Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: (09-16-2009) "Health Care What-ifs" -- What if Hillary were running the show? (NY Times)


gold

Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Date:
(09-16-2009) "Health Care What-ifs" -- What if Hillary were running the show? (NY Times)
Permalink  
 


WASHINGTON — Getting health-care legislation through Congress might have been easier for President Obama and his party if Senator Edward M. Kennedy were still running the Senate health committee.

Similarly, the White House might be on surer footing in the health care debate had it not been forced to withdraw the nomination of former Senator Tom Daschle as secretary of health and human services, after the disclosure that he had failed to pay income taxes. But here is another what-if to consider as the health care negotiations lurch through what are presumably their final months: What if Hillary Rodham Clinton had stayed in the Senate and been awarded an elevated role in managing the health care bill?

Just raising this question provokes a strong reaction from some Democrats around Washington. Mrs. Clinton, now the secretary of state, remains a particularly polarizing figure on this issue: Fairly or not, she, along with former President Bill Clinton, is blamed by some Democrats for the collapse of health care legislation in 1994, after Mr. Clinton put his wife in charge of the effort to get his signature issue through Congress (....)

Yet some Democrats said there were many things that Mrs. Clinton would have brought to the table. For one thing, she had, like Mr. Kennedy, credibility with the left wing of the party, which is — to put it mildly — highly suspicious of the direction of the legislation, especially the version emerging from the Senate Finance Committee under its chairman, Max Baucus of Montana.

Uneasiness on the left is one of the biggest headaches Mr. Obama has on the Hill these days. Mr. Kennedy, several Democrats said, probably could have persuaded the left either to give in or at least to compromise on what is known as the public option, the proposal for a government-run insurer that has become a major sticking point; Mrs. Clinton might have been able to do that as well.

www.nytimes.com/2009/09/16/us/politics/16nagourney.html



__________________
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession."


Administrator

Status: Offline
Posts: 2818
Date:
Permalink  
 

I remember before she took SOS that Kennedy and some of the other dems were marginalizing her in the Senate on Health Care and now it looks like she could have saved this bill.  I don't see it passing or if it does it won't be the Reform that the liberals are looking for.

__________________

4459303562_3f593359a2_m.jpg



Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well, it's notable that before giving Hill credit for her influence with the left wing of the party, and her potential ability to get heath care reform passed, the NYT saw fit to first describe her as "polarizing" (how original!). Secondly, they had to first mention Kennedy as the most likely to impact passage of health legislation (if he were still alive and well).

But, it is refreshing that the NYT would at least give some credit where credit is due when it comes to Hillary. They've done their share to attempt to damage her in many other instances.

BTW, in answer to whether if Hill had remained in the Senate, and been named chair of the senate health committee, she could have helped get legislation passed - the answer is yes, she could have gotten a reasonable version of health care reform passed. But, Obama would not have given her that position - at least, initially. First of all, he was ignorant of the fact that America would actually begin to doubt his leadership ability, and lose faith in his promises of post-partisan, post-racist utopia. He would never have imagined that he would require the services of Hillary in this capacity - until reality set in. Then, who knows. He is, after all, nothing if not self-serving, and if Hill could help advance health care reform, and by extension, Obama, himself, he would have eventually sought her help.

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



Super Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 428
Date:
Permalink  
 

Two things immediately came to my mind when I read this.

First when I read this: "Fairly or not, she, along with former President Bill Clinton, is blamed by some Democrats for the collapse of health care legislation in 1994, after Mr. Clinton put his wife in charge of the effort to get his signature issue through Congress (....)"
I thought GOOD now when their "chosen One" fails at it too HRC will be vindicated.

and Second when I read this: probably could have persuaded the left either to give in or at least to compromise on what is known as the public option, the proposal for a government-run insurer that has become a major sticking point; Mrs. Clinton might have been able to do that as well. I'm glad HRC is not working on it, because she would get it through and I think it is a bad Bill.  Whoever is attached to it will eventually lose their elected position.  So it's a good thing HRC is not their doing Obama's bidding and pushing through his ill advised ObamaCare = Nightmare Bill.


-- Edited by thebword on Wednesday 16th of September 2009 10:42:51 AM

__________________


Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 1191
Date:
Permalink  
 

Yeah, back when I didn't HAVE to pay attention to politics, and the Clintons WERE running the show, I didn't check out what happened with her attempt at health care reform.  Wonder if there's an objective review of what did actually happen back then somewhere...evileye

__________________

Barack/Barry:  If you're NOT LEGIT, then you MUST QUIT!!



gold

Status: Offline
Posts: 29
Date:
Permalink  
 

Alex, I don't know if it's an objective review, but Carl Bernstein goes on it at length in his (unauthorized) biography of Hillary.  Even though Bernstein is decidedly NOT in Hillary's camp these days, I found the biography relatively even-handed and fair.  About the health care debacle, he gives a balanced account.  Some of the blame goes to Republicans who were out to get the Clintons from the earliest days of the Clinton administration and over the next eight years tied up their time and spent $50 million of our taxpayer dollars on a witchhunt which eventually yielded one stained blue dress we should never have heard about in the first place; part of the blame goes to the huge deficit inherited from Bush I with which Bill was unexpectedly saddled -- he was forced to shelve a number of the reforms he'd hoped to implement, and while he continued to fight for health care, it was not a propitious time economically to be adding to the deficit; part of the blame can be chalked up to sexism and the old-boy network among Congressional Democrats -- there was enormous resistance (even legal challenges) to Bill's having appointed his wife to head up a major task force, and the Dems were peeved that she didn't scrape and bow enough.  But a major chunk of the blame does go to Hillary -- as Bernstein portrays it, she sometimes showed a tin ear politically speaking, and failed to realize the ill will she had generated by not consulting Congress early on; by the time she realized it, the tide had really turned against her, and it was too late. This idea that she was holding secret exclusive meetings which excluded key parties in the healthcare debate is simply not true -- she just made the big mistake of excluding Congressional Democrats.  I forget the details, but I think she was also pretty stubbornly insistent that it was her way or the highway -- but who knows? One of Bernstein's major sources was that guy -- blocking on his name, fired by the Clintons when it emerged he paid prostitutes to suck their toes, now a Fox analyst and Clinton-hater, so.....

 

Re-reading the circus to which the Clintons were subjected (and all of us, unfortunately), I found myself doubly enraged at Ken Starr and the vast right wing conspiracy (there was) that instigated that farce and slammed the door shut on a golden opportunity to begin reforming healthcare. They are the true villains in the story, not Hillary.



__________________
"I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession."


Platinum

Status: Offline
Posts: 495
Date:
Permalink  
 

Hillarysmygirl16 wrote:

I remember before she took SOS that Kennedy and some of the other dems were marginalizing her in the Senate on Health Care and now it looks like she could have saved this bill.  I don't see it passing or if it does it won't be the Reform that the liberals are looking for.




 rendell said obama did not step up to defend it or outline the details of the plan so the GOP filled the void most of the summer was wasted. he said obama finally spoke up last week but dems lost ground (he supported hillary and even said she was the experienced leader and that the primaries (caucus) were unfair) he said that AFTER he endorsed Obama (once HRC endorsed him too)



__________________
Amy Dugan
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard