Hillary Clinton’s sudden attack on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer health care plan is a dramatic break with Democratic Party doctrine that the problem with single-payer is that it is politically implausible — not that it is a bad idea.
Single-payer, the Canadian-style system in which the government pays for universal health care, takes the health insurance industry out of the picture, saving huge amounts of money. But the health insurance industry has become so rich and powerful that it would never let it happen.
That was certainly Clinton’s position back in the early 1990s, when she was developing her doomed universal coverage proposal for her husband, Bill.
But in the ensuing years, both Clintons have taken millions of dollars in speaking fees from the health care industry. According to public disclosures, Hillary Clinton alone, from 2013 to 2015, made $2,847,000 from 13 paid speeches to the industry.
This means that Clinton brought in almost as much in speech fees from the health care industry as she did from the banking industry. As a matter of perspective, recall that most Americans don’t earn $2.8 million over their lifetimes.
Hillary Clinton’s record on single-payer dates back to 1993, when she was tasked to help formulate White House policy. According to the notes of former Clinton confidante Diane Blair, Clinton told her husband during a dinner in February 1993 that “managed competition” — a private health insurance market — was “a crock, single payer necessary; maybe add to Medicare.”
She eventually came to believe that the health care industry was too powerful to allow this reform to happen, and the plan she ended up putting together was not single-payer. Also in 1993, two physician advocates for single-payer lobbied her during a meeting at the White House. They said she told them they made a “convincing case, but is there any force on the face of the earth that could counter the hundreds of millions of the dollars the insurance industry would spend fighting that?”
The next year, in response to a question at a financial conference, then-First Lady Hillary Clinton said that if there was not a health care overhaul “by the year 2000 we will have a single-payer system. I don’t think it’s — I don’t think it’s a close call politically. I think the momentum for a single-payer system will sweep the country.”
Behind the scenes, Clinton continued to show interest in a single-payer plan. David Brock wrote that Alain Enthoven, a Stanford professor who had been brought in to help advise on health care, pushed back on what Brock deemed “her bias toward the single-payer plan.”
In 2008, a young medical student named Lisa Goldman queried Clinton about health care during an event she held in New Haven, Connecticut. Goldman told the Boston Globe that Clinton said she believed the plan to be politically unfeasible at the time, however if a bill establishing it reached her desk, she would sign it into law.
Since then, she has shifted to assailing the policy on its merits.
“We don’t have one size fits all; our country is quite diverse. What works in New York City won’t work in Albuquerque,” she told an assorted audience of 20,000 employees of the electronic health records industry on February 26, 2014; the speech earned her $225,500.
These words were later cited by business lobbyists in New York state earlier this year to argue that if even Hillary Clinton opposed single-payer, why should New York adopt it?
Hillary Clinton’s paid speech circuit came to an end as her campaign revved up. But for her husband, with whom she shares a bank account, it hasn’t. This summer, he was the keynote speaker at America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), the industry group that poured almost $100 million into trying to defeat health care reforms during the fight over the Affordable Care Act.
As part of her newly found opposition to single-payer on the merits, Hillary Clinton’s attacks on Sanders’ health care plan mischaracterize what he is proposing. For example, she has claimed that his plan, which relies on states to administer the single-payer plan, would turn “over your and my health insurance to governors.”
Warren Gunnels, the policy director of Sanders’ campaign, told The Week that actually this is not the case. If a governor chose not to participate, “citizens would receive coverage from the feds.” It’s actually the Clinton-backed status quo under the Affordable Care Act that is allowing governors to pick and choose who to cover.
Excellent article. Not sure Hillary Clinton has pivoted she has always pushed market-based, for profit healthcare. She decided to use the Karl Rove tactic of going after her opponents strength.
Margaret Flowers and Jill Stein, two doctors who are long term single payer activists, and both running for office as Greens, see FlowersForSenate.org and jill2016.com, published an article in Truthdig yesterday. They analyze the Clinton-Sanders healthcare debate. The look at the history of both candidates, remind people who awful Clinton’s health plan was — much worse than the ACA — and applaud Sanders for improving his single payer plan from the one he had introduced in the senate. They criticize both for saying ‘we need to build on the success of the ACA’ when in reality, and Sanders knows this, we need to end the ACA. The only thing we can build on is Medicare by improving it and expanding it to everyone.
