![]() ![]() |
![]() |
| |
|
Hillary’s Health Care RemodelPosted on Sep 18, 2007By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—The genius of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has been her skill at turning liabilities into assets and weaknesses into strengths. By putting out a detailed health care plan on Monday, Clinton embarked on this year’s most daring act of political jujitsu. Compared with Barack Obama and John Edwards, who have already issued well-reviewed proposals of their own, Clinton comes late to the health care sweepstakes. But there is a message in that, too. Her approach, she says, has been “very deliberate.” That’s why she offered ideas on curbing health costs and improving the quality of care before she got around to her plan to cover everyone. She mixes self-deprecating laughter with meticulous analysis of interest-group politics to send one clear message: The Hillary Clinton of 2007 is a wiser, shrewder and more realistic politician than the first lady who tried and failed to pass her husband’s health plan in 1993 and 1994—which, because of her high-profile role, is now inevitably called “Hillarycare.” In a telephone interview Monday shortly before she gave her Iowa speech, Clinton listed the tips she picked up at the Health Care School of Hard Knocks. “I learned in 1993 that people who have coverage need reassurance that they can keep their current plan,” she said, noting that her new proposal offers exactly that. In her address, she repeatedly invoked the words “you choose”—with the emphasis on you—as a litany that could drive away the evil spirits of the past. “This is not a government-run system,” she went on in the interview, responding pre-emptively to the assaults she knows will come her way. “There will be no new bureaucracy, no mandatory alliances.” And then came the most telling moment in the interview. At the mere mention of the word “alliances,” she broke into laughter. The “alliances” were purchasing cooperatives that constituted a genuinely innovative part of Bill Clinton’s 1993 plan. But they were easy to parody as big government monstrosities. Hillary Clinton’s chuckle—there seemed to be real mirth in it—says she now knows the word “alliances” is political kryptonite. 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. Again and again, Clinton went back to what she knows now that she wished she had known then. “You can have a great plan on paper, as I have learned the hard way,” she says, and still fail. Individuals and interest groups will always ask, “What’s in it for me?” She brings up the question herself. Gone is the moralist who might once have bridled at such a query. This time, she insists it’s “a fair question in our system.” And so her new plan has incentives for small businesses, special help to companies with high “legacy” costs for retired employees, and a lot of assistance for the middle class. This time, she will coax and charm the country toward universal health coverage. Cold analysis has given way to warm persuasion. The next phase of the campaign, now that the health plans are on the table, will not hinge on the dueling details. It will instead be a bigger argument among front-runners Clinton, Obama and Edwards over how they would govern. Over the weekend, a campaign lieutenant argued that Obama was more likely to get health care reform passed because he has a fresh approach to Washington, an ability to bring parties together, and the tools to inspire the country. Implicit was a critique of the old Hillary, and her past failures. With Obama, the past would be the past. Edwards is the visionary who by sheer force of commitment will shake Washington up, and has set the pace for his opponents on issues ranging from poverty to health care. And then there is Clinton, who can say: Been there, done that, won’t be fooled again. The assumption behind her offensive on health care was nicely described by one her advisers on the eve of her speech: “In Washington, it’s: ‘You lost, you failed, goodbye.’ In the rest of the United States, it’s: ‘You fail, you learn from your mistakes, and you do it right the next time.’ ”
“It’s not just about health care,” said this adviser. “It’s about her.” So it is. 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.
Previous item: If It's Broke, Fix It Next item: Checkbook Imperialism: The Blackwater Fiasco Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig.
By DennisD, September 19, 2007 at 5:55 pm # It’s been 40 plus years since this government of ours has actually done anything for we its tax slaves. I would like to know just which corporations Hillarious’ plan would benefit most and of course the ever popular question - where is the money coming from to fund it. E.J. - Maybe next time you can dig a little deeper since I’d really like to hear in detail just what the “genius” proposes and how the “genius” intends to accomplish it instead of some obscure BS campaign promise to excite the true believers. With or without a health care plan she is unelectable.
