ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC News Political Reporter



Obama camp cries foul over mailer

Posted: Sunday, February 17, 2008 3:34 PM by Mark Murray

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
The Obama campaign today cried foul today over a health-care mailing that the Clinton camp distributed in Wisconsin.

The mailer, which shows a rainbow assortment of young and old Americans, asks: "Barack Obama, Which of these people don't deserve health care?" The line is a play off of Clinton's stump speech, in which she asks rhetorically who should she choose not to give health care to: The single mom? The waitress? The retiree?

On a second page it reads, "Barack Obama's plan says NO WE CAN'T, leaving 15 million people without coverage." It goes on to list bullet points claiming that the plan "wastes billions" and would cost Americans $1,700 per person." Obama has long claimed that his plan would cut costs more than any other's and would cut costs for individuals. But Clinton has seized on his plan's lack of a mandate to say he's not really offering universal health coverage.

The mailing also quotes a line from New York Times' columnist Paul Krugman -- a fierce critic of Obama -- saying that the candidate's claim that he is passing universal health care is "unscrupulous demagoguery from the candidate himself."

Sen. Ted Kennedy, responding to the mailing told reporters in a conference call that he had been fighting for universal health care for 38 years and would not have endorsed Obama if he didn't believe that he wasn't for it or couldn't pass it.

Kennedy also introduced a new line of attack on Clinton, saying that neither she nor her husband were initially for the S-Chip program which he introduced in the Senate with Republican Orrin Hatch after the failure of Clinton's health care plan in 1994.

Kennedy also told reporters that the Clinton campaign was resorting to the same kind of "fear mongering" that had scuttled her own health care plan in 1994 and called for the debate to remain positive.

But he had no answer for why the Obama campaign had also gone negative in their ads about health care and engaged in what some claimed was "fear mongering" as well, by dropping a mailer that had an eerie resemblance to the Harry and Louise ads that were released by drug companies to discredit the Clinton plan in the early 1990s. The ad released by the Obama campaign told them that the Clinton campaign would force them to pay for healthcare.

Kennedy instead responded that it was legitimate to debate the ways to achieve health care -- but not that Obama was against it.

"We've seen this in the past. Carter insisted there was health planning and cost containment. Those are legitimate debates. But what is not legitimate is to undermine the central position of Barack Obama of not being for universal comprehensive health care. That is the distortion… is a misrepresentation and that is fundamentally wrong," he said.

Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D), who also was on the call, and has unabashedly attacked Senator Clinton over the past week for not campaigning in the state, added his own line of attack, saying Clinton's style of campaigning in Wisconsin has been to attack Obama rather than talking to voters.

"It reflects how Sen. Clinton has conducted the campaign in Wisconsin. Before she even came to the state she started running negative TV ads which distorted Senator Obama's record," Doyle said.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

Why is anyone surprised that PMSNBC and the NY Slimes want another lefty lying sack in the White House?
Russsert has obviously been promised HRC's chief of Staff, which he has been lobbying for with his lapdog attitude toward her and her pimping family for decades.
Whenever the Clintons get desperate they go on the negative attack strategy. I'm sure we'll see at least 5 more this week. Attack with lies and worry about the consequences later..after all, once you win (by any means) you don't usually need to recap the way you won. However, The American public is a little more savvy than they used to be and I hope this will backfire on them the way it did in SC. In my view, Hillary is beneath contempt. Last Feb. I would have agreed to having her as the nominee even though I am campaigning for Obama, but after following this campaign very closely I can honestly say that it will be a cold day in Hell before I vote for Hillary, even if she is the nominee.
Obama has every right to cry foul when Clinton's primary campaign tactics are smear, deception, lies, and distortion, just as Bush did in some respect. Instead of looking for flaws with the health care plan, you resort to nastiness and distortion because you are so lustful of presidential power, just as you are demonstrating your arrogance by seemingto be above the law by insisting that Michigian and Florida should be rewarded for their violation of party rules and you have the right to overrule these rules.
If Americans want the same old nasty politics in which politicians vie for the presidency not as candid candidates but as attack dogs, that is alright. But it is wrong to reward a rule breaker and a nasty politician with the office of the president -- an office that should have its integrity restored, not damaged further.
There are no limits to what Hillary Clinton will do to score a political point. She breaks my heart.
Shame, Shame, Shame on the Lying Billary Campaign
This seems to be the Clinton M.O.: two to four days before a primary, drop a mass mailing to local residents criticizing Obama on health care or social security, making statements that aren't exactly forthright. The timing prevents Obama from directly and strongly responding, and Clinton picks up a point or two.

