The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

In my day we used to call this LYING, not "missing facts".

But I guess insisting on our mainstream American values of Truth, Justice, and the American Middle Class way of life is something that Red Bushies like Romney et al have no truck with.

It's a shame the Reds hate America so in the Grand Outed Perve.t party.

mibrooks27 claims that because the total cost for all of Sweden's 9 million people is $25.4 billion than the same could be provided for every American for $85 million. Since the U.S. has approximately 300 million people wouldn't that make the cost $846 billion not $85 billion? In addition, Sweden has a homogenous, highly educated, financially stable and, as a result healthier population than does the U.S. with its numerous underprivileged and therefore less healthy groups. I would suspect that their per patient cost would be less than the cost in this country.

Why would anyone think that Republicans can govern or be good for America when they hate government and think it is evil? What have Republicans done for America in seven years? Jack Squat, that's what. What an amazingly horrible record they have to run on. Unless you think ten TRILLION in debt, endless war, etc. etc. is somehow a virtue.

I'm not a Hillary fan, but I would vastly prefer her or any Dem to what we have now. At least Dems put forth ideas. Is her health care plan perfect? No. But at least we would have one.

The Republican's plan? You're on your own, left to competitive market forces. Wow, that has really worked well for us, hasn't it?

Why should my health be dependent on how much money I make? And why should we rely on companies whose business it is to deny us coverage? It just doesn't make sense.

Mitt's comments on Hillary should have been expected. Hey Mitt, we don't need MITT'S MESS IN MASS OR HILARY'S HEALTHCARE. Read my lips. WHAT WE NEED IS NATIONAL HEALTHCARE. Most of us already have it. The mail person, the congressman or woman, police officer, armed forces, representatives, mayors, govenors, school teachers, firemen, firewomen, all federal employees all state employees, as a matter of fact everyone in prison has health care. I wouldn't worry about the flak from the right or neo cons, if you take money out of the system be prepared to put some back.
The altenative, then NO ONE GETS ANY HEALTH CARE FROM THE TAXPAYER. ZILCH, NOTTA; ALSO NO MORE PENSIONS FROM THE TAXPAYER, PERIOD!!!

Thought-provoking post. But the political role of money from hedge funds and insurance companies needlessly complicates the debate. A much more fruitful approach would be Rep Conyers Medicare-For-All bill (HR 676, I believe,) than any of these hybrid 'don't-offend-the-insurance-companies' plans--most especially Romney's Mass. plan which would funnel state funds that ought to be helping the poor into subsidizing insurance companies.

Expanding the Medicare system to all Americans makes far more sense. Medicare works. I am old enough to remember when the right-wing in the 1960s insisted that the proposed Medicare plan was 'socialized medicine' that would cause the sky to fall. They were wrong then and they are wrong now.

Medicare-for-All lifts a multi-billion dollar burden from the backs of especially small business. Yes, some tax increase might be involved, at least initially, but that would be offset by saving the billions insurance company bureaucracies are milking employers and employees out of currently--to say nothing of drowning everyone in paperwork, co-pays and deductibles.

We would have a more economically secure and productive workforce under Medicare-For-All.

A winning candidate in the FDR-JFK mold would seize on this and waltz into the White House.

Rove's op-ed piece in the WSJ?

You mean the one where he claims that it's a DEMOCRAT who thinks that Americans would trade freedom for false security?

http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010620

Once again, he demonstrates that this administration and its minions - present or former - have no sense of irony or self-reflection. How they can continue to spew their propaganda and "mis-truths" with straight faces is, in a word, incredible.

Romney comes across as a light-weight. Light-weights have of course been elected before, but they have "connected" with voters, which "Mitt" just doesn't do. Incidentally he should also get a more adult name!

RATs are soooo easily overlooked!

LOL! Let's try this AGAIN!

Ommision 1-Hillary wants to raise Taxes on the wealthy to pay for others benefits!

Ommision 2-Small Business that supplies work to MOST fo the Illegals that are breaking our systems-ALL OF THEM!

She is a CRACKPOT!

YES! I agree with a Socialized form of Medicine-EXPAND THE MILITARY SYSTEM-It will now reach throughout the US, and not just the Larger Cities, make Training Available for Doctors and Nurses who might not otherwise be able to get it, and take a Huge burden off the Private Practice!-Making INSURANCE more affordable for those who want insurance for Private Practice! It will also allow EDWARDS Abused Practicioners a place to help people-without having a coniving Tort Lawyer steal everything they have earned!

NOW, as far as what the RepubliCAN'Ts have?

