Hillary or Obama? The deciding issue for me

Back on Christmas Eve, I published Mark’s piece, which many people regard as the most moving, memorable story they’ve read in a long time on a blog:

Four Reasons, By a Father I’ve Come to Know

Obama is using too much GOP framing. I have no trust in him at all.

Could someone please explain to me how either of these two candidates’ health care proposals, “universal” or not, would have gotten that 17 year old young woman a liver transplant in time to spare her death-by-insurance company?

For me, the problem with Obama’s mailer is that it is less of an advertisement for his own plan as it is a blueprint for killing universal care altogether – even if he never intended it to do that. It strikes deep at the heart of the 15-year old antipathy toward Hillary because of the failed attempt at health care reform, and reinforces the GOP talking points about “Hillarycare.” If Hillary gets the nomination, this mailer is Exhibit One in the Republicans’ arsenal – to be used to show that not even other Democrats think she knows what she’s doing. And if he gets the nomination, he has still shot himself in the foot.

I get it as a campaign tactic, but that’s the shortest of short-term thinking. Long term, it shows a remarkable lack of what Obama claims to have a lock on – the kind of judgment it takes to be President. It makes me question his committment to universal care – and makes me think he needs to seriously consider whether he has any right to say that he’s the one who will be “right on Day One,” because this couldn’t be more wrong.

As a health care provider, I was INFURIATED with Obama’s tactics. I used to work for a health policy organization that was on the front lines in the ninties working with the Clinton administration to get universal health care passed. They, along with Hillary, poured their blood, sweat, and tears into this effort. The Clinton administration put a lot on the line to get this through, and they paid dearly when it did not pass. Did she do everything right? No, but she has shown an incredible willingness to learn from her mistakes, and her failures have humbled her and made her work even harder, and that is why I believe she is the BEST person to get this done.

Her efforts, and those of health care advocates, largely failed because of the right-wing attack machine that accused her plan of being “socialized medicine.” They actively fought to undermine the very concept of universal health care, not just the Clinton health plan itself. What is the end result? Our health care system has continued to spiral out of control and there are 47 million Americans who have none.

We NEED universal healthcare and short of single payer, the only way to get it done is through a mandate. If you just offer guaranteed issue regulations, which both Hillary and Obama offer, meaning that anyone who wants health care can get it from insurers, you will have a system that results in a death spiral. Healthy people will opt to stay out of the system until they need health care, while only the sickest will buy into the system. We know this model does not work and it is one of the reasons that high-risk pools do not work and are prohibitively expensive. And the statement he made yesterday about forcing people to pay back premiums if they do wind up getting sick is just foolish and it totally undermines his argument.

He argues that people don’t get health care because they cannot afford it, and in the same breath he argues that he will just make them pay back the money if they need emergency care…except that line of reasoning makes no sense. And if he is only going to force people who in theory could have afforded the insurance, then where do we draw that line? How much money do you have to make to be able to afford health care? His plan is a step forward, but it is just not sustainable.

He cares more about himself than actually achieving Universal Health Care. The fact that he would be willing to throw the entire universal health care movement under the bus for his own short term political gain is just disgusting to me, and more importantly, shows me that he is simply not a smart politician.

Hillary is always thinking ahead, and she knows her politics. Even if we ultimately cannot get mandates passed, you still have to start with the best possible plan because people will chip away with it. If you start out leaving 15 million people out, then how many more have to go also to get to a politically viable alternative? He does not get how the game is played, and yes, it is a game – just because he wishes it were not does not make it so. DC doesn’t really work on hope.

His actions today infuriated me in a way that I have never been infuriated before. I wonder if he stopped to think for one second about people who are uninsured and what universal health care could mean for them. I work with patients every day who are struggling with insurance issues, and I am sick and tired of people not being able to get the care and the medication they need because of insurance issues. I am sick and tired of calling and fighting with insurance companies about whether the person has active coverage, needs pre-authorization, and all of the other BS that comes along with health care in this country.

Hillary gets it in a way that Barack clearly doesn’t, and probably never will.

Clinton
Why? Experience and her ability to be “fast on her feet” with an appreciation of the facts.

Obama agrees with the George Bush policy of missle strikes into Pakistan. And he likes a smart war? That is dumb. Are we to get more of this? Mano e Mano with Chavez? The folks in Iran? How can you be against the Iraq war and vote for funding it?

Obama asks us to dream big and then in the same breath says our “dreams” are to be defined on what can be made affordable. He has said repeatedly “I can’t tell what the economy will be like in 09″.
No stimulus package known to man is going to get us out of the depression that is coming gang. What are his policies beyond the fuzzy warmth of chanting “yes we can”? Ok. You can do what and how?

