All this spin coming from the Clinton factions on this blog is just absolutely disgusting.  How can someone have absolutely zero respect for truth and policy and yet still be following the primaries so closely?  It's vile and sickening how far Clinton and her followers are willing to go.  All of this hatred and bickering has GOT to end.  Look at what Clinton inspires in people!  Hate!  Rediculous arguments! Lies!  Deception!  Sick.

"Whatever it takes" really is Clinton's secret slogan.

Ah yes...yet another day of Obama can do no wrong and should not be questioned.  It's like the Post Office - no matter what the weather, you can always depend on First Read to provide a hearty dose of hypocrisy.

You may think this is racist, but it isn't it is the TRUTH.   You know when the Jena six were defended by the black leaders with no regard to the WHITE VICTIM who was beaten.  The White women who was beaten in Maryland by the black teenagers.  Nothing heard about this swept under the rug.   Do we really want a Black President who will not represent all Americans only those of his race.  What will happen when we object to any of his policies or any decisions we don't like are we going to be called Racist.

Ron

The hatred and bickering I see most often come from people AGAINST Hillary, not people supporting Hillary.  Look in the mirror sometime.  

Obama is weak on healthcare, his plan only benefits insurance companies anyways.

So far I like Ron Paul's plan the best.
This is it, if anyone is interested.

The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster.

Few people realize that Congress forced Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) on us. HMOs rose to prominence through federal legislation, incentives, and coercion.

Now, the Food and Drug Administration's bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options, and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines. Regulations from D.C. make it virtually impossible for small business owners to cover their employees. The unemployed often cannot afford insurance, meaning those who need basic medical attention overcrowd emergency rooms and drive up premiums.

The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here.

Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats.

It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.

Ron

The hatred and bickering I see most often come from people AGAINST Hillary, not people supporting Hillary.  Look in the mirror sometime.  

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, December 10, 2007 2:12 PM)


That's because with every misstep she makes....
she opens herself up to more problems.......

MK from LA wrote, "Basically the point of the editorial is that you cannot have your cake (allowing use of sophisticated, costly procedures in situations when they will provide little net health outcome benefit) and eat it too (low cost health care)."

Yeah, and all of the ethical drug ads only compound this problem; not to mention using antibiotics on viral diseases. The question to me about these tests is, who decides? Should it be the doctor or the insurance company?

Ah yes...yet another day of Obama can do no wrong and should not be questioned.  It's like the Post Office - no matter what the weather, you can always depend on First Read to provide a hearty dose of hypocrisy.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa

---------------------------------------------------
You don't have a proof and quit using the talking point. Obama is not immune from criticism but stop denting his character when in fact there is none.

It is okay for candidates to point out the difference in policy but to call his character questionable is baloney in my opinion.

Krugman is being either intelectually dishonest or biased!

The fact is: In 1993, Republicans wanted individual mandates. They wanted to ensure that if every American was receiving universal healthcare, that the insurance companies were getting a piece of the pie.  In 1993, Democrats were attacking individual mandates from the left by saying that, wait for it, the government would be forcing you to buy healthcare insurance that you may not be able to afford.

Who was leading that charge?  Hillary Rodham Clinton.  From the left.

------

He's using the very right wing talk point to attack Obama, which I find extremely unfortunate.

More Info: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/116/99540

Congratulations to all those  that are finally starting to wake up and question this "Obama-mania"! There was a time when you would come to this Obama Daily Press Release site (AKA FirstRead) and you would find nothing of substance, just people attacking Hillary. Today we find things to be a little different, and oh my!, have you got the Obamaniacs up in arms! True to their typical behavior, which I can only assume is learned from their idol, they do not attack the message, they attack the messenger, they do not defend, with any substance, their position on issues, they attack those opposing the issues. Through all of the attacks, mudslinging, PHONY and biased media, and republican playbook tactics, only one candidate has stood strong and defended every position she stood for...Hillary Clinton!  Now if we can only get the rest of these Obama supporters to wake up from their drug-induced fog, the world will become a better place and America will once again be at the forefront.

