Sally Bedell Smith characterizes as "absolutely fair" Russert's suggestion that Hillary Clinton to blame for 40 million uninsured
On the October 27 edition of CNBC's The Tim Russert Show, during a discussion with Sally Bedell Smith, author of the just-released book, For Love of Politics: Bill and Hillary Clinton: The White House Years (Random House), Russert asserted, "On health care, when you read the inside reporting in your book about it, it is so striking that there are significant people in the Clinton administration, the Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen; the economic adviser Robert Rubin -- I read somewhere that Donna Shalala, the Health and Human Services secretary, called the plan 'crazy'; Leon Panetta, the Office of Management and Budget; [then-Sen.] Pat Moynihan [D-NY], the chairman of the [Senate] Finance Committee; [then-Sen.] Bill Bradley [NJ], another Democrat; Republicans, all saying, 'We can do something, but this plan is too big, too much. Compromise and we can get a scaled measure through.' " Russert continued, "Ironically, the scaled measure they were all talking about is pretty close to the plan that [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] has now adopted in 2008, which means that from 1993 to 2008, 40 million people went without care because she was so wedded to getting that plan -- her original plan -- through. Fair?" Smith replied, "Absolutely fair," and went on to assert that "if Hillary's White House had yielded to Bill's White House, we would've had a decent health care plan that would've worked for so many people."
From the October 27 edition of CNBC's The Tim Russert Show:
RUSSERT: On health care, when you read the inside reporting in your book about it, it is so striking that there are significant people in the Clinton administration, the Secretary of the Treasury Lloyd Bentsen; the economic adviser Robert Rubin -- I read somewhere that Donna Shalala, the Health and Human Services secretary, called the plan "crazy"; Leon Panetta, the Office of Management and Budget; Pat Moynihan, the chairman of the Finance Committee; Bill Bradley, another Democrat; Republicans, all saying, "We can do something, but this plan is too big, too much. Compromise and we can get a scaled measure through." Ironically, the scaled measure they were all talking about is pretty close to the plan that Hillary Clinton has now adopted in 2008, which means that from 1993 to 2008, 40 million people went without care because she was so wedded to getting that plan -- her original plan -- through. Fair?
BEDELL SMITH: Absolutely fair. There were so many points along the way, and the complication again had to do with this dynamic between the two of them back then. There was a fellow who used to represent the hospitals named Michael Bromberg, and he said, "There was Hillary's White House and Bill's White House, and we didn't know which White House was in charge. And, as you say, if Hillary's White House had yielded to Bill's White House, we would've had a decent health care plan that would've worked for so many people. And I think the lesson, or the cautionary tale to look at, is the degree to which Hillary becomes invested in something she believes in, which was certainly the case then, and the test of that with this current plan, which, you know, has features that may be debatable, whether she would be willing to yield on things that Democrats -- moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans would say to her "these won't work." Would she be willing to fold them and accept something less? And that's the real crux of it, I think. It's not so much what she says, it's what she's willing to do. You have to look at the actions.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
The chronology demonstrates exactly "who was to blame" for the failure of Hillary's attempt at developing a comprehensive health care plan.
First, she was tasked with coming up with such a plan.
The GOAL of the plan was to provide affordable quality health care for ALL Americans, a huge task, but one she set out to accomplish.
She put together panels of experts to get information about what was CURRENTLY happening, what the problems were, and to collect suggestions about what could be done to FIX things.
She was wise enough to realize that her work would be opposed by industries which were currently profiting bigtime under Status Quo ... and that they would do whatever possible to sabotage her efforts at enacting change to benefit "the people".
Pharmaceutical and HMO lobbiests were outraged that they would not be allowed to dominate and direct the meetings, to arrive at the conclusion that, simply, nothing could or should be done (oh, maybe a token trivial and useless adjustment here and there). Hillary decided they would have their turn at bat, but that they would not direct the conduct of the meetings. It was a FACT FINDING exercise, not a "debate" where every statement made would be allowed to be "countered" by a paid lobbiest.
Before her work was done, the Health Care industry owners were calling for her head, whining that they "weren't being included." Then the ads started, siezing on a line or two from the tentative report to scare people into rejecting the plan, once released. "She wants to ARREST your FAMILY DOCTOR!" the hysterical propaganda warned ... not true, but effective.
GOP and industry lawyers started filing lawsuits, hoping to derail Hillary's efforts.
By the time a final report was NEAR being prepared, the Rightwing propaganda machine had poisoned the public well to the extent that any suggestions Hillary made would be rejected out of hand.
All this cost hundreds of millions of dollars ... money the industry was confident they could easily recoup if only the Status Quo could be maintained, which meant that there were "acceptable levels" of people left behind, having to do without any health care plan at all. The CURRENT system worked perfectly well for the industry owners, and they'd be damned if they'd allow ANYONE to come along and upset their cash-cow applecart.
So, this author has decided to characterize this episode as being "Hillary unwilling to compromise", and thus a decade of Status Quo is HER FAULT? Jesus, Joseph, and Mary this author is stupid! The Health Care industry invested HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to assure nothing was done, and the Status Quo (by which they profit greatly) was MAINTAINED. They WON, and Hillary (along with the rest of America) LOST.
This makes, what, the ten-thousandth BOOK about the Clintons which attempts to smear and blame them for every ill the nation suffers? Just another paid assassin in the employ of the Rightwing. Just another shill for the monied elites, the NeoCon warmongering smearmeisters.
