CY:

Hillary’s “American Health Choices Plan” IS the Congressional health plan, offered to ANYONE who wants it.  This is made absolutely clear on her web site.

Re campaign contributions, perhaps you should actually do some research instead of regurgitating the GOP party line.  Here is the breakdown (according to opensecrets.org):

Contributions from Health Care Companies (HMOs, etc.):
Hillary, $1.7 million; Obama, $1.2 million

Contributions from Big Pharma:
Hillary, $349,000; Obama, $337,000

Contributions from Health Services Companies:
Hillary, $326,000; Obama, $216,000

Contributions from Insurance Companies:
Hillary, $666,000; Obama, $478,000

It is also true that Hillary accepted $800,000 in money from the health care lobbyists.  But consider that relative to the total of over $100 million raised during this election cycle, and it is comparatively small.

Thus, there is very little difference in the amounts of money accepted by Hillary and Obama from health care-related industries.

Peace.

shz:

“Obama’s youth , intelligence, and decency will uplift the populace like JFK did.”

Yup, just like JFK, who uplifted the populace and then airlifted illegal troops to the Bay of Pigs, escalated the conflagration in Vietnam, engaged in extra-marital affairs that make Bill Clinton look like a boy scout…

You know the old saying: Be careful what you wish for…

Peace.

Cyrena:

Actually, Hillary made it quite plain in the last two debates that what she is planning to offer is the Congressional health plan - the one currently offered only to members of Congress - which is one of the best plans in the country.  And she also made it clear that she would bring the cost down considerably via tax credits and other subsidies.

True, this does not answer the question of how she intends to carry out the mandate.  But it is untrue that she has not answered “any” of that.

You also say, “And, what about young people…say those from 18-32? How often do they need health care? Would their MANDATED premiums be the same as those who are ages 50-92? Does one see how that might not be quite fair or equitable? Certainly all should have access to health care, but should we really MANDATE health insurance for the person who might see a doctor once or twice a year, and the cost doesn’t amount to what they would have paid in premiums for that same year?”

How does one know if and when they will need medical care?  What about emergencies?  Or even just unexpected illnesses or other medical needs?  True, some people might only see a doctor once or twice a year.  And someone else may have to see a doctor every week.  But the first person might also have an emergency that ends up costing more in the long run than the second person’s regular visits.  The bottom line is that it is likely to even out in the end.

Peace.

• Her steadfastness in supporting a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance is instructive. Clinton is right that universal coverage will require a mandate of some sort. Obama’s political attacks on the mandate are not only wrong; they may set back the future prospects of health care reform by feeding ammunition to its opponents.

Like so many folks, EJ here fails to see beyond the surface, to consider the consequences of such a mandate, calling Hillary’s requirement that all Americans buy health insurance…instructive. Why should universal coverage require a MANDATE TO BUY, and what (has she considered) might be the REAL CONSEQUENCES for anyone who CANNOT BUY health coverage, no matter what the price? How is she going to MANDATE the PURCHASE of health insurance by those who probably need it most, and who don’t have jobs or other income that would allow them to purchase it?

More importantly, (if she’s thought this out so carefully) WHO does she suggest (or maybe REQUIRE that this health care insurance be purchased FROM?) Now, if she’s suggesting that people be ‘required’ to purchase it from the government, for health care that will be provided by the government, maybe that’s something to consider. But, I didn’t see that in her plan. Her plan would seem to MANDATE that ALL Americans ‘purchase’ this from one of a pre-selected group of corporate insurance companies.

A really excellent example of how well this DOESN’T work, is the requirement for part B coverage for recipients of medicare. (those who have paid into the system, and eventually qualify for Social Security retirement benefits). Now the ‘benefit’ part of that is next to no benefit. The part B portion of it is not ‘mandated’, but it also isn’t ‘free’. (The premiums amount to about $1,000.00 per person, annually). And, without that Part B, (which covers the really debilitating parts of illness expenses) the ‘free part’ is pretty worthless. (it pays a few bucks toward certain doctor visits, and even fewer bucks on necessary procedures).

The same has occurred with the much touted ‘prescription drug benefit”. In reality, it’s NOT a ‘benefit’, unless one opts to PAY THE PREMIUMS, and the ‘plan’ that one selects, and the cost of the ‘premium’ that one pays, is directly related to the ‘benefit’ involved.