How about a Doctor-Dr.NO-Ron Paul.
A Military Expert-McCain!
A Legal Expert-Giuliani!
AN Immigration and Labor Law Advocate-Tancredo!
Huckabee-for what ever he can bring?
And other diverse alent from Exectutive Positions for work in the Cabinet of Front men and Statesmen-Romney and Thompson!

In other words-A TEAM!

Now, what do the Dims have Hmmmm?

Lawyers and a Mexican(Dual Nationality)!

Congressional Loser Lawyers who have ZIP to brag about for their time in their positions!

World Behold!-RAT-The! I have vision, and the rest of the World wears Bi-Focals!

Sorry Newman-Could'nt resist!

Hillary says, "everyone has to have insurance". What is the penalty if someone doesn't? There has to be something to coerce "everyone".
And then their is the part about how everyone pays the same for their health insurance. Does that mean that my wife and I get to subsidize the 2-pack a day lardo's next door?
This might not be the perfect cure to the problem.

Intelligent proposals unfortunately do not win elections in the US, what does are clever psychological plays, like Romney's attempt to "hilarize" the health care issue. The mocking, somewhat juvenile and dismissive banter that passes for intelligent debate plays well on Fox or talk radio. American males and the women they dominate are content to operate adolescent analytical tools and they are even smug about it. Romney and his Rovian ethics understand the power that arrogance asserts, if it is properly configured it resonates with the gutteral impulses that reside in the American character. The Republicans will continue to play to the base instincts and if they prevail we will all be brought lower still.

a canned press release in search of the facts? what language is that? does he mean the press release is general and hillary is in search of the facts? does he really think he's more aware of the facts than hillary? did he think 'canned press release' would confer statesman status and it didn't matter what he said next? i'm just happy the opposition is sloppy and ridiculous, indicative of the sort of government we'd get from them. (i.e., a bush redux)

No more pandering to special interest which do nothing to solve the healthcare problems in this Country. Of course, Republicans don't want to present any substative ideas about how to fix the problems, they just return to the old political standby of "Free Markets". It's bologna and for the last thirty years or so it's been obvious to everyone but the
rich. We do not live in a competitive free
standing economy. We live in an economic shark tank where the big and rich eat up the small and innovative by buying them out and accellerating the growth of their
corporations. Let's quit kidding each other and foisting the same old lies on the average people. They are not as dumb as the rich and powerful think they are. They are sometimes too passive about what they perceive around them. This Passivity leads to nothing but abuse by the economic and political power of the upper class of this country. The Middle Class just keeps taking it in the shorts, the poor stay poor, and the rich get richer. It's the way it's always been and the way it is presently. Both parties are guilty of pandering to special interests and the monied citizens among us, but at least Democrats see the problems and attempt to do something consstructive about them. Yes, it costs money. Did you think it wouldn't? Duh!

Affordability is a problem that almost every candidate who has addressed healthcare, has attempted to adddress--with varying degrees of success.

Another problem that very few have tried to address is how to handle people who have pre-existing conditions: e.g. pass a law that prohibits companies from denying coverage or charging more to people with medical conditions.

Hillery's Health Care Plan.....OK so lets just say you are a government retiree, Big Company retiree, military retiree or any other type that has a health care plan that you pay for as part of your retirement plan (One plan). You then reach Social Security Retirement age and now "must" pay for Medicare part B. (Two plans) And then we'll have Hillery's plan at $110 BILLION dollars a year but it won't be/or cause a bigger bureaucracy. But you will pay, either in employer/employee taxes or government taxes (somebodies gotta pay) And now you have three plans. One you earned, one you must pay for because it's part of Social Security and now National Healthcare. I don't get it and I for one cannot afford it. CSM-H

Terrific post and analysis!

I also hope that the debate will center around the fundamental question of: Should we as a United States have universal health care the forces the inclusion of the currently uninsured? And if so, are we as a society willing to pay $100 billion/year (approximately $8.5 billion/month) to do so? By comparison, I am told we are spending over $10 billion/ month on the Iraq conflict.

These, I believe, are the fundamental questions. What is your opinion?

Amazing: The non-partisian journalist, above the fray WP demonizes Romney for judging too fast, yet fails to do the same thing when Dems (party of the WP) reamed the plan of troop draw down before the general's testimory. Hmm...bias, what bias. Wait, it's the WP: the talking point rag in the Mid-Atlantic for liberalism.