When you get to the;
NSA,CIA,FBI,Justice Dpartment,OLC,NRC,CIFUS,
Pentagon, Indian Affairs, NASA,US contracting offices, Treasury,State, and countless departments related to Continuity of Government, Obama what will you find. Even more to the point, will you know where to look?
Can you pick up the phone and get those people you asked to dream to stop dreaming long enough to act? Act in the interest of the United States or will it be for the Nuclear power industry when they come knocking for their pound of flesh?
Obama do you know where to start in ridding this country of it’s corporate “yellow snow”?

If you don’t have a clue about the 09 enonomy, what about the 600 billion dollars in subprime morgage resets coming in the next year don’t think the spirt of moral homelessness will be of epic proportions and your selling dreams made of ductape?? (I can almost hear the sound of Langaliers in the distant.)

Who is going to do the commander in chief-national security gig better? Hands down Hillary.

Three items that finalized it for me.
1) the statement his camp made about the Florida vote being meaningless.
2) His constant reliance on the prophet mode of communicating. Forgive me but Hitler came to power using this form of rehtoric and I find it dispicable being preached to by someone running for political office.
3) The 100′s of people you say you did not know about in the So. Chicago freezing their ASSESS off and who your moral and sworn obligation was to represent while you at a minimum just looked the other way while others made money from the misery of it.

Thank you for reposting this lovely piece. It’s the best I’ve seen yet for why someone supports a candidate. Incredibly powerful!

“Of course I also admire…her long-time commitment to children’s and women’s issues, her experience and knowledge in international affairs, her willingness to fight for what’s right”

Oh yeah, and how well the women and children of Iraq thank her for her eight-years of support for her husband’s policy of regime change by genocidal strangulation of the people – a policy of which women and children were by far the greatest victims. And they are also grateful for her all-out support of George Bush’s destruction of their country – support that was strong, and enthusiastic, and lasted just until it became clear that she could not expect to win the nomination unless she backed off (being booed by supporters at her own rallies probably helped her start singing a different song, too). They are very, very glad she fights for what is “right”.

Serbian women and children also recognize her great concern for them and their issues, and her willingness to fight for what is “right”.

And Palestinian women and children recognize that she is absolutely right to support everything Israel does. Women and children of Ghaza are particularly eager to compliment her on her commitment to their issues, and recognize that in her strong support for Israel’s imprisoning and starvation of them she is definitely fighting for what is right.

And Lebanese women and children were entranced with her incredible commitment to their issues back in the summer of 2006, when she gave her full support to Israel as it put them through 33 days of hell that resulted in the deaths and maiming of hundreds and hundreds of them. Oh, yes, and then there are those land mines that keep killing and maiming Lebanese children, the locations of which Israel refuses to reveal. And another gift that keeps on killing, the cluster bomblets with which Israel carpeted southern Lebanon AFTER the cease fire agreement was reached, and which kill or maim a couple of Lebanese children a month. Oh, yes, her willingness to fight for what is right and her commitment to women and children is very evident to Lebanese women and children.

Oh yes, and her great knowledge and experience of foreign affairs that has led her to consider military violence a valid means of imposi ngAmerica’s will on other countries (not to mention her belief that it is right for America to impose its will on other countries in the first place).

Didn’t Hillary say about the same thing the other evening during the debate when she was asked about her Iraq war vote?

Wurmser argued that the Bush administration believed there were significant geopolitical reasons for going to war and offered a fanciful explanation that broke totally new ground. Wurmser said that Cheney, Feith, and Bolton were convinced that U.S. containment of Saddam Hussein was failing and that the controls to keeping Saddam Hussein from expanding his regional influence were “dying.” As a result, the Iraqi leader was in position to exploit the rising anti-Americanism in the region and to “break out” from the sanctions strategy and the no-fly zones to lead a “rogue coalition of nations to expel the United States from the region” and even “to wage war against the United States.” The failure of the United Nations and multilateralism in general made a compelling case for U.S. intervention, according to Wurmser.

Have you ever sent Hillary a letter and let her know what you think? Perhaps being critical is followed by communication and a better understanding? Just saying, if your voice is to be heard, the people you hold in comtempt should have the benefit of a chance to respond.

Shirin,
Do you think Obama’s cousin in Kenya was right to challenge election results via violence?

How would that fit in with the above examples.

Also, you’re aware that depleted uranium exposure killed more people in Iraq than did sanctions, the sanctions effort was still mitigated via insertion of NGO.

You’re aware effective sanctions were in themselves a roadblock to future intervention, one that was of course abolished in the wake of 9-11, but one that itself was a hedge vs. the war hawks.

Regime change was a pretty sorry excuse IMO, and the world is finding out how effective leader Iraq’s prior man was. That doesn’t change the fact he offered a buyout in return for exile and Hillary had no role in its rejection, the original AUMF actually secured its goal.

The Security Council was ignored, the war was started two days ahead of schedule as an affront to them, and that is clearly Hillary’s fault?