What's different this time is that the Obama camp did the same thing this time.
And the whining continues from the Obama camp.....instead of answering the question they deflect and attack.  So THIS is his politics of hope???!!!

Give me a break - as usual all talk and no action! Between Obama and that blowhard drunk Kennedy they've got enough hot air to ease the energy crisis in the Northeast!

GO HILLARY '08

No, Obama, NO YOU CAN'T!!!
I can't stand Hillary, her husband, and their campaign.    I wish they would just go away with their dishonest b.s.  Hopefully the voters can see through them like the majority of Americans can.
Wake up America!
A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain in the general election!
Typical Clinton.  Here is another exaple:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
Obama's health care is voluntary but Clinton's is thesame old way to enrich the 'lobbyst'. Obama will lower cost and we can all voluntarily take an health insurance.
Waaah!   Waaah!  Hillary Clinton is telling fibs about my healthcare plan!

Wrong again liar!

“Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who worked on the Massachusetts plan, said a mandate means "the difference between universal or near-universal coverage. Obama would have a large expansion, better than anything the Republicans have, but not universal coverage," Gruber said. "You can't get it without a mandate; it's just not possible." Gruber estimated that 15 million people would remain uninsured under Obama's plan.” [Concord Monitor, 12/26/07]

Len Nichols, Jonathan Gruber and Mark Pauly: ‘even with other cost saving measures and a child mandate, we think that it is very likely that a least 15 million American would remain uninsured.’ “Recent estimates suggest that a plan with uniform generous subsidies but without a mandate would cover no more than one-half of the uninsured in the U.S. Even with other cost-saving measures and a child mandate, we think that it is very likely that at least 15 million Americans would remain uninsured.” [New America Foundation Policy Brief, 12/06/07]

Jonathan Holohan of the Urban Institute: ‘Obama would still leave about 22 million, 23 million, but he has a mandate for children, about 9 million uninsured kids, so assuming you get most of them, you get pretty close to 15 million.’ [New Republic, 12/03/07]

Paul Krugman: Clinton’s plan ‘would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s.’ “Specifically, new estimates say that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling Mr. Obama’s… And both plans seek to make insurance affordable to lower-income Americans. The Clinton plan is, however, more explicit about affordability, promising to limit insurance costs as a percentage of family income. And it also seems to include more funds for subsidies. [New York Times, 2/4/08]

Obama is a duplicitous liar.  He attributes NAFTA to Hillary Clinton, when her husband was the President, but denies what everyone is saying about his healthcare plan.  Hope and Change?  Don't you mean Lies and Fraud?



Why does Hillary keep lying?  Oh thats right-did we really expect anything different?  She is such a sore loser.  It's really getting annoying and I can tell you that the good people of this country are getting SICK of being lied to by the people who CLAIM are in our best interest.  Why does she keep saying 15 million people?  Maybe because everyone is starting to realize that SHE will force people to buy insurance that they can't afford, and then garnish their wages.  EVeryone knows that she couldn't deliver on her first attempt at health care and that this time will be an even bigger failure.  She really should stop lying.  The way she runs her campaign is a reflection of how she will run the country and I think we have all SEEN how she is running her campaign.  LIES!!!!!
SICK OF THE LIES!!!!!
 
Whatever it takes, right? lol

Seems like a waste of valuable campaign funds by the Clinton campaign, but I guess we won't know for sure until Tuesday . . .

Obama '08

P.S. Who died and made Hillary Clinton the high priestess of health care? For all of the "knowledge" she claims, it is clear that "working well with others" is not her strong suit . . .
I believe Senator Clinton's mandatory health care plan would devastate millions of middle income Americans. This seems to be a particularly confusing issue for voters. There seems to be a lack of understanding regarding the concept of what a mandate is, and as you may or may not know, the mandatory health insurance bill in Massachusetts has proven to be a disaster for many residents. I've included this email written by a Mass. resident and I think it provides us with a glimpse at what Senator Clinton's mandatory health care plan might look like. At the very least it reflects the negative effects of such a policy.

MANDATED HEALTHCARE
By Lana in MA - Feb 16th, 2008 at 4:36 am EST

A great talking point and some facts that need to be made clear are the details of Hillary Clinton's "Universal Healthcare". I'm disturbed by media coverage, commercials and spin that seem to imply that all Americans are going to be covered. It sounds as though we're all going to be covered for free, but that is far from the case. Those of us who do not have coverage are going to be forced (MANDATED) to buy healthcare insurance. This is the major difference between the Obama plan, and the Clinton plan. Hillary's plan "covers everyone" because everyone is forced (mandated) to buy it. The Obama Plan focuses on driving costs down, and makes the plans available, but does not force (mandate) people to buy it.

I live in Massachusetts, where beginning in 2007 they have a mandate (like Hillary's plan) for health insurance. I cannot find where Hillary has made public the income level a person will have to have to qualify for assistance. Nor, has she been willing to say what penalties will occur for non-compliance. She has at one point said that wages might be garnered to collect the insurance fees, but I think she's gone back and forth on exactly how to handle non-compliance and that is one of the MOST IMPORTANT POINTS OF HER PLAN.

Here's the way it works in Massachusetts. Each citizen is REQUIRED (or MANDATED like Hillary's plan) to purchase healthcare insurance. Most, who work for large companies, are able to buy it with assistance from their employers. However, that still leaves hundreds of thousands of people here in Massachusetts without insurance.

Who does this affect? I don't have any statistics on the people involved. This is new in Massachusetts, so those types of studies are yet to be done. I can say, the types that I know that are affected here around Massachusetts. Obviously people who aren't covered by any employer plan by a company. This may include the people who care for your children, cut your hair, dry-clean your clothes, make your pizza's at the pizza shop, make your floral arrangements, landscape your yard, transport goods, train your dogs, as well as writers, artists, musicians, and so on. It's also worth noting that if you become unemployed, and therefore loose the corporate insurance you had been using that you will be required (mandated) to purchase insurance, and if you change jobs, there is often a 90 day waiting period before you are eligible for company medical insurance, then you are also required (mandated) to buy insurance.

What are the costs? Costs are determined by family size to be covered, age of adults to be covered and income level. A single person must pay the FULL COST of insurance premiums if their income is greater than $30,636. A couple must pay the FULL COST of insurance premiums if their income is greater than $41,076. A family, 1 couple with one child, must pay the FULL COST of insurance premiums if their income is greater than $51,516, and so on. Government assistance is provided to those making less than the stated income level within each family size mentioned above. To get more information on the assistance provided, you may go to www.mahealthconnector.org . This assistance may be changing soon, as indicated by this recent article in the Boston Globe. www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/15/health_plan_rates_may_rise_by_14/
Below is a table with premium costs PER MONTH of plans currently available within numerous categories:

Single making more---------------------Insufficient------------------Good---------------------
than $30,636/year--------Age----------Coverage-----------------Coverage------------------
---------------------------------30--------------$199.40--------------$347.69 - $473.42
---------------------------------40--------------$201.30--------------$396.00 - $577.00
---------------------------------50--------------$253.20--------------$441.50 - $826.06
---------------------------------60--------------$398.81--------------$695.39 - $946.83
Couple making more--------------------Insufficient------------------Good---------------------
than $41,076/year--------Age-----------Coverage-----------------Coverage------------------
---------------------------------30--------------$428.72--------------$747.54 - $1060.80
---------------------------------40--------------$579.84--------------$884.00 - $1252.29
---------------------------------50--------------$586.87--------------$942.00 - $1717.43
---------------------------------60--------------$857.43--------------$1144.00 - $1906.63

Family, 1 child more--------------------Insufficient------------------Good---------------------
than $51,516/year--------Age-----------Coverage-----------------Coverage------------------
---------------------------------30--------------$618.15--------------$1077.85 - $1572.00
---------------------------------40--------------$792.48--------------$1390.71 - $1673.67
---------------------------------50--------------$845.23--------------$1475.49 - $1915.00
---------------------------------60--------------$1139.53------------$1984.00 - $2415.07

About this table - The column titled "Insufficient Coverage" is the monthly premium for the cheapest plan available within all categories. The reason I titled it "Insufficient Coverage" is that I believe it is just that! This plan has a $2000 deductible per person, or $4000 for a family. It only covers 20% of hospital stays after the deductibles are met. I don't believe this is a worthwhile health insurance plan because the premiums don't justify the high deductibles, and because what we uninsured really need is protection against a huge unexpected hospital bill. I included this option in the table, however, to be honest about the lowest cost plans that are available. The column titled "Good Coverage" is the monthly premium for a range of different plans that have low or no deductibles, and 100% coverage for hospital stays. To see all the plans available for every family size and age, you can go to www.mahealthconnector.org .

The data on this table was all taken from www.mahealthconnector.org . The residential zip code I used was 02135. The date of birth used for age 30 was 11/30/1978, age 40 was 11/30/1968, age 50 was 11/30/1958, and age 60 was 11/30/1948. The Industry Code used was 7211. The effective date used was April 2008.

What are the Penalties? In 2007, the penalty for not buying insurance is a fine of $219. In 2008, the fine will be raised to $912. The vast majority of the uninsured here in Massachusetts, who would be required to pay these monthly premiums, cannot afford them. Instead we will be paying the penalty, and still not having health insurance. It should also be noted that ensuring compliance, identifying the violators, and collecting the fine is another costly burden on the system.

How does this feel? Being one of the hundreds of thousands remaining uninsured here in Massachusetts, I can say that it is demoralizing. It feels unconstitutional. I am a good citizen! This is a "free" country where I have now become a criminal for not being able to afford health insurance. It's bad enough to carry around the stressful burden of not having health insurance, and now I have become unlawful, as well. I don't believe I was any burden on the system. I took responsibility for my health care costs. I have never visited an emergency room, and I have paid every doctor I have ever seen (actually probably 3 times more than insured patients are billed). Last month I was ill, and needed to see a doctor. I called a couple of doctors' offices, locally, but they would not see me without health insurance. I drove an hour and a half to a primary care office in New Hampshire to get a prescription for antibiotics for Strep Throat.

Hillary has not answered all the questions about her health care plan. But it is a MANDATED plan meaning we all have to PURCHASE or be under some penalty of law. She said at one point that she would garner people's wages to buy their coverage. She won't say exactly what the details of her plan will be, but this is what MANDATED health care looks like here in Massachusetts, and hers its likely to be similar. Besides the outrageous costs, and the fines, I think every American should be asking themselves if we want our government infringing upon on rights and freedoms in this way.
Related Links:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120173996744030445.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?_r=1&oref=slogin




Thank you Hillary for your smear campaign. This is representative of why I voted for Obama in NJ, I consider the tone of the campaign to be indicative of the character of the cantidate and at least as important as any positions that he / she holds.

Recently there was a local primary election where there were 4 contenders for two places on the ballot.  It went exteremely negative.  I sent a note to all four cantidates that their campaign had been very successful; they had convinced me that none of them deserved the position and I intended to vote for none of them in November.  

.
Another amazing distortion by the Clintons.  
Why she pulls even 30% of the vote in some states I'll never know.  
They are both toxic.... It's difficult to decifer the difference in attacks from them or McCain.  UNREAL !
Negative. Negative. Negative. Well, maybe Clinton thinks Obama deserves this for refusing to debate her, but why can’t she lay out her own vision for the future and discuss it in a positive way, rather than attacking Obama’s visions and intentions?  They could  compare and contrast their positions without resorting to name-calling and mocking. But then, they’d probably have to talk civilly to each other, wouldn’t they?  If you ask me, this looks a little like “unscrupulous demagoguery” on BOTH sides. Frankly, I’m beginning to doubt that EITHER of these candidates has a clue about what they’re doing, as much as they each say they love America and as good as both of their intentions may be.  I need some help here and soon.
So what is new about this story ?  Do you think that the Clinton's will ever learn that there is value in telling the truthg ?   I gave up on them years ago and now every time I see their lips moving, I know that some bs is on the airwaves.
Wow!  And this is before campaigning has started in these states (which has given Hillary a lead in every case compared to the final outcome)...

