthcare dollars in waste, profits, paperwork, commissions and advertising.

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/47556/

When's the last time she caved on something? Can you or Cohen tell us that?

Being a capitalist she will choose the one that keeps the profits in the hands of Insurance Companies which was how "Hillary Health-care" worked in 93

of her corporatist roots. In this respect she has never once wavered from her support of corporate interests over the interests of people.

in this anonymous media, making plans for proceeding IRL.:hi:

from her "record as Senator", as you say, that gives the idea that she favors the interests of corporations over the interests of the people.

If you can glance at her record and come to that conclusion, then it shouldn't be hard for you to pass on some examples. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just need to be convinced.

given to them, but rather what they find for themselves. Since she has such a tiny record in office it is not difficult, start with Tata.

Why should I waste MY time looking for something to back up YOUR claims?

likely to proceed. If you want to know, you will, if not, that is your choice.:shrug:

First, what's it matter who's giving the health care as long as it's given?

Second, capitalism is not defined as a belief system that "keeps profits in the hands of companies."

have been able to moderate that force but none recently.

Single Payer would eliminate the Bureaucracy involved in our system and provide what the county needs. It is merely a financing mechanism.

be paid for and whether or not some will profit from the illness of others .

"cap·i·tal·ism (kăp'ĭ-tl-ĭz'əm) pronunciation
n.

An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market."

PRIVATELY or CORPORATELY OWNED -- in the U.S. this primarily means "CORPORATELY OWNED"...

"An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production."

Of course, if you believe that there's a free market in the U.S. I'd like to know what you're smoking... The U.S. has an economic system that can be characterized as Socialism for the rich and rapacious capitalism for the rest of us.

"Economic system in which (1) private ownership of property exists; (2) aggregates of property or capital provide income for the individuals or firms that accumulated it and own it; (3) individuals and firms are relatively free to compete with others for their own economic gain; (4) the profit motive is basic to economic life."

Number 4: THE PROFIT MOTIVE IS BASIC TO ECONOMIC LIFE.

In case you missed it: "THE PROFIT MOTIVE IS BASIC TO ECONOMIC LIFE"

Most of the profits stay in the hands of the OWNERS and ALL of the profits are controlled by the few for the benefit of the few.

Decisions about what to produce, how harmful it is to the environment, whether a product is good for anyone or just good for producing maximum profit are all decisions made with profit as the paramount goal.

If there's more profit in building condos to sell for $600,000 than in building decent low-income housing -- they'll build the condos (and they do).

If there's more profit in building bombs and guns and warplanes than there is in cleaning up the damage done to the environment by the capitalists -- they'll build the war toys (and they do).


Capitalist corporations accurately fit the definition of Psycopath:

"To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. Four case studies, drawn from a universe of corporate activity, clearly demonstrate harm to workers, human health, animals and the biosphere. Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

http://www.thecorporation.com/index.cfm?page_id=312



What a wonderful idea -- profit ubber alles! :sarcasm:


On Edit: OF COURSE Hillary will cave to the insurance companies that provide a huge share of the money she's raised to run... What a silly question... :) :hi:

Just a thought.

Although I would agree with other posters that you have to take a stand before you cave. The instant she pushed health care reform to her "second term", it became crystal clear she wasn't going to take a stand on any blessed thing.

not single payer.

And universal coverage is a huge improvement over what we've got now.

This article is just a piece of shit hit piece from another know nothing Kucinich hack.

blah, blah, blah.

They want universal single payer insurance from their government like they have in every other civilized country in the world. Plans that include insurance companies or HMOs, or paid for by the employer, are half way measures. They won't work. Everyone knows it. I am even hearing life-long republicans talking about it. The people just got screwed on the Part D social security drug plan. It benefited drug companies, but not the public. Believe me, people know the difference.

It is likely the best form available and has worked well in many countries. Hillary Clinton will do what is best for her donors not her voters.

:eyes:

because it seems that while so many claims are made about Hillary, few of them are ever backed up with much definitive proof, even as already demonstrated right here in this thread, as well.

I know that Hill is a elite corporate snob based on her actions the same way I know that Bush is the same. If you were a Bush supporter it would not be worth the effort to provide proof because you wouldn't read it anyway. If you wish to go back to how the 93 plan worked and benefited the insurance companies most and the citizens least we can but I think its a rather worthless discussion. We could also discuss Clinton's NAFTA and WTO because it's related. In addition Drug Ads started in Clintons day which I detest. We can also add her congressional record which would be fine as well. I don't have hours to spend on an essay that few would read.

Anyway, from what I've seen take place on this forum with the constant onslaught of misinformation hurled Hillary's way, you're not alone in your sentiment of why proof just doesn't matter. However, I don't share that view.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

implies that you are an outsider holding yourself up to be the judge of DU and not a part of the forum itself.

Ok I will put together what I think would provide an ample explanation for why I believe Hillary is an elite corporate politician. It will probably take several hours.

and as you already said, will likely convince no one.

Either you see it or you don't, and it's hard to see if one isn't willing to look in the first place.

people rarely read or listen to what other people give to them, they have to find it out themselves for it to have any personal validity.

I even supplied the name for him to google (Tata inc.) to find a plethora of information on her corporate pandering while in office just for a start, a task requiring less than 5 minutes to perform, and he isn't willing to do even that to find information he claims he wants (information BTW, that has been posted on DU dozens, if not hundreds, of times already).

Your post and cerridwen's excellent reply are another great example, most of these people have already decided to be mindless cheerleaders for the popular kid on "our" team, and couldn't care less about the results of their inaction and disinterest, until it effects them directly.

I'm currently seeking a poll that queries DK's positions, and plans for accomplishing them, that doesn't mention his or anybody else's name. I'm fairly certain it will be/has been met with overwhelming approval.
:kick:

that needs to be taken care of before I can come back here to GaGa Land and learn more from you concerning all this psychological banter about myself that I didn't even know existed until you informed me of it. I hope I don't owe you anything for the analysis, chum! ;)

I'll stand by my assessment, you don't really want to know anything that might make you question your assumptions, so you avoid it. Nothing unusual about that.
:kick:

lol

Do stupid ass things come out of your dumb ass head or were you just born that way. (paraphrasing)

:evilgrin:

because they realize that anyone who starts off their essay on HIllary with "(she) is an elite corporate snob" is someone so clearly biased that their opinion is not to be taken seriously...

post #24, right there in black and white.

as something that is an opinion post of a topic but a lengthy dissertation.

for is a degree of health security. They want to be able to see a doctor when they need to and to receive preventative care.

They don't really give a shit (or know much about) "health insurance" or how the care is to be delivered.

Most of the rest of the civilized world has determined that a single-payer government fund is the BEST way to finance health care. Their outcomes compared to our (lousy) outcomes proves that their decision is the best one.

No one other than Kucinich/Conyers are proposing a plan that provides universal coverage! (HR676).

Here in California the groppensteroidenfuhrer's plan hinges on a requirement that every INDIVIDUAL is mandated to purchase "HEALTH INSURANCE" (not health care, but health insurance) and if they don't they're criminalized and fined and still have no health coverage. The same idea with minor tinkering has also been put forward by Nunez in the Assembly and Perata in the Senate. Just as FUCKED up and incomplete. Only Sheila Keuhl's single-payer plan (SB840) would provide full universal coverage and lower costs for health care in California. It passed last year but that fuck arnold vetoed it...

Other than Conyers' HR676 I have seen NO OTHER PLANS in Congress for universal coverage. I've heard some empty posturing and other vaporware from Barack, etc. but no plan... Do you know of any?

What every person I talk to wants is single payer, not some "enrich the insurance companies plan" like what Hillary came up with last time. As far as your comment about "no-nothing Kucinich hack" that just proves to me that you have put no appreciable thought into this process. Have a good time being in the dark.

and why is it that poster's like you have always got to throw some personal insult into the mix?

Casting aspersions on my "thought" doesn't further your argument.

Quite the opposite, actually.

Like "kucinich hack" is not a personal comment. I know it was not directed at me but it was insulting nonetheless. Furthermore, you made the blanket statement about what people want, not I.

personally. The same goes for a pundit who has put his opinion out into the public forum. It's not a case of the "pot calling the kettle black"... and, with all due respect, I think you need to learn the difference.