MagicPanther, twistbar67 - Go take a look at my comments about this, above. If we implemented a Scandivanian style health plan, a single payer health system, in this country, we could have everyone covered and could at least $250 billion dollars annually. Moreover, under such a plan, employers wouldn't have the burden of providing health care for their employees. Liberals ought to be delighted by this becasue it really would provide universal health coverage. Conservatives ought to love the idea of saving billions of dollars. And consumers would be delighted to know that they wouldn't have to mortgage their homes to pay for nursing home care for sick parents, unable to take care of themselves. Of course, this IS genuine socialized medicine, but then so are things like the interstate highway system, the national park system, our military, etc. Some things are simply better run by the government; private parasites merely mucking up the works.

Most of the thoughts expressed in Rove's op-ed piece are worth considering. The fact of the matter is that our neighbor to the north has a mandated universal plan funded through payroll tax. It began with much ballyhoo. Now, average Canadians find themselves waiting for surgery and other essential care, while those with wealth come here.

If a market based plan was put in place, it may be a better solution for most of us. The distribution and quality of health care will never be equal nor fair. It is not in European nations that at least one of the posted comments suggests are the "civilized," and it will never be here. Someone with far greater wisdom than me said the poor will always be with us. Our task is provide reasonable care and any reform will need to account for this. Currently, we all pay anyway. Those without insurance present to an emergency room. They receive care. They do not pay. The cost is added to the charges given to the rest of us. Unfortunately, this is the market Rove wants to protect. It will soon price many of us out, thereby increasing the need for treatment that will not be affordable for us as we grow older.

The biggest problem with Rove's comment is, however, it is typical Rove. He outlines a strategy for Republicans to win the debate. It is a series of talking points for Republicans to attack Democrats that see the world differently. Rove is disingenuous in that he does not want or desire Republicans to act on any of his proposals other than "stiff the rich trial lawyers." The man has had almost seven years work in formulating policy for Republicans. When is the last time we heard any Republican seeking the presidency, the Senate, or a House seat do anything more than talk about the need to promote a market policy? The Republicans have had since 1994, and Rove since 2000 to do something. When did the Bush administration ever actually act other than to limit work product and medical malpractice litigation?

If we are left with Rove's suggestions, the Republicans will surely talk a good game. They have no intent to do any of it. They have coverage, damn good coverage, and care little for anyone else.

By the way, if Rove really thinks competition and the market will solve the problem, why are there no incentives to increase the number of trained physicians? Rove and his ilk does a good job of attacking rich lawyers, but do nothing to open the lock on medical shcol doors preventing limiting the number of physicians and training facilities. We hear many stories about the poor Ob-Gyn forced to leave for more fertile ground because of the cost of insurance. If Rove means what he says, the answer is not to have government interfere in the market by taking away traditional litigation rights, but to formulate policy to increase the number of Ob-gyn's. I do not think Mr. Rove has ever looked, or if he has, does not want to admit to knowing what physians earn. Hmmm? Might it be that a physician's income makes for good GOP donors?

The single most provocative issue in the Presidential debates this year will be Health Care, Health Care, one more time, Health Care. The American people will not care what tags the Repugs put on it, be it Socialized Medicine, Gov't sponsored health care, or Ugh, Big Government Health Care, but we will have an insurance plan sponsored by the gov't that everyone will have access to. Hillary has come out with the program that will get her elected, and all the gay issues, abortion and any other scam the Republicans can think of will not pass muster this time. Remember FDR----- We are returning to that era.

Big Daddy

What? Ideology before ideas?

Hypocritical Republicans...again. (Still.)

Mitt's not the only one. Every Earth is Flat neocon out there is screaming hysterically without bothering to review her proposal. The problem is: 1) National health coverage is apparently synonymous with devil worship despite years of success with Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. 2) Hilary is (gasp) a woman. We know that's wrong.

Hopefully, the day will come when the quality of a person's ideas will be more important than their sex.

Posted by: jlk1 | September 18, 2007 02:18 PM
====================================================
When Hillary shows the pan to get OUT of iraq, then maybe the time will have come to look at her proposal until then folks there just ISN'T any money left in America to pay for it.

Mitt Romney is an idiot and his blathering only serves to give credence to Hillary Clinton's plan to establish a publiclyt funded pigs trough for the health industry. Rommey neds to simple shut up and go away. The press, on the other hand, needs to do its job and expose Clinton's plan for what it is...a payoff to corporations that support her campaign and enrich her personally.

