Mandates are Political Suicide in '08? That's why Obama's health plan is better

by: Regenman12

Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 23:44:02 PM EST

Yet despite these differences, most experts agree that the plans are similar in their most striking elements. Both Clinton and Obama advocate creating a new federal group insurance program. Anyone happy with their current health insurance could keep it. Otherwise, they could join the national insurance pool, which, the candidates like to point out, offers the same benefits that members of Congress enjoy. Edwards has a similar national public insurance plan, but would also create regional pools of private insurance companies, increasing the number of choices available.

Seddon Savage, president of the New Hampshire Medical Society, noted that all three plans believe health care should be part of the "social contract of society." All three emphasize cost controls and cost savings, and focus on disease prevention.

"The details of the programs have some minor and some significant differences, but what all the plans are trying to do is set a direction, set basic principles," she said. "I suspect if any one of these candidates is elected, we'll have a commitment to addressing these issues. We'll have a national dialogue, and details may change."

John Thyng, campaign director for the advocacy group New Hampshire for Health Care, said with the exception of the mandate, the three plans are virtually the same.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID...

 

Robert Reich and others state that mandates will not ensure universal coverage, that at least 15% will still be uninsured becasue they cannot afford it.

in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves.

Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so.

HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it.

I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people."

One aspect of the healthcare debate that has divided Democratic candidates is whether individuals should be required to purchase coverage - Clinton and Edwards favor a mandate, while Obama does not. A slight majority of Democratic voters who were polled - including pluralities of Clinton and Edwards supporters - opposed such a requirement.

Opposition to the notion of an individual health insurance mandate -- "should individuals be required to buy health insurance" -- is greatest among the less well-educated and downscale voters that are the core of Clinton's base in New Hampshire and elsewhere.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_stump/archive/2007/1...

AFSCME's new radio spot and more quick media notes

by: Tony Schinella

Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 22:12:17 PM EST

Mrs. Clinton lays claim to two traits nearly every day: strength and experience..Where's the Beef?

by: Granitdamit

Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 18:40:28 PM EST

As a Junior Senator from N.Y she has not shown the type of strengths or conviction that are true to the Democrat party.
In my opinion she has complied with and supported GW Bush in the Iraq war and voted  to intensify America's continuing confrontation with Iran.  Very hawkish indeed, in my opinion.

Today I looked up information on the internet, to add to what I have listened to in the debates and found written or quoted in books, and the strengths or experience she claims to have just don't add up.

Strength
Something I found today.

As first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton jaw-boned the authoritarian president of Uzbekistan to leave his car and shake hands with people. She argued with the Czech prime minister about democracy. She cajoled Roman Catholic and Protestant women to talk to one another in Northern Ireland. She traveled to 79 countries in total, little of it leisure; one meeting with mutilated Rwandan refugees so unsettled her that she threw up afterward. But during those two terms in the White House, Mrs. Clinton did not hold a security clearance. She did not attend National Security Council meetings. She was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing. She did not assert herself on the crises in Somalia, Haiti and Rwanda.
From the Mark Healey piece 12-26-07  
The Long Run

Experience

First, according to Susan Rice, a National Security Council senior aide and State Department official under Mr. Clinton Mrs. Clinton was not involved in "the heavy lifting of foreign policy." Ms. Rice also took issue with a recent comment by a Clinton campaign official that Mrs. Clinton was "the face of the administration in foreign affairs."

"Making tough decisions, responding to crises, making the bureaucracy implement decisions that they may not want to implement - that's the hard part of foreign policy," Ms. Rice said. "That's not what Mrs. Clinton was asked or expected to do as first lady."
From the Mark Healey piece 12-26-07  
The Long Run

 Mrs. Clinton has declined to divulge any private advice she gave her husband.

With all the back fires Hillary has had during her primary campaign,the Norman Hsu fund raising problem, the pre arranged questions in Iowa by her staff members, the idiotic leaks and attack's on other democratic candidates, all her C+ debate performances,  and  that she gave the wrong date to caucus in Iowa to supporters, I have come to following conclustion ....
Mrs. Clinton got where she is today  because she married Bill Clinton.
He opened the doors; she walked through them.

So where's the Beef?  

Hilary Will NOT Enact Universal Coverage in Her First Year or First Term

by: Helenann

Wed Dec 26, 2007 at 15:42:43 PM EST

This is significant, beacuse as anyone who has studied history understands, a new President must act swiftly upon taking office if s/he is serious about major social reform, like universal coverage.  The chances for success in social policy drop precipitously if a bill has not been introduced into the Congress within the first three months of a new Presidency.  Edwards and Obama understand the need to get straight to work on universal coverage if they have any hope of actually enacting a significant piece of legislation.

Hilary Clinton, in sharp contrast to Obama and Edwards, has neither pledged to work towards universal coverage in her first term, nor has has committed to start working on it in her first year.  When pressed, she did not include it on her "to do list" her first year as President.

In fact, what Hilary Clinton has said publicly is that she will commit to getting universal health insurance "by the end of her second term."  You heard it right.  By 2016!  

My guess is that those who so strongly support Hilary's health care plan are not aware that she intends to take two terms to get to universal coverage.  I find this to be quite an unusual statement for several reasons.  The most important one being that she is assuming that 1) she will win the primary, 2) she will be elected in 2008, and 3) that she will be re-elected for a second term.  

Sorry those of you who are without insurance.  You are going to have to wait nearly another decade to get health insurance if Hilary is President.  At the current rate at which the uninsured have been growing, this could mean that we will have 8 million more uninsured people by 2015 or 55 million Americans without health insurance by the time Hilary gets around to solving the problem (the rate of the uninsured has been growing more than 1 million a year for the last 7 years - source is the US Census, Current Population Survey).  And if costs have not leveled off by 2015, none of us will be able to afford health insurance anyway.  Not to mention the important point that most Presidents do not have much, if any, political capital left at the end of their second term to do anything as significant as universal health care.

What is my proof of these seemingly alarming statements from Senator Clinton?

I can't remember the first time I heard her proudly announce that she will enact health care reform "by the end of my second term" but I have found a reference to it by one of the moderators in the health care debate held last March and have printed her verbatim response below.

I have also attached the responses each candidate made in the very last debate about what they would accomplish in their first year in office.  You will see that, again, while Edwards and Obama say they will get to work on the problem of health insurance coverage in their first year, Hilary says no such thing.  The only thing she promises to do in her first year with respect to health care is to sign the Children's Health Insurance bill.  I don't think anyone would call this leadership on health care.

Here is the evidence:

In the Presidential Forum on health care held on March 24, 2007, the moderator, in questioning Senator Clinton, refers to the fact that Edwards and Obama would get universal coverage in their first term and refers to Hillary's prior statement that would "promise universal coverage by the end of her second term".  Hilary made the original statement before this forum and if anyone can find it, please send it along.

