Skip to content
Categories:

Intolerance And The Derailing of Health Care Reform

Post date:
Author:

Guest post by Ron Chusid

There’s some more ridiculous Obama-bashing on health care in the blogosphere today, this time starting with a post by Mike Lux at Open Left. The complaint is that Jim Cooper advocated more moderate health care reform than Clinton while in Congress and he is now a health care spokesman for Obama. The twisted logic here is that Cooper was more moderate than Clinton on health reform in the 1990’s and therefore Barack Obama is not serious about health care. This argument is taken to its absurd extremes by Paul Krugman, who continues his ongoing attacks on Obama:

This fits in with my sense, based on everything we’ve seen in this campaign, that Obama just isn’t all that committed to health care reform. If he does make it to the White House, I hope he proves me wrong. But as I’ve written before, from my perspective it looks as if a dream is dying.

This is typical of the logic of the Clinton camp to ignore everything which Obama has actually said about his dedication to health care reform and instead fabricate a case based upon disapproval of a surrogate. Even if everything negative they are saying about Cooper was true, it would still be Obama’s views and not Cooper’s which ultimately matter.

There are also other problems with the attacks on Cooper. The reason we did not achieve health care reform in the 1990’s is the fault of Hillary Clinton, not Jim Cooper. Clinton proposed a poor health care plan. She showed then, as she shows now, that she simply does not understand economics or health care delivery. Politically Clinton made the mistake of demanding her plan without being willing to compromise. Others, such as Cooper, attempted to propose plans which might actually have passed in Congress. As Brad DeLong writes:

What Mike Lux, “veteran of the Clinton health care wars,” knows–but is very careful not to tell you–is that in 1993-1994 health care reform needed 60 votes in the Senate in order to defeat a Dole-led filibuster, and that Sen. John Breaux (D-LA) was vote 55. “undermin[ing] Clinton’s health care plan by… [working] with former Senator and current lobbyist John Breaux” translates as “working on bills that might actually pass the senate.”

Cooper’s plan might have passed with bipartisan support. David Brooks recently described Clinton’s opposition to his plan:

In the weeks and months following that meeting, the Clinton administration reached out to Cooper. As David Broder and Haynes Johnson wrote in “The System,” their history of the health care reform effort, President Bill Clinton invited Cooper to go jogging and play golf. Others in the Clinton White House thought Cooper was right on the merits, and privately let him know.

But Hillary Clinton set up a war room to oppose Cooper, who was planning to run for the Senate in 1994. As the Broder and Johnson book makes clear, Clinton and her aides believed Cooper was pursuing his own political agenda. They accused him of crafting his plan in order to raise money from the insurance and hospital industries. They said he was in league with the for-profit hospitals to crush competitors and monopolize the industry. They did this despite the fact that Cooper’s centrist health care approach was entirely consistent with his overall philosophy.

At one meeting in the West Wing, a source told Broder and Johnson, Clinton “kind of got this evil look and said, ‘We’ve got to do something about this Cooper bill. We’ve got to kill it before it goes any further.’ ”

Reading further provides more evidence of what many of us fear about Hillary Clinton, and provides reason why Cooper would have been more attracted to backing Obama as opposed to Clinton this year:

Cooper, who, not surprisingly, supports Barack Obama, believes that Clinton hasn’t changed. “Hillary’s approach is so absolutist, draconian and intolerant, it means a replay of 1993.”

He argues that her more coercive approach would once again be a political death knell. No Republican will support it. Red state Democrats will face impossible pressures at home. It’s smarter to begin by offering people affordable access to coverage and evolve from there.

Ultimately whatever one thinks of Cooper means little as what really counts is the views of Obama as opposed to his supporters. In this case the attack from Obama also comes from Clinton supporters as opposed to from Clinton herself, and if this was the only incident we could not blame Clinton for the poorly reasoned attacks of her backers. However, as recently as yesterday I noted that Clinton was being dishonest in the attacks on Obama coming directly from her campaign. The campaign is sending out a mailer which asks, “Barack Obama, Which of These People Don’t Deserve Health Care?” The implication is that Obama would leave people out while Clinton’s health plan would include them. This is misleading as the only people who would be left out by Obama are those who choose not to have coverage.

