Hillary the Bully, Again
David Brooks writes about the history of Mrs. Clinton’s heavy-handed tactics in the NY Times. In 1993, Jim Cooper, a Congressman from Tennessee, had proposed a health care reform plan as a more bipartisan alternative to HillaryCare. Her response:
But unlike the plan Hillary Clinton came up with then, the Cooper plan did not include employer mandates to force universal coverage.
On June 15, 1993, Cooper met with Clinton to discuss their differences. Clinton was “ice cold” at the meeting, Cooper recalls. “It was the coldest reception of my life. I was excoriated.”
Cooper told her that she was getting pulled too far to the left. He warned that her plan would never get through Congress. Clinton’s response, Cooper now says, was: “We’ll crush you. You’ll wish you never mentioned this to me.”
Perhaps that’s an idle threat coming from an ordinary First Lady, but not when uttered by Hillary Clinton. Her response was to form an anti-Cooper team with the goal of misrepresenting - read "smearing" - Cooper over his centrist positions on health care.
More:
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.’ ”
Clinton denounced the Cooper plan as “dangerous and threatening.” Deputies were dispatched to Tennessee to attack his plan. Senator Jay Rockefeller said that Cooper is “a real fraud. I hope he doesn’t make it to this place.” According to Newsweek, Clinton brought an aide with a video camera to a meeting with senators and asked the senators to denounce Cooper on the spot.
What’s old is new again - Barack Obama has a health care plan as part of his campaign platform that does not include a mandatory coverage requirement. We saw the Clintons’ tactics against Obama in South Carolina. Obama is no Cooper-like centrist, but after tonight’s results fail to clearly define the Democratic nominee we can expect to see the Clintons play even dirtier against Obama in coming weeks.
Brooks again:
Clinton has turned the debate between universal coverage and universal access into a sort of philosophical holy grail, with a party of righteousness and a party of error. She’s imposed Manichaean categories on a technical issue, just as she did a decade and half ago. And she’s done it even though she hasn’t answered legitimate questions about how she would enforce her universal coverage mandate.
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.”
I can only think of one way to enforce a "mandatory coverage" requirement: wage garnishment with a side of criminal prosecution. Foolish enough to show up at the hospital without coverage? You’re going downtown, you freeloading scum!
Sounds pretty draconian to me.
I think in a country so opposed to health coverage for all that mandating and forcing people into coverage is the only way its going to get done.
Asking employers to do the bulk of it is wise because nearly all people will fall into this coverage area.
However it is important that we give employers the money or the assistance to cover this unless we want to put 10 million people out of work by banning insurance companies and destroying the lifes savings of many.
Therefore a mandated program paid by the government but administered by the insurance companies is the only way to get health care done and keep the insurance companies alive.
The question will become how high the taxes go or if the democrats are willing to cut other programs to afford the 300-600 billion per year this will cost us.
It can be done. We just don’t have the political will to do it until now. With the GOP in total disarray and in danger of becoming a laughing stock around the world the Democrats can get this done.
The question once again becomes what are we willing to sacrifice to pay for extremely expensive national health care coverage.
Yeah, freedom and democracy are overrated, aren’t they?
C Stanley
Lets see we have Income tax. Who wants to pay for that?
We have sales tax. Who wants to pay that? We have a military. Who wants to pay for that.
We have Social Security to take care of us when we grow. Who wants to pay for that?
The list goes on and on. It is just a program. When Social Security was first proposed it was met with consternation by almost everyone. Now it is a part of who this nation is. It is a guarantee that we provide for our citizens.
Their are lots of things we dont want to pay for that are mandated. I fail to see how mandating health care coverage for all is an assault on freedom and democracy.
abrisaham: Look back to your own quote. You’re not talking about enacting a program that the voters have agreed to, your saying that it has to be forced on them because they won’t agree to it. I could certainly make the conserative arguments against all of the other programs you’re referring to, but this goes beyond even that. You’re advocating for dictatorship because the people don’t know what’s good for them.
Cstanley
Good one. Mandated health care is now a dictatorship.
So considering all the mandated programs in existence today you are saying America is now a dictatorship?
What part of my quote of your own comment do you not understand, abri? I’ll quote YOU again:
Yeah, that whole freedom and democracy thing is not only overrated, it’s outdated. If people knew what was good for them, they’d quit fighting for it. Then again, it’s precisely because people don’t know what good for them that those elites on the left that do know what’s good for them must force these things on people.