Thanks Tex. By the way, have you seen "Why we fight" ? I really enjoyed it.
"Why we fight" made me want to curl up in a ball and stay that way for the rest of the weekend.
Very good, but truly disturbing.
Another one worth watching is "The Power of Nightmares". It's free online. It makes me want to scream, too.
As always, a great post TEX.
Can't wait to hear Timmy's question(s) to Senator Clinton on this subject in tonight's debate.
"Mrs. Clinton, how do you respond to those who say your (makes air quotes) new health care plan is nearly identical to the one you proposed over 10 years ago - a plan that failed miserably?"
In other words, HRC failed.
thanks!
I would say rather, the press and the public failed to see through the industry spin. And the Congress obstructed any reasonable attempt to even discuss the subject intelligently.
What do people savage the very ones who step up? Jealousy, fear, ego-driven need to bring someone else down............
Let's leave aside for a minute the misnomer that 47 million people are uninsured right now when it's really closer to 37 million.
The question is, how influential should a (unelected) First Lady be regarding a health care overhaul, and how much blame should our elected leaders deserve for not insuring all Americans during Bill Clinton's tenure?
Blaming Hillary is a cop out. It's not like Congress had ONLY Hillary's plan to choose from; they could've said NO to Hillary's plan and moved on to something smaller.
I hope Russert understands this and doesn't really think that Hillary deserves (or deserved) most of the blame for our current health insurance crisis. I know he's basing his opinion on some new book but he's gotta understand that this Sally person isn't giving you the whole side of the story. There had to be alternative, competitive plans out there before the Dems lost control of Congress in 1994. Why couldn't or didn't they write their own universal health care plan if they didn't like Hillary's?
By the way, Media Matters is leaving us readers out to dry here and doesn't even try to challenge Sally Smith on why she's wrong. That means either a) MM knows us readers know why it's not "fair" to blame just Hillary for no health care insurance for 40 million Americans, b) MM is just too lazy to write up yet another valid defense of Hillary's stance on the issues that the MSM ignores time and time again or c) maybe there's an element of truth to what Smith is saying that MM can't combat and would rather be left not rebutting. Either way, something's missing in this article.
By the way, Media Matters is leaving us readers out to dry here and doesn't even try to challenge Sally Smith on why she's wrong.
MMFA doesn't challenge moronic statements. They highlight them for all to see.
why don't you let us know what the "element of truth" is?
I think Russert is behaving like the shameless lapdog he truly is. The Republicans were not going to let ANY plan get through. According to the book "The System", they were determined to kill it. Why? To deny the Democrats what would be a great political coup. Compromise would have been futile. Hell, look how hard they're fighting the miniscule S-CHIP increase. Anything remotely resembling universal coverage is anathema to Republicans.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Hillary R. Clinton, the Republican Boogy Woman!!
The Republicans have all the reins of power for 7years and nothing, not an effort, except to further privatize and for profit healthcare system that has failed America from top to bottom.
I suppose the War is Clinton's fault to, the Republicans are only involved when they can claim victory. Since they only know how to win elections, and privatize government, victory is otherwise difficult to declare.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Don't miss this post from Digby.
That's an interesting take on the current campaign, and I think it may be accurate. I've been waiting for the day when all those once-militant Dubya sycophants were forced to admit that they saddled the country with one of the worst Presidents in our history. I guess that will never happen; they'll just pretend that we've stepped into a time tunnel and it's 2000 again.
Talk about a loaded question. Blaming Hillary for 40 million people not having health care is a "journalistic question"? Russert is really looking to be esconced in the journalism turds hall of fame.
First Hillary was the first lady. What she was doing was historic in terms of the policy scope and historic in terms of using the first ladies position to do something more than pick out china and drapes.
Second, as far as blame, what about all those elected officials, otherwise known as smucks in Congress, who haven't done crap in the last 15 years. And what about the current retardo administration? In Russerts Staph infected brain, they are off the hook because a first lady couldn't get the job done 15 years ago.
Russy boy, go fetch now and maybe some of your powerful friends will let you lick their fingers.
"who haven't done crap in the last 15 years"
Well, to be fair, they did find time to endlessly investigate Bill Clinton's BJ, give badly needed tax relief to downtrodden billionaires, and then concede their constitutional power to President Cheney and his sockpuppet. They've been too busy to address trivial matters like America's healthcare system.
Badly needed, indeed. I can't imagine inflicting the pain of Ira Rennert having to sacrifice one wing of his Long">[link to images.businessweek.com] Island mansion.
Oops.
Try this one.
Truthfully (I, know, that is new from me) it likely is now-Senator Clinton's fault, for even bringing up the question of doing something for those less than fortunate. Had she stuck to drapes-and-flowers-and-menus, there probably would even now be no official acknowledgement from the Corporate Media - and certainly none from their Repugnant accomplices - that health care is not already universal, that even children may not be automatically eligible for coverage.
Besides, Sen. Clinton is no better than fourth on my list of preferred Dem candidates - although if she does get nominated, I will carry water for her and donate to her general election campaign, just as though she had been John Edwards, or Dennis Kucinich, or even Barack Obama. 'Course, I retain the right to assail her meantime, as a Corporatist (Edwards and Kucinich are evidently not so much); illiberal centrist (I somewhat prefer anarchists to any organized politics, especially the right and center); and too much a hawk for me.