On a conference call yesterday, Ted Kennedy responded to Clinton’s charges:

“They both effectively have universal health care programs,” Kennedy said. “The point of this ad is to undermine people’s belief that Barack Obama is committed to universal health care, and that is simply a distortion, a misrepresentation… that is the kind of distortion that we had back in 1994.”

Will the Clinton supporters now question Ted Kennedy’s devotion to health care reform as they are questioning Cooper and Obama?

To be precise on this, Obama’s plan might not be called universal as people have the option not to participate. However if Obama’s plan is not considered universal, then Clinton’s plan could not be called universal either as not everybody obeys government mandates. Robert Reich has argued that Obama’s plan would actually cover more people:

She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

Whether there are mandates is a matter of opinion, but regardless of where one stands the implication being made by the Clinton campaign that people will involuntarily be left out is untrue. The Clinton attack that Obama is being dishonest in calling his plan universal is also itself dishonest if they consider Clinton’s plan to be universal. Incidentally, mailers like this have become quite common this election year. They include mailers which lied about Obama’s position on Social Security and mailers which distorted Obama’s views on abortion rights leading Lorna Brett Howard, the former President of Chicago NOW, to drop her support for Clinton and back Obama. I hope everyone has checked out the videos from Howard and why she supports Obama. Another video everyone should see which compares the two candidates was made by Lawrence Lessig, with both video and transcript here.

Clinton started her campaign by promising a conversation with American on the issues. Instead we are having two different conversations going on at once, with neither side communicating. While Obama is offering real solutions on important issues, Clinton and her supporters respond with dishonest and specious attacks to avoid any meaningful discussion of the issues in the hopes of picking up some political points. This early video has turned out to have correctly predicted the course of the Clinton campaign. The intolerance showed by Hillary Clinton in the 1990’s prevented health care reform from being successful. The same intolerance from Clinton and her supporters threatens to prevent us from achieving success in the future.

Cross posted from Liberal Values

Comments

  • Lex (jackpine savage)

    says:

    Ha…sounds like the depiction of the Clinton White House in Elizabeth Drew’s “The Corruption of American Politics”. Which is an excellent, non-partisan read. My favorite quote goes something like, “Bill Clinton was the boy who wanted to grow up to be President, but never quite grew up.”

  • Alex

    says:

    I must say that citing Broder’s and Brooks’s accounts of what happened may not be the best way to convince people that what you are writing about is true. It may be true, but I usually need corroboration before relying on either of them.

  • Alex

    says:

    And, I must say that I hope Steve is back soon — you, sir, are mischaracterizing the posts you are describing. We can argue about when you need to compromise, etc., but Lux is describing exactly what I am most worried about in Obama, that he will pull a Lieberman out of his desire to “transcend politics.” Yes, sometimes you have to compromise, and there is no bright line, but Lux’s interpretation of the situation in 1993-94 is very different from how you describe it,a and frankly I’m much more willing to believe somebody in the Clinton White House trenches than Brooks and Broder.

  • Dr Coles

    says:

    The government caused the entire problem with health care in America by over socializing (with unfunded mandates) medicine to the extent it is not completive. The government allows a monopolistic pharmaceutical environment, and the FDA a federal agency failing American citizens and needs be eliminated or completely re-organized; it’s corrupt, and is causing a major impact on the cost of healthcare in America, and we want to exacerbate the problem? http://www.InteliOrg.com/

  • Lex (jackpine savage)

    says:

    RonChusid,

    Pick it up…it was published in 1999, so its probably at your local public library. That’s where i found it. Honestly, i don’t remember much about Hillary, but then again i wasn’t looking for that. It covers the gamut, not just the WH. Especially interesting is the section on the Thompson hearings relating to campaign finance scandals after the ’96 election. Apparently, he offered the Democrats subpoenas in an effort to make the hearings bi-partisan and actually do something about the shadiness of financing. Under pressure from the WH, the Dems turned him down…and then the Reps hung him out to dry for being bi-partisan.

    Another interesting tidbit came from a former WH staffer who explained that the SOP if there was trouble brewing was to call “partisanship” loudly and often; it was called “Damage Control 101”. Of course, there were a great deal of partisan attacks on Clinton, but not everything can be written off as only that.

