Letters to the Editor
-
krugman smugman
the man has it in for Obama, but in any case, this article focuses only on one issue, health care ...
and the focus is used to spin the question of who advocates for "universal healthcare" - Hilary, who would fine poor people who couldn't afford to purchase her private insurance based plan, or Obama, who is shilling a similar plan, but has some reservations on the affordability issue, and hence only "mandates" insurance for children.
If you've followed this issue at all, you will know that Romney set up a similar mandate plan in Mass, with some problematic consequences due to the lack of any cost control.
In my mind, they are both wrong in that we need desparately to cut the private insurance industry out of the picture and go to a single payer system. However, I give Barack kudos for at least considering the concept of affordability, which is undoubtly a foreign concept to Hillary. I also think it likely that she would try to ram her ideas through and achieve nothing, whereas, there would be much more opportunity to develop a thoughtful dialogue on the issue with Obama, with potentially some other solutions arising.
Hate to tell you, but mandates is yet another the repubs will also hammer Hillary on ....
-
soundbite for Republicans: Hillary Clinton will garnish your wages
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.
The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages ..."
"GOING AFTER PEOPLE'S WAGES" ...
IS THAT THE WAY REAL DEMOCRATS TALK? ...
THE REPUBLICANS WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATS' CANDIDATES WITH THE KIND OF ARROGANT, CONFISCATORY PROGRAM PROPOSED BY HILLARY CLINTON ...
-
Xrandadu Hutman
oops - you caught me. Bully for you.
But - I am not really comparing the situation so much as the attitude which gives rise to the situation. A vote for Edwards this late in the game (had he not pulled out) - a vote on principle - simply reeks of the same type of posturing (yes - including my own) that led many to vote for Nader in 2000. Making me suspicious that Traister is the type who would do so again. Posturing must be more important to her than her political committments if she can't see that Obama is the closer cousin to Edwards and Kucinich than Hillary is.
-
holy cow ...
"I am relieved that we got rid of Saddam Hussein though, as I am sure everyone is"....
wow, Texas Democrat ... that sure sounds like you've drunk a lot of that good ole texas water
-
Naral endorsement
Also, please read the endorsement of Kate Michelman (of NARAL).
Good grief. Yet another thing that surely will help him win over red state America and that McCain won't use against him there!
-
as someone who used to live in Massachusettes
We (people struggling to pay our heating bills in the winter) hated having mandatory health care which didn't always do much good anyway. I had mandatory health care and still had to pay $5,000 in dental bills (I had dental insurance) that I'm going to be paying forever....
My employer only paid half.
Obama's plan sounds better to me because it allows people to choose something. Otherwise if its expensive and you don't want it....at least with car insurance you don't have to drive. Why should people be forced to pay for health insurance if it isn't good insurance and they can't currently afford it?
People don't want to pay health insurance instead of heating their homes or buying food each paycheck.
Seriously.
-
@Texas Democrat
Texas Democrat: "Remember people, we got Saddam Hussein and that is worth its weight in gold!"
How much does over a trillion dollars worth of gold weigh?
Yep, taking out one dictator (who we helped prop up to begin with) was totally worth the deaths of 650,000+ people, nearly 4,000 of our own troops (not counting contractors), over 20,000 seriously maimed troops, etc.
Because we got rid of that jackass with the mustache! Yaaaaa-hoooo!
-
True - and
A vote for Edwards this late in the game (had he not pulled out) - a vote on principle - simply reeks of the same type of posturing (yes - including my own) that led many to vote for Nader in 2000. Making me suspicious that Traister is the type who would do so again
Indeed.
And furthermore Edwards voted for the war in Iraq! And Obama voted to fund it as soon as he could.
But we all know the Iraq war is all Hillary's fault per the children promoting Obama!
-
Anonymous
That's right: "to garnish the wages of workers who REFUSE to buy health insurance to ACHIEVE COVERAGE for ALL AMERICANS."
ALL AMERICANS, you idiot. And Clinton also spoke in length about making it far more affordable than it is now for folks. I'll gladly pay for that than what I'm paying NOW which is an outrage.
-
Saddam
Yep, taking out one dictator (who we helped prop up to begin with) was totally worth the deaths of 650,000+ people, nearly 4,000 of our own troops (not counting contractors), over 20,000 seriously maimed troops, etc.
Especially since Saddam was our friend and wasn't stirring up any problems for us right?
Taking out Saddam was a good thing, dear. Done right it would have given you access to loads of cheap crude oil to drive around in the SUV with the "environmental" license plates.
The problem was with the Bush administrations complete bungling of it and failure to see the obvious pitfalls and have any contigency plan.
-
@Villemar
Don't forget about Chelsea and the twins!
-
Electability
There are many reasons why I have chosen to vote for Barack Obama, but the most important one, is electability. I believe that he is the one candidate, Democrat, or Republican, who can unite the country and change the course of history.
The forces of cynicism and negativity have dominated politics in this country for a generation. But Obama, has the ability to transcend many of the fault lines that have plagued our society for decades, in a way that no other politician can.
Regarding Rebecca's dilemma around voting for a woman, and what that means to her, as a feminist I see no reason to vote for Hillary on the basis of her sex. Personally, I feel that she has been a great disappointment as a Senator, in terms of liberal issues. Her vote authorizing Bush to make war on Iraq was only one of many questionable votes. For instance, in 2005 she co-authored a bill that would have outlawed flag burning, and in 2007, she voted with Joe Lieberman to declare the Iranian Red Guard, a terrorist organization, a move that would have given Bush a blank check to attack Iran.
Unfortunately, many women who are elected to higher office, often become even more hawkish than many of their male counter parts. Perhaps it's because they are afraid of being perceived as weak, but certainly, Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, and Indira Ghandi, could hardly be called dovish.
Then there is the issue of like-ability. For whatever reason, there are many independents and Republicans who simply hate the Clintons. Whether fair or not, deserved or not, is beside the point, when it comes to electability. Just as most people don't serve Liver at a dinner party, whatever the merits or even tastiness of the dish, serving up the Clintons as the Democratic nominees could be something that far too many would, automatically want to pass on, to be a wise choice.