This is the most popular article on Truthdig right now and has more than 100 comments with some intelligent discussion going on around single payer.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/finding_a_cure_bernie_sanders_hillary_clintons_health_care_20160121#
I don’t understand how we get the states to implement single payer. I remember their dismantling of the “great society” programs Lyndon Johnson got through Congress. I especially don’t understand given the corporate SCOTUS in place. Block grants (regardless of what you call it, this is what it will be) are what we hate about Ryan’s poverty plans.
Not to worry, Harolynne. We don’t need or want over 50 health care plans and over 50 payers. Focus on getting Bernie Sanders elected as U.S. President. He wants universal health care, Medicare for All, and he wants a PEOPLE’S REVOLUTION … so we will tell him early in the revolution that we want U.S. House H.R. 676, which is the Medicare for All Program with ONE fund and ONE plan and ONE payer.
We can and will get universal health care (the global term), Medicare for All (the U.S. term).
Forget about the term single payer, which has been a term that has caused confusion in the minds of many Americans.
Yes, Tony looks pretty lonely on here railing about the Clinton Foundation and how just one rater thinks they get an A. What he neglects to say is that Charity Navigator had the Clinton Foundation on a watchlist until just last month when they finally redid about 5 years of tax returns. Even thought they took them off the watchlist, Charity Navigator still won’t rate them. Not all the charity watchdog organizations think they’re just fine.
The Tony doth protest too much, methinks. It’s damn entertaining though; Maddow was more right than she knew in telling Hillary that her campaign “set its hair on fire.”
Tony – your candidate’s a war criminal before taking office. People with intact humanity don’t watch a video of a person being sodomized, tortured, and murdered, and react by laughing with glee, exclaiming “We came, we saw, he died.” But you keep drinking the kool-aid.
Anyone of any moral fiber who reads those Hillary Clinton e-mails has already made up their minds on that devil’s disciple!
Recommended reading:
The Mythology of Work, by Peter Fleming
The Devil’s Chessboard, by David Talbot
Second that: “The Devil’s Chessboard” is a great book. Eye opener.
It is nothing but the ‘Hot Air’ of extreme wealth that is floating her campaign. Hillary’s infidelity towards democracy is as obvious as a Melanoma on the end of your nose! How does anyone really hide behind the lies she is telling? She is depending upon the MSM to pave her way to the presidency, but in our day and age…the MSM is fighting its own battle to stay alive, with the fabulous INTERNET! Sorry again Hillary!
I sincerely hope that at least one reader has some objectivity and recognizes that Mr. Jalani is maliciously smearing the Clintons and misrepresenting the facts. The fact of the matter is that about 90% of the money the Clintons raised went to their PHILANTHROPIC foundation, which has an A rating from Charity Watch.org. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
The money gets paid to Clinton herself.
Who says the speaking fees go to the foundation? Inferring that they do is well…
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/16/occupy-democrats/liberal-group-claims-all-hillary-clintons-speaking/
She, like her husband, is famous for making $$ off of their Gov’t. policies. Meanwhile, the middle class disappears. It should be very obvious to voters. The establishment backs her and that alone would suggest that there is a reason. I am inclined to believe that she is in it to make more bad policies.
Can someone Photoshop Hilary Clinton in a Nascar Racing Uniform Suit with the patches of Corporations shes owned by, that would be epic!
I cannot afford the Affordable Care Act! It’s a huge boondoggle for the insurance companies but not for the people. This all rests at the feet of Bill and Hillary who sold us out to the insurance industry with “managed care” which actually created a multi BILLION dollar layer of managers who are USELESS and drive up the cost of health care. I was a health care provider who went bankrupt because of the Clinton’s chicanery. Hillary Clinton is less trustworthy than any snake.
Hillary should come clean. She is a lying politician. How dare she take over $2 million from Healthcare companies in speech fees since 2013 and then put down Bernie! I am so disgusted with her, the Democratic Party for looking to insulate her, Howard Dean for his lies. Thus should all be put in the open.
That is because it patently FALSE. This writer is shamelessly smearing Sec. Clinton. The fact is that the money raised from the speeches goes to the Foundation of which 85% goes STRAIGHT to charitable projects. This claim is supported by Charity Watch which gave the Foundation an A rating. Factcheck.org backs this as well.
That’s not what Clinton said in her disclosure form.
$11 million in her pocket.
No wonder she falsely attacks single-payer for the flaws of the Obamacare she would keep in place.
