CNN's Borger asserted Clinton has "a bit of a credibility problem" on health care, despite contrary poll
SUMMARY: CNN's Gloria Borger claimed that Sen. Hillary Clinton "has a bit of a
credibility problem when it comes to health care because ... she had the debacle
in 1993." But polling shows that, if Clinton were
to be elected president, most voters believe her past experience during the
Clinton
administration would help her in reforming health care.
On the September 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, senior political analyst Gloria Borger asserted that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) "has a bit of a credibility problem when it comes to health care because, of course, she had the debacle in 1993." In fact, according to a September 14-16 CBS News poll (released September 17), most voters "think Hillary Clinton's past experience with health care would help her ... in reforming health care if she becomes President" and that "the lack of health care reform during the Clinton Administration" was "mostly something beyond her control."
The CBS News poll found that, if Clinton were to be elected president, 66 percent of respondents believe her experience would help her in reforming health care, while 25 percent think the experience would hurt her. Specifically, 82 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of Independents, and 45 percent of Republicans said the experience would help her. Additionally, the poll found that only 5 percent of respondents think Clinton was "mostly responsible for the lack of health care reform during the Clinton Administration," while 52 percent answered that it was "mostly beyond her control," and 39 percent didn't know enough to say how responsible she was.
As Media Matters for America noted, on the previous day's Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer referred to "that weird chart" that then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole (R-KS) used on January 25, 1994, in a response to President Clinton's State of the Union address that purported to diagram the Clinton administration health care plan. Blitzer did not note that Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (PA) created the chart, or that experts and Clinton administration officials said it distorted the Clinton plan and ignored the greater complexity of Republican proposals and the existing system.
From the September 18 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: Now this comes just a day after Senator Clinton --
BORGER: Yep.
BLITZER: -- unveiled her new health proposal, universal health care, and she said she's going to tax the richest by eliminating some of the tax breaks that they got by the Bush tax cuts. Here is also a pre-emptive strike in defense of her plan. This is what she said.
CLINTON [video clip]: This is not government-run health care. We're not creating any new bureaucracy. We're trying to build on what works and fix what's broken in our system.
BLITZER: That's what she told our [CNN anchor] John Roberts on American Morning earlier today. What do you think?
BORGER: Well, I think Hillary Clinton has a bit of a credibility problem when it comes to health care because, of course, she had the debacle in 1993. She knows that, however, Wolf, more than anybody else, so she's coming out, and in every appearance, you'll notice she's very careful to say, "I made some mistakes. I know what I did wrong." And so that's what she's going to do.
However, this time her plan is kind of risky because she requires families to buy insurance. Lots of liberals are going to say, "Gee, the government ought to do that for us," and conservatives are going to say, "We don't want to require any kind of mandates on people." She's taking a very centrist middle ground, but it's risky.
What % do you tie to "a bit"?
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
The only "fiasco" to be evident since 1993 is the tripling of healthcare premiums, the sky rocketing healthcare cost, and the astronomical HMO/Hospital/Insurance profits that Mrs. Clinton warned about 14yrs ago!
That my brown nosed Ms. Borger is credentials, credibility, and the obvious expertise that fore telling of things to come and do!
This is an example of a corporate agenda using logic turned on it's head as evidence of discrediting the messenger when unable to address the truth!!
Lie if the truth don't work for you!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
"she had the debacle in 1993"
What happened was that she ran headlong into the Republican propaganda buzzsaw, and never knew what hit her. Her plan may have had flaws, but it never had a chance...they were determined to kill it before it ever saw the light of day.
So, I guess the real question this time around is...can she "catapult the propaganda?"
As far as I'm concerned, her failure in 1993 is irrelevant...what remains to be seen is whether or not she has sold out to the lobbyists, as some liberals are saying.
No, what happened was the First Lady, right out of the box, introduces a gargantuan size government program, about 1/7th of our economy if I remember correctly. I believe she has since redeemed her credibility due to her experience, but many won't let go of it......so Borger is correct, she does a have a "bit".
Here's a little propaganda from democrats:
- The lesson Senator Clinton seems to have learned from her experience with health care is, 'If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.' I learned a very different lesson from decades of fighting powerful interests -- you can never join 'em, you just have to beat 'em. - John Edwards
- The mismanagement of the effort in 1993 and 1994 has set back our ability to move toward universal health care immeasurably...What's been missing is leadership that knows how to bring people together and get the job done. - Chris Dodd
Thanks Wes, spoken by two Washington insiders about how ineffective they have been and still are. Well done.
Super well done. Congratulations.
I agree that her plan was cumbersome, and also that she didn't handle the whole thing very well. However, the Republicans were in the pocket of the corporations who opposed it, and they weren't about to let ANY national healthcare plan get off the ground, especially one sponsored by Democrats. Instead of offering to take her plan and try to mold it into something workable, they strangled it in the cradle. No matter what she did, or what she proposed, they would have killed it.
