The Reviews Are In: 'Promising Policy,' 'Very Sound,' 'A Huge Step Forward'

Liberal and Conservative columnists, progressive bloggers, and business leaders agree...


WASHINGTON POST’S E.J. DIONNE - HILLARY PLAN SHOWS SHE 'HAS THE CHARACTER TO BE PRESIDENT': "There's another message: She knows a lot more than she used to about voters and how to persuade them -- and about herself. Leaders who can laugh at their own failures are usually more trustworthy than those who can't... It could turn out that Clinton's strongest argument is that someone who is aware of her own shortcomings, laughs about them and works at them has the character to be president." (Washington Post, 9/18/07)

WASHINGTON POST ED BOARD - HILLARY'S PLAN IS 'PROMISING POLICY': "But Ms. Clinton, in setting out her route to universal coverage, adds some promising policy twists. The most interesting would limit the tax deductibility of employer-sponsored health plans for the wealthiest Americans, a sensible step toward fixing one of the most expensive and counterproductive parts of the tax code." (Washington Post, 9/18/07)

NEW YORK TIMES’ DAVID BROOKS - 'HILLARY CLINTON’S HEALTH CARE PLAN IS A HUGE STEP FORWARD...BETTER THAN THE GOP CANDIDATES' PLANS': " Hillary Clinton’s health care plan is a huge step forward from 1993. It’s better than the GOP candidates’ plans (New York Times, 9/18/07 )

HARVARD PROFESSOR ROBERT BLENDON - HILLARY’S PLAN OFFERS 'LOTS OF CHOICES,' COULD BE ATTRACTIVE TO 'REPUBLICAN MODERATES': "In her new plan, ‘she's offering lots of choices,’ Blendon said. ‘I think it's much less threatening, and it has provisions that I think a number of moderate Republicans could live with.’ (Concord Monitor, 9/18/07 )

NEW REPUBLIC'S JONATHAN COHN, AUTHOR OF 'SICK' - 'EVERYTHING ABOUT THE CLINTON PLAN...(IS) A REMINDER THAT THIS IS HER STRENGTH': "Would she be vague, figuring she had the least to prove on the matter and that details could only come back to haunt her? Would she settle on something less than universal coverage, figuring the political support for it was too weak? Would she kowtow to the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies, which had started donating to her campaigns? The answer seems to be no, no, and no...Everything about the Clinton plan--from its thorough details to its well-orchestrated roll-out to its deft efforts at blunting interest-group opposition--are a reminder that this is her strength. And not a minor one to consider." (New Republic, 9/17/07 )

CEO OF KODAK PRAISES HILLARY’S PLAN - SHE RECOGNIZES 'AMERICA'S HEALTHCARE SYSTEM IS A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS AND INDIVIDUALS': "Antonio Perez, the chairman and CEO of Kodak who has contributed to Clinton’s campaign this year, praised her plan in Monday’s release: ‘Senator Clinton’s healthcare reform plan recognizes that managing and financing America’s healthcare system is a shared responsibility between government, business and individuals.’" (The Hill, 9/18/07 )

EZRA KLEIN - HILLARY’S POLICY IS 'VERY, VERY SOUND': "So the policy is very, very sound, and includes other sundry goodies like a Best Practices Institute that will vastly accelerate the amount of research done and distributed on the cost-effectiveness of treatments, better chronic care incentives, and so forth." (Ezra Klein blog, 9/17/07 )

COMMONWEALTH FUND - 'IT'S A STRAIGHTFORWARD PROPOSAL...TRYING TO STRENGTHEN WHAT WORKS RELATIVELY WELL AND TRYING TO FILL IN THE GAPS': "It's a straightforward proposal in that it builds on the current system," said Sara Collins, assistant vice president of the Commonwealth Fund, a foundation that focuses on health care. Clinton is "really looking at where the gaps are in the system and trying to strengthen what works relatively well and trying to fill in the gaps." (Concord Monitor, 9/18/07 )

CNBC’S JOHN HARWOOD - HILLARY’S PLAN 'HAS HIT THE SWEET SPOT': "(T)his is precisely the issue on which her experience may be most valuable. In other words, she's drawing from both the left and right. Sometimes that's a sign that a politician has hit the sweet spot." (CNBC.com, 9/17/07 )