    She covers a lot of money issues, and how both parties worked to derail any reform. She also talks about how President Clinton was angry…borderline petulant…for his entire second term, and how most of his time post Lewinsky was spent reading histories of female leaders and their ascent to power.

    I never got the feeling that she was grinding an axe, and she seemed to have access on both sides of the aisle…which leads to both sides of the story.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    Alex,

    You are being rather selective when you say I am relying on Brooks and Broder. You ignore the other sources making the came argument I am, including Kennedy. Lux’s interpretation falls more along the lines of Clinton’s approach of do it my way or not at all. The fact that Lux was in the Clinton White House may make him a worse rather than a better source to objectively describe what went on.

  • Alex

    says:

    Ron —

    I was only attacking the portion of your post relating to the process in the ’90s. I agree that Obama shouldn’t necessarily be tarred with the positions of one advisor from 14 years ago (and don’t have a problem with your use of Ted Kennedy to defend him). As to the ’90s, you rely primarily on Brooks and Broder. I would take the possible bias of a WH insider over their obvious shortcomings, on most days. I just think you’re being a little disingenous in assuming without any hesitation that John Breaux was really looking for a “passable” piece of legislation, when he really was most likely (given his other proclivities) trying to come up with something called “healthcare legislation” that was really “exactly what the insurance companies wanted.” As I noted, sometimes you need to compromise, but when the compromise is giving the other side everything they want, that’s not compromise, and we’ve had too much of that. As I said on another post earlier in the day, I will support Obama wholeheartedly. My 2 worries are 1) that he’s got some Lieberamanitis; and 2) I worry that this hostility that is coming out will drive him away from the greybeards and knowledge in the party out of his need (and demands by his supporters) to CHANGE without thinking about whether some of the Clinton/old school Dems might be able to help.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    Alex,

    Again, it isn’t just Brooks and Broder who are making these points regarding the 90’s. Kennedy’s quote does somewhat refer back to the 1990’s, and a couple of liberal bloggers I also quote are discussing that period. I’m not saying anything about what John Breaux’s motives are. I am primarily discussing the intolerance and lack of willingness to compromise to achieve real results on Clinton’s part, as well as the weakness of the recent attacks on Obama. Obama is showing no signs of “Liebermanitis.”

  • Dennis_D

    says:

    Ron, I am sorry, but you haven’t thought this through. If one economist (and not even one who specializes in that field) says something is true, then must it be true? That is the Republican way of doing things. Look, the cost of any plan with mandates is going to be lower than the cost of any plan lacking mandates, all other things being equal. It’s simple math. Let’s assume we are insure 100,000 people. With Clinton’s plan, all 100,000 are required to buy insurance. With Obama’s plan, 3,000 of the healthiest chose to not buy insurance. Their premiums of $10/mo would be going into the Clinton pool, but not into the Obama pool. Let’s say 1% of the 3,000 get sick each month and require $1,000 each in medical expense. With Obama’s plan, they get insurance to cover their $1,000 medical expenses, then drop out once their medical condition is resolved. As a consequence, the rest of the insured people have to cover the $29,700 in medical expenses that the healthy-but-uninsured pool didn’t pay. This is simple logic. But you don’t want to believe, so you find one “expert” and hang your total case on his opinion. Please, come back to the reality-based commuity. Don’t tell me Obama’s plan is cheaper than Clinton’s because of superior cost controls because (1) they have very similar cost controls and (2) if Obama really had superior cost control, then Clinton could add those cost controls and have a lower cost.

  • pfgr

    says:

    1. I would not trust anything Brooks or Broder say under any circumstances, certainly not their attributions based on an anonymous source.

    2. Candidly at this point I don’t trust you either. The way you slip from a Paul Krugman article to a broad attack on Hillary is positively Rove-ian. “This is typical of the logic of the Clinton camp to ignore everything which Obama has actually said about his dedication to health care reform and instead fabricate a case based upon disapproval of a surrogate.” Oh yeah? Krugman has ignored everything Obama has said? He instead has fabricated a case? Have you actually read Krugman’s articles? You may not agree with his conclusions but you can’t make ridiculous claims like this, that he has ignored everything Obama has said and merely fabricated a case. To make it worse, you do the very same thing you’re accusing Hillary’s campaign of doing, turning “Krugman” into “the Clinton camp.”

