Take Two Aspirins And Call Me Next Month
Edwards was also the only candidate who said that, without doubt, taxes would have to be raised to be pay for the $90-120 billion price tag on his plan for universal coverage. Anybody saying otherwise, he said, is likely trying to sell the voters the “
Edwards’ plan, first unveiled earlier this year, calls for an expansion of both public and private health plans, forces employers to either provide health care or pay into a fund that does, mandates individuals to buy insurance and offers government subsidies for families with incomes of up to $80k who can’t afford it.
Hillary Clinton also made a spirited presentation to the hundreds of audience members brought in by forum co-sponsor, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), but she was more vague in how she would achieve universal coverage. She put her emphasis instead  on ending the “discrimination†exercised by insurance companies when they exclude or disenroll policyholders. “Every health insurance company will have to insure everybody with no exclusions for pre-existing conditions,†she said.
The forum was co-sponsored by the Democratic think tank, the Center for American Progress.
Barack Obama, who has suffered from accusations that he deals too much in platitudes and not enough in concrete offerings, came to the forum surprisingly unarmed with details. He admitted that he has not yet finalized a plan but  promises one will be forthcoming, Instead he listed a number of “principles†that would guide him toward covering all Americans. “The basic principles,†he said, “are everybody is in it, there has to be more money for prevention, and some form of pooling of costs and risks. If we have another forum in a few months and my plan is still not on my website, I will be in trouble.†Obama also strongly suggested that he was the best candidate to provide the missing leadership needed to pass fundamental reform. “Every four years, somebody trots out a health care plan. The question is do we have the political will and sense of urgency to actually get it done. I want to be held accountable to get it done.â€
Second tier candidates Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich also made presentations.
SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger along with former Bill Clinton aide and current head of  the Center for American Progress John Podesta met with the press after the forum to offer their evaluations. Both were excessively cautious and non-committal praising all of the candidates for now being more specific. When I asked Podesta to be specific about which new specifics he heard he answered only in vague terms. Another high-ranking West Coast SEIU official, speaking to me off the record, said: “If the election were held today, we’d be supporting Edwards. When he comes into town he asks what he can do for us. Hillary asks us what we can do for her.â€
In 2004, the SEIU was an early endorser of Howard Dean and by the end of the general campaign had put $65 million into pro-Democratic campaigns. “This time around I can tell you it’s not going to be less than $65 million,†Burger told me, referring to the ’08 campaign. SEIU will not, however, endorse a Democratic candidate until this coming September.
Cross-posted at The Nation.
March 24th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
The line of the day?
Obama’s comment on better preventative care and how African Americans have to have “access to more fruits and vegetables and less to Popeye’s”
That was supposed to be a joke?
He was rambling, unprepared for audience questions, and big on generalities but short on specifics.
I like him but when are we going to get past the TV personality and see some leadership?
March 24th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Marsha writes: “That was supposed to be a joke?”
Well, maybe not. Maybe it’s deadly serious.
http://www.slate.com/id/2148756/
“Fat is no longer a rich man’s disease. For middle- and high-income Americans, the obesity rate is 29 percent. For low-income Americans, it’s 35 percent. Among middle- and high-income kids aged 15 to 17, the rate of overweight is 14 percent. Among low-income kids in the same age bracket, it’s 23 percent. Globally, weight has tended to rise with income. But a study in Vancouver, Canada, published three months ago, found that preschoolers in “food-insecure” households were twice as likely as other kids to be overweight or obese.
“Next year … the U.S. Women, Infants, and Children program, which subsidizes groceries for impoverished youngsters, will begin to pay for fruits and vegetables. For 32 years, the program has fed toddlers eggs and cheese but not one vegetable. And we wonder why poor kids are fat.”
Marsha again: “I like him but when are we going to get past the TV personality and see some leadership?
Everybody wants “leadership”, but nobody likes their martinet gym class teacher, nobody wants their mother telling them to eat their greens. Funny how that works.
A good leader gets most of those at the table to buy into a plan that gets them their second or third choice, not their first choice. What will be the choices be over the next 8-10 years? The realistic choices probably won’t be anybody’s top preference. Anybody laying out the specifics of a plan right now is just telling people what they want to hear, not the kind of program that can actually get passed, or that will actually work.