KAREN TUMULTY: Senator Clinton, we're out of time, but I did want to ask you one last quick question. Several candidates we have heard from today have said that they think they can get to universal coverage in their first term. You have suggested that it could take two terms. It could take eight years. Are they being realistic?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think we all are going to try to start as soon as possible. You know, it took three years to implement the Medicare prescription drug benefit. Well, you know what, I didn't vote for it, but, you know, and this administrative doesn't exactly have the greatest track record on competence, so I can't judge exactly by that, but it took a while.

I think we can move forward quickly, but make no mistake about it, this will be a series of steps. But let me end where I started. We're all for universal health care. You know, we had a big debate about it in '93, '94. That debate is over. The Democrats stand united. We are all for universal health care. What we have to do is persuade the country not only to vote for a Democratic president, we have to help elect a Democratic Congress.

Because if you look at the politics of this, and I know that people around are not thinking about politics because that's kind of a downer, but if you look at the politics, we got stopped in the Senate in 1994 by a filibuster. You know what that means is unless you get 60 votes, which mean usually unless you've got more than 60 Democrats you've got to get some Republicans.

We got stopped because they basically said, we're not going to do it. And we couldn't break it and that was the end. We can't get enough Republicans right now to vote with us to try to begin to end the war in Iraq. We can't. We're trying.

Every single week we come up with something else to try to get them to vote with us. But the way the Senate works, you've got to get the 60 votes. So that's why I said I sure hope you elect me president, but I want more Democrats in the Senate, and I want a movement to support health care reform. And we're going to need it so let's make sure that's what we do in the next two years

Here are the statements about what each candidate said they would do in their first year in office with respect to health care reform in the last debate?

The moderator's question:

WASHBURN: Thank you.
In light of the big needs and the financial realities we've talked about up to this point, what realistically do you believe you could accomplish in your first year as president?

We're going to go down the line. I'll ask you to each keep this to 30 seconds.

Senator Obama?
Number three, we're going to have an open conversation with all the key players in the health care arena to make sure that we are moving forward on a plan to provide coverage to every single American, and to save money so that we can actually afford it over the long haul.

WASHBURN: Senator Edwards?

EDWARDS:  I'll begin the process of fighting for health care reform -- universal health care

Senator Clinton?

I'll ask the Congress to send me everything that Bush vetoed, like stem cell research and the Children's Health Insurance Program, and begin to prepare my legislative and budget proposals for the Congress, because you have to move quickly in order to get off to a good start, and that's what I intend to do.

The choice is yours.

OBAMA '08

Obama well positioned, takes lead in latest Globe /UNH Poll

by: Mike Hoefer

Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 22:16:40 PM EST

The Globe/UNH released new polling on the 23rd. The wonks may want the full 58 page report with cross tabs in PDF format

This is the first UNH/Globe poll to show Obama in the lead. Last month Clinton was up by 14pts, This month Obama is up by 2.

While there are plenty of undecided voters out there (40%, a good reminder about the opportunities we have over the next 2 weeks) I'll explain below why Barack Obama is perhaps best positioned to pull in a majority of these undecideds.

Survey MOE=4.9%

Overall: Although he does not lead every category, Senator Obama is the ultimate choice of 30% of those surveyed. And there is Big Mo in his direction in the areas he does not lead.

Obama 30(+9), Clinton 28(-7), Edwards 14(-1), Richardson 7(-3)

Most Trustworthy: Obama leads this category. 70% more trustworthy than Clinton both vectors are working for him.

Obama 29(+3), Clinton 17(-2), Edwards, 16%9(-3)

Can bring needed change to US:

Obama 34%, Clinton 28%, Edwards 12%

Has Shown Best Judgement: It's not your experience but what you do with it

Obama 29%(+5), Clinton 23%(-1) Edwards 13%(-2)

Dem Candidate Least Likely to vote for: Edwards high negatives surprised me. If 80% of the undecided are open to Obama that is a good sign for his campaign in these closing weeks.

Edwards 35%, Clinton 32%, Obama 21%

Should Individuals be Required to buy Health Insurance: This is the political Gem for Obama. He should frame other heath plans as "Universal Manadates", his offers choice and opt out.

No 54%, Yes 35%

Even the categories that, as Obama Supporter am hesitant to mention, are trending well for the Senator from Illinois.

Which Candidate has the best chance to defeat the Republican Nom:

Clinton 40(-13), Obama 29(+11) a 24 pt. swing

Which Candidate is the strongest leader:

Clinton 38%(-7), Obama 24(+7) a 14 pt. swing

It is going to be a very interesting 2 weeks here in the Granite State.

Shopping for Health Care Reform

by: Helenann

Tue Dec 25, 2007 at 18:54:38 PM EST

Many people in New Hampshire have already made up their minds about whom they will vote for in the upcoming primary and there is no point in fighting with them about the details of one health care reform proposal over the other. I have decided to stay out of the snowball fights!

But there also many people in New Hampshire who have not made up their minds and there are others for whom their decision just hasn't jelled yet.  This diary entry is for these last two groups.  I'd be happy to answer any questions and provide citations for the points I make. But I do not view this diary as a scholarly tome.  It is a blog based on 30 years of health policy research and experience.  

Health policy is my passion, and an important part of my commitment to social justice, and my hope for a better future for all Americans.  Without good health, it is difficult to hold down a job.  Without good health, it is hard to be a good mother or father to your children.  Without good health it is hard to find health insurance and, even if you have insurance, it is probably hard to get the care you need.  Health is necessary for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  It is a fundamental human right and the United States of American should start acting on this truth and guarantee all Americans access to affordable, high quality, comprehensive health care when they need it.  This is the underlying goal of health care reform for all of the Democratic candidates running for President.

There are approximately 47 million uninsured people and a "guestimate" of another 16 million Americans who have health insurance but are "underinsured."  In the last year these folks have discovered that when they get sick or injured their insurance policy does not cover the treatments they need and the insurance company will not pay for their medical expenses.  The underinsured are defined as those who spent more than 10% of their total annual household income on medical care last year; many of these families went bankrupt.  These are the people that Michael Moore featured in his movie SICKO. We need to understand that simply extending lousy health insurance to more Americans is not the answer to our health care problem.  

Every American deserves health insurance that will promote, improve, and maintain their health at a cost that is affordable, with providers who deliver the most effective and efficient care available, in a way that is equitable, secure, and respectful of individual liberty and autonomy, enabling Americans to make the choices each of us thinks are best for us.  It is from this framework that I assess the candidates' plans.