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jun/16/occupy-democrats/liberal-group-claims-all-hillary-clintons-speaking/
Readers should note how Tony (obviously a pro-Clinton troll) refuses to respond to the facts Zaid Jilani sets out that Hillary has been corrupted by healthcare financing. Tony’s insistence on pushing discredited talking points on Mrs. Clinton’s behalf is yet more evidence that she is wrong for America.
Are you freaking serious? Are you suggesting that Charity Watch and Factcheck.org are “discredited talking points”??????? You’re obviously a Sanders shill just like the author of this hit-piece! But thanks for making me laugh by actually showing how ignorant you are suggesting that Charity Watch and Factcheck.org aren’t credible!!
Hey Hal, how much is the Bernie campaign paying to smear people who correct false accusations directed towards the Clintons? Have you no shame? http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
I do not understand your point.
the rockeffelers have their foundation. how does millionaires drowning in money receiving more millions and using it as a PR stunt changes anything to the huge inequality and hypocrisy this article is highlighting. The clintons are despicable, end of story
Thanks, Zaid for underlining yet another link between Hillary and Corporatism (aka Fascism). It does not matter whether the Clinton foundation spends 85-90% of its income on good works, because the influence the donations buy is reflected in her lying speech.
The fact is that Hillary Clinton favors maintaining what has become the most expensive, poorest performing health care system among all advanced nations. Shorter lifespans, higher infant mortality, you name the objective criterion and the US lags. But we excel at high cost. So be assured that anyone who opposes a single payer system either has a monetary stake in keeping things as they are or is hopelessly brainwashed.
One more thing, if anyone cares to read the other side as to why Chelsea Clinton’s argument wasn’t so wrong, please read this article. http://m.dailykos.com/story/2016/1/13/1469215/-Chelsea-Clinton-wasn-t-wrong-after-all-neither-was-Hillary
So when the media is calling hillary the “winner” of the debates even though all internet polls chose Bernie, do you speak up about those hit pieces? The DNC holding very few debates on weekends and late in the evening opposite huge tv events? Outraged about that? Come one tony. Hillary is being protected by the establishment corporatist media.
Wow, so you believe that internet polls are reliable indicators of debate winners??? Thanks for making me laugh!! Yeah, sure..! By the way, if you truly believe that the mainstream media has not had a vendetta against the Clintons since the 1990s, then I got a bridge to sell you. Furthermore, in case it’s not to you but is patently obvious to any reasonable person of even average intelligence, the rightwing media is intentionally promoting Bernie so as to damage the Democratic Party. The NY Times had a piece about this rightwing tactic months ago, and if you think Bernie’s not benefitting from the rightwing hit-pieces purportedly from the “left,” then you’re completely clueless. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?_r=0
For anyone interested in the truth about the fact that Charity Watch gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating and FactCheck.org’s analysis found that 85-89% of the donations to the Clinton Foundation go STRAIGHT TO CHARITABLE PROJECTS, read this. Everyone reading this article should know that this writer is maliciously smearing a great charitable organization. Indeed, this writer is a right-wing enabler. I’m disgusted by this crap from Sanders supporters! Are there any Sanders supporters with any integrity?? http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
You realize the point of this piece is to talk about how Hillary is attacking Bernie right? And Hillary is right wing. She’s a corporatist Warhawk. This country is ready to move to the left, not further to the right, where Hilary and the establishment are.
What a hitpiece on Sec. Clinton. This trash is beyond pathetic it’s despicable. Hey Zaid, tell me why Charity Watch gave the Clinton Foundation an A rating and why politifact calculated 85-89% of the donations to the Foundation go for charitable purposes? You misrepresent the facts intentionally smearing a great foundation. You are despicable person and have no business writing for any publication. By the way, the following articles completely destroy your intentional misrepresentation.
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Become a part of the solution! Sign Up, Donate, Volunteer http://BernieSanders.com/
An all in one resource of information on the issues http://FeelTheBern.org
How to register to vote for Bernie http://VoteForBernie.org/
How to Phone Bank for Bernie http://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/phonebank http://bernie.to/PhoneBank
Yes! Please post your comment everywhere for everyone to see!
Did you actually look at the groups that she got those fees from? That’s not exactly Big Pharma – that’s a bunch of Medical Societies and London Drugs is a Canadian Drug Store. CANADIAN!
Yes, that’s how they funnel the money. What you need to pay attention to is the fact that she has received $millions for giving SPEECHES. I wonder what sort of “donations” the foundation has been taking in, too.