In other words, I opted for the ‘cheapest’ plan, meaning the least expensive premiums. And I discovered that old adage certainly applies. Ya get what we pay for. In my case..NOTHING. It brings down the cost of what are already overpriced drugs (because big Pharma has to get their big profits) by anywhere between 10% and 20%. That’s not all that helpful when ONE drug (and most seniors take more than one) costs $213.00 for a 30 day supply. So, that means that I’ve been paying an insurance premium for a ‘benefit’ that I’ve never used, because it really isn’t a ‘benefit’ at all. To someone with a limited income, a savings of even $30.00 on a medication that starts out at $213.00 is non-existent and irrelevant.

And, what about young people…say those from 18-32? How often do they need health care? Would their MANDATED premiums be the same as those who are ages 50-92? Does one see how that might not be quite fair or equitable? Certainly all should have access to health care, but should we really MANDATE health insurance for the person who might see a doctor once or twice a year, and the cost doesn’t amount to what they would have paid in premiums for that same year?

Hillary doesn’t answer any of that. Now, if she was talking about MANDATING the providers of this health coverage, to provide it based on the basis of one’s income and need, that might be worth looking at. She doesn’t. So, the real issue is that it forces people to purchase insurance that may cost them more than the actual cost of the health care that they require. Because, that’s how the insurance oligarchy has exploited us for decades.

CY:

“Hill is a business shill, a corporate whore who will do, say and promise ANYTHING!! to get power and the accompanying wealth.”

Hmmm…

Are you aware that Bill Clinton was among the LEAST wealthy presidential candidates IN HISTORY when he ran for president?  And that he and Hillary did not become “wealthy” during his two terms?  The bulk of their wealth comes from (i) the books they wrote (i.e., advances and royalties) and (ii) his fees for speaking engagements.  And yet, even with THIS, Hillary is the second LEAST wealthy candidate after Obama.  [N.B. The majority of Obama’s wealth was ALSO derived from the books that he and his wife have written.]

As you say, “Check the record.”

Peace.

and even foul strategy because Billary has alot of ambition but a growing loss of likability.

Their baggage is such a liability that they need to get out of the way.

is littered with wars......and bad intentions..

‘Good’ Intentions are the very foundations upon which any and all authentic improvements are raised..

Many one-liners, handed out in the winds of cynicism and despair,
are hollow and empty and, demoralising.......Good Intentions are none of that.....

Well said. And, an American president, especially today, is our representative to the world. Obama best represents the true face of America - besides being extremely intelligent, apparently very likable, very convincing, and very charismatic.
Some dismiss those traits as inconsequential, and they are dead wrong.  Fortress America won’t and can’t make anybody do anything.  A skilled diplomat can work wonders. 

I don’t see Hillary as able to play the part.

i,Q:

I am not suggesting that a little rhetoric is not a good thing.  Nor am I faulting Obama for his ability to inspire people to become involved in the political process.

However, at the end of the day, “we” means NOTHING; it is the president (and Congress et al) who make the decisions, write the legislation, pass the laws, enact foreign policy, etc.  In fact, this was what Hillary actually meant when her words about MLK and LBJ were as twisted by the Obama camp as Obama’s comment about Reagan was by the Clinton camp.  All she was noting was that all the grassroots organizing, movement momentum, good intentions and rhetoric in the world cannot FORCE a Congress to enact legislation, much less FORCE a president to sign it.  Yes, it would have been political suicide for LBJ to have refused to sign the two Acts.  But he COULD have refused to do so.  Indeed, consider that despite almost a decade of grassroots organizing, movement momentum, good intentions and rhetoric, NO president - even “good” ones - agreed to pass the E.R.A.

Hillary’s use of “I” is not egotistical, but realist.  After all, if Obama becomes president, he is not going to call you and say, “Hey, i,Q - I’m thinking of signing this bill.  Do you think I should?” (And, of course, if he does try to include “the people” by taking polls on whether he should sign things, he will be seen as “poll-driven,” just as other politicians have been accused of being).  In this regard, “we” may be a nice, inspiring word, but it has little or no substance vis-a-vis the actual mechanics of politics.

Peace.

Very well said.  Thanks.

Your point is taken.  Well said.

There is no doubt that Hillary is preferable to Bush, but the skills she has in spades are excellent for the position she already fills as legislator.

The most effective president, especially for our time, needs rhetoric far more than you give credit. You might take notice of how often Hillary says: “I...” versus how often Obama says: “We...”