(Rasmussen polls)

Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Clinton
McCain 44,
Clinton 42,
McCain +2

Pennsylvania: McCain vs. Obama
McCain 39,
Obama 49,
Obama +10
Oregon: McCain vs. Clinton
McCain 45,
Clinton 42,
McCain +3

Oregon: McCain vs. Obama
McCain 40,
Obama 49,
Obama +9
Im an Obama supporter and I thought the mailer is fair when they really believe that his plan would leave some out. Obama mailer was fair too because Senator Clinton will make you pay for healthcare one way or another. She will take it from your paycheck.
So send out the mailers and people will make their decision. Are you for the one who says he is going to make it affordable. Or are you for the one who says I will make everyone buy it.
Again both mailers fair, let voters decide!!!!
"I am the underdog", confirms again Barack Obama is campaigning for illusion rather than solutions.

The choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is one between ILLUSION and SOLUTIONS
Clinton desperation.  The train is leaving the station without her.  Obama will win states #9 and 10 in a row on Tuesday and put it away on March 4 in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island.
Does Clinton UNDERSTAND that her behavior, and her Surrogates behavior, has made her an ICON on what NOT to do, how NOT to behave?

She is looking to DRAG OBAMA and ALL HIS BELIEVERS, fellow Americans, through the political MUD until he is no longer VIABLE and they are disgusted with the process and go home! They HOPE to drag it out, even though she could never best him in ELECTED Delegates! Dirty him up enough, and the nomination is HERS!

THAT is her PLAN!

The QUESTION IS...do Super-Dems step in and stand for the People?

Or do they stand BACK and let the Clintons destroy the Country in their own thirst for POWER?
people just do not understand that you cannot criticize anything about BO------it will turn into blowback.Truth has fled this campaign a long time ago-----Not important---a movement that is gobbling the democratic party into one big cult.
Hillary Clinton is making a big mistake if she thinks Wisconsin voters won’t see through the desperation that prompted this negative attack mailer. I feel sorry for her if she feels this is the direction she needs to take to get attention here. It won’t net her any votes in this “pretty how town,” for sure. Wisconsin voters might still welcome her with open arms if she would just pay more careful attention to what they have to say and what they really need.  Let’s hope it’s not 1993 all over again, Hillary.

The Obama campaign memo(before Super-Tuesday)...

Health Care

Obama and Clinton both have solid plans to improve our health care system. Their plans are very similar – they both reduce cost and provide universal coverage. The key difference is that Obama believes that the reason people do not have health insurance is because they cannot afford it, not because they do not want it. Clinton supports forcing people to buy health insurance even if they cannot afford it. Presumably under Clinton’s plan those who do not buy health insurance will be penalized in some way like paying a fine or having their wages garnished. After 17 debates, Clinton still has not revealed how she would enforce this mandate in her health care plan.

...more than 85 health care experts released a letter debunking Senator Clinton’s critique of Obama’s plan.
-----
MANDATES DON'T LOWER COSTS
Massachusetts Officials Concede Mandates Don't Lead To Universal Coverage. "Jon M. Kingsdale, executive director of the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the agency that markets the subsidized insurance policies...acknowledged that their universal coverage plan is not likely to be universal anytime soon. 'There's good evidence,' Mr. Kingsdale said, 'whether it's buying auto insurance or wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets, that mandates don't work 100 percent.'" [New York Times. 11/20/74]  

One In Five Uninsured In Massachusetts Will Be Exempt From The Mandate, Individual Mandate Would Only Apply To "Those Who Can Afford The Premiums." The Boston Globe reported, "Interestingly, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, the bureaucrats in charge of implementing the plan, decided that the universal individual mandate does not apply to everyone, but rather only those who can afford the premiums. Therefore, nearly one in five of the currently uninsured will be exempt from the law." [Boston Globe, 5/15/07]