Over the next 8-10 years, lots of baby boomers will either be retired or on the verge of retiring. They will probably see disappointing returns on their retirement portfolios, and less equity in their homes than they’d hoped. They’ll be hit by age-related illnesses in force, and it won’t get better as time goes on. There will be demand for more equitable health care. But there will also be huge debates about what’s fair. The whole issue will take on an edge that we didn’t see with Hillary’s abortive initiative. It didn’t matter as much then, to as many people, as it does now, and it doesn’t matter now nearly as much as it *will* matter, pretty damned soon.
So here’s your choice:
(1) a politician with a 14-point plan,
(2) a politician who can can credibly say “Elect me and I’m going to work my butt off to get the best deal I can for the vast majority of Americans, but there’s no way I can tell you right now what will be both possible and necessary, except that to really make it work, it will take personal initiative from individuals to meet me halfway, by getting serious about prevention.”
I’ll take Politician #2, thank you very much. Don’t confuse satisfyingly detailed proposals with realism. Reality is full of uncertainties. Especially political reality.
March 25th, 2007 at 1:38 am
If Hillary is the nominee, nobody need worry that I will vote for Nader. I will be writing in Kucinich.
It Is Time To Take A Strong Stand
Today as the Democratic leadership celebrates the passage of HR 1591, Dennis and I are in mourning. We mourn the deaths of those who have passed and those whose lives are now on the line, both in the military and civilian Iraqis. We mourn the destruction, the ecocide. We mourn with families in Iraq and the US who will see more death and devastation. We mourn the callous and calculated political spin cloaking the Congress’ hawkish support of war, with the rhetoric of peace.
Congressman Kucinich voted NO. Standing firm with him on this NO vote were 13 Democrats: John Barrow [GA], Dan Boren [OK], Lincoln Davis [TN], Barbara Lee [CA], John Lewis [GA], Jim Marshall [GA], Jim Matheson [UT], Michael McNulty [NY], Michael Michaud [ME], Gene Taylor [MS], Maxine Waters [CA], Diane Watson [CA], and Lynn Woolsey [CA].
I would like to thank Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Veterans for Peace, Code Pink, Gold Star Mothers and all those other organizations who have worked so valiantly in recent years to raise awareness about what is going on in Iraq and to end the war. We would also like to thank the other 13 Democrats who voted against the additional Administration’s appropriation request of $120 billion.
$120 billion for an escalation of the war, the privatization of Iraqi oil assets and a possible extension of the war into Iran. And the President said he will veto this because it’s not enough. By showing such a weak position against the Administration and the war, the Democrats have thoroughly undermined whatever bargaining position they could have had.
Americans must be heard. It is time to take a strong stand for the end of the war and for peace. It is time to return to the town halls of America to develop a powerful movement for change.
In peace and with love,
Elizabeth Kucinich
March 25th, 2007 at 9:45 am
If we ever do end up with nationalized health care as I believe we should, I hope it’ll be a lot better than what the vet’s are getting.
March 25th, 2007 at 10:25 am
But most importantly, MB mourns another missed opportunity to defeat the imperialists, the capitalists, the pariah of the world……and other evil-doers like Israel, or course.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Funny that the Democrats never cared about Walter Reed Hospital for years until they saw a political opportunity. But, I wouldn’t count on a national health care program to be any better and it certainly will result in longer waits.
March 25th, 2007 at 11:40 am
$90-120 Billion? Anyone remember the promises about Medicare? And those costs have held steady?
How about we provide coverage only for those with absolutely no access as a compromise? Or, is this more vote pandering?
March 25th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
I refer Woody to the VA Hospital system. Oh, and if he thinks that Walter reed is bad because the government runs it maybe he’d like to tell us why senior adminisitration officials and memebers of congress use it and the Navy’s Bethesda Medical Center when they need Medical treatment?
Marc, did you ask Podesta or Berger about Mark Penn’s business activities and whether or not a Democratic candidate for Presiden seeking union support should engage his services?
