Obama and Clinton
In years past it was easy to complain about how difficult it was to distinguish between candidates since so little information was provided by the press. The truly dedicated could have probably called a campaign and receive literature in the mail but I suspect most simply went by whatever they heard on the news.
With the internet today, the situation in some ways is better, in some ways worst. The worst part first. You have so many options from which to receive information, all that vary in terms of accuracy and depth, that the choices can be overwhelming. However, if you get all your news from just one blog or one news site, you have limited your access to information much in the same way as it was in the past.
The better is that it’s incredibly easy to go directly to the source. With all the accusations flying back and forth between the two campaigns, why wouldn’t you go to the candidates’ websites to see exactly what policies they have proposed? Why not go to votesmart.org and compare the candidates’ voting records? Instead of listening/watching/reading talking heads arguing over the merits of the candidates health care proposals, you can go download copies and decide for yourself.
Of course, it’s much easier just to go along with your favorite pundit than actually read 15 pages of health proposals. But then please don’t complain about the media boiling everything down to 15 second sound bites–that is now your choice.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Reading healthcare proposals is meaningless. Hillary probably has not read hers. Candidate proposals are written by junior staffers and the candidates get a few talking points. The only thing she has said is (A) “I have a plan for …..” , (B) “everyone is covered while his plan leaves some people out” and (C) We will use wage garnishment.
What is important is to look at what the candidate has done in the past. Hillary was given responsibility for health care in Bill’s first term (1993). This was the last, best chance for meaningful help for the uninsured. Democrats held the house and the Senate and the country broadly supported providing coverage for children and the truly needy.
Hillary was secretive (possibly illegally so), didn’t consult with health care providers or Congress. She and a cabal of like minded minions attempted to totally co opt the entire health care system. She lost the support of the people who gave both houses of Congress to the Republicans in the mid-term elections in order to stop her.
Hillary has never apologized or acknowledged responsibility for causing millions of people to be uncovered for the last fifteen years.
She hasn’t learned anything. Her plan is the ONLY plan.
Obama’s proposal reflects a view where government empowers people to improve their life and he seems to be willing to compromise in order to improve it. He could actually enact meaningful improvements.
Hillary’s plan reflects a darker view where government coerces compliance. How is a young couple with a child or a single mom working in a marginal job helped by forcing them to pay for insurance they can’t afford. Is their life improved by making them do without food or fall behind in their rent so they become homeless or forcing them to steal because their child is hungry.
If instead they choose to become non-compliant with Hillary’s dictum and their wages are garnished two things are inevitable, their situation will worsen quickly because of the outlandish fees and penalties charged by the government in such situations and they will be fired from their jobs. With most employers who provide marginal jobs wage garnishment is a one strike and you’re out .
When she faced criticism and ultimately failed in 1993, she ran behind Bill’s coat tails. One moment she was an all powerful figure trying to control 17% of the US economy and the next she was immune from criticism. Remember “don’t attack my little wife”.
If she is given an opportunity in 2009 to reform the health care system, her lack of good judgment will cause her to over reach and health care reform will be off the table for another 15 years.
As I originally and wholeheartedly supported Edwards, I just don’t know which candidate I will vote for or caucus for. I also know that policy plans are not what will probably come out of congress, even with a Democratic majority. In other words, either candidates policies will be tweaked.
I’m looking forward to voting this time around, more than any other since 1988. Jesse Jackson supporters in Texas made a difference that year, if only for a short time. Or at least we tried.
This vote is historic for Texas. Whichever candidate gets the delegates, I am hopeful that the sheer number of Democrats voting will show that, no, no, no, Texas is not a Republican state. (And those who want to excuse the Republican low turnout will know in their hearts that they have lost this state.)