What is truly remarkable about the health care reform proposals put forward by Edward, Obama and Clinton is how very similar they are in their overall framework.  In working with the Congress, any of these plans could form the basis of comprehensive reform.  The details will ultimately be worked out in the Congress so there is little point in getting our knickers in a knot over them at this point.   However we should pay attention to WHEN the candidates plan to enact universal coverage.  Edwards and Obama have promised to get to work with the Congress in their first year in office.  Hillary has promised to enact universal coverage by the end of her second term. The only thing she promised to do on health care in her first year is to sign the Children's Health Insurance bill. If you are shopping for a candidate who will enact comprehensive health insurance in their first term, Hillary Clinton is not your candidate.

What is different this election cycle is not so much the candidates' approaches to getting to universal coverage, but the complete paradigm shift that their proposals as a group represent.  The model they have all put forward represents a complete break from the proposals of the past.

As a result, it has been very difficult for most Americans, journalists, and political pundits to understand what these proposals.  Much has been made of some of the details in the plans, but rather than debate the merits of one detail or another, what may be more helpful is to understand how these details distinguish each candidate's overall philosophical approach to getting to universal coverage.  

I will first lay out the framework for the three proposals and will than discuss their fundamental philosophical differences.

No longer are any of the candidates proposing a "one-size-fits all" health care reform of the past.  None of them have proposed a single payer system, and yet each of them offers the choice of a single payer plan ("a public plan like Medicare") in their menu of options.

No longer are any of these candidates proposing a play or pay system, where everyone who works would get their health insurance from their employer or their employer would pay into a pool to subsidize their coverage, and yet each of them has an employer pay or play component in their plan.

None of them represent monstrous expansions of public programs (like significantly expanding Medicaid for all of the poor and the Sate Children's Health Insurance Program to all kids and their parents), and yet each of them has some expansion of these public programs in their plans.

None of them prescribe managed competition (where everyone chooses from a menu of managed care plans like the Federal Employee Health Benefits [FEHBP] or like the Clinton's 1993/94 health care plan), and yet they all offer the option of participating in a pool with a choice of private, managed care plans like members of Congress get under the FEHBP.

None of them touch Medicare.

They all offer premium subsidies based on income.  Edwards and Clinton rely on refundable tax credits, whereas Obama provides direct subsidies for premiums base on income.

They all will regulate the insurance market so that insurance companies will no longer be able to refuse to offer insurance based on health status, nor price your premium and exclude coverage based on pre-existing conditions.  We should all breath a sigh of relief in favor of this kind of regulation. No more limits on pre-existing conditions!

They all have strong and nearly identical provisions to try to control rising health care costs, improve the quality of medical care we receive, and make sure that all Americans get the preventive care they need and have access to programs to help them manage their chronic diseases. They all promote public health.

Finally, they would all roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans to help finance the reform.

The paradigm shift in all of this is that the candidates offer CHOICE: not only choice of any doctor or hospital under the single payer option, the choice of a private managed care plan under the FEHBP option, and the option to keep your employer or individual coverage, should you choose.

At their core, all of the proposals offer Americans the choice of what kind of healthcare SYSTEM under which they want to receive their medical care:
An employer based system
A public insurance system for people with low incomes
A pool where you have a choice of private, managed care plans
A single payer plan (like Medicare)

Then what differentiates these plans?  It is the clues buried in each plan that suggest how each candidate will approach social reform, how they view the American people and what they can and cannot expect of them, and how the American people can expect to be treated under a reformed system.

All of these plans are estimated to cover between 32-34 million Americans who are currently without health insurance.  It is estimated that all of these plan will leave uncovered between 13- 15 million Americans.  You read that right.  While Obama's plan may not cover 15 million Americans, Edwards' and Clinton's plans won't cover about 13 million.

As I wrote in my diary entry yesterday, the Clinton campaign's blitzkrieg decrying the fact that Obama's plan may initially leave 15 million people without coverage, fails to tell the people of NH that both the Clinton and Edwards plans are estimated to initially leave out about 13 million Americans.  All of these plans will have a hard time getting to universal coverage.

And in fact, there is not a single state in the nation that has implemented comprehensive health care reform that has been successful in covering more than 90% of their population.  Even Hawaii, which has had an employer mandate since 1975 and has a comprehensive state health insurance program, finds that 11% of the state's population remains uninsured.  Even in Vermont and Maine, which have been implementing their own reforms, find that they cannot cover the last 10% of the population.  And Massachusetts has already exempted 20% of the uninsured from their mandate because there are no affordable plans to purchase under the reform.  

Let's face it.  Getting to universal coverage will be very, very hard.  But 13-15 million Americans without coverage would be an enormous improvement over the 47 million who are presently uninsured.  Providing comprehensive coverage to 75% of the uninsured would represent a huge step forward.  This would reduce the rate of uninsured in the US from the present 21% (of the non-elderly population) to about 6%.

While I am certainly not advocating that we leave 6% of the population without access to health care, as this hardly accomplishes our goal of universal coverage, it may be the best we can do under an insurance program.  For the remaining 6%, other approaches to ensuring access to timely, affordable health care may be required.

We might want to think about health insurance coverage rates in the same way we do the unemployment rate.  We call 5% unemployment "full employment."  Perhaps we need to accept that a 5% uninsured is rate is "full coverage" and is about all we can expect from an insurance expansion.  If we are serious about getting health care access to this last 5-6%, we are going to have to come up with some other creative solutions that better meet the needs of this population - and it might not be insurance.

And here is where the philosophical differences between the candidates is important.  Obama wants, first and foremost, to make sure that comprehensive insurance is affordable and available to absolutely every American who wants it.  Anyone who has studied the problem of the uninsured in the US knows that the major reason most individuals do not have health insurance (and the major reason most small businesses do not offer insurance to their employees) is because it is UNAFFORDABLE.  The vast majority of small businesses and individuals would buy coverage if they could afford it.  And Obama's plan is the most affordable of the three candidates.

Edwards and Clinton, however, see the underlying problem of the remaining uninsured quite differently.  They come from the view that there are a lot of healthy people out there who will choose not to buy health insurance unless they are not forced to do so.  

I don't understand their thinking.  I am sure there are some young people who believe they are invulnerable and who do not believe they need health insurance.  But I have two children in their 20's and know their friends well and most of them have purchased health insurance on their own, if they are not getting it through school or work.  My 25 year old son bought a high deductible health plan that covered 4 annual visits for preventive and acute care each year outside of the deductible.  The cost was about $150 per month and when he was student teaching this was adequate and affordable.  My 28 year old daughter, on the other hand, was a contractual worker in Manhattan and went into the private market to buy individual coverage and ended up paying a premium of $1,000 per month ($12,000 a year) for single coverage, with $45 copays for office visits.  This would be completely out of reach for most people her age.  She is very healthy and yet she ponied up to get herself coverage at an exorbitant cost.  

The group that Edward and Clinton fear will not get coverage are the 20-somethings. This group includes young adults who no longer qualify for health insurance under their family's policy (most states cut dependents off from coverage when they turn 19); it includes undergraduate and graduate students who do not get insurance through their college or university; it includes young adults who are in jobs that do not offer them insurance; and it includes young adults with pre-existing conditions who either cannot buy insurance at all or who cannot afford what is available.

I am sure there must be some uneducated, selfish, and stubborn young people who think they are invulnerable to illness or injury, and wouldn't even buy coverage if it was affordable relative to their income.  However, the young people I know, and I imagine the young adults of New Hampshire, want to do the right thing, want to be contributing members of society, want to have health insurance for themselves and their young families.  They want to be responsible members of society.  And most of these young people would welcome the opportunity to purchase affordable health insurance if it were available.

So the fundamental question is what should we do about these 20-somethings who do not have insurance?  The candidates responses stand apart in sharp relief.

Edwards and Clinton would force ALL Americans to prove that they have purchased health insurance, most likely when they file their annual Federal Income Tax returns.  They would also use the tax code as the basis for achieving "affordability" through refundable tax credits.  If any of us fails to demonstrate proof of coverage in our taxes, we will be levied some kind of penalty or fine.  Under the Massachusetts mandate, those who do not show proof of insurance on their income tax return are assessed a fine equivalent to half the total cost of the premium payments for the entire year.  Hey, what a deal!  You go for a whole year without health insurance coverage and then you pay 50% of the cost of full coverage, even though you had none. If this sounds like a good plan to you, I have a bridge to nowhere in Alaska I'd like to talk to you about.

While Edwards and Clinton emphasize that only the "bad apples" who refuse to buy coverage will be assessed a penalty, the reality is that for a mandate to work EVERYONE will have to have their health insurance monitored on an annual basis and there will need to be an enforcement mechanism, most likely one administered by the IRS.  

The question I would like to pose to the people of New Hampshire is if you think forcing all Americans to report health insurance as part of their annual tax returns and getting the IRS in the business of regulating, monitoring and enforcing health insurance is the best way to deal with a few 20-somethings who have not bought insurance?. This is a terrible idea.  I would venture to guess that the extra cost of the bureaucracy and IRS staffing needed to annually monitor and enforce health insurance for 300 million Americans might almost be enough to pay for insurance for the wayward 20-somethings!

But why should we all have to suffer through the IRS reigning supreme over what health insurance we have when there might be other, must less costly, and much more humane solutions to getting those pesky 20-somethings covered?

Obama offers a very different way.  He is the only candidate proposing to help young adults keep their dependent coverage through their families beyond the standard age of 19.  He proposes that they be able to keep their family's coverage until they are 25.  I don't know a 25 year old who would turn down continued health insurance coverage under their parent's policy.  New Jersey has increased the qualifying age for dependent coverage to 30.  Neither Edwards nor Clinton have proposed anything like this.  They want to punish these "badly behaving kids" and force them to buy a policy even if they cannot afford it or find it wanting relative to their needs.  

Obama understands that there are many Americans who simply can't function under an insurance model or that insurance is not the core problem for many people in getting health care.  In my previous entry, I outlined some of the circumstances in which some Americans find themselves, such that insurance will not solve their problem.  These include the homeless and mentally ill, the low-wage worker, and people who live in rural areas where there is no health care.  And if there are millionaires out there who want to self-insure relying only on a health savings account and a high deductible health plan, I have no problem with them bearing their own financial risk.  They represent such a small proportion of the problem, leaving them out will not affect the risk pool or the costs of care for the rest of us.

Obama's approach to solving most problems is to listen to people, understand their needs and circumstances, and then to work with them to find solutions that meet their needs.  This is an approach to health care I think that all Americans can appreciate. Obama is the only candidate who does not want to force Americans into government programs that don't work for them, but is instead dedicated to finding solutions that work.

Edwards and Clinton operate from the position that we cannot trust healthy Americans to buy health insurance.  Edwards and Clinton operate from the position that a significant proportion of the American people won't buy health insurance even if it is affordable.  Edwards and Clinton want to treat the American people with suspicion, and hold big sticks over their heads to threaten them if they do not do what they consider to be the right thing.  Their policies are paternalistic and punitive.

Obama operates from the position that the American people really do want health insurance and if we make it affordable, all of those who want it will be able to buy it.  And rather than threaten or punish those who do not like what they are offered, Obama will seek to understand what other solutions might be more acceptable to them and ensure they have access to the health care they need.  

Oabam's approach appreciates how important individual liberty and autonomy are to the American people.  Obama treats Americans with respect and he expects in return that, as Americans, we understand that we are all our bothers' keepers and that we need to come together as a people and take care of one another because we are one nation under God.  The founders had great faith in the American people to make their own decisions on the one hand, but to provide for the common good on the other.

Heath care represents the common good.  None of us knows who will be the next of our friends or family to get a diagnosis of cancer, to be hit by a drunk driver, to slip and fall when we are all alone, or to have a massive heart attack.  All of us are at risk and it is nearly impossible to predict who will need health care or when or why.  And it is because of this uncertainty that we all need access to health and to contribute to the cost as best as we are able.

Obama approaches public policy from the perspective that we are all in this together and that we all have rights and responsibilities.  And rather than single out one vulnerable group for contempt and punishment, Obama wants to understand what barriers keep Americans from doing what is in both their best interest and the best interest of their community.

One of Barack Obama's greatest strengths is his ability to stake out a position and design social policy that meets the needs of all Americans.  His fundamental approach is to first understand their problems and the barriers they face and then to design solutions that are supportive and caring at their core.

Paternalism and punishment?

Or respect and understanding in the search for solutions that work for real people.

The choice is yours.

Merry Christmas!

Obama stands out on health care

by: Helenann

Mon Dec 24, 2007 at 22:52:13 PM EST

The truth is that the Edwards, Obama, and Clinton (in that order) health care reform proposals make "available" and "affordable" health insurance to all Americans (the campaigns define these terms differently). The analyses of the three candidates' plans from their respective campaigns suggests that  Obama's plan is the most affordable health insurance plan being offered.  

They will all make insurance equally available.  

But whether or not you have a choice to purchase the insurance varies across the proposals. Obama is the only one that will give you the right of refusal to buy an insurance plan that you believe does not cover the treatments you need and/or is not affordable relative to your annual household income, and/or will not let you get covered care from the doctor or hospital of your choice (how are we supposed to act like consumers if we don't have choice?).

The underlying policy goals of all three plans are the same: access to high quality, comprehensive health care when you need it.  

Obama's plan is estimated to save the average family approximately $2,500 a year (more than either Clinton's or Edwards').

All three also promise a health care system is that is more safe, timely, effective, efficient, equitable, and patient centered. This is all good news.