Having said that, it's beginning to look like Hillary may now be in the pocket of those same corporations. At least that's what the buzz is on the Left...though it could be propaganda, as well.
What I think we need is a single payer plan...and we'll never get it. We'll never get it because it would end the gravy train for the insurance industry, and they have enough money to bribe the politicians on both sides.
Of course having right-wingers in on the debate on details of a health care plan is a total joke. If another Republican wins the White House we may as well just shelve the discussion for another 4 years anyway.
Just hearing Democrats squabble over it right now sounds like people cruising on the Titanic arguing over which pub to hit first when they get to New York.
The salient point to me is that Democrats genuinely seem to want to improve this situation. And as Hillary has described well herself, any plan at the outset is just a framework that will evolve when the thing actually starts getting hammered out. It's no mistake that it's conservative media muddling this debate. As if they're really so concerned about the details. They just want to make sure no one sees that iceberg until it's too late.
If another Republican wins in 08, we're f**ked.
Not only will he probably expand the war in Iraq into Iran, but he'll most likely get a chance to appoint at least one more Troglodyte to the Supreme Court, maybe two. That, we cannot afford.
I'm worried because it seems like the faithful are falling for the same tricks again. Gonna bet on the wrong horse again.
Zog Said: If another Republican wins in 08, we're f**ked.
Right Zog .... And we're Fornicated right now too, as we are posting. Or whole country is. That has a negative effect on the whole world, not just us.
Odds are the Republicans will lose by a wide margin in 08 but please ... please .... Don't get overly confident. We can't afford to lose again. We must all work hard for it.
Willie Nelson has a new song I like called "Take Our Country Back."
When Clinton came out with her plan in 1993, the health industry including the pharmaceutical companies came out with a $100 million campaign to destroy it. Featured in the most prominent TV ads were a couple known as Harry and Louise. Today, no one on TV mentions why Clinton's plan failed. It wasn't the plan, it was the vicious campaign put on by the Industry and the Republicans.
Hillary has "a bit of a credibility problem" with me!
By going behind closed doors with the industry and never even considering single payer, she killed Universal Health Care for 15 years when it was a major issue at the time (elections were decided on that issue alone!)
Bill Clinton was the best Republican president since TR. I am ready for a DEMOCRAT! No more DINOs!
Having said that, I would much prefer a good Republican (Hillary) over the fascists on the Rethug ticket.
The fascists are gonna howl over any national program - they have already proven that. Hillary's plan was killed because she had no support from the left! We might as well go for it - Medicare for all would be defensible and the left would fight like hell for it.
Problem is, DINOs like Hillary don't want that anymore than the Health care industry does.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Tommy would pull 1/7th the economy hokus to make an lie sound true!
Mrs Clinton's proposal, as well as John Edwards,Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson are mostly the same proposal from '93 that would not come from a huge tax increase as much of the expense of healthcare would be stripped away by 'DE-PRIVATIZING" healthcare as it was prior to the de-regulation of Reagan's Administration!
The beneficiaries would be paying premiums as they are able, and if an insured wants to opt out they may, though they would be less likely given the simplicty of staying in the program.
I was billing trouble claims before the standardize forms and subsequent privatizing of insurance companies taking over "not for profit hospitals" into the skyrocketing costs of hospitalization of today!
200 million Americans pooled to negotiate pricing with Pharma and Medical Providers of all kinds will sink medical prices to levels experienced 30 years ago adjusted for inflation.
Premiums paid through national mandate into a national Medicare Adminstrater will drive premiums to a fraction of what they are now, instead of the skyrocketing costs we are still enduring!
Medicare adminstration costs are 3% of billing, private HMO's, PPO's, and all insurance companies cost 30-40% to administer!
Arguments like the one made by Tommy is an attempt to play on people's ignorance, and fear of government intrusion while offering stupid gimmics of the past that have proven a joke. They just object to government, and nothing else!
This time critical care for the rich and nobody else is not going to make it to '08, and if the Republicans don't want to get onboard, I say let's leave them at the station!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
I am constantly amazed at the faith some put in our government to effectively and efficiently run anything. Despite having little to no evidence that our government is competent ,generally speaking, some insist on believing universal health Care's a good idea.
it's a pill I just can't swallow.
It's true, I tried to take my daughter to her school today that my neighbors and I built from scratch last week but it was Jeff's turn (my neighbor) to clear the road (path) from last night's rain but he was killed by a band of outlaws that no one around here can seem to stop. Seems like we need some kind of organization but we can barely govern our own emotions these days.