You criticize what you call empty rhetoric from Obama, but i say this: Obama has left room for us in his platform. He invites us to become the active agent in change. i think he might actually care about us, and not just as a vehicle to power.

Hillary makes me feel like we are a hurdle to be bound over on her way to the finish line. She constantly reminds us of her achievements. In debates she sits smugly (you know that face she makes), waiting for her opponent to finish what must seem like a terrible distraction from her own more deserving narrative, and when asked to defend the facts of her record, she prevaricates, triangulates, and distracts from the truth. Hillary comes off as an egotist who will do for us whatever it is she feels is best, regardless of whether we come along for the ride or not… sound familiar?  In a sense you are correct, Hillary is most like the presidents i’ve seen: Reagan, GHW Bush, Clinton, Baby Bush… which is why i hope against hope that we have the sense not to nominate her.

Yup, agreed.

You’re right to point out that Obama’s candidacy is approaching something closer to a spiritual movement than a presidential campaign, but, I’m not sure that discredits it in any way. (Perhaps that was not your intent.)

No, I agree, I was speaking more about us than the candidates.

Yet as waxman, expat, even JS suggest, once the intoxicating fumes of rhetoric are gone, once people realize that a president - ANY president - can only really effect just so much change, the letdown will be all that more hurtful, since many (but certainly not all) of Obama’s supporters DO see him as a sort of “savior.”

That pretty much says it I think.  Whomever gets it will have a very tough job ahead of them.

^ post, I don’t think we disagree at all.  We just say it with a different twist.  No argument here.

Amen.  There will be no fundamental change until the money is removed from the process of political power.

While i still love my idea of putting all the candidates together on a train with almost zero staff to crisscross the nation and broadcasting it 24/7 on C-Span, i know its unrealistic.  It’s also unrealistic to think that those who benefit for the money/power nexus have any reason to reform the system.

I would love to see a group of non politicians set up a campaign finance system and put it up for public ratification.

Expat said: “The next president will walk into an office with unprecedented powers.  We’ll know very quickly if we have elected a benevolent despot or a real leader by how they deal with these powers.  Will they peel them back to pre-Bush levels or run the schpeel?”

Actually, neither Hillary nor Obama has addressed this.  Yes, they have both talked about civil rights and civil liberties, but it has largely been pap.  On this issue I agree with you: how they deal with the increasingly centralized power of the executive branch will be VERY instructive.

Expat also said: “Is it possible we are looking outside of ourselves for a savior, a knight in shining armor, somebody to make it all better?  If that is the case we are in deep doo doo.  Because; it means we think we don’t have to act; just wait for the “One” who will save us.  If this is the mindset of America, then we really are screwed.”

Unfortunately, I DO believe this is the “mindset” of (much of) America right now.  And this is one of the points I have been trying to make since I first started posting on these boards (and getting called an “Obama-basher” for my attempts).

In fact, cwhipps said: “The body politic isn’t yearning for change as much as it’s trying to barf up the status quo. (just getting rid of that queezy feeling would be enough of a change to get my vote).”

I think this hits the nail on the head.  Consider.  Let’s say Bush was a 5 out of 10 when he was elected, and he is now a 1 or 2.  Given the extreme “yearning for change,” Obama comes off as an 8 or 9, while Hillary comes off as a 6 or 7.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that Obama only SEEMS to be an 8 or 9, if he were not running, HILLARY would seem like a 7 or 8, or even possibly 9.

Thus, the entire thing is relative.  If Obama were not running, Hillary would very likely be seen as “major” (if not exactly “extreme") change from Bush.  But because Obama’s RHETORIC is so powerful, he makes Hillary seem like far LESS change than he is.  And it is the rhetoric that people are “buying into” - the admittedly inspiring “revivalist” talk of a charismatic person.  Yet as waxman, expat, even JS suggest, once the intoxicating fumes of rhetoric are gone, once people realize that a president - ANY president - can only really effect just so much change, the letdown will be all that more hurtful, since many (but certainly not all) of Obama’s supporters DO see him as a sort of “savior.”

Despite my fierce support of Hillary, I will certainly support Obama if he is the nominee.  But I can’t help thinking that, even if he survives the GOP “investigate and smear” machine, once he gets in office he will simply not be ABLE to accomplish all (or perhaps even many of) the things he spoke so powerfully of.

Peace.