THE ATLANTIC’S MATTHEW YGLESIAS - HILLARY’S PLAN IS 'AMBITIOUS...UNDERCUTS SOME OF THE MAIN ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE (INCLUDING BY ME) AGAINST HER': "It certainly has the look and feel of a decently ambitious proposal...in a way that really undercuts some of the main arguments that have been made (including by me) against her" (The Atlantic, 9/17/07 )

WASHINGTON MONTHLY’S KEVIN DRUM - ‘HILLARY’S PLAN STRIKES ME AS… THE POLITICALLY SAVVIEST AND MOST PRACTICAL OF THE LOT’: "Hillary's strikes me as not just substantively as good as any of them (and better in some ways), but also the politically savviest and most practical of the lot. Given her experience in 1994 (she knows what won't work) combined with the legislative canniness she seems to have developed in the Senate (she know what will work), that's not too surprising." (Washington Monthly’s Political Animal, 9/17/07 )

WTF? What planet are these people living on?

that's for sure...

The folks quoted in the OP certainly seem to be disconnected from reality-- is that what you meant? As I mentioned elsewhere, I already have good health insurance (I'm a public employee), so I already enjoy the best parts of Senator Clinton's "plan," but it sucks. Over the last ten years the costs of health care over and above the insurance payments have skyrocketed. I recently paid over $600 for diagnostic testing-- X-rays and labs-- because the local hospital negotiates the best rate it can get from the insurance companies, then simply tacks on whatever additional the market can bear in out-of-pocket expenses. And that's just for routine aches and pains stuff. Get seriously ill or injured and you'll see some real medical bills, even with insurance. And of course hospitals don't divulge either their prices or their insurance deals up front, so you cannot do any real financial planning in advance to prepare for the consequences of being shafted.

And this is the system that one of the writers in the OP described as one that "works relatively well?" Like I said, I already enjoy most of the benefits of Sen. Clinton's "plan," and it most certainly isn't working well for me!

for the millions of Americans w/o health insurance (which includes myself) any plan is better than what we've got now.

We don't have the luxury of holding out for single payer.

It's not much of an improvement for most Americans, I think, but it definitely has the best chance of actually being passed into law. It's noteworthy the type of support she's receiving: though I might be off base here, I've gotten the feeling that conservative sources seem to be praising the content of it, while moderates and liberals talk about its political efficiency and its relative merits against the Republican non-plans.

Thats all I have to say besides, K&R!

Cancel the president's, Congress' and all upper level political appointees insurance and health care coverage in July of 2009 unless every single American is covered under a universal health care plan by that date.

Now, that'll light a fire under their a$$e$.

Corporate-run media only wants you to think Hillary or Obama because the drug companies, insurance companies, their beltway lobbyists and the Repugs are all scared to death of Edwards.

Edwards is setting the pace but all you hear is Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary, Hillary.... Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama, Obama....... Wake up and shake off the hypno-dust, folks.

us to follow!! Edwards has my vote and also my family's vote. And I'll work to get him elected too!

I WILL NOT campaign for Hillary if she's the nominee! While I "may" have to hold my nose and vote for her, IF THIS STUFF keeps up, I know some of my family who will NOT vote for her NO MATTER WHAT!

It's their choice and I have thought about it myself, but I can recall only ONE time I didn't vote. It was the very first time I was going to be ABLE to vote, but back then I just couldn't vote for LBJ!! Times have changed and Repukes have been horrible, but I don't really support Hillary and so I will work to get Edwards elected as our nominee!

I also have to say that as time goes by, I'm actually getting to the point where I no longer listen to Hillary, and there was a time when I thought she was the BEST we could do! Now she's my last choice!

Wouldn't that require Congressional approval?

Edwards uses a sliding scale to determine premiums. Hillary's plan guarantees that premiums will never exceed a percentage of income...

Firstly, the idea that teh current system "works quite well" is delusional. Quite apart from my philosophical objection to the principle of the thing, leaving the insurance companies in the market risks creating a two-tier health system.

Secondly, healthcare is not the be-all, end-all of the issues.

looking at other countries' health care systems. Google 'worlds best healthcare" and you get France, Italy, and Spain in the top seven. Hillary Clinton's plan looks a lot like these plans, or at least a step in that direction.
Private insurance companies still exist in France and other universal systems. They still offer supplemental insurance for those who desire it. Private hospitals still exist, as do clinics and doctors offices. They operate side by side with the public system (equivalent to an expanded Medicare I think). Some systems you get the same service for the same cost no matter where you go, other systems you have to buy extra insurance or pay for care for certain things beyond the basics.