- so Borger is correct, she does a have a "bit". - Tommy
And that is exactly what the CBS poll that mmfa cites says:
When asked if they had confidence in Hillary's ability to make the right decisions about health care...42% were confident...48% were uneasy.
Whenever a Dem suggests something, the Repukes demand that it be scuttled because it is "fundamentally flawed" for a few holes ... and yet, whenever they propose something, they demand it be passed because the "imperfections" might be addressed later ...
Clinton's the one with a health care credibility problem while Congressional and Executive Republicans have done absolutely nothing and watched health care insurance premiums increase at six times the rate of inflation (2000 to 2004)?
At least she can honestly say she tried bring something new.
What can the Republicans say when asked, "what have you done about health care?"
The only answer that comes to mind is, "we protected it from Hillary."
*bringing*
(argh)
Congressional and Executive Republicans have done absolutely nothing and watched health care insurance premiums increase at six times the rate of inflation (2000 to 2004)?
Done nothing? I don't remember where I saw it, but I read they watched while health care insurance premiums increased at six times the rate of inflation over four years! I'm buyin' me some insurance stocks!
"We protected it from Hillary" ... that's about it ... made me laugh.
The Repukes' idea of saving health care from Hillary is like saying you save the patient having cancer by shooting the patient in the head ...
- while 52 percent answered that it was "mostly beyond her control - mmfa
The poll also found that nearly half the respondents blamed Hillary for the failure of her health care plan in 1993:
Was having Hillary Clinton in charge one of the reasons health care reform did not pass?...43% said yes...49% said no.
A simple cherry pick by Brian Levy and mmfa in their never ending quest to replace principles with polling data.
The poll results cited here are impressive: 82% of Democrats polled thought Mrs. Clinton's "experience would help her in reforming health care"; 62% of Independents and 45% of Republicans polled said the same thing!
Oh oh, sounds like a bad issue for the Greedy Old Party to go after Mrs. Clinton on!
Truly, I don't see just how the GOP and their many minions hacks and whores can get into this issue, without just making things worse for themselves.
I know: Just be vague unspecific indefinite and use a lot of buzz words and slang, when you bring up (if you must) this subject.
But what if folks see vagueness etc., and go to questioning a little further the matter... what then?
What then indeed.
If the above transcription could have took just such a "fantasy" twist, then maybe we'd have got...
BLITZER: What do you think?
BORGER: Well, I think Hillary Clinton has a bit of a credibility problem when it comes to health care because, of course, she had the debacle in 1993. She knows that...
BLITZER: Wait, what do you mean "debacle"?
BORGER: Well, you remember what happened when Mrs. Clinton went to Capital Hill and tried to reform the Nation's Health Care system, and the Republican House of Representatives responded by investigating her and her husband for the investment they made in the "Whitewater" real estate developement, and then...
BLITZER: Wait, what does "Whitewater" have to do with Health Care?
BORGER: Well, you remember that the Independent Counsel investigating "whitewater", finding nothing there, then inquired into the President's unauthorized use of White House telephones to speak to Chinese people, and then...
BLITZER: Wait, what does an "unauthorized use of White House telephones" have to do with Health Care?
BORGER: Well, you remember that the Independent Counsel finding nothing there, then took up the paula jones thing, and her claim that someone's pants fit so poorly that they fell down, and then...
BLITZER: Wait, what does "paula jones" have to do with Health Care?
BORGER: Well, you remember that the Independent Counsel finding nothing there, then took up the matter of the intern at the Office, who couldn't keep her mouth shut, and so then they...
BLITZER: Wait, what does "an intern who should have just kept her mouth shut" have to do with Health Care?
BORGER: OK, listen wolf, your constant interruptions are wrecking my narrative; and secondly, if you could just pull you head out of your ten-second soundbite for just a minute, you'd see I'm trying to tell you what I meant by "debacle".
BLITZER: Oh.., OK, I see. Gee, it does sound like Mrs. Clinton's experiences back then, in trying to reform the Nation's Health Care system, was a "debacle", now that we get right down to it...
OK, now it's clear to me, why even 45% of Republicans polled, thought:
"Mrs. Clinton's experience would help her in reforming health care"
Because debacles that don't kill us, only make us stronger.
"But what if folks see vagueness etc., and go to questioning a little further the matter... what then?"
Well, there's the rub. For that to happen, we'd need a truly independent Press that was willing to do some real "reporting". Given the history of the past 15 years, I don't see it happening.
Well written and very funny.
<i>When asked if they had confidence in Hillary's ability to make the right decisions about health care...42% were confident...48% were uneasy.</i>
How many of these people have health insurance, and how many don't?
Polls won't make this a good plan. It's still a huge armed robbery of the working poor for the sake of the insurance industry.
Gloria Borger wouldn't know reality if it.....