Who knows how many people will not get coverage shortly after any of these plans is adopted. And, before we get into those numbers, lets remember that we do have to be ready to work with the Congress to introduced a bill immediately after the inauguration. I want to stress this point, as history tells us that if we fail to support a bill in the Congress within the first three months, none of this conversation will even matter. Edward and Obama have promised that this will be a priority in their first year.  Clinton has promised to sign the Children's Health Insurance Bill in her first year.

Okay, lets accept that the estimate that 15 million people will not have coverage under Obama's plan is in the ballpark.  From the estimates of the Edwards and Clinton plans that I have seen, analysts have concluded that they will leave about 13 million Americans uninsured.  Why are we quibbling?  These are both big numbers!

So what to do about these 13-15 million people?  

Clinton and Edwards say they will enforce an '"individual mandate" to buy one of the health insurance options they are making available, regardless of how well they meet your needs and fit into your budget.  Neither included any details about how their mandates would be enforced, although Edwards has said he would consider using the income tax code. Hillary has not said one way or the other.  Quelle suprise!  I don't know about you but I don't want the IRS messing with my  health insurance!  I don't even want to go there.  

Obama does not use the tax code to enforce any mandates nor as the basis for subsidies (Obama is the only one to provide direct subsides for premiums; Edward and Clinton will make available refundable tax credits).

Obama proposes that we find out more about who the remaining uninsured are and see if there is another way to ensure they get health care, since they have not chosen to purchase the affordable health insurance we have offered them.  Let's find out what might work better for them.  

Obama is the only candidate that is proposing to raise the age at which children can no longer be covered under their parents policy.  Obama increases it to 25 years; New Jersey has increased their cutt-off for an adult child to be eligible for a family's coverage to 30 years!  This is creative!

Maybe those really rich kids who made millions in Silicon Valley can open up health savings accounts using pre-tax dollars and buy a catastrophic policy.  Maybe we should let them take on their own financial risk, if they choose.  

Maybe the homeless or mentally ill can't function under an insurance system and we should do what San Francisco has proposed and give them direct access to all City/County health care facilities at no cost to them.

Maybe the problem in inner city and rural areas is that there just are not any health care professionals or health care facilities that are easily accessible to the people living there, so what good is insurance?   What is needed here are more community health clinics and training of local people into the needed health professions through grants and scholarships and building the infrastructure we need so badly for health care in rural areas.

The point is that the American people deserve more respect than a mandate gives them.  The Obama plan respects the American people and wants to listen to them and their problems and figure out solutions that make sense for them.  American's want choice and to decide for themselves what is best for them.

Individual autonomy and liberty are at the core of who we are as a people and a nation.   Rather than force adults to do something that they do not want to do, Obama makes sure that everyone who wants to buy health insurance has affordable choices.  And for those who do not choose to buy it, Obama wants to find another solution that better takes into account their needs and circumstances.

Do you want to be treated like a bad child by the President of the United States? If so, you should vote for Edwards/Clinton.

Do you want to be treated like an American adult with all of the rights and privileges that implies?  If yes, then vote for Obama.  

The choice is clear.

OBAMA 08

Iowa Results (Horse Race)

by: Mike Hoefer

Sun Dec 23, 2007 at 23:51:04 PM EST

So let's assume that all of the candidates want to win Iowa (no super judo of wanting to come in 2nd to build Mo in to NH) whom would they want in second and third? With apologies to candidates other than Obama, Edwards, Clinton.

My quick thoughts:

Obama would want Edwards #2 and Clinton #3- This is pretty straight forward although JRE would get a good bounce in NH, I think Clinton inevitability is his primary concern.

Clinton would want Obama #2 and Edwards #3- Trickier here... I think Clinton would rather be fighting  Obama than Edwards. My hunch is they share some support so a damaged Edwards bleeds support to Clinton? This might be over thinking it a bit... and 3rd place finish by Obama could be the best present Clinton could ask for.

Edwards would want Obama #2 and Clinton #3 Same as above but in reverse... A damaged Clinton bleeds more support to Edwards than Obama?

What do you think?

Any Iowa surprises in store?

And, thinking ahead... should we do DL a day early to have a results watching event at EF Lane or suitable other location?

More Dirty Tricks?

by: hannah

Sat Dec 22, 2007 at 10:31:02 AM EST

49.

s m
Sat, 12/22/07

Reply to this

John Edwards true colors coming through?

http://www.onemillionstrong.us...

Obama Most Electable in Another Poll Survey USA, Iowa General - Hillary Behind McCain, Obama 12%+!

by: Regenman12

Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:41:14 AM EST

Geography Surveyed: Iowa
Data Collected: 12/13/2007 - 12/15/2007
Sponsor: KAAL-TV Rochester-Mason City-Austin

42% Giuliani
47% Clinton
11% Undecided

45% Romney
48% Clinton
8% Undecided

45% Huckabee
46% Clinton
9% Undecided

46% McCain
45% Clinton
9% Undecided

36% Giuliani
55% Obama
9% Undecided

39% Romney
51% Obama
10% Undecided

39% Huckabee
52% Obama
9% Undecided

39% McCain
51% Obama
10% Undecided

http://www.surveyusa.com/clien...

If you actually want to take this country back, Obama is THE ONE.

This poll from Iowa is the one the pros watch because the voters there have seen the candidates there for a year now, so it is most predicitive of the race in November -- way more than current national polls -- which by the way the new Survey USA poll also shows Clinton losing by 7 to McCain while Obama beats McCain by 4%.

And that Zogby telephone poll is national, where up to a third say they don't know much about Obama (altho they might have heard of him)  

Zogby US Poll: Obama Most Electable, Hillary loses to Giuliani, McCain, Huckabee, Obama beats them

by: Regenman12

Fri Dec 21, 2007 at 10:29:35 AM EST

Released: December 20, 2007
Zogby Poll: Obama Leads Top Republicans

Telephone survey shows fellow Democrats Hillary Clinton and John Edwards would defeat some GOPers, lose to others

UTICA, New York - Illinois Sen. Barack Obama would defeat all five of the top Republicans in prospective general election contests, performing better than either of his two top rivals, a new Zogby telephone poll shows.

His margins of advantage range from a 4 percent edge over Arizona Sen. John McCain and a 5 percent edge over Arkansas' Mike Huckabee to an 18 percentage point lead over Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, the survey shows. Against New York's Rudy Giuliani he leads by 9%, and against Fred Thompson of Tennessee he holds a 16 point edge.

Obama Obama leads Romney 53%-35%
Obama leads Huckabee 47%-42%
Obama leads Giuliani 48%-39%
Obama leads McCain 47%-43%
Obama leads Thompson 52%-36%

The telephone survey included 1,000 likely voters nationwide and carries a margin of error of +/- 3.2 percentage points. The poll was conducted Dec. 12-14, 2007.

