2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNYT: Hillary Now Promises She's in Favor of Public Option
But as she tries to clinch the nomination, Mrs. Clinton is moving to the left on health care and this week took a significant step in her opponents direction, suggesting she would like to give people the option to buy into Medicare.
Im also in favor of whats called the public option, so that people can buy into Medicare at a certain age, Mrs. Clinton said on Monday at a campaign event in Virginia.
Does anyone remember anyone else who campaigned on the promise of a public option?
Gomez163
(2,039 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Hillary... There is NO AGE Qualifier for ... THE PUBLIC OPTION!
Hillary now taking MORE Wall Street CA$H!
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)It's really not difficult.
amborin
(16,631 posts)Obama: "I didn't campaign on the public option"
Edited on Tue Dec-22-09 06:14 PM by amborin
Obama said the public option "has become a source of ideological contention between the left and right." But, he added, "I didn't campaign on the public option"
snip
In the 2008 Obama-Biden health care plan on the campaigns website, candidate Obama promised that "any American will have the opportunity to enroll in new public plan." <2008>
During a speech at the American Medical Association, President Obama told thousands of doctors that one of the plans included in the new health insurance exchanges "needs to be a public option that will give people a broader range of choices and inject competition into the health care market." <6/15/09>
While speaking to the nation during his weekly address, the President said that "any plan" he signs "must include...a public option." <7/17/09>
During a conference call with progressive bloggers, the President said he continues "to believe that a robust public option would be the best way to go." <7/20/09>
Obama told NBCs David Gregory that a public option "should be a part of this ," while rebuking claims that the plan was "dead." <9/20/09>
snip
"My plan builds on and improves our current insurance system, which most Americans continue to rely upon, and creates a new public health plan for those currently without coverage. Under my plan, Americans will be able to choose to maintain their current coverage if they choose to. For those without health insurance I will establish a new public insurance program, and provide subsides to afford care for those who need them. "
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/22/818090/-Presid... .-
video of Sept 29, 2009 speech to Congress here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)IN her response to this woman.
One more shining example demonstrating why this incompetent candidate should NEVER BE President!
amborin
(16,631 posts)please distribute on social media
Baobab
(4,667 posts)e has been.
Adverse Selection followed by Death Spiral.
Also, its FTA-illegal. Bill Clinton's 1994 FTA bans any new public services (and dismembers by privatization any old ones that are not completely free and have no commercial competitors, for example, if a country has one private college they all must be eventually privatized, if a country has one for profit insurance company it all must be privatized incrementally.) and forces all changes to be progressive liberalisation. Basically, that means one way irreversible privatization.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)She's been grappling with ways of creating universal healthcare for decades.
Moving risk/cost from private insurance to a public plan (Medicare) means less cost/risk for one, more for the other.
A balanced equation. Not sure why it's hard to understand.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)And the cover up is still going on.
Sorry to burst your bubble!
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)LOL
dchill
(38,578 posts)"Not gonna happen."
djean111
(14,255 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)tk2kewl
(18,133 posts)BootinUp
(47,207 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)BootinUp
(47,207 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)which we get at a "certain age". Buying into it would be pricey, if I get her gist. A lot more expensive than what it would cost if we had Medicare for all.
Sorry Hill...your ideas are too little and too late.
EndElectoral
(4,213 posts)More money for insurance industries.
senz
(11,945 posts)mooseprime
(474 posts)that was NEVER going to happen?
These 180's are taxing and cause vertigo. Oh plus the half-life of an HRC statement seems to be pretty short. Like a day. After that, there's almost nothing recognizable left.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Wow.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)If elected, I think she'll need a cabinet level ACA czar to counter the shenanigans of the insurance industry, keep ACA invigorated and move toward SP if the insurance companies don't play ball. Someone doggedly determined, who can focus on a single issue. Someone who has stood up for healthcare. Someone who knows when not to play nice. Someone whose mere nomination would cause the insurance industry to shudder. If only such a person existed.
thesquanderer
(11,998 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)That's not a public option, that allowing a few more folks in their what- late 50's or early 60's - in the door. WHO ARE ALREADY PAYING in to Medicare.
Everyone else is screwed. I guess that's pragmatic.
A 'public option' means everyone has access. And it's still not as good as Single Payer for all.
I hope Bernie rakes her over the coals on this peice.
Ok Camp Weathervare - Splain it
davidlynch
(644 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Option. You can buy in if you want to, before you're 65.
No, not as good as single-payer, but it'd be a big victory to get it.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)great
BTW, there is plenty of time for her to triangulate out of anything she says now. She flips more than a fish on the dock.
Given her RW Neocon leanings - no thanks
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)"I've always been for the public option."
For very specific definitions of "always."
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Sorry the fact doesn't fit with your opinion.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)Believing diametrically opposed things every other microsecond.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)It's clear and consistent. Sorry about that.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)on believing something is stupid. It's been painfully obvious that Hillary supporters here, yourself especially, will make assertions and believe them forever, no matter what other evidence is available. That shows that your support is a belief and that you have a strong emotional attachment to it, very similar to the way many people are attached to believing in an all-just, all-loving deity. As with them, arguing based on data and logic is a fool's errand.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)Because I know what she's pushed for since the early 1990s.
mindwalker_i
(4,407 posts)You're dependent on your beliefs and I might as well fart in the wind.
Ferd Berfel
(3,687 posts)remember...?
Round and Round She goes, Where she stops, nobody knows.
AtomicKitten
(46,585 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)That was Hillaryous!
surrealAmerican
(11,366 posts)It sounds more like a con job.
The Times should know better. This is crappy reporting.
davidlynch
(644 posts)That much is certain. This is purely self-serving self-defense, nothing more.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)problem.
Sparkly
(24,162 posts)I think the problem is rightwing permeation of media, for one.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)Why hasn't he?
Broward
(1,976 posts)SheenaR
(2,052 posts)Before it was Obamacare, they called it Hillarycare.
Maybe someday she will bring that up.
StevieM
(10,500 posts)He didn't have the votes. I suppose you could argue he should have fought to have the whole thing be done through budget reconciliation, in order to avoid the need for 60 votes. But that would have been an enormous decision, one that was fraught with complications, and might not have survived a Supreme Court challenge.
As for Hillary, I don't believe it is reasonable to believe that she would have been one of the few Senate Democrats outright balking at a public option, given her eight-year voting record when she was in the Senate. To question her veracity is to put her in the same category of Democrat along with Joe Lieberman, Joe Manchin, Arlen Spector, Mark Pryor, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu. She wasn't that conservative, even if you don't think she is as liberal as you might like her to be.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)not just people of "a certain age".
Why can't she just speak plainly? Why can't she just be honest?
840high
(17,196 posts)tabasco
(22,974 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)She doesn't even describe a public option there.
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And though she does not push Medicare for all which Sanders has offered but she has been and still is for universal healthcare.
Also she would like to reduce prescription cost and health care cost.
This is her position on healthcare:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/health-care/
NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)but then he never seemed to be for it so much post election that he would take to the bully pulpit and attempt to raise public awareness and support for it. Just campaign rhetoric...say anything progressive to get elected.
pdsimdars
(6,007 posts)to figure out where she left her loophole so she can do the opposite and claim she never said it.