A surprsingly ignored part of Clinton's plan is a $110 billion government subsidy. It leaves in place the overly expensive and lousy quality system we have now. It doesn't do one thing about Medicare, Medicaid, nursing home care (which bankrupts families), prescription drugs, DME, etc. If we look to the Scandinavian countries, we can see health care as it should be here. In Sweden, the government implemented a single payer system. In 2005, just to take one example, more than 9 million Swedish residents were provided complete medical, dental, prescription drug, DME, and nursing home care for $25.4 billion. Using the exact same program, thus, we could provide the same health care system for every American man, woman, and child for slightly less than $85 billion. AND, there would be no need for Medicare, Medicaid, that insane prescription drug program passed by COngress, no need for families to mortgage their home to provide nursing home care for ailing seniors, no dental insurance. EVERYONE would ahve complete care....and, I would like it noted, the WHO and the UN rate health care quality in Sweden as the best in the entire world.

All of this for about $25 billion *less* than Hillary's corporate giveaway...er, subsidy. And, if you count the savings from doing away entirely with private health insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid, you're talking about something like $250 billion annually. I, for one, would like to see this as front page news and figure the Post owes us an investigative report on it.

On what platform exactly can the GOP run from strength? Fiscal responsibility? Military success? Integrity?

Posted by: DaTourist:
"step right up, folks, and watch Hillary and the Democrats shrink government! ... And suspend your sense of disbelief!"
==
Very easy: Get Blackwater, Halliburton and all those other no-bid contractors off the public tit. Tax the off-shoring, out-sourcing corporations with an out-of-country tariff. Government would then have a lot more money to operate.
--
Posted by: bandmom22:
"How many illegal aliens compose that 47 million figure? How do we know it's 47 million?"
==
More and more companies are dropping company-provided health care coverage for their employees.
CNN recently reported that the number "47 million" has now risen steeply and is closing in on 70 million.
Good question about how much illegal immigrants add to the burdens of our health-care system.
--
Balz didn't sail lightly over Romney's record; he actually provided a link to a previous "Trail Mix" post by Michael D. Shear, who talks about Romney's successful health-care plan he signed into law for Massachusetts, the same plan Romney is now running from like a scared rabbit, because he fears partisan attacks during his run up to the GOP Primary.
Oh, I forgot. Partisan hacks don't read; they just swing away with their worn-out epithets.

Romney's comments are a cheap hack shot. His words indicate the GOP does NOT have a plan to deal with the issue. Nor do they intend to.

He trots out that old canard with the boogeyman word "socialized" to make all the Floyd R Turbo gun-toting GOP kool-aid drinkers get all exercised as if the Red Army is marching down Constitution Avenue. Sorry Mitt, no sale.

Truth is, the GOP's "You're On Your Own" (YOYO) No-Plan amounts to genocide by neglect, and Hillary's solution is vastly preferable to that. By the way, Clinton's plan sounds like the same plan Romney came up with for MA with the help of "bleeding heart liberal" Ted Kennedy. The irony of him now calling that scheme "European-style, socialized medicine plan" is insane, but then again, he's drinking the kool-aid too.

I love reading the posts by the ragged right wingers. They reveal what a bunch of frightened biggots they are whenever Hillary makes the news and they respond. Why don't you guys just face it? She is a powerful woman and she frightens you because you think women are supposed to be weak and subservient to you. Even though they are smarter and wiser than you. Oh well.....LOL
I must admit that with the likes of Romney and Thompson, you had better try to discredit Hillary. Because you sure don't have anything to sell.

DaTourist,
2 things --

1) Remember that two of the biggest money spenders are Bush Junior and Reagan, who created way more debt for this country than many democratic presidents. Republicans always cry fiscal responsibility, but it's the Republicans who have cost us more money and more importantly, more lives. Bill Clinton was so-so as a president, but he did succeed in sound fiscal policies and in restoring faith in government that works. Now we've settled for much less with Bush.

2) Health care for all will cost the country less. It does not mean communism. It does not mean significantly changing your way of life. Don't be afraid. It is far too easy to cry that the Democrats are going to tax us all. If you look at the record in recent decades, the Democrats have actually been more fiscally responsible...

food for thought. Don't lose sleep over health care. It's a good thing for the country. You'll still be able to vote, live free, eat well, etc. Breathe.

As the candidate (among all Democrats and all Republicans!), Clinton has experienced more debacles, more unmitigated debacles and SNAFUs, than any other.

We need a President who has experienced debacles and SNAFUs on the scale of the Lewinsky scandal, and the Clinton universal health plan?

Oh, please, tell me that we don't!

"Clinton proposed no new government entities to administer the plan, although her aides acknowledge that some additional people would have to be hired within the existing bureaucratic structure to handle some aspects of it. The Massachusetts plan actually did create a new regulatory agency, although it is a fairly lean and not very costly addition to the state bureaucracy."

Now, here comes Ol' Dan shilling for Hillary, and pleading with us to believe (yes, we must willingly suspend of sense of disbelief!) that government will not grow like Topsy, given all these opportunities?

Of course, not, step right up, folks, and watch Hillary and the Democrats shrink government! Watch very carefully! And suspend your sense of disbelief!

"Instead of engaging in a debate on the merits of her proposal, the Republican candidates eagerly rushed to attack it as rampaging big government. It is one more example of why campaigns have left so many Americans disillusioned with the political process."

Okay, Balz leads us to believe that Hillary's Big Health Plan II is not "rampaging big government" but a plan to make government smaller? Is that what Hillary's plan actually does?

This article is too slanted. Clearly, Clinton and Romney are the two most experienced candidates on the subject. Clinton, because of her experience in crafting a plan based on the FEHBP that went a step too far, and Romeny who actually got a plan passed by a legislative body. The devil of any plan is in the details and the article didn't provide any details, instead it merely took a shot at Romney.

Posted by: KABOOKEY:
"Where was Danny Boy when Ole Hill was calling the General a liar."
==
Kabookey is playing the same game Romney is playing -- going for the surface partisanship, rather than addressing the heart of the debate.
And we had better debate health care in this country. We're heading for 25 percent of the American populace with no coverage (as opposed to about 12 percent, when Bill Clinton was president).
All of us pay for that 25 percent, who inhabit emergency rooms when they or their children become ill or suffer injury, through our health-care premiums.
The only reason we don't see the elderly sitting on street corners with their hands out begging money to buy medicine or see a doctor is that we have the successful program of Medicare.
It isn't perfect, but it is in place and Kabookey and others are spared significant extra costs to take care of their elderly family members (which they probably wouldn't be responsible for anyway ...)
Romney can't balance his pushing the partisan buttons to try to get through the Primary, then (should he make it) trying to appeal to the general election voters by flip-flopping.
Hillary NEVER called General Petraeus a liar. Kabookey's just falling in line with Romney. They're both partisan hacks.

How many illegal aliens compose that 47 million figure? How do we know it's 47 million?

People, there is a difference between health insurance and health care. No one in this country needs to go without health care. All you have to do is go to the hospital. Heck, even illegals know this! That's why so many hospitals in LA have closed.

To all you head in the sand Republicans out there, how is it that treating the uninsured's health problems in emergency rooms, thereby driving up everyone's cost, a desirable system? We all pay the price through higher healthcare costs. Fear not, Big Business will spend millions killing these proposals before they ever get off the ground. God Bless America!

JC

show proof of insurance to get a job? she doesn't stand a chance. her ideas are too much to stomach.

republicans like KABOOKY and GrayGhost2 and Lily44 remind me of an old friend.
this guy didnt like being married. so he fooled around a lot on his wife. and he got caught a lot. but whenever he got caught, he would simply lie, lie and lie and obfuscate, no matter how obvious the lie. and then he would go off on some unrelated tangent and attack his wife verbally and intimidate her emotionally and then she would just leave him alone.
that, to a large degree, is the sick dynamic republicans maintain with the general public. and that includes democrats.
by the way, social security is one of the biggest success stories in the history of this country. that's why republicans can't touch it, despite the fact that they've hated it since it began. but then, republicans have never minded old people starving and dying in unheated apartments after they are too old to work. as long as they get to keep the cash that this country's laws - intellectual property laws, corporate laws, patents, etc - allow them to accumulate.
oh! sorry, i forgot again. laws that regulate and allow rich people to accumulate more property are ok. that's not really regulation. that's just an example of the free market at work again. but laws that regulate and protect individuals from the power of corporations and the powerful, now those are examples of big government.
never mind!

RAT-To the Rescue!

First, No Change to the BENEFICIAL Tax Rates that Exist Billary/Dims!

Only Change I want is Dr. NO's(Anyone ask his Idea's on the Issue?-He is only a DOCTOR!) idea to scrap the IRS-of which over Forty cents on the dollar goes to supporting the friggin IRS! A Flat Tax is the BEST DAMN IDEA EVER!-Just Imagine, no more Complaints about who is paying what when where how or why!-God, just for that ALONE it is a great Idea!

Second, GET THE INSURANCE COMPANIES OUT OF THE ISSUE! If the Government is involved, just EXPAND the MILITARY SYSTEM!-Use it to teach and serve!

Third, the Illegals that are WIPING out our Hospitals are employed by SMALL Business! Contractors-who take injured workers to Emmergency rooms, instead of supplying Worker's Comp!-Which BTW, enables THEM to under-bid the Tax-Paying Legitimate Contractors and Steal even more jobs to hire even more illegals-who's Wives and Girlfriends have the Anchor Babies that begin costing us at Conception, and finish at College!

D'oh!

