2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI think Chelsea is being swift-boated.
Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Edit after 25 replies. I was hoping to have a conversation about the targetting of Chelsea to make her look prone to gaffs. Instead we seem to have the same old re-hash of which health care plan is preferable. My point is that if Chelsea is stating positions her mother is taking publicly, then she's not making political gaffs. Instead people are twisting what she says. Since she's a relatively minor player, then this attention feels coordinated to me.
**** original post ****
Having read responses to a thread entitled
'Chelsea: Mom will do something to address the crushing costs of Obamacare. 'and seen that a lot of Clinton supporters are buying the idea that Chelsea makes unthinking troublesome remarks, it's dawned on me that this may well be a concerted plan to swift-boat her. Below is a discussion of the distortion in the "crushing costs" thread. But I want to point out the first "Chelsea gaff" that hit the news some months ago, where she was lambasted for suggesting that Sanders wanted to dismantle ObamaCare. Why was she lambasted? It's exactly what the Clinton campaign has been saying. To get rid of insurance companies is to dismantle Obamacare. But even Clinton supporters seemed to buy that it was a gaff.
I think we supporters should take the time to track back to the original context the next time Chelsea is a target.
Discussion of the "crushing costs" thread.
The actual quote was:
"She thinks either of those will help solve the challenge of kind of the crushing costs that still exist for too many people who even are part of the Affordable Care Act,"
Of course it has been a main feature of Clinton's agenda to address the remaining problems in the Affordable Care Act. How is this a gaff on Chelsea's part?
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)is irresponsible at this point.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Obama: and Chelsea is was right Sanders wants to start
all over with out the ACA.
I say no way, and no to Sanders
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)and private for profit health care plans which are basically high deductible health care plans that really only rich healthy people should buy.
there never has been any solution in neither Obama or Hillary's plans for the 10% or so of Americans who have a chronic medical condition. This has always been the problem and the real test of a health care plan is how it deals with that situation. Unfortunately, trade ideology is basically what is preventing the country from dumping the system which obviously isnt working - and we're being fed a pack of lies to cover it up here.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Baobab
(4,667 posts)This is a big thing:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.405.5725&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Baobab
(4,667 posts)the WTO in 1994 or 1995. However i think the effective standstill date was the date in 1998 when the Understanding on Commitment in Financial Services became effective. That is likely the one which matters on health insurance. So all of the ACA is challengeable because it likely violates the standstill, so expect at some point in the future for the parts that insurance companies dont like to get dumped, once the WTO gets effective jurisdiction you can bet on it.
Which brings me to Hillary's solution - globalization of health insurance. that way people who need care and are poor can be sent places where their money is worth more. Alternatvely, US doctors can be replaced by low paid high skill temp workers- GATS has a huge global guest worker program built into it.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)the space program ... none were possible before they were. It would be impossible for me to get my ass up off my couch and walk to the refrigerator if I didn't want to. Possible/Impossible is a matter of will and political fortitude. Leaders lead and get things done. Bernie Sanders will lead on this issue. Hillary? Not so much.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)PROOF:
The Current and Projected Taxpayer Shares of US Health Costs
David U. Himmelstein, MD, and Steffie Woolhandler, MD, MPH
WE COULD HAVE IT TOMORROW - JUST BY GETTING RID OF THE WASTE LAYER HILLARY WANTS TO KEEP.
TheFarseer
(9,322 posts)I know because they did away with our health plan because it would be hit by the Cadillac tax so now we have a crappy high deductible plan. And every time I try to complain about it, I get a story from that person how obamacare screwed them. I love paying for healthcare that won't pay for anything. It's awesome! We need Medicare for all!
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Single payer cant work if it has to charge money because of GATS rules and because then people cannot go to the doctor right away, one of the most important parts of single payer is its lack of tiers and everybody being in, rich and poor, the simplification saves a lot of money.
and the existence of private insurance basically makes single payer break.
Viva_La_Revolution
(28,791 posts)blame the parents
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and that will go a long way while being actually attainable.
Unfortunately, the "single payer or bust" revolution is caught up in its "all or nothing" mode.
Mika
(17,751 posts)I better put a few mil into insurance stock hoping Hil will win. I'LL BE RICH!!
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)You are against people getting subsidized healthcare because someone will provide the infrastructure and get rich from it?
Mika
(17,751 posts)Why should anyone get rich by "investing" in health care?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)Doctors, nurses, physical therapists, psychologists etc all get "rich" from the system.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)I'd rather you have used generate income. While some healthcare providers do become wealthy; it really depends on the profession and/or specialty.