It's not simple, it's not easy, but hardly anything on this scale is.

in those plans there's a separate, NOT-FOR-PROFIT system involved.

when they praise hillary, become towering becaons of wisdom?

Jesus... you're joking, right?

If not... www.dailyhowler.com

:shrug:

I never have. Do you have examples of YOURSELF saying each of those listed in the OP have "whored out?"

By "us" I mean those who expect fairness from the media.

I gave you the link to search for yourself... I have seen those names many times on dailyhowler... and they're not being singled out for praise.

I wonder how many are on media matters... hmmmm

If anyone on mediamatters or dailyhowler have a problem with them, I've never seen it.

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012207.shtml


Klein's MUCH better than Dionne... but he still manages to turn a blind eye for seemingly no reason at all, despite his knowing full well what the press is up to.

It doesn't say "I don't like Dionne" it shows how he's spent the last 12 years intently ignoring how fucked up the media is.

As I guessed, media matters is far more... understanding... about media whores and their failure to perform their duties well.

And I am certain that the writer who said "he's spent the last 12 years intently ignoring how fucked up the media is" doesn't like Dionne.

But, hey. You found an instance of a poster on the dailyhowler who doesn't like one person from the OP. Congratulations.

Anyone else?

And it's only ONE entry... there are dozens going back over the years...

BOTH of these guys know what's going on in this country with respect to the media's whorishness... but what do they do about it?

Hmmmmmmm... :think:

:shrug:

a. Bob Somerby finds his writing boring
and/or
b. Somerby thinks Dionne apparently hasn't criticized Fox News as eloquently as Howard Kurtz?

And what does this have to do with health care plans anyway?


If you don't like Clinton, that's fine. You don't even need a reason.

I don't know her.

I don't like her HEALTHCARE PLAN.

Fuckin hell.

Or perhaps the second to last refuge. Name-calling and swearing being the last.

If you want to talk about the healthcare plan and it's merits and demerits, let's do it. If you don't want to engage on it, why do you bother posting about it at all? Irrelevant and superficial comments aren't going to convince anyone.

in which someone else and I were talking about the "merits and demerits" of these in the *cough* 'left' media... and then you throw in a non sequitur about whether or not I like Hillary Clinton as a person... but after I address that, you call my direct response "semantics"?

Unbelievable... but still not quite as unbelievable as thinking there are "merits" to a taxpayer giveaway to the insurance industry.

:sarcasm:

Anyone who disagrees with me...

but chooses not to.

Gee, wonder why that is.

"HARVARD PROFESSOR ROBERT BLENDON - HILLARY’S PLAN OFFERS 'LOTS OF CHOICES,' COULD BE ATTRACTIVE TO 'REPUBLICAN MODERATES': "In her new plan, ‘she's offering lots of choices,’ Blendon said. ‘I think it's much less threatening, and it has provisions that I think a number of moderate Republicans could live with.’ (Concord Monitor, 9/18/07 )"


Look, if you want a plan that Repo moderates will endorse, by all means run as a Repo moderate. Just be honest about it.

toward where they want it.

Oh well.

and capital gains tax cuts.

Reaganomics baby.

:sarcasm:

Thanks EVER so much for the telecom act!

:bounce:

Things like media issues, FCC issues was the first thing I became politically active about. You paint me with the wrong brush.

unless you think dems constantly kowtowing to so-called "moderates" is a good thing.

You do know bill sold us down the river on the FCC and the fairness doctrine, right?

in the Reagan years.

I do not think the FCC changes in the Clinton years were done right, and there is plenty of fixing to do to repair changes made over the last 25 years.

he'd make sure legislation was passed making such necessary regulation into law.

Not only did he not do that, he made bad matters worse by passing the Telecom Act.

Yes, there are plenty of changes still necessary... the issue for some of us is this: if candidates are ALREADY kowtowing to big business (healthcare fiasco), then how can we trust them to rein them in later?

no wonder Hillary wants to steal some of their thunder.

Is that correct? Your position on any given issue can be determined by how moderate Republicans react to it?
(Is it also true that if moderate Republicans dislike something, that means you will like it?)