Team Up you RepubliCAN'TS!

It's the RAT thing to do!

Like AWOL George, Arbusto's children have been utterly useless to the war effort. Instead of fighting them over there before the Winnebagos of Death drive over and steal the Bush cronies Anthrax, the incestuous followers of Pastor Ted Haggard (Republican) have been staining the White House with the demon spawn of Karl Rove's intern semen and Bush's own children.

Candidate Romney would no doubt consider even the bare hint of such a proposal beneath his dignity, having expressed similar disdain regarding the YouTube-formatted debate on CNN, where the Democratic contestants were quizzed by, among others, a citizen pretending to be the voice of a snowman. "I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," huffed Romney. Oh you do, do you? says Vanity Fair. He and his fellow Republicans need to get over their fine selves, let go of their death grip on standard operating procedure. Genuflecting before the Reverend Pat Robertson; doing a Stepin Fetchit before Focus on the Family chairman James Dobson (yessboss); enjoying a sausage tasting with White House Spiritual Leader Pastor Ted Haggard at prayer breakfast, backpedaling on every moderate, sensible position you've ever held on abortion, capital punishment, illegal immigration, gun-pervert control, and the Confederate flag; going maudlin about embryonic stem cells as if you knew each one personally--these aren't beneath your dignity but you draw the line at a talking snowman?

The problem with Hillary's health palan and why many business leaders support it is it shifts the burden from the employers and empolyees who should divide the cost of the coverage like they do no to having we the overtaxed citizens of America pay for their costs.

Then the business owners can give themselves even larger outrageous salaries at our expense and America will be hamstrung form creative progress because almost all of our national tax revenues will be spent on "universal" health care.

Hillary's plan is a scam and a plot between her and her big business donors.

Good going WAPO. Bush will be gone soon and someone has to keep the cronyism alive.

The purpose of all private health insurance companies is to make a profit, not to provide health care. It is the fiduciary responsible of the governing officers of the insurance company to maximize the profits of their share holders or company owners. It is not their responsibility to provide quality health care to all of their insured customers. In fact a health care payment to an insured customer is considered a loss. Only if and when we as a country decide that health care is too important to be a cash cow for investors will we begin to understand why Republicans and their wealthy backers are so opposed to a single payer system. Maybe then we will force a change.

Today on TV, several pundits called Senator Clinton's 1993 health care plan a "debacle". The Clintons were trying to insure health care for those who could not afford it; A debacle is 2.7 million more people losing their health insurance this year. Katrina was a debacle; the Iraq occupation is a debacle!

PS - Liked MDS's post!

Rove's article doesn't say anything new. Its the same old stuff give more money to the big companies. No lawsuits they have been trying to get that shut down for years. If there were no mistakes there would be no lawsuits. Savings programs. Who has the money to save? And do you think for a minute that an individual can actually save enough through one of these programs to actually help them through a tough spot healthwise? I say no way not even close and I've experienced the whole thing. I think getting everyone covered is a good first step. Then it will be time to rein in the big companies who are profiting by disallowing procedures and medicines daily. There is no need for a cat scan machine on every corner. A lot of the cost of healthcare comes from things such as this. Massive redundency which goes unused. And the bit in the article about the cost being lower than expected. Sure it is because there are a vast number of people that can't figure out the plan or can't afford it. Doesn't help me much and when you get to the 'hole' life becomes difficult to say the least.

Yes, we all saw what happened when we left the Republicans in charge. Forty Seven million Americans with no insurance, illegal immigration out of control, three million jobs lost to outsourcing, and we went from a $200 Billion surplus to a $400 Billion deficit and the worst trade deficit in decades.
Yeah, we trust the Republican Kool-Aid drinkers allright. LOL!!!

"Individual Mandate" is a pretty jazzy term for the word "law"

They want to make it a law to have health insurance. Pretty much the long and short of it.

You can't drive in most states without car insurance. I wonder what punishment they'll have for you if you refuse to buy health insurance.

It's getting more and more expensive just to exist these days.

Countries that attempt to live by a moral code that is fiscally irresponible (social security/war/healthcare), will die by their code, as have all countries that have done so before.

The only thing Romney hasn't changed since becomming a Presidential candidate is the place where he parts his hair. That immovable, resolute, indestructable head of hair. If we elect him, although we know he will be a political mood ring and his positions will change on a daily basis, at least America will stand strong knowing his hair won't budge.

