Drudge's false headline on Clinton health care plan: "HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK"
On September 18, the Drudge Report, the website of Internet gossip Matt Drudge, featured the lead headline "HEALTH INSURANCE PROOF REQUIRED FOR WORK" under a picture of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY). However, the Associated Press article to which the headline linked did not report that Clinton's recently proposed health care plan would require people to show proof of health insurance "for work." Rather, it reported that, in an interview with the AP, Clinton said: "At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed" for people who do not purchase health insurance as required by her plan. According to the article, Clinton also said, "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans." The AP article also stated that Clinton "said she could envision a day when 'you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination,' but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress."
According to Clinton, her plan would "make health care both universal and affordable for everyone."
From the September 18 AP article:
WASHINGTON -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that a mandate requiring every American to purchase health insurance was the only way to achieve universal health care but she rejected the notion of punitive measures to force individuals into the health care system.
"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
Ouch, this is the second thread with ALL CAPS included......some staffer is perusing these websites and is not a happy camper.
This is a sign of liberal rage?
No possibility that it's a simple case of liberal laziness by copying and pasting instead of retyping?
Drudge puts EVERYTHING in all caps on his cybersewer web site. The headline was simply being presented the same way it was originally.
In fairness, Tommy's nitpick, while facetious, is not unfounded. MMFA did not mimic the letter case the last time they criticized a Drudge headline.
As a technical writer with 24 years of experience, I believe that it could have appearewd either way. The all-caps method is probably more accurate, because that's how it was presented in the original.
She envisions the day, that means she is supportive of that idea, which means she would most likely work towards that end.....this is not an inaccurate headline by Drudge, it is exactly what Hillary "envisions", her own words.
But Drudge doesn't have to clarify it on his P.O.S. site by simply prefacing it with "Hillary's Vision:". I guess he's entitled to some of that same laziness I just cited.
No it doesnt. That is ridiculous. I envision the day when I will be Winston Smith and America looks just like Orwells 1984 all the time. That in NO WAY means I support that or would work towards it. So YES Drudge is inaccurate AGAIN.
And I can envision running of a cliff like Wile E. Coyote, stopping, and not beginning to fall into the ravine until I've realized that I've run off a cliff. Just because I can envision it does not mean it will happen.
Bullcrap.
You cannot make something mandatory without having punitive measures in place for those who are not following your mandates. The only reason punitive measures are not being disclosed is because they would cause a poll drop.
This is a bad plan and any politician that would endorse it - Romney included - is a bad choice for a President. Additionally, while Drudge is sensationalizing this, Clinton does say in that AP article that she can envision proof being required in order to work.
She's showing her fascist stripes yet again.
At least she doesn't wiretap Americans without warrant.
She just lets that happen without a challenge.
I know we have had our differences REDKING but Bravo to your last statement.
True, that was a good one
I still don't see what gets the cons all worked up on this christianized medicine gig...we let the politicians run war, economy and everything else...why not pills and surgeons?
Hillary care, act II has a BIG problem with it. Well 2, from what I see.
1 - The thought of purchasing it - OH come on now, we're doing that now and look where it has us.
2 - She wants insurance and health corps to participate in it? (as in they still make their profits).
No fix, and same as it ever was - Thanks Hill.. Thanks a lot.
Forcing people to buy something - hmnn - that right there (in her own words)
She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview -- like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.
blech...
I think you're really doing yourself a disservice by portraying the healthcare debate as a set of false binary choices: either the insurance companies can have their way or we'll have not-for-profit medicine in America. While the former is partially true, the latter is the stuff of fantasy.
Health professionals will be compensated handsomely for their services. That is not up for debate. What is up for debate is how the people who can't afford those services will be able to pay. A new massive government bureaucracy will never pass congress, and a completely privatized system is very risky (and wouldn't pass congress either). So if we change the incentives for the insurance industry away from risk discrimination, they will respond by making profit the other way: they will reduce their own coverage costs by focusing on preventative care and giving customers bonuses for living healthily. It's a win-win for everyone. Who cares if people make profit in the process?
Her plan is very simply and sensible. Let's get some reform passed before we indulge in utopianism.
I can envision a day when the earth is simply uninhabitable.
Does that mean I support or like the idea?
Don't be silly.
Punitive measures for this plan haven't been presented yet and are sure to be a matter for debate after Hillary is elected in November 2008.
Why can't we have this as a matter for debate BEFORE Hillary gets elected in November 2008?
Later,
"...you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview..."
So, kind of a 'green card' for citizens, I guess. Might be better off to renounce one's American citizenship, emigrate to Mexico, then sneak back in illegally.
Hillary's socialism is showing - again. I'm glad. This should be the end of Hillary's presidential aspirations.