March 25th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
My take on this at the link. My concerns are “meta”, for instance, why is it that the apparently toughest question was about Obama’s website not containing a detailed plan?
What are we missing here?
Oh, yeah: tough questions about exactly how they expect to pay for this, who would be covered and all the rest.
For instance, I realize that almost all Democratic leaders refuse to acknowledge that the U.S. has borders and believe that the word “Americans” includes everyone in the western hemisphere, but is it really a wise idea to give healthcare to ForeignCitizens who are here illegally?
This was truly a Democratic event, including the puffball “reporters” in the media.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
rel, it’s free?! Plus, don’t you expect that gov’t officials get extra special care, just like in all socialistic governments–one for the common people and a better one for the government elite? In case you think that I don’t have a point of reference on the VA, I’m very familiar with the VA Hospital and retirement center in Tuscaloosa and I’ve been a volunteer in a VA Hospital before.
March 25th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
There is a lot to admire about Kucinich, but when he was in charge of Cleveland, he became the first major mayor in the US to bring his city into financial default. In an era of skyrocketing deficits and a massive growing national debt, I don’t believe that the fiscal irresponsibility of a Dennis Kucinich is what the US needs. And I am a guy who likes him, and thinks he would be better than the current president.
March 25th, 2007 at 7:41 pm
James Wolcott does a nice job of bringing the Hillary Clinton question (s) down to earth over at his blog.
March 25th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Here’s the source of Wolcott’s piece – I actually tried to link this earlier and for some reason it didn’t get through.
I don’t agree with it fully but I think it’s a good defense and quite reasonable. A useful perspective….
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2007/03/just_a_man_gets.html
March 25th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
The Department of Defense has identified 3,227 American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans yesterday:
GARDNER, Freeman L. Jr., 26, Sgt., Army; Little Rock, Ark.; Second Infantry Division.
LEWIS, Adrian J., 30, Sgt., Army; Mauldin, S.C.; Third Infantry Division.
RIEWER, Greg N., 30, Sgt., Army; Frazee, Minn.; 34th Infantry Division.
SPRINGER, Lance C. II, 23, Specialist, Army; Fort Worth; 25th Infantry Division.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:04 am
Marc’s last two posts are excellent. I expected more snotty Dem bashing but instead got his better reporting.
March 26th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Hey, guess who killed JFK? E. Howard Hunt tells us.
http://tinyurl.com/37ra4h
March 26th, 2007 at 8:07 am
These are the first graphs in a Los Angeles Times story today. Does anyone not see how obscene this is, when the very same Congress has just voted a $124 billion appropriation for the war in Iraq? And some of us are accused of wanting our Congressmen and women to be pure. They are not only not pure, they are full of shit.
Congress debates cutting payments to Medicare managed-care plans to help provide coverage for millions of children.
By Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Times Staff Writer
March 26, 2007
WASHINGTON — The Democratic Congress, eager to do something that would be popular with voters, is moving to provide healthcare coverage to millions of uninsured children this year, but there’s a catch: Senior citizens enrolled in a popular Medicare program may have to help pay the bill.
That could turn what started as a feel-good plan to help the children of the working poor into a tricky exercise in shifting generational burdens. Such trade-offs may soon become a central theme of American politics, experts say, because the federal deficit is large and the bills for supporting baby boomers in retirement are about to start coming due.
“The budget squeeze is on, and in some ways this is the first salvo,” said Adam Carasso, an analyst at the Urban Institute, a nonpartisan policy research group in Washington. “It’s getting to the point where you are going to have to ask the dreaded question: Is it children or the elderly?”
He added, “The way we have allocated our spending, it’s coming down to an either-or proposition.”
Lawmakers want to provide coverage to as many as 6 million of an estimated 9 million uninsured children, by increasing federal spending as much as $60 billion over the next five years. But budget rules designed to curb the deficit require new expenditures to be offset by tax increases or cuts in programs.
To help meet the cost, Congress is considering trimming payments to Medicare managed-care plans. The privately run alternatives to traditional programs serve about 8 million senior citizens, including those in health maintenance organizations. If funding is reduced, the plans may cut dental, vision and other benefits.