Where was Danny Boy when Ole Hill was calling the General a liar. Talk about the old double standard. I think Danny needs to be a little more honest if he wants anyone to think he is not looking for a job with Sir Edmund Hillary

Fortunately, Karl Rove picks up where Romney leaves off.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010620

Republicans Can Win on Health Care
A market-based system can give us freedom, innovation and health security.
BY KARL ROVE
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

During the political damage control over the Gennifer Flowers episode during the 1992 campaign, Hillary Clinton said in a joint 60 Minutes interview, "I'm not sitting here as some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette.
Was Clinton's statement true?

During the political damage control over the Gennifer Flowers episode during the 1992 campaign, Hillary Clinton said in a joint 60 Minutes interview, "I'm not sitting here as some little woman 'standing by my man' like Tammy Wynette.
Was Clinton's statement true?

Romney for president is a frightening thought.

Protecting the right of the individual state to make decisions based on the desires of its residents is worth talking about. (I seem to recall a country fighting a Civil War about that very topic.) Anyone who calls Social Security and Medicare big successes is living in a bubble. One is nearly broke and the other is rampantly spending money to foot egregiously high medical bills that no person in his or her right mind would pay without first demanding an accounting. Another fine example of government at work is our public school system. Yes, by all means, let's have a national, government-directed health care plan. Then everyone can experience the superior kind of medical treatment found at the VA.

i'm shocked!
an article that actually provides context and calls a spade a spade when that spade is obviously a spade. if mr. balz is serious when he decries the type of voter disgust he refers to, more of this type of analysis will definitely help lessen that disgust. and confusion. too often reporters simply report a candidate's statements and refuse to provide crucial context. republicans typically exploit this tendency and feel comfortable saying whatever fits into a particular news cycle, no matter how it might contradict their previous positions or statements. mitt romney has taken this tactic to truly olympian heights. (no pun intended.) his ability and willingness to say anything at anytime, no matter how it might contradict or compromise his past statements is truly mindboggling! and the fact that he appears to do it with a straight face and no shame is one of the most remarkable feats this person has ever observed!
congratulations, mr. balz, for doing something that is so extraordinary, even if it should be a simple, everyday occurrence.

Perhaps we should base our votes in the next presidential election on a "taste test" model, where we don't know the candidate or the candidate's party affiliation. Then we could get past the obsessive right-wing Hillary haters and the doctrinaire left-wingers. My guess is that the large majority of voters are moderate and willing to compromise in order to achieve progress ... and that's Hillary!

Mitt Romney has changed his mind about more things than any candidate in history. He'll undoubtedly change his mind about health care, as soon as polls tell him to. Flip-flopping, anybody?

Romney spent four years in Massachusetts working with a legislature that controlled virtually every aspect of the state by the shear power of their majority. Nearly everything he was opposed resulted in a legislative override. It's not that hard to say hey, "I did a good job...everyone else made the big decisions for me!" More substantively, Romney conveniently switched positions that he swore on when he ran for office...but then never had the courage to file legislation for those new positions, but simply wrote Op-eds. If you want a management consultant for president, then fine! Just be aware that most management consultants aren't concerned with your actual success, they just need to project that image for future clients.

"Hitler would be a more appealing candidate."

The debate is over and Fred has lost. What a disgusting comment.

I think it's about time WAPO went ahead and put a Clinton staffer like like Dan Balz on the payroll. That way he'll have something to fall back on when the American people vote against her in a landslide. Hitler would be a more appealing candidate... Overall, a nice, unbiased look at the issue.

Let's keep this straight: the GOP position is simple. Health care is NOT a right all Americans should enjoy. It is a privilege of wealth and birth, or of achievement (having the right job, like Congressman) and luck (having a job that doesn't have evaporating benefits). Here is another thing to keep in mind. Many people have a crisis-intervention system, not a health care system. When Bush said all you have to do is go to the emergency room, that's what he meant. Finally, the point of our crisis intervention system is to generate profit for the drug, medical and insurance industries, not to improve the health and well being of the citizens. As I keep saying, if you are hung up on civilization versus profits, move to a civilized country like France or Sweden.

I keep waiting to hear something substantive from the Republican candidates regarding health care, and I haven't yet. They seem to think the current system is working fine and should remain in the hands of the profiteering insurance and pharma corporations. It is another example of their lack of understanding of the actual conditions affecting the average person in this country. I would have a very hard time voting for someone who is so out of touch with my reality.

Romney is the most wishy-washy presidential candidate in GOP history. If he is their nominee, the Democrats will win in a landslide.

A great piece. Someone needs to forward it to Richard Cohen to show what substantive political discussion looks like.

I love when we get to play the game of semantics with GOP candidates, but ignore the verbal olympics Democrats have to play everyday as they go back-and-forth regarding their positions and "convictions".