Mika
(17,751 posts)Notice that a straw man (providers) was introduced in the response to my not for profit comment.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)nt
Cal Carpenter
(4,959 posts)And that is the problem. Insurance is not part of the infrastructure of health care. Subsidizing premiums to those for-profit companies is not equivalent to subsidizing the costs of health care for people. It is not essential to health care, either.
Autumn
(45,082 posts)I am perfectly fine with my tax dollars going into government programs like Medicaid and Medicare to pay for peoples healthcare. In fact they can raise my taxes to do that.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Autumn
(45,082 posts)since the tax for the very wealthy is at 43.4% but I can take a guess. So it seems we are at a stand off.
http://www.americansfortaxfairness.org/tax-fairness-briefing-booklet/fact-sheet-taxing-wealthy-americans/
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Autumn
(45,082 posts)It's not exactly telling the insurance companies to "cut it out" but his plan isn't horse shit either.
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Then we find out it is not viable or Sanders really doesn't
have plan to get done what he is promising.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Because increasing subsidies requires Congress to pass an appropriation.
Otherwise, you're just promising a pony, and Clinton supporters would never do that, right?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)and insurance companies as well as republicans. It will not be seen as a communist - I mean socialist plan.
Also, after this loss, republicans may not control the senate and will have a bitter pill with a realization that simply obstructing everything will not fly.
Obamacare was a hard fought battle because it was seen as a socialist program and most Americans are viscerally opposed to anything socialistic with government control.
Increasing subsidies will be a popular measure and won't be seen as a draconian take over.
Incremental change is how we'll get to the single payer - probably in Hillary's second term.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Heck, around 40% of Republicans support single-payer.
Yeah, look at how they were utterly destroyed after their massive obstruction starting in 2011....oh wait.
That's why we despise Medicare and Social Security and roads and the military....oh wait.
You haven't even managed to come up with a way to get incremental change. Your claim is the party that voted to repeal the ACA more than 60 times will suddenly want to make it stronger.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)With effort, one may be able to extract oil by grinding sand,
one may even be able to satisfy thirst with mirage,
one may find a horned rabbit by searching the jungles
but one can never persuade someone who refuses to digest a view of reality.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)In fact, your saying demonstrates the futility of this.
Again, how do you get the Republicans to actually vote for the ACA? 'Cause unless you've got a realistic plan, you're promising a unicorn. And you'd never do that, right?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)They always were. Heck, the ACA was designed by Heritage on behalf of insurance companies in response to Clinton's 1993 reform efforts.
Yet the Republicans voted to repeal the ACA more than 60 times, despite the health insurance companies being "on board".
So again, what's the realistic plan to get the Republicans to change from "destroy the ACA" to "strengthen the ACA"?
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)Insurance companies did. It resulted in 0 Republican votes for passage, and 60+ repeal votes.
Again, what's the Realistic plan to get the Republicans to change from "destroy the ACA" to "strengthen the ACA"?
beedle
(1,235 posts)The one where Republicans will not cooperate with Sanders but will with Clinton?
I'd like to smoke some of that mirage you're smoking.
The likelihood of Republicans cooperating with:
Obama [0%]
Clinton [0%]
Black Lesbian Feminist Atheist Abortion Doctor [>0%]
Sanders [>0%]
-------------------
Armstead
(47,803 posts)The people who don't qualify as officially low-income but can't afford crushing healthcare costs are the ones being hurt.
Baobab
(4,667 posts)Wages will take a nose dive for the whole middle class though, just about. A right wingers wet dream.
dogman
(6,073 posts)She may have been exposed as supporting the insurance industry, that is not swift-boating.
artislife
(9,497 posts)She cannot be swift-boated.
Mary Mac
(323 posts)But have to get insurance outside AFC. It's not affordable for me. Hillary said in her rally in Charlotte what Chelsea said. We have to make it more affordable to middle class.
litlbilly
(2,227 posts)tularetom
(23,664 posts)I don't think anybody really cares what this young lady has to say. She hasn't proven to be a deep thinker or a charismatic orator, she seems to possess a rather bland personality. You flatter her to imply that she is important enough for anybody to make the effort to discredit her.
Mika
(17,751 posts)Making millions from Wall Street.
gordianot
(15,238 posts)The cost of Obama Healthcare plans is a common Republican complaint. Chelsea problem is addressing it as a loaded question she should have asked Mom or Dad first. Kids say the darnedest things.