The Obama campaign's response to the Krugman criticism is fair. Shouldn't they do every thing in their power to defend their candidate? What did cause his change in opinion?? Doesn't anyone else find that the least bit odd?  Carrie, I also see a lot of hate and bickering coming from the anti-Obama faction on this blog. Also, you're incorrect Obama can and will make mistakes. He's only human.  There's absolutely noting wrong in wanting a president who makes you believe in the process again.  I think that's what Obama does for a lot of people. That's what Bill Clinton did for people at one time as well, but he squandered it on a lot of silliness.  Hillary is no Bill and while I think she's capable in smart--she doesn't exactly inspire people. You almost get the impression that she does somehow feel that she is owed the presidence or at least the democratic nomination.   Back in 2000---she knew she would be running probably in 2008. Obama didn't.  Although I'm sure he's had presidenital aspriations, I truly believe he didn't expect to be running now. There's been a tremendous amount of support for him and in politics you often have to strke while the iron is hot.

Carrie,

I know you have problems with a lot of Obama supporters, but what do you think of Obama the candidate? Or Clinton the candidate?

Krugman lost me on this one.  I don't think he's being intellectually serious or fair.  Maybe this is how the GOP feels with his usual comments.

Obama's plan is a good plan and heads in the right direction.

Bee: '...How many people listen to these guys again? Sorry, I don’t even know who they are. The last time I checked, they are part of the establishment that are singing “hail the queen”...'

Actually, Bee Paul Krugman has been a LION on economics.
He's been real outspokken against Bush's economic policies.

But, this seems like a tea pot tempest...
It's almost like the 'Big Endians' and the 'Little  Endians' in Gulliver's Travels
(Which side do we open an egg from?)
It seems like obscure technical differences in the Health Care packages.

Do we need manadates ?
I don't know...
Is there a REAL difference in the plans ?
Clinton, Obama or Edwards ?
I'd guess that Edwards' plan is probably the best..
But, I really don't know

Do any of these posters know ?
It's doubtful....
Must be a close race, huh ?

FR, could you be more biased for obama...you all hopoing for a republican president?

Steve Daytona Beach: '... Now if we can only get the rest of these Obama supporters to wake up from their drug-induced fog, the world will become a better place...'

Thanks for that insight Steve...
You make a lot of sense
Have you considered a career in Philosophy ?



...someone to rule us,
someone to fool us,
We want you Hillary

Someone to beat us,
Someone to cheat us,
We want you Hillary ....

The cuckolded wife of a doshonest mediocre President
Now, that's experience !!

When did simply reporting how things happen become Pro-Obama?? For the most part First Read is quite fair and balanced--to steal a catch phrase from another network.  People, let's stop with the Pro-Obama and Anti-Hillary stuff!! First Read is neither!!

The hatred and bickering I see most often come from people AGAINST Hillary, not people supporting Hillary.  Look in the mirror sometime.  

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, December 10, 2007 2:12 PM)

I've noticed any time Hillary is injected into a conversation or blog, the hate meter is off the charts. Look at blogs that do not have Hillary in it and the negative talk is very tolerable. Hmmmm....

As an economist, i know that Paul Krugman owned his reputation in economics circles to his work on trade and monetary economics. On Health Economics, i wouldn't based my judgment on what he says.
Professor Krugman is doing a disservice to economic sciences when he becomes an ideologist. In economics we have therotical evidences and empirical evidences. You build a theory, but your theory is only validated if it has been confronted to facts. We have an empirical case in MA which shows the difficulty to impose a mandate and worse the fact that it doesn't guarantee any lowering of the costs. The Hillary plan is based on the German system, just as in MA they have exempted millions of people from the mandate. So when i hear all the mandate cheerleaders, saying that without the mandate free-riders will rush to E-rooms and past their costs to the taxpayers, i want to know who will have to pay for the 20% exempted from the mandate in MA. I will like also to do a little bit of Economics history here. True left liberals have never been advocates of mandating people to buy private insurance. This idea was first developed in theory by Milton Friedman, who is hardly a leftist. It is amazing today to see progressives championing Milton Friedman ideas. Real left leaning economists have always been for a single payer system. If you want real universality, then it has to be a single payer system, this has been confirmed by empirical evidences (statistics). The Journal of Health affairs has done a tremendous job by publishing studies on the rate of compliance of mandates. The conclusion says that the rate of compliance is around 85% average even with large subsidies. For the free rider problem. It can be solved without a mandate. The claim that a mandate is necessary to prevent free riding under a policy of community rating and must-issue is false. The free rider problem could be addressed by imposing a penalty on those who fail to purchase insurance if they purchase it later in order to make a claim. That would preserve the right of individuals to choose for themselves whether to buy insurance without giving them a free ride if they subsequently decide to buy it because they get sick. You can say here that this penalty has the same effect as a mandate, however there is difference here. the penalty would only be imposed on those individuals who would otherwise receive the free rider benefit from making a claim. A mandate, in contrast, imposes a cost regardless of claims.
Here is another inconvenient truth. In the 47 millions uninsured, 12 millions are undocumented. No mandate will cover these people. It will cripple our public budget and our homeland security resources if we allocate our financial and human resources to round them and send them home. It is much more realist to put these people on a path to citizenship, make them come out from the shadows. They'll pay taxes by that paying their share on the public goods spent on them  

like to make a point. hillary says that obama's plan leaves 15 million uncovered. let's look at this without bias. first of all krugman did have good things to say originally. a candidate should be able to include a complete statement not a partial.

so many say the media needs to be fair. krugman wasn't being fair.

next how many obama's plan may not cover has no basis of proof. it so far is hillary's statements backed by people that served her husband and those that have contributed to her campaign that are a part of the oh so powerful health lobby.

hillary won't say what her health plan is. she has said she would put together a bipartisan commision to solve that problem. is this a plan to compare to obama's. absolutely not. she is not giving the clinton supporters one piece of substance on this issue.

next. hillary and john say they will mandate insurance and obama's won't cover everyone because it is not mandated.

let's take a look at this. if a 55 to 70 year old person or a moderate income family is forced by law (mandating)to pay insurance and they have something occur that lessens their income for a short period of time, what happens to them?

1)do they pay the mandated insurance or the keep the lights on?
2)do they buy less groceries or pay the mandated insurance?
3)do they tell their child to stay in college or skip a semester so they can pay the mandated insurance?
4)do they repair the car or take the bus to work so they can pay the mandated insurance?
5)more importantly. if they can't afford the premium, do they get a $250., $500. or $1000. fine, a summons to court with a possible misdemeanor going on their record?
6)are they now a criminal because they have to go to court because of a mandate that guarantees a definite source of profit to the health industry?

there are people that can't afford mandated health insurance. they will be forced not to pay at times because of financial burdens.

the only way the health insurance will accept amandated federally sponsored national health insurance plan is if the goverment secure the forced coverage. when someone can't pay that premium the health lobby will get paid no matter what. it will be your tax dollar covering that federal security blanket on healthcare.

mandating is an idea of the health lobby not hillary's or john's. if you go back far enough and check you can find out where the concept for mandating originated. it wasn't a light bulbb that went of in john's or hillary's head. this idea originated in the last clnton administration. it didn't work because republicans didn't want to add to the national budget the cost to insure the health industry's mandate.

the health lobby is one of hillary's longest and biggest contributor's don't take my word for it. research it yourself.

what obama is proposing is making insurance companies provide affordable insurance based upon income and federal subsidies through negotiations with the health, pharmacuetical and insurance companies.

question is this: is a individual or family more likely to pay an insurance if they can afford it or is legally mandated to do so?

i will give you a hint.

automotive insurance is legally mandated by every state in the nation. their are millions that don't pay that insurance because they can't afford it 12 months of the year or not at all. each state has a fund that will reimburse a driver that has been a victim of an accident with an uninsured driver. this fund is funded through taxes. thus the growing increases or the want to increase taxes to cover such little known funds.

imagine the tax increases natioally as person's and families can't afford mandated insurance, but are still visiting emergency rooms. hold on to your pockets. you have not begun to realize what you are supporting when you think mandated heathcare is doing you justice.

the only one's smiling and jumping for joy at the possibility of mandated insurance is the complete health industry as a whole.

i'm sorry. don't pee down my back and tell me it is raining.

do your research.  
   

Carrie in case you missed it, Clinton sent people in Indonesia to search whether Obama is a Muslim and was royally debunked.

Still two Iowa volunteers have been sending hate mail that Obama is muslim.

And you call Obama divisive?

The problem with the healthcare system is that you guys who have employer or gooberment paid insurance are not real consumers...you are welfare queens paying a small fraction of your total cost and you don't want any changes because then you might have to pay more or god forbid take responsibility...welfare queens

Funny how the Obama people don't see this as an attack but when the Edwards people questioned what Oprah's endorsement would do for South Carolina the Obama supporters flipped out.

<start>

Carrie in case you missed it, Clinton sent people in Indonesia to search whether Obama is a Muslim and was royally debunked.

Still two Iowa volunteers have been sending hate mail that Obama is muslim.

And you call Obama divisive?


<end>

Recall the Clintons had "something" in thier back pocket regarding Obama's "sorid" background. Turns out it was his kindergarden essay. But the Clinton's in an effort to continue their trend of making things up, came up with the Muslim story. Of course, it's campaign volunteers that send out the e-mail, but we kind of know who is really behind the idea.