By particle61, September 19, 2007 at 4:49 pm # hello moral americans- as far as personal experience goes, here’s my story- I lived in the UK for 2 years. While I was living there I traveled to Africa where I picked up a nasty abdominal bug. When I returned to the UK (Oxford) it became clear that I would need medicine to get rid of the illness I called a local doctor’s office, got an appointment (for that same morning), got a complete examination, received a diagnosis, was prescribed medication, and received a bill for 7 pounds fifty. I am an American citizen, I used my passport as my identification. I ask any poster here to tell me what Ameican city I would have rec’d the same great, prompt and cheap medical care in (especially if I identified myself as a ‘foreigner’). Still waiting for an answer… Selfish and bigoted Americans will never agree that health care is a human right. Like those who display their small mindedness and selfishness on this page, the argument is always reduced to this horrible, immoral and myopic type of attacking argument; ‘i have mine-and if you can’t get yours, you must be stealing’. For those of you who feel more free by witholding humanity from others, here is a fact...we don’t need you. And for those who either are paid by the insurance/pharma industry or scared by these same ‘it’s mine now’ brutes, your time is over...please join the makers of silde-rules and pony express riders and disappear as we make you and your horrible industry irrelavant. Is it not true that the plans so far promoted by “Democrats” would require us Americans, force us Americans to become customers of the industry whose practices prompted the creation of the term “red-lining”? is that not the same industry whose job it is to refuse medical treatment to people because they are poor and/or sick? I know that American is not a synonym for the word selfish, I know that America has the wealth and humanity to treat all citizens who need medical care. Slurs and scare tactics work on specific types of audiences-but appeals to rationality, humanity, morality and community can release those held in bondage by fear mongers and ‘ownership society’ blowhards. We can take care of our fellow humans, but only, just like John and Yoko said, “if you want it” particle61
By John Borowski, September 19, 2007 at 11:32 am # Folks, when I want to know the identity of the right wing lackeys I wait for an article that is derogatory to the Clintons or any Liberal. Than I look at the comments and remember their names. I can affirm my assessment by looking at articles like Blackhawk that denigrates the evil in power in this country currently. Very few of the right-wing lackeys have any comment in these articles.
By Passing the wind, September 19, 2007 at 10:32 am # Voice of Truth, I give you my name, for will it provide you with creditability.
By Conservative Yankee, September 19, 2007 at 7:08 am # 101280 by voice of truth on 9/19 at 5:37 am Face it, this has never been about insurance companies, or access to health care. This issue has always been about people wanting SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY THEIR HEALTH BILLS Ford (of Dearborn Michigan) was one of the first corporate entities to see the wisdom of a single-payer national health plan. Toyota of Japan has no health-care expenses, nor does BMW, or Volvo Truck. Because of the growing expense of health care, Ford was hoping our government would pick up that expense as does Japan, Sweden, and other countries which export motor vehicles to the US. Health care costs are killing companies like Caterpillar. Komatsu pays no such expense and is able to undercut prices considerably. Eventually we will depart form health-care as a Republican vs Democrat, or conservative vs Liberal issue. Additionally contending that National Health care is making you pay for someone else’s care is like me saying “National defense” or Local police costs is making me pay for someone else’s safety and security.. If you want to send out a “check-off tax bill” to working Americans, asking them to check services for which they are willing to pay, I’m on board that boat. Until then, guess we will just elect people who will provide the services all of us NEED, with a bare minimum of luxuries.