OBAMA COVERS EVERYONE UNDER HIS PLAN

Washington Post: "It Could Be A Struggle For Clinton To Find Someone Who Wants Health Insurance But Doesn't Qualify Under The Obama Plan, Because It's Not Clear Such A Person Exists." The Washington Post reported, "For people who want to get health insurance and make an effort to do so, Clinton and Obama have almost exactly the same plan …It could be a struggle for Clinton to find someone who wants health insurance but doesn't qualify under the Obama plan, because it's not clear such a person exists." [Washington Post, 11/28/07]

MORE PEOPLE WOULD COMPLY WITH OBAMA'S PLAN

Antos: Obama's "Health Care Plan Could Actually Have A Better Compliance Rate" Than Hillary's. The New York Times reported, "Mr. Obama's health plan could actually have a better compliance rate. The 15 million who would supposedly be left out equal about 5 percent of the population — a smaller portion than are going without auto insurance, said Joseph Antos, a health policy expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a nonpartisan group." [New York Times, 12/5/07]

Reich: Obama's Health Care Plan Would Cover "More People" Than Hillary's. "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…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." [Robert Reich, 12/3/07]

CLINTON PLAN WILL NOT INCLUDE EVERYONE
Clinton Campaign Health Care Adviser: Clinton's Health Care Plan Will Not Include Everybody. "MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's health care advisers…acknowledges that the Clinton plan will not include everybody. 'Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100 per cent coverage,' he told me, when I reached him after the Las Vegas debate. 'But you can come very close.'" [Washington Post Fact Checker, 11/19/07]

Clinton's Plan Could Leave Out As Many As 4.5 Million People. The Washington Post wrote, "The system proposed by Clinton is more analagous to the government-subsidized private insurance system in the Netherlands, where roughly one and a half per cent of the population is estimated to fall through the cracks." One and a half percent of the US population is 4.5 million people. [Washington Post Fact Checker, 11/19/07; US Census, accessed 12/1/07]

Harvard Program On Public Opinion And Health And Social Policy's Robert Blendon: Clinton's Health Care Plan Isn't Going To Cover Everybody. "Robert Blendon, director of the Harvard Program on Public Opinion and Health and Social Policy [said that] 'At the end of the day…it's not going to be everybody.'" [FactCheck.org, 11/16/07]

Urban Institute's John Holohan: Clinton's Plan Won't Eliminate The Problem Of Uninsured Altogether. John Holohan, the author of a study conducted at the Urban Institute, a Washington-based think tank, does not believe that either the Clinton or the Obama plan will eliminate the problem of the uninsured altogether. "We would all be very happy if we got down to one and a half per cent," he said. [Washington Post Fact Checker, 11/19/07]


http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck2/2008/01/
Where's Senator Obama today?  Not in Wisconsin.

CNN is reporting a confirmed sighting today of Obama in North Carolina for a secret meeting with Senator John Edwards.

After all the criticism by Obama and his surrogates, including Governor Doyle, that Senator Clinton was not spending enough time in the state of Wisconsin and was leaving the state a day early, Obama opted out of spending time in the state both today and Thursday, ostensibly for "down days" at home in Chicago.

Where's Senator Clinton?  Toughing it out in the cold and snow.
Mandating that people buy a prescribed health insurance plan, with fines administered for non-compliance, is not the same as making sure that people have universal access to health care.  The mandated policies do not guarentee the kind of coverage they will offer.  We have all had experience with insurance policies that use every excuse in the world not to pay benefits.  And then to add insult to injury, there would be a fine for people if they chose not to waste their hard earned money on poor coverage.  This sounds like a boon to the insurance companies and not to the average uninsured citizen.  

The idea is to subsidize good coverage so that all people can afford insurance.  And even then, the problem is very complex when you consider what pouring more money into the system will do to health care prices (simple supply and demand economics).  Although I support universal access to medical care, Hillary's plan (as was Edwards') is quite simplistic in its approach.  This is not something easily solved by government beaurocracy.  Even Paul Krugman doesn't get it.