Democrat Hillary Clinton of New York would defeat Romney by a narrow 46% to 44% margin and Thompson by a 48% to 42% margin. She would lose to Huckabee 48% to 43%, to Giuliani 46% to 42%, and to McCain by a 49% to 42% margin. The data suggest that Clinton has improved her position slightly. A November Zogby Interactive poll showed her losing by small margins to all five of the top GOP candidates.

Democrat John Edwards of North Carolina would beat Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson, but would lose to Giuliani and McCain, the Zogby survey shows.

...

The performance of the Democratic candidates among independent voters is notable. For instance, Clinton trails Giuliani by one point (43% for Giuliani, 42% for Clinton among independents), but Obama leads Giuliani among independents by a huge 56% to 31% edge. Edwards leads Giuliani, 52% to 38% among independents. Clinton has similar trouble among independents against McCain, in that she trails with 37% support to his 46% support. In a prospective Obama versus McCain match-up among independent voters, Obama leads, 51% to 35%. Edwards and McCain are tied at 42% apiece among independents.

As among independents, Obama is the Democrat moderates like best, but his edge among moderates over Edwards is not nearly as pronounced as with independents. For instance, against McCain, both Edwards and Obama lead, but Clinton loses badly. Obama leads McCain by a 51% to 37% edge, while Edwards leads McCain by a 47% to 41% margin.

Clinton loses to McCain among moderates, with McCain winning 51% and Clinton winning 38%.

http://www.zogby.com/news/Read...

Why Obama? Edwards and Hillary Voted for the War w/o Reading the NIE. Obama called it a DUMB WAR

by: Regenman12

Thu Dec 20, 2007 at 19:00:53 PM EST

THIS PRIMARY IS ABOUT OCTOBER 2002 AND THE WAR VOTE BY EDWARDS AND CLINTON

Why Obama? This is the main reason I am voting for Barack: because he had the good sense to be against the War in Iraq in 2002, calling it a "Dumb War". Edwards meanwhile co-sponsored the Authorization of Force Resolution and said on the floor: "We know Saddam has WMD".

Here is the devastating video of Edwards' floor speech to send us to war on a lie:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

What was Obama's speech on Iraq a month later? He called it a dumb war. Here's a video interview. Who had better judgement? Who was mnore for peace and diplomacy? Who is the true progressive when the merde hits the fan? Barack Obama:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Here is Hillary, trusting BUSH all the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Think it's pretty clear who is a true leader instead of a calculating politician.

And Clinton? She is even worse than Edwards, not reading the NIE again, not even the summary! And then she even did something Joe LIEberman did not do, definitively link al Quada and Saddam:

HILLARY'S WAR

According to Senate aides, because Clinton was not yet on the Armed Services Committee, she did not have anyone working for her with the security clearances needed to read the entire N.I.E. and the other highly classified reports that pertained to Iraq. She could have done the reading herself. Senators were able to access the N.I.E. at two secure locations in the Capitol complex. Nonetheless, only six senators personally read the report, according to a 2005 television interview with Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat of West Virginia and then the vice chairman of the intelligence panel. Earlier this year, on the presidential campaign trail in New Hampshire, Clinton was confronted by a woman who had traveled from New York to ask her if she had read the intelligence report. According to Eloise Harper of ABC News, Clinton responded that she had been briefed on it.

''Did you read it?'' the woman screamed. Clinton replied that she had been briefed, though she did not say by whom. The question of whether Clinton took the time to read the N.I.E. report is critically important. Indeed, one of Clinton's Democratic colleagues, Bob Graham, the Florida senator who was then the chairman of the intelligence committee, said he voted against the resolution on the war, in part, because he had read the complete N.I.E. report. Graham said he found that it did not persuade him that Iraq possessed W.M.D. As a result, he listened to Bush's claims more skeptically. ''I was able to apply caveat emptor,'' Graham, who has since left the Senate, observed in 2005. He added regretfully, ''Most of my colleagues could not.''

On Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2002, Senate Democrats, including Clinton, held a caucus over lunch on the second floor of the Capitol. There, Graham says he ''forcefully'' urged his colleagues to read the complete 90-page N.I.E. before casting such a monumental vote. In her own remarks on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002, Clinton noted the existence of ''differing opinions within this body.'' Then she went on to offer a lengthy catalog of Saddam Hussein's crimes. She cited unnamed ''intelligence reports'' showing that between 1998 and 2002 ''Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile-delivery capability and his nuclear program.'' Both the public and secret intelligence estimates on Iraq contained such analysis, but the complete N.I.E. report also included other views. A dissent by the State Department's intelligence arm concluded -- correctly, as it turned out -- that Iraq was not rebuilding its nuclear program.

Clinton continued, accusing Iraq's leader of giving ''aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members.'' This statement fit squarely within the ominous warning she issued the day after Sept. 11.

Clinton's linking of Iraq's leader and Al Qaeda, however, was unsupported by the conclusions of the N.I.E. and other secret intelligence reports that were available to senators before the vote. Indeed, the one document that supported Clinton's statement, a public letter from the C.I.A. to Senator Graham, mentioned ''growing indications of a relationship'' between Al Qaeda and Iraq but acknowledged that those indications were based on ''sources of varying reliability.'' In fact, the classified reports available to all senators at the time found that Iraq was not allied with Al Qaeda, and that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden harbored feelings of deep mistrust and enmity for each other.

...

Nevertheless, on the sensitive issue of collaboration between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Senator Clinton found herself adopting the same argument that was being aggressively pushed by the administration. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials had repeated their claim frequently, and by early October 2002, two out of three Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was connected to the Sept. 11 attacks. By contrast, most of the other Senate Democrats, even those who voted for the war authorization, did not make the Qaeda connection in their remarks on the Senate floor. One Democratic senator who voted for the war resolution and praised President Bush for his course of ''moderation and deliberation,'' Joe Biden of Delaware, actively assailed the reports of Al Qaeda in Iraq, calling them ''much exaggerated.'' Senator Dianne Feinstein of California described any link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as ''tenuous.'' The Democratic senator who came closest to echoing Clinton's remarks about Hussein's supposed assistance to Al Qaeda was Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut. Yet even Lieberman noted that ''the relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community.''

For most of those who had served in the Clinton administration, the supposed link between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda had come to seem baseless. ''We all knew it was ,'' said Kenneth Pollack, who was a national-security official under President Clinton and a leading proponent of overthrowing Saddam Hussein. Pollack says he discussed Iraq with Clinton before her vote in 2002, but he won't disclose his advice.

The Saddam-Al Qaeda link, so aggressively pushed by the Bush administration, was later debunked as false. So how could Clinton, named in 2006 by The Washingtonian magazine as the ''brainiest'' senator, have gotten such a critical point wrong? Referring to the larger question of her support for the authorization, Clinton said in February of this year, ''My vote was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that I had at the time.''