If she was socialist, she'd be advocating a Medicare-style coverage for all Americans funded solely thru taxation. Instead she's literally selling our bodies to the health care insurance industry, for their profit and hers.
Agreed. Anyone who calls this socialism doesn't know what the word means.
That pretty much goes for most people who trot out "socialism" as some final word on any subject.
I wonder if Matt Drudge has health insurance. He would need it, especially with his "lifestyle."
Insurance itself is the definition of "socialism". It's many people paying into a "pool" (each according to their ability), with the "benefits" going to those who make claims (to each according to their need). Because nobody WANTS to have to use insurance, because it would mean loss and great inconvenience and probably pain and suffering as well (an accident, death in the family, a tragedy like the house burning down, an illness), the insurance companies make a profit because those paying IN outweigh those who receive payment.
True Capitalism/Free Market would require each individual to pay their own way out of their own pocket. In fact, this is exactly how "conservatives", rightwingers, and NeoCons envision America becoming, on health care and every other issue. The RICH get whatever they want, while the poor do without.
HELL, for these rightwingers ... if there is any justice in the universe ... would be for them to actually LIVE in the nation they would create. Luckily for America, decades of LIBERAL POLICIES have made America a nation of compassion and concern, a nation whose government seeks to alleviate the problems of ALL the people, not just smoothing the way for those with money to consolidate all wealth and power. Even total GOP control of Congress, the White House, and even the Judiciary has not allowed them to undo Medicare, Social Security, and other social programs that benefit all citizens.
By the rightwing definition of "socialism" ... taxing all to provide public benefits ... our roads, libraries, meat inspection, parks, etc. are all bastions of SOCIALISM, where private ownership and "buyer beware" should be determining all transactions.
Woe is the rightwinger, living in a liberal and free America when they would much prefer totalitarian rule by the wealthy elite, with all others' fate determined by rules WRITTEN by the elite FOR the elite. This desire for a "social Darwinism" demands that those who do not "succeed" by material accumulation are the weak and undesirable, and the best fate for them is just to shut up and die. Certainly, no single tax dollar from one citizen should go to any program that might benefit another citizen.
To be rightwing is to be heartless and soulless. Thank GOD that America, on balance, holds a majority of people with moral principles, social responsibility, and the enlightened self interest which informs that one's personal wealth alone cannot make one happy or successful ... that the COMMUNITY being healthy is a vital part of living a rewarding life.
So, since Rightwingers will NEVER "get their way" in wiping out liberal programs which define America as responsible and compassionate, they are free to whine and complain about "the undeserving" and how unfair it is to be taxed to fund government programs they don't like. Meanwhile, they can enjoy living in the greatest nation in history, made so by the "liberal policies" that they so verbally despise.
Thanks, Tex. I agree completely.
I have a business partner who, unfortunately, had been very sick with a rare disease. He has taken far more than he could ever have put into the system, and yet he remains a staunch conservative who believes the poor are getting all of his tax money, and this is not fair.
I would like your permission to paraphrase and use some snippets in an email or two.
Socialism is the complete redistribution of private property and capital to the general public and state. Insurance companies are private corporations.
Also, the European nations are not Socialist states; they are capitalist countries with socialized programs.
Look at this way: even with these socialized programs, there are still immensely wealthy people living it up on the Riviera and other hot spots in Europe (of course there still poor people). Maybe the rich there are true patriots because they see taxes as an investment in the general welfare of their country.
But look at health care in this country, it resembles something out a Charles Dickens novel. We live in a land of abundancy and everyone acts like resources are scarce and that we have to fight one another over every penny.
Wow, that was great Tex.
Rightwingers have a problem with showing proof of health insurance to work. Isn't that too bad. Where I live, one has to show picture i.d. just to enter the employment office to look for a job. Prospective employees have to prove they do not use illegal drugs just to get a job. (I will do neither, and have had no income for six and a half years). I don't see the righties having a fit about any of that. They think I have an attitude problem. Our loss of freedom to work under the republicans has destroyed my life and who knows how many others, but I guess no one cares about it other than myself. I hate the new America. Karl Pierce
You should stop taking drugs and go get yourself a picture ID. How do you afford a computer and internet access if you've had no income for 6.5 years???!!! Get a job! Illegal immigrants get jobs, can't you get a job too?
SCOOTER:
Of course, feel free to use whatever you think works.
A short story: As a "nontraditional student", 40ish and in college, the discussion in a politics class was on the topic of government's responsibility. There was a staunch (he thought) conservative/libertarian who offered his opinion much like your partner's: That no citizen should be taxed to help another citizen, that "government welfare" was inherently both wrong and "socialism".