As usual, the Clinton campaign leads the way in demagoguery by making promises about an issue that they neither completely understand or worse yet, have little hope of getting passed in Congress.  Promise them everything, Eva (Hillary), just to get elected (and help Juan (Bill) achieve his goal of a third term).
Obama '08
It's funny.  The Clinton camp says "words don't matter" and yet, when it comes to Obama, they seem to think that just saying something makes it true.  Luckily, the American people have proved themselves smarter than the Clintons give them credit for.

The American voters are smart and well-informed and realize that forcing people to buy health insurance that they can't afford is not the answer.  Obama's plan aims to cut costs and make health insurance affordable, making it mandatory only in the case of children. Independent experts who have looked at the plans (unlike Krugman, who is a huge Clinton supporter) have repeatedly endorsed Obama's plan over that of Mrs. Clinton.  

In any event the Obama and Clinton plans are not hugely different.  So the real question becomes:  who can actually get it done?  NOT Clinton - who has supposedly been trying since the early 1990s and yet has failed miserably.  Obama is the one who CAN forge a working majority by appealing to Dems, Independents and Republicans alike - by evoking our better angels, not demonizing those who don't agree with him on every issue and nuance.
.... Bill and Hillary have already had 8 years ... and yes, the economy did well, partly because of their work and partly because of what happened in Silicon Valley. But they had 8 years to pass health care reform, and failed ... had 8 years to reform immigration, and failed ... had 8 years improve the long term condition of Social Security and Medicare, and failed ... Had 8 years to really do something about America's failing schools, and failed ... had 8 years to put in place an energy plan that would lead us to energy independence, and failed. They passed all these unsolved problems on to President Bush just like Bush and Reagan passed them on to them and just like Bush II is goiing to pass them on once again. Instead of solving these problems, the Clintons got bogged down in scandal after scandal and the situation with Lewinski that completely distracted them from their real responsibility. They had their chance ... they had 8 YEARS! It's time to turn the page and move on. It's time to stop the politics of destroying the other side. It's time to pay attention and acknowledge why half the country has such an unfavorable opinion of the Clintons. HALF THE COUNTRY! These people are not our enemies, they are our neighbors, our co-workers our fellow Americans and many of them absolutely can't stand the Clintons. It's time for real change, not 4 more years of what the country already rejected back in 2000.

--------
SEIU and Ted Kennedy fought for universal healthcare. They endorsed Barack Obama.
this  is not  a pesidential  campaign  it is a war
by the white  honchos  who  are supporting obama
ONLY TO gt even  with the clintons.i.e.  Kerry who
knifed edwards and clinton for his own  vengance...etc.  THAT POLITICS IS DIRTY S A GIVEN
UT TO USE THE PRESIDENCY  FOR PERSONAL PAYBACK  IS
OBCENEs..how sad for the country!!!
I find that the candiates have left us with a question. Who is going to promise the aliens the most while killing the hard working people. How long will we stand by and see the lawmakers give themselve a healyh plan that we can't afford and will never be given the chance to have.
Will the Clintons really take the position that if they can't have the nomination, no Democrat can remain standing?

The Clinton campaign has to know that this type of scorched earth tactic is bad for the Democratic Party as a whole.

Will anyone be able to break through the bunker mentality and let them know that this is plain bad politics.
Let's see.  It's two days before the election.  Time for another Clinton dirty trick.  Something tells me Wisconsinites have been following the campaign.

As they say, "If you can't say anything, go negative."  She talks about her experience, but one can't point out anything she actually succeeded in getting accomplished.

It is impossible for Barack Obama to win the Democratic nomination.  At least, the Clintons and their supporters just can't fathom it.  Hillary Clinton is smart, tough, and has all of an ex-President's political assets.  They can't make sense of it.

The problem is being smart, tough, and having all of the political assests of an ex-President does not entitle ANYBODY to major party nomination, let alone the Presidency itself.  It was just that type of corrupt thinking that allowed Jeb Bush to monkey with the voter rolls and put his brother in the White House.  We Democrats point at the Republican and tell them to clean up their act, and we don't bother to look in the mirror.