By Jeanine Molloff, September 19, 2007 at 7:07 am # Dear ‘voice of truth,’ Your voice speaks to anything BUT the truth. You claim to have lived in a country where single payer for all was available, and the care was either incompetent or non-existent. Well, you can claim anything, but you can’t prove said claim. I suspect that you’re sitting in an expensive office of a major PR firm, a hired gun paid to troll these sites and kill any voices of dissent. SIGN ME
By particle61, September 18, 2007 at 3:51 pm # http://www.redstateupdate.net reports that the Kaiser Family Foundation announced the results of a survey that they recently performed that found the following-- Further, Consumer Reports recently did a poll that found that 29 percent of Americans who pay for employer based health care (yes, those folks who have had to pony-up and pay those yearly percentage increases) are “under-insured”...meaning, after paying through the nose, they are still not adequately covered by for-profit health insurance companies. These facts are only possible in a world where a moral imperative is managed by an industry. Let me repeat for those readers who carry water for that industry: a moral imperative is managed by an industry. I stand with the posters and all Americans who understand that selling off our well being to pad the profits of one of the most avaricious and wealthy industries in world history (insurance, and of course pharma) is immoral...National Health care must happen- and we can make it happen. The article above is not about American Health Care, but rather a piece on a candidate’s effort to promote herself. http://www.redstateupdate.net
By thomas billis, September 18, 2007 at 1:57 pm # It is one thing to actually make a mistake and quite another to be right and have the country catch up with you.The one thing that has changed is that Hillary is the Number 1 recipient of HMO dollars on the democratic side.She has not learned from her mistakes she has been reducated by the HMO dollars.Some where in the comments I saw an analogy between health care and someone wanting a mercedes.This health care issue is about Pursuit of Happiness.The government should make all efforts to allow you to pursue happiness.Tell me what happiness you can pursue if you cannot afford healthcare to be able to treat an illness.The mercedes is what you are pursuing when you are healthy.
By Conservative Yankee, September 18, 2007 at 1:46 pm # Its also funny that the 40 million number has not changed since the first go round of Hillarycare, in 1992. Therefore, though the population has increased from 220million to 300million (36%), the amount of uninsured people is flat. HELLO McFLY. Does that not tell you anything???? Actually the number is 48-50 million today. That does not count the millions of illegals who get health care we have to pay for. Since the population of the US was 260 million in 1990, I am not sure what you are using for figures. Have you a link?
By Juba, September 18, 2007 at 1:11 pm # It’s bullshit, plain and simple. We need to get rid of the Insurance Industry. Anything else is just more corporate welfare, with more terrible HMO ‘managed care” that sucks. Basically her program will give tax dollars to the same greedy bastards that are running the terrible system we have now. Voice of Truth is anything but. Vague tales of horror at the hands of the socialists and empty patriotic rhetoric aren’t going to work anymore my friend. The proof is in the pudding. Look at any statistical indicators (Lifespan, infant mortality etc) and America is at the bottom of the list. And we spend more to boot. Who in their right mind could defend our current health care system? Only those who have a political axe to grind, those who still live under the absurd notion that privatization will solve all of mankind’s problems. This article is nothing more than a banal fluff piece celebrating Clinton’s (and the DLC’s) mediocrity. Dennis K. is the ONLT candidate that is for a Canadian type system, which is what we deserve. Anything less is just more of the same bad managed system we have now.
By Juba, September 18, 2007 at 1:06 pm # It’s bullshit, plain and simple. We need to get rid of the Insurance Industry. Anything else is just more corporate welfare, with more terrible HMO ‘managed care” that sucks. Basically her program will give tax dollars to the same greedy bastards that are running the terrible system we have now. Voice of Truth is anything but. Vague tales of horror at the hands of the socialists aren’t going to work anymore my friend. The proof is in the pudding. Look at any statistical indicators (Lifespan, infant mortality etc) and America is at the bottom of the list. And we spend more to boot. Who in their right mind could defend our current health care system? Only those who have a political axe to grind, those who still live under the absurd notion that privatization will solve all of mankind’s problems. This article is nothing more than a banal fluff piece celebrating Clinton’s (and the DLC’s) mediocrity. Dennis K. is the ONLT candidate that is for a Canadian type system, which is what we deserve. Anything less is just more of the same bad managed system we have now.
By Conservative Yankee, September 18, 2007 at 12:51 pm # 101105 by Sharon Ash on 9/18 at 10:36 am “So, of all the comments on here, how many of you have actually read Hillary’s plan?” Actually I did read it. and although it sounds somewhat like Obama’s and Edward’s, it is far similar to what Mitt Rommney pushed through in Massachusetts. It even has Mitt’s “Mandatory” component. Watching Hill-the-business-shill is like looking at a new movie when one has been around for many years and has seen lots of old movies. Movie writers and directors are continually stealing from Dickens, Poe, and Twain (Clemments) I don’t think the business shill ever had an idea of her own.