Balz is a good writer, and has a keen mind for this stuff, but the implication that it is only GOP candidates who are trying the patience of the American people with partisanship is disingenuous at best. Hillary ran out a Socialistic plan for healthcare a decade ago. She is offering a "similiar" plan now. Romney isn't running away from his own plan as governor, but is taking the traditional Republican stance that individual states, not the federal government, should be making these decisions.

Conservatives want the Federal government to tax for things like war because that is their job. Education, Health Insurance (not "care", because care is open even for illegals), Agriculture, etc.

Read the constitution and Federalist papers if you're confused about what the Framers intended. But read the one that doesn't include fabricated "rights" that Liberals love to include by force of sheer will.

Open mouth; closed mind; Republican.

mikeVA1's critique appears to be based on little more than dan balz's headline.

like candidate, like supporter, I suppose.

I don't think Romney gets his small words from his advisors, I think the little words are just his vocabulary.

The lack of comprehension of the formerly pervasive concept of federalim teeters on depressing. As noted, Romney felt that the states are best positioned to address the concerns and needs of their citizens. The health care solution for New York would likely be far different than the solution for Montana. That is not a bad thing. The obsession with nationalizing every issue obscures the basic priciples of federalism, which lie at the very core of our Constitution. Thus, for many on the conservative side of politics, a federal solution to health care, regardless of what it entails, is a non-starter. So Romney's "knee-jerk" response was more in indication of his core beliefs regarding the role of a federal government, as opposed to any opposition to insuring to populace.

I was sort of shocked to read this analysis. Thanks to Balz. It's what reporters should always do, but it happens so infrequently.
Actually, I think Hillary's gone backward. Their 1994 plan was better. This isn't universal care, it's universal coverage -- huge difference.
It doesn't address the giant sucking sound of bigpharma and big insurance and an entrenched medical establishment making out like bandits.

Dan Balz, you musta been out to lunch when Romney brought a Bain, consulting-fact, deck to the Florida Medical Association on August 24, 2007.

Was Romney's presentation as slick as the choreographed rhetoric of Ms. Clinton? No. I think that she did an excellent job communicating her plan in some really nice political theater, and I do like and appreciate the work of both candidates.

Romney happens to be much better qualified especially on healthcare.

Romney is a former management consultant and venture partner, you know like McKinsey, the people called in numerous times to fix Hillary Care in Tennessee.

Why would anyone vote for a plan like Hillary care that rhetorically runs from government and runs from her failed leadership on this issue when they can vote for proven leadership?

There is basically nothing complex about most of health insurance. Since we all need our health, it is quintessentially the single payer, "big pool" needed for the lowest cost per individual. Insurance is basically accounts-payable, accounts-receivable, actuary, security and policy. What do the private insurers add? Only the profits taken out of our pockets. Profits have nothing to do with providing care. If anything the drive for profits has reduced health care for the exclusive benefit of the health insurance corporations.

I am always amazed that the people opposed to taxpayers paying for national healthcare coverage have absolutely no problem having taxpayers pay for bailing out large corporations, funding questionable war conflicts, and faith-based organizations.

"she [Clinton] has come to realize that the plan she authored during her husband's presidency sought to impose too much change at once."

....

I liked Governer Romney, but I don't much like presidential candidate Romney.

I don't see a 'debacle' in her 1993-1994 efforts. The Republicans at the time were not interested in whether or not the plan would work; their only concern was making sure she didn't succeed and get credit for improving the lives of Americans.

Did they offer their own plan? Did they offer informed critiques of the plan's weaknesses and suggest changes and improvements? No, they slashed-and-burned (or, Harry-and-Louised) it, created their own narrative, and sold it to the media, who of course lapped it up like milk. And judging by the article above, nothing has changed.

Go back and look at the plan, Mr. Balz. Was it perfect? No. Would it have worked? Probably. Would the country (and especially large american corporations - such as automakers) be better off if we had adopted the plan, warts and all?

Absolutely without a doubt.

What a shock. No new ideas, no original thoughts, no desire to investigate options to an incredibly serious problem.

Much better to pay PR companies to give him monosyllabic words and simpleton statements to spew in segments small enough for his intended audience to understand.

Mitt's not the only one. Every Earth is Flat neocon out there is screaming hysterically without bothering to review her proposal. The problem is: 1) National health coverage is apparently synonymous with devil worship despite years of success with Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. 2) Hilary is (gasp) a woman. We know that's wrong.

Hopefully, the day will come when the quality of a person's ideas will be more important than their sex.

An excellent post, which combines both substantive and political analysis.

One certainly hopes that this sort of reporting will make it into more "front-page" venues, e.g., news pages, print versions, TV talkshows.