http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/13/D8LCB6GO0.html -- Clinton Outlines Legislative Priorities Nov 13 1:02 PM US/Eastern By BETH FOUHY Associated Press Writer NEW YORK Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday outlined an ambitious agenda of legislative priorities while continuing to deflect questions about her presumed presidential ambitions. "I will look at the possibilities, but I ... haven't really had the time to talk to people about it," Clinton told a breakfast gathering hosted by the Association for a Better New York. "It's been a busy election season that worked out well, so I will think about it. I'm open to thoughts." Clinton was returning to Washington on Monday to participate in a lame-duck session of Congress in which lawmakers will tackle several pieces of unfinished business before ceding control of both the Senate and House to Democrats early next year. But the New York senator was clearly looking ahead to the next Congress, which she, like other Democrats, has vowed will operate on a more bipartisan basis than it had under Republican control. "We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work with our Republican counterparts. Our country works best when we govern from the vital, dynamic center," she said. Since cruising to re-election last week against a weak Republican challenger, Clinton has parried repeated questions about her political future. While she hasn't disclosed her plans, polls show her the clear front-runner for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, with a national infrastructure of strategists and advisers and at least $10 million in her campaign account. "Before, I didn't have time to think _ I was too focused on what I was doing," she later told reporters. "I'm thrilled by the results, and now I'll have some time to think." In her remarks, Clinton outlined a range of challenges she said Democrats would tackle in the coming months, such as trimming the federal deficit, reducing dependence on foreign oil, and improving the image of the United States abroad. She also said Democrats would focus on improving the quality and affordability of health care _ a touchy matter for the former first lady, who in 1993 led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system. The failure of that effort helped Republicans win control of both the Senate and House the following year. "Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."
No offense, but I don't want the government to provide everything for everybody regardless of who they are.... Parents do that for their kids, and they also have a right to tell the kids what to do... I moved out long ago, and rather enjoy the satisfaction of knowing I've worked hard enough on my own to provide for my family and myself. It's a conservative virtue. Hard work done by an individual leads to the ability to provide for self and family. If the government internalizes health care, then I have no reason to work as hard to insure my choice for health care providers is my choice. If on the other hand they are simply going to provide care for the underprivileged... oh, wait they already do. And at one point in my life (not more than 5 years ago) I too was on medicaid and my wife was on WIC for our children... we were once in that bracket of income. Fine. But we worked, pulled the bootstraps up, etc... and are better people for it. Free market is working. Believe it or not, more people have healthcare now than ever before. And it's built in. People just have to look for it. Whether it's state or fed help, Blue Cross and Blue Shield, or United Healthcare, HMO, PPO - part of your employment package or not... (and I know it's expensive) there is a way for everyone... I do agree that all companies, or some companies should have some policies in place for emergency major medical, at a lower cost for those who qualify.. but don't they now? Priorities are part of America's fiber. When people prioritize what's needed vs. what they want to spend their money on, they can usually afford what they need. American's by-and-large spend their money on wants and not needs... I don't need my taxes going up because someone else cannot budget for their family's healthcare and want the government to bail them out. And nope. That has nothing to do with race, geography, etc. It is purely choice on the part of most Americans. Most choose the big plasma TV over healthcare. Not my fault. Not government's responsibility.
And yet you don't seem to mind your taxes going up to cover all the much-higher expenses of taking care of the uninsured once their problems because far more serious and much more costly to deal with. Strange.
This is what happens when the conservatives pull the pendulum too far in one direction, they lose control and it will swing wildly to the other side. Bill Clinton was a moderate compared to his wife, so you bushies have no one to blame but yourselves.
The big mega-cost with health care right now is that there are so many uninsured people who don't get preventative treatment. As a result, the government (and your tax money) ends up subsidizing much more complicated procedures when the problem finally gets bad enough that it has to be dealt with. By being against health care reform, you are basically saying you're OK having to spend tons of tax money to cover those costs. One of the major benefits of government involvement in healthcare is to increase the amount of cheap, preventative care being taken and substantially reduce the need to subsidize more dire procedures. Beyond that, government health care (in the form of Medicare right now) is fairly streamlines and administered with far lower administrative costs than private health care, for whatever reason. At this point, it's far from clear that an expanded government role in health care would actually raise your taxes. In the short term, certainly there are added costs. But if done properly, it should vastly reduce other costs down the line as you will have a generally healthier and better insured populace.