And so, we see Hillary Clinton desperately trying to do whatever it takes to save her campaign.  She's tough!  So tough, she won't hesitate to destroy everything she ever stood for.

Barack Obama is younger, smarter, has a plan for victory, and just sounds better.  In his short time in the Senate, he has written more law than Clinton.  There is no good reason anyone should back Clinton over Obama.
Lying and Cheating Clintons... pretty normal stuff for them.
I hope the people of Wisconsin have the good sense to listen to the facts.  If they do, the will vote for Senator Clinton.
The campaign not only get involve Hillary and Obama, it seem to me the Kennedy has more excitements than Obama, it tell me that his special interest has closed his eyes, because for such premature Senator, No long backgrounds and history can let American being review and trust, but WHY KENNEDY HAS SO INTERESTING FOR???
What to cry foul....?  Here is enough to cry about.

"OBAMA 'ROBBED' IN NY"
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02162008/news/regionalnews/obama_robbed_in_ny_97932.htm
Is this all Hilary has? Pretty lame.  She's obviously grasping for straws.  At least Obama's plan has a chance of getting enacted.  Clinton's nationalization plan will be unpalletable to 50% of Congress and it s a pipe dream.  How pathetic for her to turn to the politcs of fear and lies.  Is not America sick of these dynasty families?  This is not Rome..its the USA. THere should be no kings...
Do not brag about all the newspapers in texas endorsing Obama---they endorsed George Bush too---that really worked out well.Mu local newspapers endorsed Bush and Romney----wake up
I don't have a comment, but I do have a question: If Sen. Clinton has such a great plan for universal health care, why did  she fail to get anywhere with it in 1994?
I think maybe she was fighting name recognation as she is the under dog. Sounds like Kennedy is trying to make space between him and Obama. That is Kennedy politics.
Look, all these new tricks from the Clinton's will not change the voice of the American People which is WE WANT CHANGE we need somebody in the oval office new, even though, this person may not have all of the experience of the world, but at least will not be OLD POLOTICS SUCH AS BUSH // CLINTON // BUSH AND AGAIN THE CLINTON'S we can't that have to happen once again.....GO OBAMA TO WHITE HOUSE !!!!!!!  an additional I am a Republican but I am tired of the same old thing ......
Obma sent out mailers close to mail fraud . Is this maybe called double standards? Same old politics he says he will change.Maybe could start with himself and go home.Wife is waiting. Will she move to DC if he should get the nod? Be good enough for her than,maybe?First Lady sticks in my throat saying it.
Hello??? There are going to be some young people, and others, just getting by that don't want to be FORCED to buy healthcare. And no, I am not one of them. And yes, I do already pay through the nose for healthcare. But, I still believe that this country was founded on the freedom of choice. Hillary's plan will mandate the program. That is not freedom.
Note: For those you who are backing Hillary and don't own a dictionary, mandate means "forcing you" to buy it.  
What we are seeing here is desperation from a collapsing campaign. A campaign that has been badly planned and badly led by a divisive candidate who thinks she's entitled to the nomination. No such luck. Here's a drowning campaign cluthcing at straws.

Senator Clinton stated on television that she would GARNISHEE workers' pay to cover their health insurance. That's using force, people! Senator Obama says he'll enable everyone to be insured by making the cost affordable. That's a true leader with great ideas. That's the difference between a leader and an opportunist who will then rely on distortion.

Dump Billary now. Yes We Can.
Simply put...a universal health care plan is a health care plan that covers every single individual.  If a plan does not cover every single individual it is not universal!  So...is Ted Kennedy's argument that it is wise that a presidential candidate put something into place that is not what the candidate believes in??  What sense does this make?  If Obama is truly for universal health care, he would ensure and mandate for the people (where the people are not able to mandate for themselves) that every single American be promised universal health care.  Those are the types of promises that we need, not the empty promises of happy talk that he is have given so far.
Under which circumstances do you think health care is likely to become more affordable (cheaper):

a) The president dictates that everyone must buy health insurance whether they can afford it or not.

b) The president focuses on lowering the cost of health care so that everyone can afford it.

Hint: If you picked 'a', the insurance executives are laughing all the way to the bank.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

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

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=673452

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google