Yes I advocate mandated coverage. We are mandated in this nation to have auto insurance but not health insurance. Where is the fairness in that.
That you would imply this country is a dicatatorship because we might dare mandate health coverage for all is the very reason that your party is in such disarray and is going to go the way of the dinosaur because the only compassion you seem to have is for the almighty buck.
I have a daughter who makes 1250 dollars per month. Healthcare for her and her 3 children is 1365 dollars per month. This is a real problem. You can make up reasons not to address it but it is a real problem.
Yes she went to college. Yes she is educated. However when your a single mother because your husband was killed by a drunk driver with no insurance. When a daughter who was raised to value personal responsibility used up all her insurance money to pay the health care costs related to his partially funded health care from the accident before he finally succumbed to his injuries. When your 28 and have 3 kids your not exactly the hottest date on the block. These are real life problems in America. Real people behind those numbers. Not just drug addicts. Deadbeats.
Until this nation is willing to mandate coverage then it will never be done and the conservatives will march around with their chests puffed out and their bibles in their hand promising compassion thru personal responsibility.
And people like my daughter will continue to be in poverty because life pitched them a knuckleball that they could not swat with their bible and their prayers.
abrisaham: If people in this country voluntarily cede their freedoms because they are convinced it’s for greater good, then conservatives will warn against that but it still represents a democratic process to allow the people to do so. What you are saying though is that since people won’t agree to voluntarily cede freedoms on this issue, they must be forced to do so.
On auto insurance, driving is a privilege not a right. Living, however, is a right, and so your analogy doesn’t hold up. The only way this logic can be applied is the way Romney tried to do it in MA, to say that those who can afford insurance but choose not to will be denied treatment at emergency rooms. That’s still not the same as forcing people to be covered.
BTW, what a great tribute to the Democratic party way your post is. You seem to have every cliche in there- the Republican party is in disarray, we’re heartless bastards, we’re bible thumpers, we advocate personal responsibility but fail to note that even responsible people can fall through the cracks. And to top it off, a touching anecdote about your daughter.
Well, you have no idea of whether or not I’m a compassionate person, and mandating things through the government is FAR from the only way to help people (in fact there are good arguments for why it is the least efficient and most corruptible way of providing help for our fellow citizens.) So spare me, please.
And I’m giving up on trying to find any logical consistency in your various positions. Not only are your ideas completely incoherent with respect to any political philosophy, but you also choose your tactics in whatever way suits you at the moment. In the thread about immigration, you argued that we need new ideas and solutions because the two sides have been arguing without resolving the problem (despite the fact that the debate on this complex issue has only gone on for a couple of years now) while on healthcare, which Hillary Clinton first tackled more than a DECADE ago, because the two sides can’t agree you argue that this means that your side must now just force their ideas on the country.
You are the one who set the tone for the discussion CStanley.
You guys did it in the immigration debate and your back doing it now.
The minute I posted something you disagreed with you show up denoucing it as turning this nation into a dicatorship.
Then set back shocked that the other person goes becomes less then altruistic in his posts. I posted not in response to you but I posted in response to the ops article. It was YOU who then attacked me and then sit back scratching your head wondering why I responded to your attacks with ones of my own.
Get your events in order Cstanley. You were looking for a fight or you would not have responded to my comments in the manner in which you did.
We are not mandated to have auto insurance coverage that covers our own loses. We are mandated to have auto insurance coverage that covers the damage we do to others. The two are quite different. The idea is that you don’t have a right to impose damage on someone else and take responsibility for it. This is quite consistent with the idea that you don’t have the right to impose an expense on me for my own benefit.
And that mandate was not applied undemocratically against our will.
ack. That should read "you don’t have a right to impose damage on someone else and not take responsibility for it."
That is true Tap. But it is still a mandate. Social security is a Mandate. Welfare is a mandate. Medicare is a mandate because it is something we MUST pay for.
We do not look upon it as a dictatorship because it is good for America. Healthy Americans who do not have to pay for a huge chunk of their paychecks to the insurance companies will have more disposable income to buy other things and this nation will continue to prosper and to grow and expand.
The argument that we face from the Conservatives/GOP just doesnt make sense economically or compassionately and because their are two schools of thought then it is going to either have to be mandated as are many programs or it simply will never get done.
Whats your pleasure?
Yes, abri, because pointing out the issues I have with your political philosophy is EXACTLY the same as making personal attacks about someone’s lack of compassion.