JudyM
(29,241 posts)gordianot
(15,238 posts)He took risks and survived. Later he spoke with conviction in opposition to the war. The disrespect shown to Mr. Kerry was intolerable at the time and subsequently contrived.
JudyM
(29,241 posts)peace13
(11,076 posts)..The troops are fungible.
peace13
(11,076 posts)gordianot
(15,238 posts)This was about the same time the Swift Boat story was breaking. The family was at the rally of course the story only got local publicity.
JudyM
(29,241 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)k8conant
(3,030 posts)she's just making misleading statements in support of her mother's candidacy.
I don't see how "swift-boating" is even remotely possible.
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)Hillary-ous post! Of course, you actually have to engage in behavior that is noble and altruistic in the first place in order to be "swift-boated" ala John Kerry, who served his nation with honor and then made a public point of protesting the war through a return of his medals and ribbons.
Your post implies that Chelsea Clinton has ever done anything worthy of being considered the equal of such an act: hanging out with her BFF Ivanka Trump and working on Wall Street doesn't qualify.
Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)jillan
(39,451 posts)Orsino
(37,428 posts)She's just putting out minor variation's on the campaign theme.
Calling her out as a mouthpiece with weak talking points is not the same thing as swift-boating, which involves lies about actual accomplishments.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)In a campaign season dominated by populism and distrust of Wall Street, Chelsea isn't one of Clinton's strengths.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)after being critical of Bernie. The Clinton's have no ethics and will do or say anything to get elected. Trotting their daughter out their to do their bidding is shameful and disgusting.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... weaknesses in a complicated, but valuable program is to "piss on " it???? I'm glad you're not making decisions that affect my life. Nothing would get fixed.
ThePhilosopher04
(1,732 posts)unless you'd rather pay the middle men for inferior service. Perhaps you would.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)I got a hide for pointing this out. Go figure.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Sorry, she's earned all the criticism this cycle.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)Like I said in the OP, the important thing now is to dig to the bottom of such critiques.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)You know, heaven forfend we stop letting murderers out so we can make room for the medical marijuana patients DWS has been voting to keep sending to prison.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... that she wasn't worrying about stopping "putting millions in prison for things like pot smoking." She was worrying, instead, about Sanders' plan, which would require lots of action from the states, reflecting a lack of understanding or accuracy on Sanders part. Anyway, I'm glad to have this critique cleared up too.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Here are the relevant paragraphs:, emphasis added:
But Ms Clinton's daughter argued that reform needs to come in the shape of education and the promise of jobs, citing her mothers cradle to education and cradle to jobs pipeline policy for historically disenfranchised communities like inner cities and rural areas.
Please note that if this was just about a dispute around "how best to achieve an end to policies like filling prisons with mandatory minimum sentenced drug users", she could easily have said that or left it at that. However, she not only both implied that Sanders' proposals were not feasible due to the discrepancies btw state and federal corrections, but ALSO that the approach itself was wrong-headed, as seen above.
So let's "unpack" this more, shall we? Because I've noticed from the Clinton camp a distinct reflexive avoidance of these particular issues, like how any question to Hillary in the debates on marijuana legalization would be clumsily pivoted to "the heroin addiction problem".
Derp.
So okay, Chelsea understands that there is a distinction between state and federal drug law and enforcement. So why doesn't Hillary? Why does she, unlike Bernie Sanders, want to leave the federal marijuana scheduling apparatus in place, with only a token move from Schedule I to II- a move which might make it easier for big pharma to pursue highly profitable and patentable cannabis derivatives, but would NOT prevent both recreational and medical users in the now over half legal states from facing arbitrary prosecution and continued incarceration at the behest of a future DOJ that might decide to take a harder line?
LAS14
(13,783 posts)She was misrepresented. I wasn't aiming to get into a detailed discussion of their plans. It's complex, and, frankly, I'm not up on all the details.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Im sorry, but that is what this is all about.
You cant really argue she is being "unfairly represented" if you dont actually understand the parameters of what the representation is OF.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... she had made a political gaff. She was being represented as ineptly representing the campaign's position. She wasn't. I wasn't saying that it was unfair to disagree with the position. That's fine.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)by Chelsea on the topic of things like Sanders's health care proposal- implying that he "wants to take away your health insurance" and "get rid of Obamacare" which is a flat-out, deliberate misrepresentation of what a SPHC proposal is aiming at.
And they sent her out on purpose, and the things she has said- again, she's smart and these aren't "gaffes", this is deliberate- have all been completely planned and are part of an attempt to give Hillary cred with Millennials, who don't favor her particularly much, not that it's working.