More bloodshed would have resulted in Serbia had her husband not acted, and you must remember that Arafat himself turned down a peace plan that could have worked to the advantage of all parties before the current White House occupant arrived to fumble the issues for Palestine.

Those two items alone could have played to the goal of shared interests in the region helping secure one another’s better needs and then move them forward to fast track working arrangements with the EU, OAS, and other alliances.

You’re not going to lay the wreath of warfare at her feet for something that was in action before her arrival and that was accelerated after her husband’s departure form the Executive.

The Clinton White House made amazing progress for the entire region and got little help from its own side in Congress(including outright resistance) and the same from interests abroad.

It’s all right for letting Al Qaeda go unchecked, were they wrong to go after elements supporting their infrastructure? You are aware they could have helped keep the staunch war hawks in check by limiting reactionary response to the reactionaries opposing the west by effective measures against the eladership structure?

Check the body count off pre-emption doctrines between the two administrations. There’s no comparison.

MarkJay, the contribution comparison, with opt-out plans, is the heart of the difference between the two.

Your comparison of the medical plan opt-out to social security is the most important point in debate made that I’ve read to this moment in time.

Extremely powerful. Touches both heart and mind.

NB,

Waht a smart intelligent cooment. There is a woman who lives near my aunt in Mass. Until Mass passed their healthcare plan, she was a lousy $125.00/yr in income over the limit for assistance. The miserable health plan she could actually afford, forced her to go into Boston for care, as none of the local providers would honor that health plan it was so bad.

While Mitt Romney was governor, he told her to sell the house she had owned for 55 years and use the proceeds to get a better health plan. Under the new Governor, she now can get local care and she still has her house.

This impacts so any people on so many levels – not just the 47 Million uninsured!

Tea,

Very well said.

Hitler is not the only one who smoozed his way to power. Even the latest scapegoat, Saddam, was charming, well spoken, multilingual etc. He was also very, very accommodating to his masters, until he took over and elminated them.

Yet he wrote books, had contests for songs and poetry and other “feel good” mechanisms for the Iraqi masses. He also made sure no one starved to death, and his food distribution system is still a model for the Middle East.

Also, Iraq was secular, with a good education system for both males and females. Today its a disaster.

This comment of yours is so accurate the situation really torques me:

The 100’s of people you say you did not know about in the So. Chicago freezing their ASSESS off and who your moral and sworn obligation was to represent while you at a minimum just looked the other way while others made money from the misery of it.

I have lived/worked in NYC, Boston, Florida, Philadelphia to name just some.

No matter how beaten down by poverty or lousy education, people in Roxbury(Boston slums), Harlem, Market Street in Philly, Chicago, Compton district of LA, or Tampa Bay area in FL (and believe me those people STILL operate on keep their bodies healthy and Minds weak in the education system) they ALL know that the only way to get Heat, Electric, plumbing, or toilets fixed is to contact their State Representatives and yell until the State Rep takes action.

Unless Obama was completely zoned out all the time, there is NO WAY he could not have known.

shirin,

I absolutely agree with you – especially on the Palestinian issue. I think the stranglehold that AIPAC has on DC is an abomination. They literally buy OUR politicians.

After the hype of this election subsides, I see three areas that should be addressed like yesterday:

1. Reverse the FCC rulings of the last two decades on Media ownership (which went from 50 owners in 1983 to 5 today), and let them have to actually compete again. When the decrease in profits becomes intolerable for the MIC, who currently own the last 5 media conglomorates, it will be able grow into a totally separate entity with REAL reporters who do their jobs.

2. Force Presidential Campaigns to be Federally funded, then move onto Senate then House – this eliminates the current funding system, and forces politicans to be more accountable to the people. Russ Feingold actually has a pretty good idea on how to do this, And yes I am aware money will always find a way-but if we had a decent Media that could report which 527′s are owned by who, and shorten the campaign time to 2-3 months like they have in other countries, the influence of big money is well diluted.

3. Force ALL groups like AIPAC, or The American Turkish Council to register as foreign agents, regardless of the citizenship of their active members. If Americans choose to advocate for foreign countries, rather than their own country, then they should be penalized like any other foreign advocacy groups. Again, with a decent Media, the American people will become aware of the funding and control these groups have, and will not be happy. It will also serve to at long last allow Americans to become aware of the War Crimes committed against the Palestinians.

Lord there is so much in this country truly broken, it is difficult to establish the first 5 priorities.

Agreed

Mr. Murder,

As always – pointed and well said.

First I’d like to point out that, when the Bus$hCo Crime Cabal is in charge, the numbers of un-necessary deaths always seem to increase exponentially.

Secondly, I think the almost total destruction of the population of Fallujah was caused by White Phosphorous, not depleted uranium. Time will tell which chemical causes the most long term effects.

Just comparing long term mortality trends with the presence of DU.

DU was a war atrocity in and of itself, using white phosphorous on civilians, without even proving beyond probable cause that suspicion was justified.