Why is HRC stooping So Low?
By Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor during President Bill Clinton's Administration)


I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I'm as hard-boiled as they come about what's said in campaigns, I just don't think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn't need a whole lot to keep it going - it's in far better shape than Medicare - but everyone who's looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it's indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn't have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent - maybe to $115,00. That's a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that's what Greenspan's Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama's plan would "raise taxes" and her plan wouldn't, she's simply not telling the truth.

I'm equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. 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.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. 'There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for,' she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice 'between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk.' Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O's character, she said: 'It's beginning to look a lot like that.'

I just don't get it. If there's anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC's campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she's been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up."

Fact Check: Why The Obama Health Insurance Plan Covers More People More Rapidly Than The Clinton Plan Does
November 30, 2007

TO: Interested Parties FR: Austan Goolsbee, Jeffrey Liebman DA: November 29, 2007 RE: Why the Obama health insurance plan covers more people more rapidly than the Clinton plan does As we get closer to the Iowa Caucuses, the first casualty... Read More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fact Check: Clinton's False Attack on Obama's Health Care Plan
November 28, 2007

CLINTON ATTACK: "He has called his plan universal, then he called it 'virtually universal,' but it simply does not deserve the label," said the New York senator. "When it comes to truth in labeling, his plan simply flunks the test."... Read More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fact Check: Clinton Opposed an Individual Mandate in 1993
November 28, 2007

The Individual Mandate Hillary Clinton Opposed in 1993 Is the Same Individual Mandate She Supports Now. "Hillary Clinton has now introduced Health Care 2.0, and - lo and behold! - it is a direct descendant of the plan she chose... Read More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fact Check: Without An Enforcement Mechanism, Clinton's 'Mandate' is Optional
November 25, 2007

Obama's Health Care Plan Saves Families and the Health Care System More 'The American people are looking for a President who's honest about the challenges we face, and that's why it's unfortunate that Senator Clinton continues to misrepresent Senator Obama's... Read More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Fact Check: Clinton's False Claim that She Provides Universal Health Care Coverage
November 20, 2007

RHETORIC: "Any health care plan that leaves 15 million Americans uninsured cannot be considered universal. And that's a very big difference," said Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee. [Des Moines Register, 11/20/07] REALITY: "MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's... Read More

click here for info:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/category/

To Rick,

I'm no that young but i care about imposing a regressive tax on our younger generation, not those who work at wall street, but those who are coming out from college today with a student loan who takes a toll on their income. when i look at how a mandate was implemented in MA. They exempted 20% of the insured. So those who are paying are paying twice. They pay their premiums and with their taxes are paying for the 20%. I'll add that the 20% were exempted because they couldn't afford health insurance even with a mandate. So a mandate is not solving the main issue which is affordability.
Also, I'll add that in economic circles there is a growing sense of worry because of the generational gap in the finances of our welfare system. We may be the first generation who will leave less to the next one. Not only they will have less benefits from our welfare system than we do, but they will have to pay much more for the public expenses devoted to us than what we've paid for the generation proceeding us. As I've said before, nothing short of single payer will be truly universal.  So let's drop the concept universal coverage for universal access, unless we have to courage to introduce a single payer system.    

Obama health care plan rocks..............
You all know that this plan is the best that has come across.

HRC plan would/will hurt a lot of the low-income people.

Just as the mandated insurance plan for autos.
you can`t force someone to buy into something that they can not afford.

With low- income families its either eat, keep a roof over your family head & clothe the children.
As it is some of these families can barle do all threeof these and it is not all their fault.
Everyone can`t be as smart as some people to get the jobs/careers that can support the needs of a working
household. We can`t all be well off so that we don`t have to worry about such issues as health care for our families. Some just do get by, by not getting sick and when they do, well lets just say there is a system for that as well.

Health care should be affordable for everyone, and the insurance compaines are making way too much money off of us, hell half of the time they don`t even cover what you need to stay healthy or what the doctors recommends that you need.
I say stop fatting the insurance companies pocket and make them pay for what you are paying them for.
They just take, take & take and we get nothing but headaches trying to get the money we have put into their companies for our health  out which makes each case that much worse.

Its time we changed that system and make the insurance compaines own up to their responsibilities.
and pay for our treatments.
Worse than car insurance where you don`t have an accident for five years and you get nothing back, but you have to have it or go to jail. Who is getting all that money?

It would be something to see if you didn`t have an car accident or get traffic tickets for the year, you would get something back from the insurance companies


Obama plan is a very good start to help those who needs it more.