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...

This is the most important difference in this primary: the Iraq War Vote.

Obama should talk about nothing else for the next 2 weeks and let people know EXACTLY how misguided, leaderless and arrogant both Edwards and CLinton were in October 2002, for not reading the NIE -- then sending our troops into a war they could never win.

WHY DIDN'T EDWARDS READ THE NIE BEFORE VOTING? WHY DIDN'T CLINTON? -- BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO APPEAR HAWKISH TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

This Race cannot be bought

by: bullfrog523

Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 22:54:53 PM EST

Both campaigns are working hard in New Hampshire. The Clinton campaign has about 100 staffers statewide and said it has made 1.4 million phone calls to the 300,000-plus regular Democratic primary voters, knocked on 162,000 doors since Oct. 1, and handed out 5,000 yard signs.

But the Obama campaign, which has more than 100 staffers in New Hampshire, said yesterday that it has made more than 1.1 million phone calls, knocked on 150,000 doors since Oct. 1, and sent out 105,000 handwritten postcards to voters.

From http://www.boston.com/news/nat...

I contacted the other campaigns, only the Richardson people were still in their office at 10:13 pm when I called.  Here is what they told me: We have about 35 people in the state, we have made 3.4 million phone calls, knocked on 5.6 million doors, given away 10.2 million 4' by 8' lawn signs, we also Erected 5,000 houses for the homeless they also said our dog is twice as big as Hillary and Obama's dog.

I am Voting for Richardson, you cannot but this election

As divisive as it gets

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs

Mon Dec 03, 2007 at 13:14:02 PM EST

Clinton states:

but I have said for months that I would much rather be attacking Republicans and attacking problems of our country because ultimately that's what I want to do as president.

"Attacking Republicans", Hmmmmmmmmmm.

So divide and conquer rhetoric with a blue shirt on is more palatable then when a red shirt pukes it up.

This is 50% +1 talk.

This will cement the status quo for along time to come, if it is given a shred a credibility.

Also, note her priorities and her tactics. Back to vaulting forward to the general election, attacking the other side of the aisle and roughly half of the American people and then expecting to fight for Americans.

Yikes. Hillary should be one of the Joint Chiefs. Presidents are wussies. They have to compromise with....re..publi...cans.

Decisions

by: 2632

Fri Nov 30, 2007 at 12:24:41 PM EST

Can anybody tell me the name of John Edwards 2008 PAC ?

by: JonnyBBad

Wed Nov 28, 2007 at 07:28:02 AM EST

Since the difficult run with John Kerry and their loss to George Bush, John did some soul searching. He has become a crusader for working people, and wants to reward work not wealth. He spent the last 3 years crossing the country helping others, who actually needed it...from Katrina victims in New Orleans to nurses in Des Moines...walking picket lines, working in soup kitchens and and also being helpful to politicians whose causes he supports by showing up at their fundraisers. Why take in money on your own to dole out as quid pro quos ?

Rather than have a PAC he started One Corps to do community service. From the beginning of this campaign for 08 in New Hampshire we have done food collections and brought them to pantries...we have collected notebooks and pencils and brought them to donate at schools where there are disadvantaged kids in NH. Hillary and Obama have followed the time honored tradition taught by D.C. campaign managers, which John did also in the 04 cycle...raise money, and give it to politicians who will owe you their support.
Not John. Not this time. He is taking no PAC money and has vowed to work within the public financing system. Its not an overnight decision, but part a change in his thinking, to have the political will and independence to say, "You know, we are better than that".
I did no research on this, and if I am wrong so be it. This is my opinion and impression and why I like the guy a lot. 99% of Americans are working stiffs, struggling to make ends meet, hoping for a break. Nobody writes them big checks for their votes or their campaigns.

Reasons to Vote Against Giuliani, McCain, Romney, Huckabee etc.

by: littleton9

Tue Nov 27, 2007 at 16:42:26 PM EST

(Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate (for a party whose
registered voters are 6% of the US population) to oppose
the war in Iraq and even Ron Paul defends criminal megathievery
by the oil companies. kucinich.us)
(None of us has the right to judge anyone. While we pray
that God will change the hearts and minds of all of those
who have harmed others, we remember their record
as we decide for whom to vote.)

REASONS TO VOTE AGAINST CLINTON
http://www.bluehampshire.com/showD...
REASONS TO VOTE AGAINST OBAMA
1. He supports continued violence in Afghanistan.
2. He supports nuclear expansion
3. President Carter has asked that
we not vote for Clinton or Obama.
27 REASONS TO OPPOSE GIULIANI
1 Giuliani as mayor of New York was a criminalizer of homelessness. Some
30,000 or more people live in the sewers and subway caves of Manhattan and other boroughs, while billionaire Bloomberg, who like Giuliani was allegedly elected mayor in a city which is 83%
Democratic, has not ameliorated the situation.
http://www.thestreetspirit.org/

2 Giuliani was part of the 911 conspiracy, and was involved in
hasty disposal of the WTC remains. As Loose Change says,
he supervised the closing off of the crime scene while
he shipped all the evidence out for overseas burial. He also arranged
to remove gold from Bldg Number 7
before demolition.
http://video.google.com/videop...

3 Giuliani is a profiteer from the 911 slaughter, and his diversion of
911 victim monies has caused lawsuits
to be filed against him.
http://today.reuters.com/news/...

4 Giuliani has promoted the illegal and violent wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan and is considered by Haaretz to be the best
of the candidates for the Olmert regime.

5 Rudy's wife as mistress was receiving illegal taxfunded security protection.

6. Under Giuliani's regime, the New York Port Authority gave away
the profits from public property to exploiters such as billionaire Larry Silverstein.

7 Mayors have not had the presidential training that governors, representatives , senators
have had.

8 Even after Giuliani got prostate cancer (probability theory would
say his cancer was caused by animal products) he
was still promoting carcinogenic cows' milk
for the American dairy lobby. http://www.notmilk.com

9. Giuliani's administration was a snuffer of civil liberties
http://www.aclu.org

10. While poster does not think that 3 marriages disqualifies
Giuliani as a presidential candidate, many other Americans do not agree.

11 Giuliani's unionbusting through
encouraging past illegal immigration
into NYC was also done to
buttress high NYC rents.

12. Giuliani is a chickenhawk which
means he wants the children of
the poor to be cannon fodder though
he has never served.
http://www.nhgazette.com

13. Network news anchors have played tape of Giuliani abusing
over and over, like a stinging scorpion, a talk show caller and
ferret pet owner
who was questioning Giuliani's legislation.
http://www.oliverwillis.com/20...
listen to the tape

14. Giuliani's abuse of Ron Paul in the presidential debates
was the vicious display of a pack dog for war profiteers.

15 Giuliani supports torture which
he defines as 'enhanced interrogation
techniques'.

16. Giuliani appointed Bernard Kerik
who was invested in tasers to
Homeland Security. Because of
this corruption Kerik lost, but
the replacement is worse. Kerik's
tasers have in police hands killed nearly 250
Americans and 17 Canadians said an Arizona Republic
study and the CBC. A wheelchair bound woman
died after tasered 10 times.