I claimed it would be highly hypocritical of me to agree with this libertarian fellow, since my presence in college was possible only because of federally-guaranteed loans. I further stated that educating its people is a great investment for a nation's future, and so it was with a "selfish" interest that these loans were provided.
You guessed it: Mr. Libertarian "my money is MINE" had such student loans as well. How could he oppose that which he himself was using? "That's different," he said, without explanation. It's different only in that HE was benefitted by this "socialist" largesse, and so that part of the utilization of other people's tax money must be OK.
Show me a rightwinger, and I'll show you a rank hypocrite. It's a requirement of their myopic vision that they see only the bad and worthlessness of others, while paying no mind that their entire life in this nation is made possible by liberal thinking and policies.
Tex,
Please explain to me how my "entire life in this nation is made possible by liberal thinking and policies"?
And if you could be specific please, I will know where to send the proper thank you notes.
"Please explain to me how my "entire life in this nation is made possible by liberal thinking and policies"? "
If you've ever attended a public school....
Send a thank-you note to colonial-era America.
If you've ever collected an unemployment check after being downsized or laid off...
Send a thank-you note to FDR
If you're a veteran who went to college on the G.I. Bill
Send another thank-you to FDR
If you've ever been the recipient of a serious, life-changing injury or illness that wiped out your livelihood and received Social Security Benefits...
You guessed it, FDR.
If you've ever consumed tap water...
Send a thank-you note to your local liberal politician that fought for water quality standards.
If you've ever breathed the air in a large urban area...
Send another thank-you note to your local liberal politician who fought for Clean Air legislation.
If you've ever used public transportation...
Send another thank-you note to your local liberal politician who fought for affordable public transportation that keeps cars off the road and the air clean.
If you've ever enjoyed the great outdoors...
Send another thank-you note to your local liberal politican who fought to protect wilderness areas from developers and timber companies.
If you've ever deposited your money into a bank...
Send thank you notes to Democratic Senators Carter Glass and Henry Steagall for sponsoring legislation that created the FDIC, which insures your money and protects it from unforeseen insolvency.
There's probably quite a few others, but I think I caught Tex's gist.
Tex,
Sorry to impede, that that was just too good to resist.
You left out the 40 hour work week, safe working conditions, child labor laws, ....
Ah, of course. Unions! Good one. Thanks, Marv.
If you work 8-hours a day, get paid a living wage, and have your weekends off...
Send a thank-you to all those 19th-century liberals who banded together and created the earliest labor unions.
While you're at it, send another one to the unions of today who work to keep it that way.
Well if you have to go back to colonial America and FDR to find me a liberal who has contributed, then that says more about today's liberals than anything else, doesn't it?
And you missed the Al Gore created Internet... which connects us all, everyday. Thank you Al.
You didn't help your case much, but nice try.
To clarify, your question was not "which of today's liberals makes my life possible?"
You are correct in mentioning Gore, though.
If the internet has become a part of your life...
Send a thank-you to Al Gore for sponsoring the 1988 National High-Performance Computer Act (which established a national computing plan and helped link universities and libraries via a shared network) and cosponsoring the Information Infrastructure and Technology Act of 1992 (which opened the Internet to commercial traffic).
Believe me, a clear distinction should be made with regard to old style liberalism in the vein of FDR and JFK.......and today's liberals, who bear little resemblance to their predecessor's policies and leftist stances on issues.
Actually, the clear distinction should be made between those who can admit it when they're wrong and those who dance around facts when proven wrong.
Really, unless you are able to prove that my "entire life" is possible because of liberal policies, then your assessment of who is wrong is as ridiculous as any of your previous assessments......but put it on a Democratic bumpersticker, where it belongs.
It's quite hysterical to see liberals advancing the theory that government is responsible for our "entire life's" possibilities though, because that is actually what you believe, HAHAHA!!!
The standard of living you enjoy is in fact due to liberal policies. That does in fact affect your "entire life."
Life is much better in this country (and others) because of policies advanced by people who put ordinary people ahead of the rich and powerful and corporations.
If you don't think your "entire life" is different because you have an actual weekend that you can use how you see fit, that food and water are safe, that you get a reasonable wage for reasonable work, that your kids aren't working in a sweatshop, and so on, then you're just intellectually dishonest.
Your lot in life might be due to liberal policies, because I have a feeling that you are far more dependent on the government's handouts than I am - which would explain your love of liberalism.
But some of us are more self reliant, obviously.
Okay, intellectually dishonest it is. You're clearly unwilling to actually adress anything I said and instead choose to go to insults. That usually means you're conceding my point. Thanks.
But this spat didn't start with a discussion of the difference between today's and yesterday's liberals, did it?
