Democratic Daily: Hillary’s Healthcare Plan May Be the Ticket

I think Hillary’s healthcare plan may be the ticket and I am not alone in saying it’s “very, very good.” It actually reminds me a lot of Kerry’s plan from ‘04, that he re-introduced last July. I mentioned here last night I wanted to see a plan from the candidates that comes close to Kerry’s.

I am still on the outside looking in with regards to backing a candidate, but I want to note here that Hillary’s healthcare plan has impressed me, as she has impressed me on other issues in recent weeks. The Republican’s are all over Hillary’s new plan, with typical Rovian style attacks. I think it’s important to remember why Hillary is such a target for the right wing.

There’s a great post on The Left Coaster from eriposte that I hope our readers will take the time to read. Interestingly, eriposte points out the obvious, “significant implications of the fact that she is a very accomplished, intelligent, strong and capable woman who has long been in the midst of strong, aggressive, sometimes chauvinistic men in Congress and been a long time target of the vast Republican misinformation machine” and he goes on to say, “As progressives, it is our responsibility to destroy even implicit negative stereotypes about women and challenge people to go beyond such stereotypes in evaluating who is and who isn’t qualified to be President of the United States.”

http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=6603

at the same price that Congress gets it?

She has a live webcast on health care tonight 8pm

People can sign up and submit questions

Read the plan and RSVP for the webcast:
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/healthcare

Sen. Clinton's "health care plan" is nothing more than a boon to the insurance industry which, coincidentally, appears to be funneling big bucks her way. More to the point, her "plan" doesn't fix any of the problems with health care in America-- it just makes everyone suffer the consequences of those problems.

America is the only industrialized nation that does not provide access to health care for its citizens. How can anyone propose to continue that situation? Simply requiring that everyone buy health insurance does little more than perpetuate the problem. The U.S. health care industry operates under an essentially unregulated capitalism model. Clinton's plan seeks to punish the victims of that circumstance by forcing them to play by the industry's rules, rather than bringing the proper attention of government to bear on the problem by fixing the part that's broken, rather than shoving it down everyone's throat.

I want a single payer system. I already HAVE good health insurance, and I can tell you that it isn't working the way it's supposed to-- even with insurance I'm reluctant to seek care when I need it because the out-of-pocket expenses nickel and dime me to death, and I'm enjoying the BENEFITS of the current system. In other words, I already have exactly what Senator Clinton is proposing, and it sucks. We can do so much better.

We need an answer asap.

Clinton's plan is something that can be implemented quickly without having
to set up new agencies.

Try having nothing in order to really get the meaning of "sucks"

I went twenty years without health insurance before I landed my present job. Yes, I'm very fortunate to have it, but I can tell you that this sort of "plan" does NOTHING to fix the fundamental problems with the U.S. health care system-- indeed, it is part of the problem itself. A single payer solution would not be any more difficult to implement-- we already have it in the form of Medicaid-- and it would go a long way toward fixing the problems by making government a full partner in health care provision-- a partner with real power that consumers lack, especially sick consumers at the mercy of the health care middlemen.

for directions

Anyone who expected a real solution comparable to those successful systems used in other modern countries is "all over" it. (If I'm reading his meaning right... i.e. "all over" means "criticizing".)

Why on earth would Democrats fall into the Republican's trap and nominate the most divisive Democratic candidate.

Can you imagine how long and ugly the fight will be if Hillary is our nominee--let alone think of at least four more years of poisonous partisan sniping in Washington with a compliant and complicit media.

We need to think long and hard before we try to put the Clintons back in the White House.

Clinton 53% favorable/39% unfavorable - CNN 9/11/07

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2007/09/new_cnn_poll_reading_favunfavs.html

Clinton remains the best known candidate. Forty-nine percent (49%) have a favorable opinion of her and 50% say the opposite. Those figures include 23% with a Very Favorable opinion and 34% with a Very Unfavorable opinion. Clinton earns better reviews from women than from men.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/presidential_favorability_ratings

...and unfavorable below it.

And about 50% of a general electorate say they would never vote for her under any circumstances.
No upside and little margin for error for her.

My guess is that the hardcore RW Hillary Haters are sifting through the details trying to invent scary examples to keep the public from getting on board.

Noteworthy stuff: Reception has been great, in my view. Hillary isn't the first to come up with a plan. But she's the first to come up with a plan that everyone's talking about.

That should shoot down any claims by her that its an original proposal. It isn't.
Also, her massive failure of 1994 will overshadow any current plan. This plan is vastly different than her ill-fated one of course, but the questions will still remain:

She screwed up the last one up so badly, why shouldn't we believe that she'll screw up ANY kind of plan again?

I have no idea what's in Richardson's plan. None.

But get your history right: Had Hillary Clinton not tried so hard in 1993-94, Richardson and the rest of them would not even have a plan in 2007. She stuck her neck out for the cause. And people have not forgotten.

So Hillary rips off Richardson again. Can't she come up with an original idea in her lackluster, passionless, front-running pseudo "campaign"???