You’re a pathetic liar. 89% of the donations go for charitable purposes, you ignorant turd. Charity Watch, a nonprofit monitor of charities rated the Clinton Foundation an A. The fact that you would resort to smearing Clinton is DESPICABLE! http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
You see names with the words council or association. its groups of heavy hitters and rich people in the industry, or at least those people donate to those groups. It’s legal money laundering essentially.
Explain why the Clinton Foundation has an A rating from Charity Watch and Guidestar ranks the Clinton Foundation as a ‘GuideStar Silver Participant’? Instead of intentionally misrepresenting the Foundation’s charitable legitimacy, which is so easily refuted by credible sources, why don’t you just tell us what makes Bernie Sanders such a hero? http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
HRC modus operandi — nothing to be surprised about.
Be the change you want to see in the world, Gabe – say something surprising.
The fact that you would believe this crap only proves how gullible you are. This writer’s accusations are malicious and intentionally misrepresent the facts. If you want a read an accurate account of the donations, read this INDEPENDENT review. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Wow. More public policy at the public trough. If they plotted the trips of Hillary, would Bills trips line up, after a week or a month or two. Public Private Partnerships, where the Public is sold out. Want a bribe? Come speak to us, for a fee of course.
Take donations from banks, take donations from corporations, take donations from health insurance industry.
Then people will cheer for you and say you’re fighting against all of those things because “she’s a democratic woman!”
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY LOST MY FAITH IN THE AMERICAN PEASANTS
Hillary is the Corporate Candidate of Corruption. It is obvious that she is unworthy of the office of president of the United States. How she retains any support after the revelations that she instructed underlings to intentionally strip data from email and send it on an unsecured pathway is amazing. The woman reminds me of a female Richard Nixon.
The anti-Clinton machine really gets into gear when there’s a chance to vent about how evil and greedy the Clinton’s are. Folks disregard the political leap of trying to pass National Health Insurance in 1993. When that failed, HRC worked, as First Lady, with Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms to get the SCHIP programmed passed so that low-income children could access health care.
Try that today. Clinton also crafted legislation requiring drug companies to adequately test drugs marketed for children and later, as NY Senator, a bill assuring 911 responders would get adequate health care.
Clinton speaks on health care policy because she knows a lot about it and about government. No matter what the cynics say, the Clinton Foundation has done much good work in the area of nutrition and health for poor populations.
The fair questions Clinton asks concern the transition and implementation costs of instituting National Health Care at this time, and whether a state-administrated system is a good idea. National Health Care is a goal most Progressives support, but it is undeniable that there could be high initial costs and a lot of disruption– consider the reasons why single-payer just failed in Vermont! “Can we afford this right now?” is what she is asking.
Considering the creativity of state governments when it comes to administering voting rights, SNAP, medicare, schools etc., it is fair to question if NHI should be state administered.
Instead of examining details of a policy proposal, people love to vent their hate and anger in unproductive ways.
Is there anyone Matt Breunig thinks well of? Heard of any legislation he’s crafted, passed through Congress and implemented lately?
The irony of a Hitlery Youth cog referencing an “anti-Clinton machine” requires that a response be made.
Of course she knows alot about how to subvert rational health care policy to enrich the companies that have paid her 2.8 million to flap her jaws in their presence, otherwise they would not have paid her 2.8 million to tell them what they want to hear.
Misrepresenting the positions of the opponent that is currently leading her in polls in Iowa and New Hampshire are not “fair questions”, had they not been misrepresentations, there would havr been no question (Bernie’s proposal would not allow Republican Governors to circumvent his plan, unlike the plan she pushes to maintain)
The Vermont plan failed for the simple reason that Vermont is a small and aging state. In order to be workable, any coverage plan needs a large and diverse pool of people to cover. To even make the claim otherwise indicates that either you are extremely ignorant or intentionally deceitful.
I would agree with your statement that “Instead of examining details of a policy proposal, people love to vent their hate and anger in unproductive ways.” Indeed, this exactly what Hitlery’s dishonest characterization of Bernie’s proposal (as well as that of her hedge fund wife of a daughter) is, an uproductive venting of hatred that shows that she did not bother to look at the policy proposal she was lying about (or, perhaps she had looked at it, and knew she was lying, but figured her fans were too stupid to notice this – a strategy that has worked well for her so far.)
Journalists don’t push legislation through Congress, that is not their function. That you seem to not understand such basic things as this hives good insight as to how you could possibly support a mass murderer such as Hitlery.