By FFURKS, September 18, 2007 at 12:12 pm # 101112 by voice of truth on 9/18 at 10:54 am “When I spoke the two magic words “private insurance”, I was scheduled for the next day.” Hummm, then health-care in Great Britain IS better than US health care. My doctor told me I might have Prostrate cancer (Elevated PSA 15) and he ordered me a test at a urologist. I waited two months for the scheduled appointment, then three days before the appointment, the office called and told me I was rescheduled for a date another two months in the future. The reason given was the Doctor had to attend a conference in Hawaii! (Maui I believe) Nice feeling to know you MIGHT have cancer and the doctors don’t give a shit. Thanks for asking, I don’t know, my new appointment with a new urologist is October 22. The old urologist is moving his office out-of-state (not a great deal of money in Maine) Maybe health care can get worse.... for someone.
By 1drees, September 18, 2007 at 11:32 am # There are atleast 41 million people in USA who are not covered by any healthcare insurance. And in a country where that is normal or mandatory it does become a serious drawback if one is not covered by one insurance. which could mean being denied what is called primary healthcare services which could result in loss of life or more.
By Sharon Ash, September 18, 2007 at 10:36 am # So, of all the comments on here, how many of you have actually read Hillary’s plan? There was about 12 pages of it that I printed off and read, and just like the health care crisis we face in this country is complicated, so are the solutions. But the plan which Hillary has proposed, and which I have actually read, and I am guessing the writer of this article has also, actually read, is a very good start to addressing the problems without turning it into another big, inefficient, government program. I have started to worry about some of you on the left, as you are beginning to sound very, very shrill. As the old saying goes, “You’d bitch if you were hung with a new rope.”
By Conservative Yankee, September 18, 2007 at 8:59 am # So Hill-the-business-shill is back once again attempting to enrich business at the expense of American people. Her membership on the india caucus isn’t enough, now she wants MANDATED health insurance which she compares to “auto insurance” Does even the most naive entrenched partisan Democrat believe this horse-hockey? Single payer, Universal, paperless, health care for all US citizens rich or poor is the only way to make health care affordable for the average American. It has the added conservative appeal of being good for business // BUT \\ something our great congressional and presidential candidate thinkers seem to have missed.... Universal health care is a subsidy prohibited by NAFTA, and Canada received the only exemption before signing.
By Jeanine Molloff, September 18, 2007 at 5:26 am # E.J. Dione’s report is akin to a bad case of hemorhoids; irritating and uneeded. Indeed, it’s the gift that just keeps on giving. Does Hillary think everyone’s stupid but her? This ‘plan’ is nothing more than another patch on this old, worn out crazy quilt of inefficient con games. WE DON’T WANT PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES ANY MORE; WE DEMAND SINGLE PAYER, MEDICARE FOR ALL. To claim that this will be funded through a combination of repealing tax cuts to the wealthy and giving companies inducements to be less wasteful, translates into forced coverage/forced purchase of private insurance, less treatment options for sicker patients and increased gag rules on doctors. We need to fund this through our taxes. If we ended the Iraq War NOW; the money would go to this new single payer system, and NO FURTHER TAXES WOULD BE NEEDED. THINK ABOUT IT; WHICH WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE, HEALTH CARE FOR ALL OR CONTINUE THE OCCUPATION IN IRAQ WHICH IS KILLING OUR YOUNG? I DON’T SEE THE GOOD SENATOR SENDING CHELSEA TO FIGHT IN IRAQ. IN SUMMARY, THE RICH DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SEPARATE HEALTH CARE; WE SHOULD ALL GET THE SAME KIND OF HEALTH CARE AS THE SENATOR, (which by the way--is RUN BY THE GOVERNMENT). This is nothing more than a con job disguised as ‘universal coverage.’ Again, we DEMAND SINGLE PAYER--MEDICARE FOR ALL. Nothing else is acceptable. FOR MY VOTE AND TAX DOLLAR--I’M SUPPORTING KUCCINICH. Hillary can go back to her insurance company executive friends and play in traffic for all I care. Jeanine Molloff Add Your Comment |
COMMENT TOOLS:
Hide comments
Show comments
Comment on this article