I apologize that I chose to make a snarky remark about your political suggestion, but the fact is that I found it highly snark worthy because you seem to not even realize that you are advocating that people should be forced to accept that which you believe is for their own good. So I’m sorry for the tone, but there is a reason for it.
See I totally fail to understand why conservatives are so opposed to health care for all. Especially since the new ideas is to have big business pick up the tab while raking in new premiums as we will subsidize it.
I mean the gop can run over to Iraq and spend a 150 billion a year to kill stuff without batting an eye but to provide health care for those in need is somehow a great societal evil.
Oh I forget we are supposed to be safer cause were over killing stuff in Iraq. nanny state mentality.
Also I don’t remember the American Populace voting to go to war with Afghanistan or Iraq? Did I miss that Vote CStanley? I for that matter don’t remember voting for a new homeland security department that the democrats wanted. Im being snarky but the nanny state is something both parties want because it means that you as a citizen have to depend on them for your wellbeing, security and safety.
Both parties are guilty of being nanny staters. However I believe that healthy Americans are better Americans and if they are not spending their bucks on health care they will be spending them on other items that benefit big or small business and as such this economy will continue to prosper and flourish.
The argument it will not goes against the very nature of their spend and not tax philosophy.
I don’t remember ever arguing anything to the contrary, abri. I certainly don’t agree with the Republican party on everything, and if you’ve been here long enough or stick around you’ll know that I don’t defend things that they do when I think they’re boneheaded.
I simply don’t think that putting a large segment of our economy into government hands is a good solution to the problem at hand. If you choose to believe that this means that I don’t care whether or not sick people have access to healthcare, then I’m not willing to debate it with you. If you choose to argue in good faith, that I might actually have other ideas about solutions to the problem, then I’m willing to discuss it.
To me, the most obvious problem is that our healthcare costs too much, and I see little evidence that universal coverage would bring down costs the way its proponents claim that it would. There’s a problem with supply of healthcare services being limited- and if anything, increasing the number of people who are covered only worsens that problem. That means one of two things- costs rise astronomically (that’s what happens, obviously, when demand increases but supply does not) or rationing occurs. Right now we may have rationing based on ability to pay, but with nationalized healthcare we’d have rationing based on government making decisions on healthcare.
Our elected officials from both parties authorized use of force in both cases and have continued to fund the missions.
Abri, you say "We do not look upon it as a dictatorship because it is good for America".
Okay, you are saying that, even though the people may not agree to something, imposing it is not dictatorial because, whether they know it or not it is good for them.
Can you name one dictator who did not state the same thing?
Show me how this is different. Is it different because, in this case, you agree with the goals and in other dictatorships you did not agree with their goals? If so, does this mean you are saying that a dictatorship is defined by Abri’s agreement or disagreement with its’ policies?
There was a time when I thought our healthcare system was tops. After retiring I started going to the VA which has superb healthcare.
During that same time I watched my son in law die in a top notch health care facility in which we would find him sitting in his own poop, one day found him sitting in a chair despite being in a room that was television monitored. We found him covered in his own food. Throw up on his gown. I mean he was neglected, ill treated and we were paying about 5000 dollars a day for this type of treatment.
A year later my mother essentially had a nightmare stay at a civilian hospital that I threatened to sue the SOB’s for the care she was receiving.
There is no doubt their are problems with health care in this country. But to point to them as excuses not to address the problem is nothing short of a cop out.
If we are short Nurses then lets get some scholarships going and get some nurses into the flow. If we are short doctors then lets make it so that more really smart people can afford to be doctors.
As a retired military officer I hate excuses. You either get it done or I get someone that can get it done. The same held for me. Do it or they will find someone to do it.
Excuses are just that…..reasons to fail. I look at them as opportunities to shine….to excell.
The first step in reforming health care is to remove the ridiculous restrictions that prevent individuals and small businesses from entering into collective bargaining agreements with other individuals or small businesses. As a freelancer, I am not allowed to group together with other freelancers and buy an insurance plan. I have to buy one on my own, which means I have the choose between extremely high costs or extrememly poor coverge.
Before we start creating new government programs, lets remove some of the unfair rules that do not work with our modern, mobile workforce.
People need health care. Im not interested in your reasons as to why it should not be done. How it cant be done or that it might appear to be dictatorial in nature.
This nation is full of mandated programs. Why are we not rebelling. Why are we not overthrowing the government and demanding a new one?
The fact is your just looking for a cute little catchphrase to feel comfortable in your rejection of healthcare because no doubt you yourself have it or do not have to worry about providing for health care.