(As I know you will try to undermine what I say due to my references to your goddess as Hitlery, I will point out that after supporting Nazis on the Ukraine to stage a violent coup, and then having the audacity to liken Putin to Hitler for, at the request of the justifiably frightened people of Crimea, annexing that territory after a heavily monitored referendum that overwhelmingly showed the will of Crimeans to be annexed, at a time that there legally was no such country as Ukraine. Hitlery very much earned the moniker that many people use to refer to her with)
Clinton’s opposition to single payer was not always policy based. In her book “Hard Choices” she argued it was politically unpopular in the 90’s. “We could never convince the majority of Americans…” she said. However, a poll from the period found overwhelming support.
During election season, Clinton cannot pretend to tell the rabble what they believe like she did in her book, hence the pretense of having a policy disagreement, that was instantly exposed to be a hoax.
It is absolutely despicable that the Sanders supporters would resort to this kind of smear mongering of a charity. I am personally disgusted by this. I encourage you to write to the editors of this publication and demand they issue an immediate retraction to this obviously defamatory hitpiece against the Clintons. http://www.factcheck.org/2015/06/where-does-clinton-foundation-money-go/
Private foundations have been used to manipulate since the 1930s at least. The expectation of money from donors and the general culture they foster are part of elite rule. Read “America’s 60 Families”
Of course Hillary Clinton isn’t worried about Bernie Sanders, she’s arranged a half-dozen interviews this week to clear that up.
Be careful what you wish for.
Single payer would allow us to have two Americas. One health care system for the elites and another for the proles. Boutique care would be very good but the basic care of the masses would be…well..basic.
We will see a lot of medical tourism to foreign surgical centers of excellence which will be beyond the grasp of Washington bureaucrats. Those who can’t afford to self-finance or buy private cover will have long wait times for mediocre care.
If government bureaucrats are willing to sacrifice veterans in the VA, what chance do you have?
How out of it do you have to be to imagine we don’t already have “two Americas” with “one health care system for the elites and another for the proles”?
Not only do we already have “two Americas” with “one health care system for the elites and another for the proles” but also in our current system many folks who have “insurance” cannot even afford the copays or their medicines. Under the current system many still do not have insurance. Under our current system people can still go bankrupt under the weight of bills remaining after their insurance pays out. Under single payer, everyone is guaranteed to receive basic healthcare. Everyone will be able to receive needed medications and not have to weigh whether to pay their utility bill or pay for their medications. Under the current system only the wealthy don’t worry about medical bills. Yours is a totally misleading argument.
Single payer might decrease the rise in cost but would dramatically change the landscape of medicine and you would not see the advances in care you see now. The ability to perform extensive procedures is less likely when you socialize medicine. If you need a liver transplant Lee you will figure that out or if you need highly specific bone marrow surgery or multiple other procedures both heart and lung. Be careful what you wish for or you’ll get nothing more than AM PM medicine with shots and warm wishes.
Stanley, what you say is false and it’s the argument that’s consistently being used to undermine public health care systems in all the countries where they work very well. I have lived under a public health system and have seen many friends and family get excellent care. Having no inflated monthly health insurance premium to pay and knowing that health care won’t bankrupt you, is a very great freedom which all Americans deserve. They have been lied to for too long.
Eugenia, I too have lived under a single payer system. I would call the care basic, not excellent. Most people of means also buy private cover to compensate for inadequacies in the system.
Ironically American consumers help subsidize the cost of many of the drugs and devices used by other nations with single payer systems. If and when the U.S. moves to single payer, health care costs will rise throughout the rest of the world.