17. Giuliani's SC campaign head
has been indicted (as NH's Republican
Party head went to jail.. though
Rove who designed his crimes did not)

18. Giuliani's third wife
worked for US Surgical, a company
which tortured dogs in lab research.

19. NYC Firefighters have endorsed
other candidates because Giuliani's
failure since 1993 to get inter agency
radios between firemen and police
was a factor in firemen's deaths at
WTC

20. Giuliani's prostate cancer
status is a further disqualifier

21. He is almost totally estranged from
his grown children, one of whom
joined an Obama group on a major
website.

22. Giuliani advances global heating
with the purchase of full page
NY Times ad, which takes untold
thousands of trees.

23 from Leeland O White

Rudi Guilliani is the former mayor of New York during the 911 era. He is also former United States Attorney who prosecuted Ivan Boesk who was able to keep one billion dollars for stealing from the stock market many more billions and Mike Milken, the Junk Bond deal, who also stole about the same amount and got to keep much, much more.

24
http://www.closeindianpoint.or...
GIULIANI ALWAYS FOR SALE
Indian Point nuclear power plant owner hired Giuliani firm

25. Giuliani tried to cancel the
mayoral election of Sept. 2001.

(Every Republican candidate except Ron Paul
supports the illegal genocide in Iraq)

Controversial areas for fundamentalist Republicans
are Giuliani's support of gay and
abortion rights, for confiscatory gun
laws
his support of gay rights and abortion

26. Giuliani is behind the drive to split California's
electoral vote.

27. Giuliani has a prosecutor's mentality, having
prosecuted (sought to punish) over 10,000 cases.

SOME OF THE MANY REASONS TO OPPOSE ROMNEY

Despite having collected more
money from Mormons, from his
own private equity firm, Romney
is in only single digits among Republicans, who are 6% of the
public. Less than 1% of Americans
support Romney.

1. Romney tried to bring back governmental murder into the
abolitionist state of Massachusetts. http://www.amnesty.org
2. Romney is a warmonger He wants 100,000 more Americans
placed on the altar ofr Likud bloodshed and BP Exxon Shell
murder in Iraq, but he doesn't want any of his 5 sons
to be among them.
3 Romney's Bain Capital has been trying to get support
for Huawei, a Chiense computer firm bidding for Pentagon security
contracts

4. Romney also participated in
a canned hunt in Georgia in 2006,
one to which all Republican governors
were invited.
5. Less well known is Romney's investment as the cofounder of
a private capital equity group ... in war profiteer, animal agony
and global heating industries.
6. Romney is a member of a church which denies women rights,
creates sheepish support of violent earth authority. This church has
given him much money.
7. Romney has hired the professional mudslinger who in the SC
primary campaign lied about McCain, saying he had fathered a black
child.ortion
8. Romney would let lawyers
decide whether or not he acted
in a warmonger manner with Iran
9. Romney would lock up those
who use medical marijuana.
10. Romney's treatment of his dog, putting him on the roof
for a several hundred mile trip is well known.

MIKE HUCKABEE

Mike Huckabee calls himself
prolife though he has murdered in the name of the state
of Arkansas executing
prisoners as Arkansas governor
(as did Bill Clinton)..
though he promotes
the wars in Iraq and though he promotes
hunting and fishing, the serial stalking
and suffocation of God's creatures

JOHN MCCAIN

John McCain has supported every violent and illegalwar in which our elected and unelected
leaders have involved us.

He has refused to apologize to the women in the light
bulb factory he was bombing as he was shot down.

*
He has a 0% environmental voting record.
*

EVERY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
with the exception of Ron Paul supports
continuing the criminal violence in Iraq.

Pete Seeger re the drowning of Marines
at Camp LeJeune (and metaphorically re Iraq):

We're waist deep in the Big Muddy
and the damn fool says to push on

-Pete Seeger-

Who pissed in Dick Morris' coffee?

by: Sleeping Giant Stirs

Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 15:58:55 PM EST

After Morris was mysteriously outed for what might be called "sexual relations", he resigned stating "while I served I sought to avoid the limelight because I did not want to become the message. Now, I resign so I will not become the issue."

Below is a clip from Ha*&^$y & Colmes, a show I despise. Unfortunately, Morris is peddling to any buyer.

Relevance to reality -> electibility. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Why does Obama leave 15 million people without health care?

by: calvin

Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 20:06:33 PM EST

Back in the late 1980s, I worked with a non-profit group that was struggling to convince the American public that we needed to find a way to provide health care for the 20 million people in the US who didn't have insurance and couldn't afford to pay for adequate health care. It was a hard sell because, at the time, 80% of Americans were happy with their health insurance and health care.
.
By the time Bill Clinton announced in a State of the Union speech that he was proposing universal health care, some members of Congress were working on it and the Clinton administration plan became one of six or seven serious reform proposals before Congress. All of the plans had as their goal coverage for all Americans either immediately or through incremental steps. When the debate began, there were 22 million people without health insurance and the public was becoming aware that there seemed to be a problem.

In the end, not a single plan was adopted although most health care reform groups were willing to support any of the plans.  Why was no plan adopted?  Because the public opposed health care reform.

It's simple really.  Eighty percent of Americans still had quality, low-cost health insurance through their jobs. It was pathetically easy for the health insurance industry through its Harry and Louise ads to convince people that covering the 22 million people without health insurance meant that they would lose their own health insurance and they would be forced to stand in line for some limited, poor-quality substitute.  They could have chosen any plan to attack but, obviously, it was easier to attack the only plan put forth by the Clinton administration.

Leading by Example: Will Bill Clinton put himself on the line?

by: Alexander Lee

Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 22:59:52 PM EST

"When you are the First Gentleman will you set an example for men across the country and put up a clothesline in the White House?" I asked Clinton on Friday night at an event in Manchester, NH. "No, but I will tell you what I will do..." he answered, going on about how he would "finish greening the White House" and swap out the vehicle fleet with more efficient models. He was captivating.

It would have been bold for President Clinton to answer my question by talking about how he thinks men need to share more of the housework in this two-income household dependent society. Of course, I hoped he would say that he would be glad to demonstrate an affordable, simple thing that most Americans can do right away to stop the advance of climate change.

Electric dryers account for 6 percent of residential electricity use.

When I Googled "gender housework laundry," the first result was an article from CBS, entitled "Men: Want More Sex? Do The Laundry!"  I forgot to bring that up with him. I might have gotten a different answer.