March 26th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Raising the income threshold for SS deductions and removing the frauds on SSI would easily solve the SS budget problem.
Means testing and prosecuting/fining frauds would easily solve the Medicare/Medicaid budget problems, leaving funds for MEANS TESTED coverage for children as well as likely their parents.
However, what this subject has to do with funding a war that must be won escapes me. Unless of course, you are one who is hoping for defeat of Americans.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:19 am
For the last time. THERE IS NO SOCIAL SECURITY BUDGET PROBLEM! The acturarial account that has the Surplus go to zero (not “Run out of money’) assumes a growth rate of 1.4% for the next 76 years. That would be lower than the depression for nearly a century. Assuming the rate of growth of the past century makes it completely solvent for the next 75 years.
And, as i said the surplus is still there. You said we borrowed it? Right and it is in Treasury Bonds. Are you suggesting the Government will default on one of its obligations? If that is the case we’ve got a lot more to worry about that Social Security! Same is true if we’ve got depression era economies for the rest of this century.
And, finally, if growth is to be so limited please explain how any financial instrument will do better!
Talk of the SS Crisis is more balony from the same folks who sold you deregulation and “Supply Side” Tax Cuts.
You know better than that!
March 26th, 2007 at 9:40 am
I knew that if I just sat back and waited I could count on rlo or reg to counter Jim R’s usual nonsense. Thanks for saving me the trouble!
I will respond to this however:
“Unless of course, you are one who is hoping for defeat of Americans.”
Isn’t it getting a little old and hackneyed to characterize those who oppose the Iraq war that way, especially since the majority of Americans now think it is a mistake? Wow, 200 million traitors, it’s a wonder we are not all speaking Iranian by now.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Sorry, that’s speaking Farsi.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:16 am
“you are one who is hoping for defeat of Americans”
The problem is that your gang are the ones who engineered a “defeat for Americans”. Concerted, deliberate action trumps “hope” every time.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:36 am
>For the last time. THERE IS NO SOCIAL >SECURITY BUDGET PROBLEM! The acturarial >account that has the Surplus go to zero
>(not “Run out of money’) assumes a growth >rate of 1.4% for the next 76 years.
Not sure I would go this far. The average inflation-adjusted growth rate in the last couple of decades has been around 3% and slowing noticeably, compared to above 4% for the period roughly 1945-1980. Some of us might argue this is due to the failure of conservative economic policies relative to liberal ones. However, I think it’s just a feature of capitalism having reached maturity. A long period of 1.4% average is pessimistic but not wildly so.
Still, of course, if the financial companies and their hired guns like the Clintons and GWB thought the SS fund was running out, they wouldn’t have tried so hard to plunder it.
SS is the closest thing this country has to the kind of social democratic programs most of us on this board say we want, so let’s fight to make it stronger. Eliminate the income cap, make the tax progressive, and tax unearned income. Allow the trustees to invest 10% of the fund in index funds and 25% in investment grade corporate bonds. This will produce a fund that can pay current levels of benefits forever, as well as bail out Medicaid, which really is in trouble.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:37 am
This is a total aside, but I want to say what an absolutely impressive job Josh Marshall does at Talking Points Memo and TalkingPointsMuckraker – currently on the White House/Gonzales federal attorney’s firings case – of focusing his energies and demonstrating the power of a “mere” blog to compete and contribute effectively at the highest levels of journalistic endeavor. He had, uniquely I believe, combined the best worlds of both the old-school, dogged investigative reporter with the advantages of working in real time, with no limitations on space or content by more timid editors and allied with an alert readership on the web. And he does it all without the trappings of either a steady stream of cheap snark or being overly self-referential which can mar even some of the best of the bloggers.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:39 am
>as well as bail out Medicaid, which really is in trouble.
Sorry for my typo-read “Medicare” for “Medicaid.” Of course it would be inappropriate to pay for Medicaid with the SS tax.
March 26th, 2007 at 10:41 am
Incidentally, since this issue was just raised, Marshall’s first demonstration of his unique skills and focus was during the GOP assault on Social Security, and I think his blog was an important element in focusing energy and information at that crucial moment.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Hope everyone saw this either at HUFFPO or SWAWMPLAND: Message to Karen Tumulty, the moderator of that get together in Vegas:
In the Press File
We have taken a vote.