It simply is not realistic to say that mandated anything is a dictatorship. If thats the case…..throw out all our laws because they are all MANDATES to define our behaviour and tell us what is good for us.
Im opposed to drugs but the drug war is the government mandating that drugs are bad for its citizens. Drunk driving is a mandate by the people to be protected from irresponsible people. Our entire existence is a mandate of one sort or another.
Therefore the fact that I say its good for you is not the truth at all. I believe that the only way we solve the problem is mandate it and then make it work like we have every other thing this country is strong at.
Before we start creating new government programs, lets remove some of the unfair rules that do not work with our modern, mobile workforce.
Im totally open to that. But first lets get something in place. Lets mandate it then take on the excuses. If we bury ourselves in excuses why it wont work then it will never be tackled and it will never be done.
Please refrain from telling me what the facts are about myself and my personal situation, about which you know nothing.
Then stop telling me that my plan is a dictatorship. Beside that was directed at Tap not you.
Tap said. Can you name one dictator who did not state the same thing?
Ah, I missed Tap’s comment when skimming the thread. I’d still say generically that it’s poor form to impugn motives like that, and that people saying that the effect of what you are advocating is a dictatorship is not the same as impugning your motives. We’re not saying you wish for a dictatorship, just that the effects of what you advocate would be one.
You still seem to miss the distinction between mandates we already have (which were enacted through our legislative process) and what you are saying, which is that the necessity of mandating healthcare is so great that it must be forced on the electorate even if the voters won’t agree to it. If that’s not what you meant to say, then go back and read your own comments and see why we’re interpreting it that way.
Ahem.
Please refrain from telling me what the facts are about myself and my personal situation, about which you know nothing.
Yeah. What she said.
No Im not missing the distinction at all. I said that the only way this is going to be enforced is by mandate. That assumes that the congress and the senate will be able with either Hillary or Obama in the White House to have the ability to pass legislation that will be a mandate.
In other words health care is going to have to be forced upon the Conservatives/Gop. Just like when they raise the taxes that is going to be a mandate forced upon the Gop/Conservatives.
Just like when Bush cut taxes that was a mandate forced upon the Democrats opposed. Just like going to war in Iraq was a mandate that was forced upon 1/3 of this nation who opposed. Government programs are all mandates and even if they met with 100 percent consensus they would still be mandates that future generations might disagree with but are stuck with.
All mandates in this country are the results of our govenment passing laws to modify, change or illicit a certain degree of behavior.
I guess you guys are assuming somehow our democracy works differently then that. That is why the dictatorship remark was met with such open hostility because nothing in this country gets done without mandate type action by our elected officials that piss off roughly half the country on any given vote. But once enacted any law is a mandate to alter behviour.
Since you just did exactly that to myself and Christine over on the immigration thread, Tap, you can keep those complaints to yourself in the future. What you reap, you shall sow.
Well then tap quite accusing me of being a dictatorship with my views when clearly they are not. The knife cuts both ways.
Well, ab, your comment now is a bit different than what you originally said. You’re now saying that a vocal minority opposes universal health care but will have to accept it, but initially you said:
See? You said the country opposed it, not that conservatives oppose it. That was the reason for my snark- and I actually figured you didn’t mean it to come out exactly as you wrote it, and thought my joke would make you realize that. When you didn’t take it that way and then had the tone that implied that you feel that universal healthcare is so critical that it must be imposed no matter what, I started to wonder whether you really did mean it the way it initially sounded.
Gosh, keeping straight who despises whom on this website is getting to be harder to keep track of than the Iraqi sectarian clashes. I hope we can lighten up a bit.
Christine,
I have no problem with substantive disagreement, even when it becomes intense.
I do have a problem with people who tell falsehoods about others’ points, especially after they have been repeatedly corrected and warned about their misrepresentations. I won’t tolerate such behavior obliterating substantive debate in the way it has on so many other sites.
Those who want to debate the views posted on this site in either posts or comments are welcome to do so as long as they are honest about what those views actually were. When they start misrepresenting, twisting, or distorting those views to gain a rhetorical advantage, they will have a problem with me.
What facts, praytell, did I tell you about yourself and your personal situation, Jason? Lord knows I don’t want to presume to tell you about yourself, so I’d love to know exactly where I did so.
P.S. I’ll assume that if Christine felt that I had presumed to lecture her on herself and her personal situation she would have been quite capable of handling that herself and would have told me so. She doesn’t appear to need help expressing her opinions…and I’d tend to rather doubt that she would appreciate the assumption that she does needs help.