I believe it centered around how liberal thinking and liberal policies affect the lives we live today. Or did I not interpret your question in the way you had hoped? Or perhaps you thought you scored a major gotcha and were expecting it go unanswered and when it was answered, you had to abandon it and come up with a sideshow issue. But hey, you have the freedom to do so.
Pete, Since you are a honest guy, I will answer you. My problem with what Tex said was that my "entire life" was due to liberal policies. You don't believe that do you? Your entire life? It was just another of Tex's unchallenged grandstanding speeches.
Are none of the successes in your "entire life" due to your own hard work and determination, your perseverance, your work ethic, your morality, your familial bonding and the responsibility you take in your own life, your charitable contributions, your environmental and civic responsibility, your involvement with current affairs and the interest you take in improving your life and others.......that was my point. Tex's blanket statement deserved challenging.
Wow! Pete! You're honest and therefore you've EARNED THE RIGHT OF A RESPONSE FROM TOMMY!
Let me touch the cuff of your sleeve, Pete. Please?
Maybe some of Pete's sleeve will rub off on you when you touch it, and you may someday warrant a respectful response. But I won't hold my breath, Pardner'
I know. Not agreeing with you is "disrespectful." You can't debate points, so you just call names and toss around dismissive, demeaning, and patronizing posts.
The playing field can be fair, or you can put the fence out at 1000 feet and tell your workers that the game is fair. Liberal policies moved the fences in to a reasonable distance so that everyone who worked hard could live a decent life. Until that happened, the powers that be had the fences way out there and when someone actually started to do well, they moved 'em a bit further out.
You can claim you did everything on your own. But you benefit from the work of those before you, like it or not.
Believe me, it hasn't always been this nice between Tommy and I. But I've been making a renewed effort lately to remain civil, reign in my emotions, and not make things personal.
As far as your own rapport with Tommy, you're on your own. :-)
Pete, As you can attest my respect for certain posters has nothing to do with whether of not they agree with me, that is ridiculous.
There are posters here who I am in nearly total disagreement with that I have the utmost respect for - Nerzog comes to mind, he is an unabashed liberal but it is always honest in his arguements and I respect him a great deal.....Solon would be another one, he and I have gone rounds but I respect him as well. And of course, I respect your opinions also.
Marv is bitter for a reason, I am not responsible for that :)
More name calling. See? Can't help himself.
I gave up trying. Post disagreements with him and he is either dismissive, patronizing, rude, or just goes to name calling. He has demonstrated that he has no interest in thoughtful discussion. This is a perfect example. You posted a lot of things that demonstrate that his position was flawed. He waves a hand and tosses everything you said aside and then makes jokes HA HA. Point out that his restated position is just as flawed, and he makes insults about you.
And even when he pretends he's being civil with you, he patronizes you by saying "Oh, nice doggie, you responded to me in a manner I see fitting of a response." As though he's the King of Civility.
I point it out when someone mentions it. Other times, I just call him on his mistakes (as I do with anyone, even those I generally agree with) and watch him spin.
Respectfully, I do not agree that Tex asserted that liberalism is solely responsible for our quality of life. He did, in his own words, state that "their entire life in this nation is made possible by liberal thinking and policies."
I took it to mean that the conditions are such that it is possible to live the life that we all enjoy, and that those conditions, not your own personal success, are due to liberalism.
Success from hard work, determination, etc., can only come when the economic and governmental mechanism promotes opportunity. Otherwise, success simply is not possible, or it has to be taken by force.
There are countries in this world too numerous to mention where people work their tails off their whole life and get absolutely nowhere because their rulers do not embrace the concepts adopted by the U.S. that promote and create economic opportunity for all citizens. Many of these concepts, as I have listed, were the result of liberal thinking and liberal policies.
Thats bunk. You just WISH you could disassociate todays liberals with the HARD FOUGHT improvements in America, hard fought against CONSERVATIVES from todays liberals when clearly todays liberals are the clear progression from yesterdays. YOU denying it doesnt in any way make it true.
Actually, it says more about today's Republicans that they run on trying to tear down the things that lifted so many out of poverty. Shame on them.
Oh, forgot about civil rights. Johnson signed that into law in the 60s. Still trying to get that one fully enacted, and Republicans are there every step of the way to block those efforts.
Yes he did. You denying the reality doesnt CHANGE the reality
I'm not a fan of Hillary's new health care ideas at all. I liked the version she was working on in the 90s much better.
That being said, why in the hell is it so hard for any pundits and politicians who oppose her plans to discuss what she's really putting forward instead of hyperventilating about a "socialist" boogieman that will destroy America's health care system and put us all in jail if we don't enroll?
There's a lot not to like in her plan without going to an imaginary version to critique.