Gotcha. Thanks. I see your points... and I understand there is specualtive data to prove this. However... is it? Should it be? -The governement's fault for people's choice to not go to the doctor for a yearly physical for anywhere from $100 to $250 bucks? That in itself seems a far cheaper price to pay for preventative medicine, does it not? And it begs the question as usual, "Should government be responsible for its citizens that seem to not be responsible for themselves?" I think not. Many people choose to not see the doctor, regardless of insurance coverage. I have had full coverage for well over two years now, and have yet to a consult a doctor for personal reasons throughout that time. What if I am overlooking a possible medical prevention? Is that also going away (my lack of a doctor visit) because the government gets involved? Your logic would indicate a desire to see mandatory check-ups under a government order. Something I do not wish to see in a free country... But perhaps no one has looked that far up the road?
Don't sweat it too much. At this point, you have to push your more radical positions because now you know you are going to get something passed. You got the power; but you will still have to make some compromises. If you pass something too radical, the president will veto it and overiding a veto is a lot harder than just passing a law. The leadership would not want to be shown as not in total control, and this is the democratic party we are talking about. Propose crazy, scare the hell out of the other side and you can compromise at the point you really wanted. (only applicable from a position of strenght)
Just to be clear, it's not really the idea of mandatory checkups, but the idea that if people know they have to pay $150 for a doctor's visit, they are simply more likely to deal with the problem and hope it goes away, or things like that. It's been proven that things like getting regular mammograms help reduce the damage caused by breast cancer and such - people who are uninsured would never spend the hundreds of dollars or more annually to do that. But down the road, someone will have to pay the many thousands of dollars for chemo or whatever other therapy they have to go through. That said, your point is a fair one - should that be the government's responsibility? I'm not really sure. But I do think a reasonable case can be made that a government has both a stake in having a healthy populace and an obligation to try to provide for its people where possible. But this could certainly go both ways. My main thing in this debate is that when Hillary Care I came up, it was attacked as a huge financial boondoggle. It certainly may have been (I was too young to really pay attention at the time), but the general idea of government involvement in health care isn't necessarily a financial disaster. It will look that way because the direct costs can be huge, but the long-term savings could potentially more than outweigh it. We know that health care costs are spiraling out of control - I think all options should be on the table if we're going to look at changing that. Health care costs are estimated to be rising 10-20% a year, while inflation and wages are closer to 2-3%. That simply can't continue.
The Big 4 Autos companies are crying a river to get health care costs off of their back and onto the government's. It is a competitiveness issue for them. I say that we should outsource the whole heath care industry to Canada
If there are two things I don't mind my tax dollars going towards it is healthcare and education. We don't have to raise taxes to do this, just cut our foreign aid in half and cut our defense budget in half.
ooh, yes, lets. and please write your congressperson to suggest just such a course be introduced on the first day of the new congress.
The new favorability ratings from Gallup: * Democratic Party: 57% favorable, 33% unfavorable * Republican Party: 35% favorable, 58% unfavorable
Well, ya know, I hope your kids never find themselves having to work for a job that doesn't provide health benefits and they have to cough up $500 a month to have it. Not saying the gov't has to help - but there needs to be thinking about preventive care and basic services to the working uninsured. Especially in the day of HIV and Avian Flu.
yes this should be horrifiying, because if there's anything since 1992 that has been demonstrated, it's the long term viability and efficiency of our current health care system.
ghwb was moderate compared to jr.... if hilary wins, its really going to get confusing for high school history students 30 yrs from now. which bush came first which clinton came first
I may be in the minority in my belief, but I believe it is a primary responsibility of the government. A society can be judged by how it treats its weakest members: the young, the old, the sick, the mentally and physically challenged, the poor, the helpless, the homeless, etc. edit - I intended this to be a response to IROC's original question, "Should government be responsible for its citizens that seem to not be responsible for themselves?" I think our departure would be on how we define or determine "responsible for themselves." I do not believe that the unavailability of adequate, affordable health care to a substantial portion of our citizens is based on those citizens being irresponsible.