Jason: I certainly understand your concern and respect your right to quell comments that cross certain lines, even if I don’t always agree with the way such decisions are made. In this case, I don’t necessarily think that misrepresentation took place as much as misunderstanding- it appears to me that the central dispute in the immigration thread is over whose side is more obstructionist, and it seems to me that each person was somewhat attributing the characteristics of the politicians (who intentionally obstruct) to the commenters (who’s preferred policies might have that effect but not intentionally.) Not everyone who comments and is somewhat politically informed has the same insight about the way legislation is often derailed by obstructionism- and obviously the techniques of those who obstruct is often to create a sacred cow which is sacred for various reasons to various voters. For some, the whole point of the cow is to create a roadblock, whereas for others, it’s actually important for its own sake and just isn’t very negotiable.
I do not despise a single person on this website. If that were the case I would have left in a huff over the Abraham Lincoln debate in which everyone including the pope accused me of being a loon.
I left the immigration debate because no one seemed to be attempting to understand anyone else.
Like I said here I responded to the op and immediately was hit with essentially which dictator do I admire the most.(Not said but certainly implied) After responding in kind I have then tried to show that nearly all government programs are mandates of one type or another and why.
Tap wrote:
Show me how this is different. Is it different because, in this case, you agree with the goals and in other dictatorships you did not agree with their goals? If so, does this mean you are saying that a dictatorship is defined by Abri’s agreement or disagreement with its’ policies?
This is precisely the rhetoric and obstructionism that Jason is referring to. Sometimes Im guilty of it myself when I look back. But here you assume that your defining of me is accurate and that you want to shift the debate not from healthcare and ways to resolve it as a national issue but you want to switch the argument to whose your favorite dictator and which person do you want to behead first.
See? You said the country opposed it, not that conservatives oppose it. That was the reason for my snark- and I actually figured you didn’t mean it to come out exactly as you wrote it, and thought my joke would make you realize that.
I very carefully think about what I am going to say. It is something I have usually spent years studying, contemplating, discussing and advising people on.
This country is very opposed to a national health care. Let me explain. Within the democratic party Barak Obama believes that it should not be mandated and that it should be volunteer. Hillary Clinton believes that it should be mandated. Conservative and the GOP just plain reject it mainly. Certainly with some exceptions. Others believe in universal health care. Even those who favor it, disagree on how comprehensive it should be.
So when I said THE COUNTRY………..that is precisely what I meant. That as a country who seems to oppose health care in one form or another it is important to just mandate it. Get something on the books and go from their otherwise it will never get done.
Example. George W. Bush and the perscription drug plan for seniors. When it first came out people were drooling in anger but it got done. It was not perfect but its on the books……..IT WAS A MANDATE.
Now the first couple years my mother was paying pretty decent premiums 25 bucks a month and a copay of around 10 dollars per perscription and in some cases for non generic medicines it was a co pay of 80 bucks. For a person on 10 medications her bill was rather rude.
However just this last month she has been changed over to all generic medicines and her co pay by medicare part D has been dropped to ZERO.
Her medicine is now FREE. A program that started out with lots of flaws is now a pretty good program. Not perfect but its much better then it was.
Now if we listened to the opponents of Perscriptions for Seniors we would still be debating its merits and how you going to pay for it and all the reasons why it cant succeed and on and on and on.
As Nike says. JUST DO IT. Get it on the books and then lets make it work. Until then there will be too many reasons why it cant work.
abri - I try to never take it to a personal level. Sometimes I’m even successful!
You are taking my comment in a way I did not mean it if you think it was either ‘obstructionist’ or meaningless rhetoric. As Christine pointed out, you have now changed what you said. You started out saying the country was opposed to something and it should be forced anyway. You are now saying you think a minority is opposed to it, so it can be passed democratically….those are two very different statements.
Before you restated your case and clarified it, it seemed pretty apparent to me that you were indeed advocating forcing the country do something it did not want to do because a minority felt that it would be for the best. You said "We do not look upon it as a dictatorship because it is good for America".