I don’t know where you lived with universal health care but I know that Israel has universal health care and Israel is a leader in medical research and innovation. I actually think that getting big business, particularly pharmaceuticals and medical device creation out of for profit businesses would help improve health care. Too many research papers are being published that are directly or indirectly funded by medical businesses. Much of this research is biased toward the industry and has been show to be of unreliable quality. Medical standards of care are often decided based on a couple research articles. If we cannot have faith in our research because, it like our political system, is bought and paid for by corporate interests, how can we have faith in the standards of care promulgated by our doctors and medical care system. I see that getting money/profit out of medicine will be a very good thing for the quality of medical practice. Only those who truly want to serve and heal will be attracted to medical research and the practice of medicine – as it should be. I would also like to see profit taken out of the running of hospitals and nursing homes and long term care for the elderly. Being profit driven is not good for the people. The idea that a senior cannot afford to receive care at home but must leave their familiar surroundings to enter a profit making institution is anathema to our overall goal of compassionate and good care for our people. Our whole health care system from birth to death needs a huge overhaul. Only Bernie Sanders is willing to fight for changes that are in the best interest of the people, not big corporations. Hillary, on the other hand, has given up and made a deal with the devil. Her attacks on Bernie about universal health care are likely to come back to bite her given her previous strong support for it. And video of her criticizing Barack Obama for his attacks on her universal health care plan will make her look more like a flip flopper and a politician without integrity who will say anything to garner votes. People want a president they can believe in. Having Chelsea fear monger and spout untruths about Bernie’s health care for all plans may garner a few votes but it is more likely to solidify votes for Bernie and make those her are unsure regarding Hillary’s trustworthiness swing their support towards Bernie.
Julie, although I wholeheartedly agree with the bulk of what you say, there are two hlaring isdues with it.
First, you claim that only Bernie Sanders would fight for Single Payer, and this is false. Jill Stein has been more consistent than even Sanders on this front.
Secondly, you claim that this will make Hitlery look like even more like a flip flopper without a shred of integrity. Frankly, I do not see how, after being against a war she voted for, her Mubarak must stay but now he must go, her TPP is a gold standard but now its bad, her vote for DOMA followed by her support for marriage equality, etc ad nauseum, that it is impossible for her complete lack of integrity and focus group flip flopping to be more obvious than it was already.
John, I agree with you that Hillary is the consummate flip-flopper, but I think bringing Jill Stein into the conversation only serves to confuse the issue. We are talking about which of the two viable candidates in the Democratic primary would fight for Single Payer, because one of them will become the Democratic candidate. I’m sure you agree with me, that it would be infinitely preferable if Bernie Sanders was the Democratic nominee, not Hillary Clinton. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will vote for Jill Stein in the general election, but I don’t think there’s any point in bringing her into the discussion at this point.
Canada has the one-payer system, and we are a leader in medical innovation, in drugs and procedures.
Come’on Stanley, the 1980’s want their argument back. Europe and Canada have better health outcomes and they’re only paying a fraction of the price per capita.
french reader here. pretty shocked by the comment, our socialised healthcare being so much better than the US one for the huge majority of citizens.same for most of northern europe. your argument is baseless
Reason #401 why I will never vote for former Sec. of State/Sen. Hillary Clinton for any political office much less president of the US.
She is not part of the answer to any major problems that face America–trade, health care delivery, foreign policy-“war on terror”, energy dependence, climate change, criminal justice-mass incarceration, war on drugs . . . .
She fucking whiffs on all those broad categories and that’s why she isn’t even in the ballpark of me ever considering casting a vote for her.
They have no shame in that family.
As Matt Bruenig observed, the whole family is reprehensible. Beneath contempt, actually.
Yes, Sander’s proposal would raise taxes. And, yes, there would be no medicare or SCHIP, because they would be REPLACED by something more accessible to EVERYONE. There would also be no insurance premiums and no deductibles. People are overburdened with medical debt in spite of all our progressive (?) advances.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/11/upshot/12up-medicaldebt.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=1
And, even those with so-called “affordable” premiums (Gee, thanks, Obama) fear their deductibles/co-pays and avoid medical care as a result. To argue in favor of this kind of system – all the while taking money from the predators embedded within – is the worst kind of depravity. The fearmongering engaged in by Hillary – and Chelsea Clinton on her behalf while Bill inhales deeply from the money hookah – puts them in the same camp as the defense/natsec industries. The Clintons are no friend of the American public no matter what one’s political persuasions might be.
Not that single payer will likely even be an option to talk about during the next Presidents term, lets just let Bernie live in a pipe dream for a little while I guess, but handing control of a single payer system to the states seems like a recipe for disaster. We’ve already seen that same disaster play out when we tell states “Hey, here’s some free money to help people”. I’m confused as to why Sanders would even propose it.
Sanders isn’t proposing that, he is proposing Medicare for all run by the government. That is a Clinton lie, she is proving once again that she thinks we are stupid. She and Bill are both beholden to the Healthcare industry.
I have lost all respect for them both. Bill Clinton did more harm than good to the middle and lower classes. NAFTA killed the middle class and welfare reform went too far hurting countless millions of poor families. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for more of the same.