    2. I have heard Obama on TV say with his own mouth, in an interview, that his plan will not cover everybody and allows people to go without coverage and then show up at a hospital and then “maybe” pay a penalty and “maybe” back premiums. That’s the system we have now and it has obvious faults.

    3. Every Democrat since Harry Truman in 1948 has campaigned for national health care. LBJ couldn’t get it passed in 1965 after a landslide victory. Yet it’s all Hillary’s fault? Give me a break. She did the best she could despite strong opposition. The fact that she opposed efforts to undermine the plan by substituting a plan with a giant hole in it, instead of actual, universal health care is to her credit.

    4. Bring Steve back. I don’t log onto this site to see the kind of Hillary bashing I could get from a right wing site. “Evil look”? “Draconian?” (for actually supporting universal health care, good gracious, how intoleranct!) We can get that kind of crap elsewhere.

  • beep52

    says:

    If anyone is interested in a historical perspective, a fascinating account of the battle over healthcare reform during the Clinton years (1991-96) is available online. Titled, A Detailed Timeline of the Healthcare Debate portrayed in “The System,” it is a summary of coverage on the PBS News Hour. The timeline includes almost a bi-weekly accounting of events, including such tidbits as…

    December 2, 1993 – Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to “kill” — not amend — the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the “Contract With America,” Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America’s majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol’s strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

    December 19, 1993 – Stories about a new Clinton scandal — “Troopergate” — and Whitewater continue to chip away at the reserves of political capital the President and First Lady will need when Congress returns in January.

    Highly recommended.

  • susan g

    says:

    none of them is being honest in their reporting in the middle of this silly season. Besides, the only health care reform that would actually be universal and not bankrupt the treasury is “medicare for all” …the dreaded single payer and nobody is yet admitting this.

  • Alex

    says:

    You cited Brad Delong, with respect to the politics in the ’90s — his post is pretty nondescript in terms of taking sides. The other cites are (i) cites as to the economics of healthcare delivery; and (ii) statements about Clinton distortions during this campaign. Kennedy’s statement, to the extent it relates to the ’90s, appears to be saying that the distortions are similar to the Harry & Louise ads — I didn’t read it as saying that Hillary was doing the same thing now in terms of being unwilling to compromise. I think this really comes back to the fact that we’re all seeing what we want to see. I have wanted to be wowed by Obama the whole time, but I haven’t seen it — I see wonderful oratory but too much reaching across/denigrating liberal orthodoxy for me (I shouldn’t have to say it, but I WILL VOTE FOR HIM IN NOVEMBER, AND I BELIEVE HE HAS THE BETTER CHANCE THAN HILLARY TO WIN THE NOMINATION AS OF NOW). His best moment, for me, was after SC — that speech appeared to be an attempt to justify some of the anger many of us feel. It may be shortsighted, but I don’t want to appease the vast unwashed independents who have been believing the media hype about partisanship on both sides, that both sides are equal, who voted for Bush in Ohio, etc. (my wife is one of them, although she is pulling for HRC…). I hate it that the lowest common denominator among us — those who are coming to the party late are the ones who are going to drive the show in terms of who we nominate.

  • libra

    says:

    Even if everything negative they are saying about Cooper was true, it would still be Obama’s views and not Cooper’s which ultimately matter. — Ron Chusid

    Yes, but… Some people do flesh out the picture of the candidate by looking at his “fellow travellers”. Personal example: my husband, who’s pro-Clinton and who used to be anti-Obama as well, is now only pro-Clinton. Why? Because he’s found out that people whose opinions he’s respected for a long time — like Tom Daschle, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Reich — support Obama (being pro-‘bama myself, I spent most of the weekend digging up those little nuggets). “Therefore”, his thinking goes, “Obama has to be better than he had thought originally”. He doesn’t trust his own judgment enough, but he trusts theirs.

    It’s, basically, the same “birds of a feather flock together” principle, which also makes some of us distrust Hillary because of Mark Penn. She chose him, same as Obama chose Cooper.