I pointed out that those who would force something on the majority because they think it is ‘for the best’ are no different than any dictator that has ever existed. I still stand by that idea now. N
I do not, however, insist that you don’t have the right to clarify yourself - I also don’t insist that I read your intentions correctly. If you never meant that a minority should have the right to force itself on the majority because their ideas are for their own good, I’m with you on that.
abrisaham: just because Medicare part D is working for your mother at the moment doesn’t mean it’s working- it’s a fiscal disaster, a ticking timebomb. And that’s why my opinion about your advice of ‘getting something on the books, even if it’s flawed’ is diametrically opposed to your opinion. And that’s why conservatives will continue fighting you on these mandated programs (hint- we might actually fight you less if you took the opposite approach and actually ADDRESSED the obvious potential problems on the front end), and that’s why our founders set up a system where people could have such fights, and that’s why we need two healthy political parties to continue having them.
Aha. Now I see #36 and it seems that I STILL didn’t quite get your meaning. My last comment was written before I saw #36…
Cstanley I can only take from your words that once again you are looking for reasons to fail. Not succeed.
Medicare part D is a benefit. It costs money. Social Security is a ticking time bomb going broke. The US government is not Walmart where the bottom line is the only line that matters.
So if we have benefits then we are going to have to raise taxes to make them work. When Walmarts costs rise what do they do. They raise prices. Well if the governments cost is going up then its probably time to rise taxes.
If raising taxes gets us healthcare for all then the money that we spent on healthcare we will no longer spend on health care but will spend on increased taxes. So its a wash. Higher taxes, no health care costs equals right where we are now.
See the GOP continually tells us that cutting taxes will create growth and cause more taxes revenue which will then cause us not to have debt. Sounds great. Ive yet to see it work. They keep promising us it will work but it never does. Ever. The only time we had a balanced budget was under a Moderate Clinton who compromised on spending and taxes to get er done.
Im not one to really believe that the government can fix things or be relied upon to fix things but in this case I do believe that the Democrats are so passionate about this program that they would go out of their way to make it work.
I can take two possible conclusions from your words here: one is that you truly don’t believe that solving a problem involves examining the possible solutions to see what their probable effects will be (along with trying to anticipate unintended consequences and honestly accounting for likely negative effects, to see if the overall net effect is really a positive one). The other possibility is that you know very well that this is how problem solving should be approached but that perhaps you know it’s more politically useful to pretend that all of that has already been done and it’s all good, but now the opponents are choosing not to agree to the proposal because they don’t really care about solving the problem. Since I’ve already stated that I don’t like to impugn people’s motives, I won’t comment further on which of those two are involved in your thought processes.
C stanley
After years and years of debate on this. After dozens if not hundreds of books about it. After think tank after think tank devoted to it. It still needs more time. More thought. More analysis.
There will always be one more reason not to do it. Always one more problem. Always one more reason to continue debate.
My thought process is clear. It is time. Their will always be one more reason not to until pigs learn to fly.
It seems there was not a whole lot of debate about going into Iraq or not. Few reports, load up the wagons were going in. To me it always seems that the GOP can find reasons to spend 50 years debating something if its not in their best interests and 50 seconds debating something if it is IN their best interests.
I think this nation has finally reached the point where the debate is over and this election is all about that. The hitch. Obama showed up to derail the Hillary Express.
Well, as I said before, abri, it’s funny how you see the immigration debate the opposite way. We’ve debated about that for a couple of years now and you’re calling it a washout, gotta start over and get some new ideas. Meanwhile, in the case of healthcare, as you say the ideas of universal healthcare have been analyzed to death- but instead of also calling that a dead debate and asking for novel approaches, you’re conclusion here is that we need the "Hillary Express" to come into the station and run over the opponents.
Why the difference?
The difference is that Immigration is a failed policy of the government. We have been engaged in immigration administration since this nation was formed. Its had 200 plus years of fine tuning, adjustments and evaluations.
You should know this. Immigration reform was not even necessary. The existing law on the books simply needed to be enforced. They are not. Once we began enforcing the law then we as a nation could approach immigration reform slowly and with compassion while not riling up the masses. Many people in this nation want a fence. Great build a fence but dont link it to immigration reform and this would have never become a great dividing issue.
On the other hand:
Health care has not even been tried. Medicare has been pretty successful and they have managed to keep down costs. HMO’s while being annoying have managed to keep down costs by keeping an eye on costs.
Health care and immigration are as people allude to rife with obstructionism. They are both so polarizing that its impossible to even get a vote on it let alone get a bill that addresses the issues.
Thats because of the continual desire by obstructionists to LINK things. Fence to Amnesty. Beautiful case of obstructionism. No Amnesty? No Fence? No Fence? No Bill.
Healthcare has its own set of linkages that polarize the nation. Yet if it was not for mandates our seniors would have no health care coverage, no Social Security and not a lot of hope in life.