Dionne seems to buy in completely to both candidate’s health care schemes. Who cares if they want penalties or incentives to get people to buy?

Both candidates have surrendered to the Insurance Industry. Single-Payer has left the stage

I expected this from Clinton. She’s still smarting from spanking she got in 1993.

I had higher hopes for Obama, but he also seems to accept that in the Realpolitik you cannot threaten the profits of a major financial industry and hope win a presidential election.

His plan looks like it would set the insurance industry on a course to becoming something like a regulated public utility. Clinton’s, appears to be adding some limp-wristed liberal “restraints” to an industry still run by pirates.

I’d say Obama IS running a campaign… one that is boldly walking the razor’s edge between pleasing the voters and pleasing Wall Street.

He’s got charisma too, and he’s not afraid to use it. That’s the only reason it looks like a revival.

That’s quite the possibility. I distinctly recall people being in something of a fervor for Dean. I’ve gone to the end of my understanding trying to figure out how that sound bite of his scream hurt his campaign so much. It really didn’t seem that inappropriate to me.

Agreed, but i’m not sure that Obama’s message would have the ability to catch like wildfire without the grassroot, 50 state organization.

So true. Howard Dean was my favorite from 2004. This year, we are going with the candidate who does go to the Republican strongholds, and talk to them like people instead of numbers. I think Obama’s message of inclusion works more effectively than the 50 state movement, even though they are they same policy.

Obasma will change America.

I think that the 20,000 strong rally in Boise, Idaho is telling.  Howard Dean upset the establishment of the Democratic Party a few years ago and used it to usurp some of the inside power of the DNC.  He spent time and money, against the wishes of the beltway insiders, to build a 50 state movement.  He, and a few others, realized that the Democratic Party would never win if it kept retreating further and further into the coastal areas and the industrial MidWest.  I read one commenter somewhere else who was at that rally and quipped, “I didn’t think there were that many Democrats in Idaho.”

Sen. Obama happens to be the galvanizing, inspiring man surfing what appears to be a tidal wave.  But as i remind my partner - who happens to be one of those younger, enthusiastic Obama supporters - at least several times a day: the movement she believes in must extend far beyond a presidential candidate.  It will only matter if these people decide to take the government of this nation into their own hands at every level, not just a presidential vote.  If, and it is a very large if, these good folks take his advice and follow his lead, it may well change America.  If, on the other hand, they vote for a mystical savior things will actually become worse...which is hard to believe, but its true.

You’re right to point out that Obama’s candidacy is approaching something closer to a spiritual movement than a presidential campaign, but, I’m not sure that discredits it in any way. (Perhaps that was not your intent.)

It’s just… anything revolutionary is undefineable. And anything less than a total revolution is pointless after two decades of Bush and Clinton mismanagement and scandal.

The body politic isn’t yearning for change as much as it’s trying to barf up the status quo. (just getting rid of that queezy feeling would be enough of a change to get my vote)

Obama has convinced me that his plans are achievable. He seems like the best hope for a Democratic White House, as well as more seats in congress.

^ Interesting thought, except there is no savior; only politicians and ourselves.  Do you remember the movie “The Day the Earth Stood Still”?  Michael Renee played Klatu, an almost omnipotent alien, who many felt was a Christ figure come to save us from ourselves.  Gort, his robot, was going to incinerate Earth if we exported our violence outside of our solar system.  Is it possible we are looking outside of ourselves for a savior, a knight in shining armor, somebody to make it all better?  If that is the case we are in deep doo doo.  Because; it means we think we don’t have to act; just wait for the “One” who will save us.  If this is the mindset of America, then we really are screwed.  If we continue our present behavior; it really won’t matter who becomes pesident.

^ the next president will walk into an office with unprecedented powers.  We’ll know very quickly if we have elected a benevolent despot or a real leader by how they deal with these powers.  Will they peel them back to pre-Bush levels or run the schpeel; we have to look at this very carefully so we don’t compromise national security.  I am forever the skeptic and healthy cynic.  Fool me once…only!  I don’t trust any of them.

absolutely correct, OBAMA PREACHES A REVIVAL,CLINTON WAGES A CAMPAIGN......HAD A UNCLE THAT PREACHED REVIVALS, HIS SHEEP NEVER GOT WHAT HE PROMISED THEM AND THEY STILL GAVE HIM MONEY. I PREFER A CAMPAIGN WITHOUT THE FIRE AND BRIMSTONE THANK YOU.....