Blanket statements aside - that still doesn't give you the right to insult me. Challange my opinion if you want - but don't cast aspersions on the thought process I used to get there.

if Oregon is a judge. More and more are supportive of it every day, as 1/3 of the country makes less than $11 an hour and also has to begin paying portions of their own insurance, plus co-pays and huge deductibles.

In any event, as it pertains to Hillary, single payer vs. universal doesn't really matter because she's already said she's pushing it to her second term. If people would just listen to her own words.

There are substantial cost savings to be achieved by eliminating much of the overhead currently incurred in the current for-profit system. My doctor's office has more people working to process insurance forms than people who provide actual health care. The money spent on advertising, and salaries of people whose sole function is to try to deny payment would be eliminated.

The per capita administrative expenses of Canada's single payer system are about 1/3 of those of the US for-profit system. I think that most Americans would opt for single payer if they knew the facts.

http://www.pnhp.org/news/2003/august/administrative_costs.php

but after the hole Bush has dug for us, I'm not sure how we're going to pay for it. I think it will be very difficult to get a single payer system through our political system, expecially at the federal level. Right now I think moving toward universal coverage is more realistic - and it is a step on the way to single payer.

I think we're going to see movement toward reform of our health care system at the individual state level first. That's the way things usually go in this country.

at least match Edwards' health plan with its Medicare option that might lead to single payer in 20 years, then she is not for me.

Like she does on everything else.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

of the Clinton and Bushes is a set up? I refuse to support it.

ridiculous. It's right up there with Nader's "no difference between Bush and Gore".

Generally, if you want to be taken seriously by anyone other than the peanut gallery here, you'll back what you post up with an argument of some sort, rather than posting conspiracy theories as proof for your opinion.

Some things are obvious, and yes, if we go from Bush to Clinton to Bush to Clinton, it will be a "rotation," and if you find that "reality" to be ridiculous, then maybe you need to clean the crust out of your eyes.

The money is flowing to Hillary. Her meeting with Rupert Murdoch wasn't an accident. He supported Tony Blair too. Wake up Paul. It's right in front of your face, if you just look. :)

and the Clinton's have learned which side their bread is buttered on.

It just doesn't bother me that much. Maybe because I expect very little from the political class.

All I want from these people any more is a modicum of competence - which I think that the Clinton's (based on their previous tenure in office) have. Not that they are the only choice - I honestly don't know yet who I'm going to vote for. And, since CO looks to be moving it's primary up, I may actually have to make a decision....

My responses to "NDP" were also based on the idea that I though the poster was a troll... and "NDP" has since been tombstoned, so I guess I was right. I don't like the idea of these people coming in here and trashing Democrats.

Because I can't believe you don't care about who is funding elections. It's disheartening to know the kind of fundamental change that I thought people supported in the Kerry's, isn't what they cared about at all.

I just don't see how we're going to get it and I'm tired of smashing my head against the wall. I'll settle for getting back to where we were before Bush. I've settled for a whole pack of DINOS here in CO - because the alternative was the same bunch of right wing fundy nut jobs that already ran the state into the ground. I can do the same on a national level if I have to. And I think I'll have to because, quite frankly, I'm not having much luck getting enthused about the alternatives to HRC, at least among the first tier candidates. I don't think either Edwards or Obama has the experience to get us out of this mess. Some of the 2nd tier candidates are interesting, but now that so many states are moving their primaries up, I don't see how they can compete.

But even if we approach it from a pure governance stance - is 8 more years of a Clinton witch hunt really what you want to deal with? I realize they will go after anybody, but if they go after someone new the way they did the Clintons, maybe people will start to realize it's just who they are. And I'm personally not willing to go through 8 years of that shit in order to get the sort of milk toast politics that we got in the 90's. Don't forget one other thing, Windows and Y2K was as responsible for the 90's boom as anything. Unless we get some kind of alternative energy remodeling kick, I don't see another 90's boom for a while.

lol

Her proposal under her husband was a sop to corporations in the first place.