    And, BTW… It’s also why I’d take anything that David Broder says with a *large* dose of (Epsom) salt. *Especially when* it’s “reported” by David (Babbling) Brooks. *Even though* it seems to be agreeable and in support of my own position. I fear the gift-bearing Greeks… 🙂

  • RonChusid

    says:

    pfgr,

    While there’s nothing Rovian about my responding to smears on Obama with the facts, there is something somewhat Rovian about your comments. Rather than looking at the facts you prefer to try cheap shots like calling this Rovian with zero justification and cracks like, “Have you actually read Krugman’s articles?”

    Have you actually read what I’ve written on Krugman’s articles? If you cared about the facts rather than taking cheap shots you would see that I have read Krugman’s articles and have several posts debunking his attacks. By the way, I didn’t say “Krugman has ignored everything Obama has said?” in the context you give. But you clearly would rather mischaracterize what I have written as opposed to respond to the actual facts.

    Point number two is quite a distortion of Obama’s position, but again you clearly don’t care about the facts. Neither Obama’s plan or Clinton’s plan will cover everyone. Obama has discussed possible ways to deal with the free rider problem, and there are many other possible solutions, some of which are discussed at the linked posts.

    Your 3rd and 4th points also dishonestly distort what I am saying. You clearly have chosen the candidate most like yourself in backing Clinton.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    Dennis_D,

    No, it is not true that any plan with mandates will be cheaper. There are economists on both sides–I’m not basing this on the views of only one economist as you falsely claim. Are there any Clinton supporters who can discuss these matters without resorting to these kinds of bogus attacks?

    You are assuming more are covered with mandates, there are many other factors besides mandates which affect the number covered. If Obama’s plan does a better job of providing affordable care, while many people refuse to comply with Clinton’s mandates, there can be more people covered under Obama’s plan. With mandates you have to waste yet more money on enforcement. If you are concerned about less money being put into the system by people not paying for coverage, this can be offset by higher premiums paid by those who join the system later.

    This isn’t simple speculation. The exact situation now occurs with the Medicare D program which is voluntary but which has incentives for people to join up and higher charges for those who try to postpone participating.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    susan g,

    You are absolutely correct regarding universal plans. When I wrote that neither Clinton’s plan or Obama’s plan is universal I almost did put in the fact that only a single payer plan would really be universal. As no major candidates are advocating such a plan I decided against bringing yet another option into the mix.

    As for the topic of the post, both Obama’s plan and Clinton’s plan are in the same boat with regards to being universal. From there I don’t care if people say both aren’t universal or if they call both universal (realizing that there will be exceptions for each). My objection is to those who claim that Clinton’s plan is universal but Obama’s is not.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    libra,

    If the only ones supporting Obama were people like Brooks or conservative Democrats we’d have a valid concern on the “fellow travelers” front. However Obama manages to receive support from a very wide variety of people. If both MoveOn and David Brooks are endorsing or saying favorable things about Obama, this is a sign of something good and I won’t discount his support from conservatives. I also won’t necessarily believe that something Brooks says is wrong just because of his conservative views. Yes, Brooks does frequently descend into ridiculous bashing of Democrats, but when he manages to get beyond this he often does have meaningful things to say.

  • Jim

    says:

    Well Ron.

    I’m guessing health care for all is bad. I mean all not just those that can afford it. I am sure you have health insurance you tell me what can I get for $2500.00 a year? You have a program I need it or if you find one without 3 or 4K copay let me know.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    Jim,

    Where do I say health care for all is bad? I’m saying that Obama has the best plan to achieve this, and that the specious attacks coming from Clinton and her supporters do not help us achieve this.

  • Dennis_D

    says:

    Ron, you are the one not making a good faith argument. You cite one person to support the illogical conclusion that the plan that allows people to opt out will have a lower cost than one that requires everyone to participate. You say, “If Obama’s plan does a better job of providing affordable care, while many people refuse to comply with Clinton’s mandates, there can be more people covered under Obama’s plan.” And if pigs had wings, they fly. Why would Obama’s plan provide more affordable health care? Any plan that allows some of the healthiest to opt out will have unreimbursed costs to cover. What is it about the rest of his plan that would make it more affordable than Clinton’s plan?