This is a real dilemma. If it's true, then you would be agreeing with a "senior White House staffer" (who presumably is even more of an anathema than a moderate) who said:

The aide said that guys like me {Ron Suskind} were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.''
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?ex=1255665600en=890a96189e162076ei=5090

...which would be a serious contradiction for you.

He discusses the ideology and philosophy when developing public policy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GNpgH6jrUs

and consider how much of that he had a direct hand in.

many of the Clinton bashers don't know how democracy works. Its comments like yours that reinforce that thinking.

Seriously... explain how it's democracy's fault that he had two years with a Dem congress and still managed to make things worse.

but I do take issue with him going back on his word, got some evidence to support it?

What, 2 years isn't enough time to get fairness doctrine back? After having used it as a campaign issue?

any evidence he used the fairness doctrine as a campaign issue. I don't recall that.

As you know the Telecom Act was done in '96 and was a compromise in large measure because the Republicans controlled Congress. Neither the right nor the left was happy with it in total as both sides got some of what they wanted. Democracy, remember?

But I do remember it... and I'll keep looking and try to get you something later... on my way out for a bit.

As for the Telecom Act, point taken... but why is it Bush is unafraid to veto even VERY GOOD things... but bill wouldn't veto this VERY BAD THING?

Seems like only ONE kind of politician is willing to compromise... and only if it moves the country further to the right. Fuck that.

and theirs is the same thing. what a load of crap.

hillary's plan is NOT like edwards or kucinich's plans. it just keeps poor people poor & beholden to big pharma & big insurance companies just like she is!

What a joke.

The wealthy will be excluded from having high end plans far in excess of what Hillary is proposing paid for out of pre-tax income. In other words, if the wealthy want very high end insurance they will have to pay the excess...

Republicans have proposed just the opposite, to limit the exclusion for middles class folks who have either negotiated a high end plan or have special health needs that increases their premiums...while not applying the same standard to wealthy earners...

This would be a tremendous step forward for our society. Hillary understands we have to work with what we have now in order to move forward, not reinvent the wheel. And it actually may have a chance of passing Congress!

Anyone who needs to hype Hillary's "plan" like a movie review sounds awfully desperate to me.

Let people judge for themselves thank you very much and stop trying to sell us on what the "critics" have to say.

Why is it that Hillary is always bringing up the rear on the issues and trying to co-opt John Edwards stands on populist issues AFTER he has already been there?

She's the last to speak out against the war.

She's slow and late on healthcare issue too.

I want a real leader, not a bad imitation -

I want John Edwards.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Edwards Gets Rave Reviews At The California Democratic Convention

http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070430-ca-convention-reviews/

http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/2/145728/0926

The Reviews Pile On - Pundits And Voters Agree: Edwards Impressive, Has Top Answers

http://johnedwards.com/news/press-releases/20070604-reviews-pile-on/

She is FOLLOWING...not LEADING...

Edwards announces a health care plan so Hillary has to copy cat. Notice that the dates of your articles are months old. Hillary only NOW is getting around to announcing her Hillary-come-lately plan.

Let me know when Hillary starts LEADING and stops FOLLOWING.

Doug D.

Or is that only when a DUer who supports Hillary does it vs. the actual campaign of John Edwards.

"Edwards announces a health care plan so Hillary has to copy cat. Notice that the dates of your articles are months old. Hillary only NOW is getting around to announcing her Hillary-come-lately plan."

Because the one who puts out their healthcare plan first has the best one? :shrug:

Maybe John can put his foot in his mouth again when describing his own plan by saying doctor visits will be mandated. Which was truly odd since his plan contains no such provisions. Maybe John should stop "leading" and "follow" what his plan actually says instead of handing the rw a talking point on a silver platter.

Here are his comments

"It requires that everybody be covered. It requires that everybody get preventive care," he told a crowd sitting in lawn chairs in front of the Cedar County Courthouse. "If you are going to be in the system, you can't choose not to go to the doctor for 20 years. You have to go in and be checked and make sure that you are OK."

He noted, for example, that women would be required to have regular mammograms in an effort to find and treat "the first trace of problem." Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, announced earlier this year that her breast cancer had returned and spread."

Here's the kicker, his plan deals with preventative care but there is nothing mandatory about it from the patient standpoint.

She answered submitted questions and spoke about her plan in general

She embraced technology and did a wonderful job

jesus... are y'all gonna start writing fan fiction next?