Here's the thing, too- I've always liked the Clintons. Never had any problem with Chelsea, although again I think the things they've been (presumably) "asking" her to say on the behalf of her mother's campaign are at best cringe-worthy.
But past a certain point all 3 of them are a bit like U2, unable to figure out why the world isn't undyingly grateful to have their latest album downloaded for free onto itunes.... whether the people want it or not.
It's not 1996 anymore, and Hillary's people really should stop campaigning as if it is.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... you "get rid of Obamacare" and have to start over.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Replacing it with something objectively better (and cheaper for us, as a society) is fundamentally different than "taking it away"
Im sure you understand this, and it was discussed into the ground at the time. People lamely tried to spin it as "oh sanders wants to get rid of obamacare to put a sphc system in place, but he wont be able to, so he'll just get rid of the aca and leave it". Derp.
As sanders himself says, he helped write the aca. This idea that hes gonna leave people without insurance is inane fear-mongering.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)...Bernie wants to "take away health care." I know he doesn't want that. But I think it's a bad move to "take away insurance companies" in order to replace what we've got with something brand new. He thinks it will work. I think it won't. But you don't argue that he doesn't want to get insurance companies out of the picture do you?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)the 20% overhead we pay due to for-profit insurance would shake out better for us as a society, as well as individual consumers, with the 2-3% avg. overhead a single payer system generates.
We all agree that medicare works, right? We don't want to get rid of that, we understand that medicare by virtue of its size is able to negotiate prices, etc that smaller entities cannot. So what's so crazy about extending the medicare model to the entire population? Especially given that older folks in general need more care. Putting everyone into one giant insurance pool and taking the profit-driven entites out of the equation makes sense, unless one happens to work for an insurance company.
There are two questions, beyond that, in terms of "will it work" or more specifically "will he be able to get it past the GOP house", and I think the answer to the second is probably not, but using that yardstick nothing Hillary does will get through, either. Only difference is that with Hillary in the WH the house will undoubtedly start with the special prosecutor bullshit on Jan. 21.
But leaving that aside, saying part of his plan is to get rid of insurance companies (it is) is NOT the same thing as suggesting he would in any way, shape, or form leave the american people with NO health coverage. The only way the first part of the process would take place would be in conjunction with the second.
So yes, it is disingenuous fear-mongering. And insulting the intelligence of the voting public, which is perhaps one of the worst aspects of HRC's campaign strategy to date- sort of like when she tried to explain away her ties to wall st. "because we were attacked on 9-11".
And again, it often seems like whoever is running her show thinks it is 25 years ago, and doesn't realize that people can fact check assertions in 15 seconds on google now.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)I think my point is still valid. That Chelsea said nothing contrary to the Clinton campaign, did not commit a gaffe, is not a bull in a China shop.
"But leaving that aside, saying part of his plan is to get rid of insurance companies (it is) is NOT the same thing as suggesting he would in any way, shape, or form leave the american people with NO health coverage. The only way the first part of the process would take place would be in conjunction with the second. "
Right. So I agree that Sanders wants to keep Americans covered. (Although I don't agree that his plan is feasible... but that's another debate.)
So why can't you agree that Sanders' plan includes replacing Obama care (dismantling it) with something else?
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Here's how the huffington post reported it, at the time:
[font size=4]
Chelsea Clinton Said Bernie Sanders Would Take Health Care From Millions
[/font]
Got it? "Would take health care from millions".
End of story.
ViseGrip
(3,133 posts)tearing it all apart to nothing, to start over. That was a lie. That is what made people angry not at her, but her parents for sending out their child, with remarks off the mark.
LAS14
(13,783 posts)... not starting over?
Response to LAS14 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)She's already got a Wall Street husband.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)LAS14
(13,783 posts)... a "basis for a national campaign." It's just my opinion. I haven't heard anything about it from the Clinton campaign. But I do thing we citizens need to be on the alert for threats to our democracy that come from distorted/false reporting.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)MichMan
(11,923 posts)How about this gaffe?
'I was curious if I could care about money on some fundamental level, and I couldnt,' Clinton told The Telegraph. 'That wasnt the metric of success I wanted in my life.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2666265/I-tried-care-money-I-says-Chelsea-Clinton-married-hedge-funder-lives-11m-home-paid-600-000-NBC-doing-nothing.html#ixzz44FCi1xhH
LAS14
(13,783 posts)That's nuts. People marry for all kinds of reasons. Where she lives now does not disprove her statement. What would disprove it is how she would react emotionally if she lost it all. I suspect she would do just fine.