    You say, “If you are concerned about less money being put into the system by people not paying for coverage, this can be offset by higher premiums paid by those who join the system later.” That doesn’t make too much sense. People will stay out as long as their monthly medical expenses is less than the premium. That creates a large pool were people are gambling that they will stay healthy and dump their medical expense on everybody else if they lose. How much are you going to charge them to start getting medical insurance? If they have $10,000 in medical expense, do they have to pay all of that out of their own pocket? If they can’t afford the back premiums, do you let them die? Medical expense is not comparable to prescriptions because the cost of one illness can be so catastrophic.

  • Dennis_D

    says:

    Ron, they are not in the same boat in terms of universality. One strives for universality, but may fall short. The other doesn’t try.

  • slumpyb

    says:

    The guest poster is way out of line here…if I want Hillary bashing I’ll go to a right wing website. I’m an Obama supporter, but first I am a DEMOCRAT, something we should all remember.

  • Dennis_D

    says:

    Clinton supporters are saying a plan that strives for universality is the best plan to achieve health care for all and that Obama’s attacks on mandates do not help us achieve this.

  • Lex (jackpine savage)

    says:

    Wow, that’s a lot of arguing over something that isn’t going to happen…at least not in any form that closely resembles the plans that either candidate has laid out. And the only way that either plan could be implemented in any form that resembles what the candidates propose is if the candidate not only wins the general election, but also wins the general election with an honest to goodness mandate AND sweeps a super majority into both houses of Congress behind him/her.

    It only takes one obstinate Congressperson to pretty well derail the best laid plans of…well, i’d like to say either a Democrat or Republican, but it seems that the number of Democrats willing to do that is rather slim.

    I would also like to add that the above is roughly equal to what will happen to either plan if/when it enters debate: a whole lot of nit-picking on details, intentions, possible intentions, et al. If the people here can’t solve it (or agree) does anyone think that our esteemed representatives will be able to?

    Finally, i thought the post was about the failure of HillaryCare (which was bound to fail if that is what they chose to call it; the only ego that a politician likes is his own).

    I’m fairly sure that all here agree that Dick Cheney’s secret energy task force was horrible and wrong because it was so secretive (along with what it did). Now i know that for many people, if the Clintons fail it must be someone else’s fault. But her approach to universal health care was just as secretive as Cheney’s approach to energy. Can someone explain why one could be ok and the other wrong?

    (I’d like to speak on the 90’s in general, and how it is treated in this campaign, but i already wrote “finally” so i’ll shut the fuck up.)

  • RonChusid

    says:

    Dennis_D,

    First of all, I’m not citing only one person. I have links to two economists who believe Obama’s plan is preferable. Plus this is a side issue and the goal is not to give a list of people’s views on mandates.

    The point of this post is not to be for or against mandates. The point is that Clinton presents her argument in a dishonest manner in the mailer. If Clinton wanted to send out a mailer which honestly argues for mandates that would be fine. However instead she takes a dishonest approach by scaring people into thinking they would involuntarily be left out. Similarly the attacks on Obama that he isn’t serious about health care reform because of objections to one of his spokesmen is also a rather lame argument.

    If you want to argue for or against mandates or any other aspect of Obama’s health care plan that is fine, but it should be done in an honest manner.

  • RonChusid

    says:

    slumpyb,

    I am defending Obama from a pair of dishonest attacks upon him–one from bloggers which is being quoted widely (including by Krugman) and one coming from the Clinton campaign itself. Responding to dishonest attacks by presenting the actual facts is hardly Hillary bashing.

    There is a strange double standard among some that Clinton and her supporters can make any kind of absurd charges against Obama and that is ok. However the moment someone exposes the fallacies and dishonest statements in Clinton’s attacks, there’s screams of Hillary bashing. This sounds like the same philosophy of if you’re not with us you’re against us which we hear from Bush.

  • james k. sayre

    says:

    I just saw a devastating comparison of the Legislative records of Hillary and Obama that was posted by Duck Soup over at thinkprogress.com. He or she suggested that it be passed on. It is quite long, but is very damning of Hillary’s attacks on Obama’s record. Her Senate bills are almost all fluff.

    Start:
    Let’s take a closer look at who’s really qualified and or who’s really working for the good of all of us in the Senate. Obama or Clinton.