We don’t want to write about Health Care.
Please Adjust Accordingly
This has been another chapter of “Your Media Informing you”.
I say more about this elsewhere.
March 26th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Michael Balter, every year I grow more and more convinced that the Baby Boomers are a disaster. Things began nicely, but they’ve aged miserably. Boomers love their tax cuts and have felt no qualms about defunding the programs (especially in education) they benefitted from. They, at least initially, supported the Iraq War in greater numbers than other generations. And they absolutely love those credit cards, both individually (retirement savings are for sissies) and nationally (oooh, free war!) Yet progressive boomers still fancy themselves the generation of social justice. Well, it’s been a long time since those days and the intervening years have proved unimpressive.
March 26th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
What we borrowed was the money to pay Bechtel and Haliburton and throw away on the new government in Iraq.
March 26th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
Whenever Mark York wants to slip by screening filters for commenting in blogs where he’s been banned, he comes up with pseudonyms. In the most current case, he uses “George Boyle.” Now, since his pseudonyms usually come with a twist or special meaning, I’m try to figure out why he picked that name, which I now have on the current one.
George Boyle reversed and shortened becomes Boy George. Puzzle solved, and logical reason assumed.
March 26th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
“Things began nicely, but they’ve aged miserably.”
Damn Mavis, you’ve stolen the opening line of my memoir-in-progress, “Remembrance of Booms Past”. Guess I’ll have to revert to an earlier draft that started, “It was the best of booms. It was the worst of booms.”
March 26th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I’ve been away for awhile, but upon my return I find it interesting to note that nothing has changed. Reg, Mavis, Woody, RLC, Balter, et al, are all still here saying more or less the same things to each other. I’ll resign myself to read Cooper’s posts – there is value in that after all – and make sure not to click the “Comments” thingy.
March 26th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
“Baby Boom go boom,
Baby Boom go bust….”
-Pat MacDonald
March 26th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Thanks too many. We try to accomodate!
March 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
“I’ve been away for awhile”
And hopefully will return to such state of being. As I’ve said recently, the less we hear of such buffoonish and trivial comments, the easier on the eyes. More intelligent voices (e.g., Grumpy Old Man) from the right, please!
March 26th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
too many steves, what has changed is that, while we occasionally make jabs, we generally ignore each other. There’s no sense arguing with others when I’m right. If you check, my commenting over a week is probably less than 1/10th of what I used to write, in great part because that. Just skip the comments of anyone who has to write over 1,000 words to make a point and read my comments if you want to know what’s real. Where did you go?
March 26th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
Hillary Clinton will be featured on “South Park” Wednesday night. I hope that she doesn’t run into that sthuper stherial “Man, Bear, Pig.” I suspect that they’ll make HRC look as good as they did Barbra Streisand.
March 26th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
too many – I guess you missed the threads where I discussed my sex change operation, success in developing cold fusion and conversion to Sufism. Will try to spice things up to keep you from falling asleep. Did I mention that I can’t stand Bush ?
March 27th, 2007 at 7:52 am
Sam, you old lefty. This is one of few intelligent comments you’ve managed to muster. I surmise its frequency directly relates to your supply of weed.
Even this one only rises to average, since your measure of intelligence is the degree one agrees with your politics. Of course, this is what makes Bush dumb in your world…..yes?
Notice how Bush just loves to be under-estimated by those who consistently over-estimate themselves. But if I were he, I would not be taking Laura to any open-box Opera’s in DC after this war is won. Anyone of several actors may want their revenge.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Bush as Lincoln!
Wow…it’s no wonder that the fantasy quotient would increase in direct proportion to the inability to confront unpleasant realities.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Paraphrasing Winston Churchill: George Bush is underestimated but then he has so much to be underestimated about!
March 27th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
too many steves, we also had a great discussion on carbon dating.
June 24th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I will pay you $500 for your personal cell# and 1hr. You rock at what you do! hats off!
July 10th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Yes, I do agree too.