The Clinton gaffe highlights Obama's political savvy

[Bread and Circus]

I'm a physician, I understand the health care industry first hand. The system is broke and the only real solution is a true single payer national system.

The plans by Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are all nearly identical sisters and none really provide the type of true universal health converage we need. Sure there are different terms for things which makes the programs "sound different" but when the rubber meets the road the practical aspects of the plans are identical. The only real difference is that Edwards and Clinton had the "mandate" and Obama did not. Well, Clinton has made political hay over this for her "15 million left out" ploy, although ultimately their plans are the same sans the mandate.

However, Obama's wisdom is knowing that a "mandate" will be a hard pill to swallow and not really afford any real gain in terms of the effectiveness of the plan. It's hard to sell something to someone (the public) when you are going to force them to buy it.

Hillary got caught by her own petard when she stated she might have to "go after wages". Not only is that detestable on libertarian grounds, it's just a really, really bad way to phrase something politically.

In the Democratic nomination process, this is a minor gaffe.

However, in the GE this will be a huge political gaffe and is an instant RW talking point.

Her first large scale executive effort (her 1993 health care plan) was a huge debacle and even her main advisor on it, a sociologist by the name of Paul Starr, was skeptical of its implementation at the time (their are internal critiques that you can read to show this). Couple that with its formuation in secret and it was doomed from the start. It got deep-sixed by the right and the lobbied interests but Hillary handed them the shovel. It probably also helped usher in the "angry white man" Gingrich revolution and Republicanization of congress in 1994.

And lo, when it comes to mistakes around the health care issue, she manages to do it again by raising the "going after wages" spectre that will likely prove an unkind friend to her.

To be fair, Obama has said he would "fine" parents that didn't participate in an insurance plan of some kind (he offers a governmental plan so I would assume that would be the minimal standard) and even this is a bit of a talking point to run against him in the GE. However, we all understand that parents have special responsibilities for their children and mandates like having their kid receive an education, safety measures, and the like are far easier to accept, even for libertarian minded folks. Nonetheless, his plan is still sellable. Hence his savvy.

Clinton put her foot in her mouth and to me shows, like her 1993 performance, her hubrus may undermine what she aims to achieve.

I wonder if Obama is going to "go after" this point but he'd be wise to let the press play it out.

And in case you don't believe me the health care plans are essentially the same, check this (it's a no spin unbiases side by side comparison):

http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=11&c=16

[K Gardner]

1. Bravo, doctor, well said ! From a nurse who campaigns endlessly for HR 676.

[Bread and Circus]

2. I'm behind HR 676 all the way!!!

[mrreowwr_kittty]

9. HR676 is the only way to go.

Both the Clinton and Obama plans are a load of shite.

[JohnnyLib2]

3. Helpful site and analysis, thanks.

I would argue that HRC as president would fight harder on this front, but your point is well taken in terms of the election. Time will tell ???

[Bread and Circus]

8. There's fighting hard, and fighting smart.

[sandnsea]

4. Subsidies for tax credits

instead of subsidized premiums, are also different. That's one of those things that I think lower income people identify readily whereas upper income people don't figure they're going to get any help at all and ignore how all that sort of thing plays out.

Otherwise, the plans are relatively similar as you say. Except mandates really do scare the pee out of regular working people and the fact that Obama gets it means A LOT to working people. They may not understand it now, but they will when the Republicans get through with it and they will reject it just like they do every other election cycle. It isn't a talking point, it's the truth.

You want to provide universal coverage and take money out of people's checks, you better guarantee 100% coverage and no more than 5% of income. Otherwise people will reject it every time, and the candidate who proposes it.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. She made no gaffe. The Obama supporters have LIED all day about what she actually said.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4375631

I just watched the video of this interview. She said, "No one will have to pay if they cannot afford it." ONLY people who CAN afford health care and refuse to buy it, COULD have their wages garnished. She did NOT say she WOULD do it. She threw out 2 possibilities...an auto-enrollment and maybe wage garnishment. but if someone cannot afford to pay, they will not have to. EVERYONE is covered under her plan. Period. The plan will be a wage earner sliding scale.

A multi-millionaire will pay more than someone who earns $200,000 and someone who earns $200,000 will pay more than someone who earns $60,000...and so on.

There was no gaffe. I watched the video myself.

The video is posted the the thread linked above, if you care to view the TRUTH.

[FrenchieCat]

6. Parsing what the meaning of "Is" is......

it not a great place to be in.

[Bread and Circus]

7. I read a quote in the AP that specifically said "go after wages"

This didn't come from Obama or his camp.

[Alexander]

12. I love laughing at the obviously desperate Shillbots.

It's not like anyone else said they'd "go after wages". That was Hillary who put her foot in her mouth.

[Bread and Circus]

10. Bump.

[TexasObserver]

11. Obama should ignore Hillary and stay on the high road

Positivity is what sweeps him forward for Super Tuesday. He should not let them drag him into the mud again.