    These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress http://www.thomas.loc.gov

    Please pass this on

    ========
    Clinton
    ========

    Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term – 6yrs. – and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law – 20 – twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.

    These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress http://www.thomas.loc.gov, but to save you trouble, I’ll post them here for you.

    1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
    2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
    3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
    4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
    5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
    6. Name post office after Jonn A. O’Shea.
    7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
    8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
    9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
    10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
    11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men’s Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
    12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
    13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
    14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
    15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton’s bills are, more substantive.
    16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
    17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
    18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
    19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
    20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

    There you have it, the fact’s straight from the Senate Record.

    =============
    Obama
    =============

    During the first – 8 – eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced

    233 regarding healthcare reform,
    125 on poverty and public assistance,
    112 crime fighting bills,
    97 economic bills,
    60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
    21 ethics reform bills,
    15 gun control,
    6 veterans affairs and many others.

    NY TImes Obama’s record in the Illinois Senate
    http://www.nytimes.com/ imagepages/ 2007/ 07/ 29/ us/ politics/ 20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

    His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded:

    1. The Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 – became law,
    2. The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, – became law,
    3. The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
    4. The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, – became law,
    5. The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, In committee, and many more.

    In all, since entering the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

    An impressive record, for someone who supposedly has no record according to some who would prefer that this comparison not be made public.

    Comment by Duck Soup — February 18, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
    Add Karma Recommend (12) |

  • Dennis_D

    says:

    Ron, can you provide those links? Are these people knowledge about healthcare? I hope you weren’t talking about the links to “jay”.

    This is an area that was covered in a thread earlier that you participated in. I provided a link to Ezra Klein, who provided a link to the Urban Institute, which said:

    In this brief we conclude that, absent a single payer system, it is not possible to achieve universal coverage without an individual mandate. The evidence is strong that voluntary measures alone would leave large numbers of people uninsured. Voluntary measures would tend to enroll disproportionate numbers of individuals with higher cost health problems, creating high premiums and instability in the insurance pools in which they are enrolled, unless further significant government subsidization is provided. The government would also have difficulty redirecting current spending on the uninsured to offset some of the cost associated with a new program without universal coverage.

    The thread was about Len Nichols of the New America Foundation going ballistic when seeing the latest Obama ad. Nichols is an expert in the field of healthcare policy (bio here).

  • Brian

    says:

    I think it’s a stretch to say that she is entirely ignorant of economics and health care. If you’re using a site that tries to compare Clinton’s approach to Leninism, you’re not exactly bringing out the A-material, even if her plans aren’t very good and you hate the way she is campaigning.

  • DickM

    says:

    Steve, please do us all a favor and remember not to invite RonChusid back to your site. The hackish initial post — and especially all the pissy, defensive comments that shed no new light… is a complete waste of our time. Way beneath you.

  • Crissa

    says:

    A system in which people can opt out of (and not pay into) is not universal.

    If people opted out of the public education system (and therefore not pay into it) there’d just be no funding for public education.

    That’s a pretty big disparity between the two.

  • socratic_me

    says:

    Oh, for goodness sake. I am an Obama supporter, but let me be the first to point out that Mr. Sayre’s post above is wildly misleading. As you can tell from a preliminary skim, he provides an assessment of what Hillary has done based on very restrictive criteria, then goes on to open up the criteria to include all sorts of crazy stuff by adding cosponsored bills and not limiting to bills that actually pass.

    I really do think that Obama has a better legislative record, but think that that is better argued honestly instead of through wild distortions. If you are really interested in this sort of thing, go take a look at hilzoy’s excellent three part series documenting their legislative accomplishments side by side. I still think he wins on substantive policy. In addition, I think her earlier two part not-really-a-series about several little bills Obama passed that aren’t particularly flashy but are excellent governance really highlights how the claim that he is all style and no substance is rather ridiculous.

  • Crissa

    says:

    So… James whoever @29… Twenty bills vs six.

    Seems like a disparity to my untrained eyes.

    The rest of your post doesn’t have matching data and is unfortunately, rendered irrelevant.