Obama 08'

YiYi, why are you so childish..but then again you swallow all the muck BO sells you

If one were to bring in the single payer system, which I think that many of us agree is the only honest way of providing service to everyone fairly, would remove the worry about the guy showing up at the ER only when he badly needs it...he is automatically covered as a citizen with an ID and SS card...Everybody would be so covered, those with Social Security numbers and ID's...And automatically reduce the amount of money pouring out through the ratholes of the insurer's pockets!  

Any universal health plan offered by a democrat will serve far more people, more equitably, than any offered by a Republican candidate. Also, mandated health care does work. My husband has medicare and let met tell you, hospitals and doctors welcome Medicare patients. He will live after receiving a $48,000.00 bill for hospitalization and a pacemaker implant. The cost of which could have wiped out our savings. Any universal plan will change many times during the debate in Congress and the outcome will be very different than the proposal. I am not so worried about the details of the plans at this point, so much as the intent of the candidates to carry the issue into their presidency.

Ron, TX

Come on now, I am not a supporter of Senator Clinton's but they are certainly not the only ones ones spewing forth vile and nasty comments.  She has been called a traitor, a liar, her sexual preferences have been questioned, and you say the ugly remarks are coming only from her backers? Please, I have to say I have read far more trash about her on this site than about any other candidate. So, please let's be fair here and admit that some(not all) on both sides are guilty of some nasty stuff. As for me, I think its all unnecessary.

To Carman,
Medicare is not a mandate. It is a variation of a single payer system. We have a single payer system for some of our citizen (seniors). Mandating people to buy private insurance when the affordability issue has not been solved is equivalent to piling on the poor. In MA to solve the issue of those who can not afford health insurance and therefore are less likely to pay a penalty. The have exempted 20% of the uninsured. Consequently, those who re paying for health insurance  are also paying by their taxes for the 20%. This is bad policy, specially for young entrants on the labor market, not only they have to reimburse their college loans, they still have to secure their new job, they'll have to pay much more for social security and are less likely to have the same benefits that we have from the welfare system. It is a regressive tax on our young folks. The best system is not a mandate, it is a gift to insurance companies with no guarantee that prices will go down. A mandate on kids is tolerable  and economically much fair than a mandate on adults. If we want universality, i has to be a single payer system. Anything else is just politics and not facts.    

Krugman and Hillary and their cronies are so used to opposition research and hardball, thy're liable to go after anyone. Watch out Barack!

I wonder how many campaign nasties on Democrats that Hillary has ready to launch? If she can't win she's liable to scorch-earth her whole party, like in New York. Andrew Cuomo, etc....

worried, can i ask you a question. how is that not being reported obama's fault? i am interested in your rationale as to how come you blame obama for the media reported these incidents.  

to carrie, can you qualify your accusation please. not one obama supporter has made a racist comment. i have not decided who to support yet, but i am seeing an equal amount of ugliness and poison from both sides. there are some folks in this room that make their views and support for their candidate respectfully as well as tastefully. when it comes to ugliness i see both obama and hillary supporters that have shown the most ugly characteristics of our country.

the hillary supporters do have one top grade for ugliness that i noticed that only they own and that is the racist remarks they continually make. i don't get that. i think that is as mean and ugly as a person can get. i guess i am missing something. can you help me out?

 I have lived in Illinois all of my life.  Believe me Obama is not a GOOD SENATOR for Illinois.  He refuses to listen to the citizens of Illinois.  Illinois has one the highest populations for illegal aliens and he loves them.  He is also in love with businesses that hire them.  He certainly has not had our interest at heart only his pocketbook and political ambitions.

Maybe the reason there is so much implied hatred when Clinton is mentioned is because Hillary IS hated (in fact, by 50% of the country).

Out of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat, Hillary is by far the most divisive.  Seems like a great candidate to heal our country.  Yeah right!

You know you might be in deep political doo-doo when you're calling upon the likes of Paul Krugman to offer cover for one of your main policy planks.

Sheesh.

medicare and universal healhcare aren't the same thing.

jo of LA wrote, "The best system is not a mandate, it is a gift to insurance companies with no guarantee that prices will go down."

Whether by universal one payer coverage or by mandated multipayer coverage it is most important that everybody be covered. Why? Because of contagious diseases. A person who has a contagious disease and doesn't get prompt treatment because of the lack of insurance is a danger to the rest of the population. Germs don't care if you're rich or poor. It looks, however, like the GOP and a large part of the Democratic Party are opposed to both one payer and mandatory coverage.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):