  • Steve-O

    says:

    In this brief we conclude that, absent a single payer system, it is not possible to achieve universal coverage without an individual mandate. The evidence is strong that voluntary measures alone would leave large numbers of people uninsured. Voluntary measures would tend to enroll disproportionate numbers of individuals with higher cost health problems, creating high premiums and instability in the insurance pools in which they are enrolled, unless further significant government subsidization is provided. The government would also have difficulty redirecting current spending on the uninsured to offset some of the cost associated with a new program without universal coverage.

    That’s common sense. One candidate lacks it.

  • Steve-O

    says:

    Steve, please do us all a favor and remember not to invite RonChusid back to your site. The hackish initial post — and especially all the pissy, defensive comments that shed no new light… is a complete waste of our time. Way beneath you.

    I second that emotion…

  • socratic_me

    says:

    With the above said, count me among the people who feels Clinton’s combative take-no-prisoners style of management will guarantee another failure to move forward the cause of universal healthcare. Show people a system that is better and they will buy in. Insist they sign up for a system that may, in fact, suck, and they will fight you tooth and nail. Economists can say what they want. My point is just that hillary-care will die a cold death based not on the economics, but on the issue of mandates and the fact that she tends to insist she is right and then talk down to people who don’t agree instead of actually selling her ideas. I saw it once and I am not terribly interested in seeing it again.

    Also, this thread really does make all of you look silly. I do think ronchusid’s original post was topical and interesting. The point he makes about unfair attacks (including how they forced at least one major supporter into Obama’s camp, which no one seems to want to acknowledge) is relevant, especially given the current flaps about “periodically ” misogynistic terms and language borrowed from advisors (as she blatantly steals every effective line he uses up to and including “Yes we can”). Then he lets himself get pulled off topic by clintonistas and the whole thing disintegrates into petty name calling. Yuck.

  • Steve-O

    says:

    That creates a large pool were people are gambling that they will stay healthy and dump their medical expense on everybody else if they lose.

    Sounds like a great plan. Let’s extend it to auto insurance. Just ring up the insurance company on your cellphone right after you’ve had an accident. I mean…let’s be honest, eh? No need to buy that evil mandated insurance unless you’re gonna use it, right?

  • libra

    says:

    James, @29

    What you list for Clinton is bills which she has sponsored *and* which have passed into law. What you list for Obama is bills which he has sponsored — with no indication of how many of them became law. A bit lop-sided “comparison”, don’t you think?

    I’m with socratic me, @34. We don’t need to lower our standards and peddle half-truths when defending Obama. Truth is sufficient defense.

  • Steve

    says:

    Ron,

    In looking at your overall post, I can see that the core weakness lies in the middle—the initial dependence on sources that many here—and elsewhere, to be sure—find to be “lacking in credibility” (especially Broder, who I personally refer to as “the spleen” rather than “the dean”). This is where you’ve exposed your thesis to ridicule and attack. An acknowledgment that certain sources of support are generally viewed with healthy doses of skepticism, followed up immediately by the Kennedy reference (and perhaps two additional citations to counter your utterance of the word “Broder”—which is akin to invoking the devilish pantheon of Rove/Reagan/Cheney in these parts) would better serve your intended purpose.

    However, the parameters you’ve set, being (1) that Cooper’s attempt at a multi-step progression into healthcare provision being the better option as compared to Clinton’s all-or-none “Sith” approach, and (2) the Clinton smearing of Cooper then being an envisioned justification by the Clinton campaign to smear Obama’s healthcare plans today—are noted.

    Overall, your premise does, indeed, equate to your conclusion, and I concur wholeheartedly. Well done, sir.

  • Patrick Briggs

    says:

    You do NOT compromise on universal health care. Your argument is weak despite its length. I will support Obama despite his weakness on this issue.

  • socratic_me

    says:

    It is worth pointing out that compromise doesn’t always mean High Broderianism. There really is such a thing as working with people to figure out what their concerns are and working to alleviate them. In contrast, there is the Clinton health care debacle of the 90s. One of these things actually is objectively better for those who actually care about health care reform, and it isn’t the one so many in this thread are throwing their weight behind.

  • Michael R

    says:

    Politically Clinton made the mistake of demanding her plan without being willing to compromise.

    This is certainly refereshing! After a decade of endless criticism from the left about the Clintons’ willingness to compromise on liberal values, this is refreshing.