The Swamp: Bush's bank shot at Hillary Clinton on health care

Posted October 31, 2007 1:42 PM

by Mark Silva

President Bush has promised to hold his analysis of the 2008 presidential campaign, but he waded straight into it today.

With a broadside against the Democratic Congress and its “incremental'' plans for “federalizing'' health insurance, Bush today reminded his audience that Congress rejected a national insurance plan in 1994 – that would be the plan that then-First Lady Hillary Clinton promoted, ultimately defeated by the insurance lobby.

“We've tried, by the way, here in Washington to have a... major effort, put the federal government square in the center of health care in 1994, and the legislation didn't pass,'' the president said in a speech today to the Grocery Manufacturers Association.

“I believe many of the Democrats in Congress who supported that legislation have learned from the experience,'' Bush said. “So instead of pushing to federalize health care all at once, they're pushing for the same goal through a series of incremental steps. With each step, they want to bring America closer to a nationalized system where the government dictates the medical coverage for every citizen.''

The target in question at the moment is the congressional attempt to expand eligibility for lower- and middle-income children under the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Bush has vetoed a $35 billion bill which Democrats maintained could offer coverage to an additional 3.8 million children beyond the 6.6 million covered.

But the bigger target is Clinton, the senator from New York and candidate for president whom Republicans are attempting to portray as a Democrat whom the nation cannot afford. It matters little that Clinton is not proposing nationalized health insurance in her campaign. Private enterprise is the way to go in medicine, the president maintains, saying: “We got good docs.''

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), suggested that Bush is more concerned about the tobacco industry -- which the vetoed bill taxes to pay for health care -- than children.

“The only consistent part of President Bush’s baseless opposition to improving the Children’s Health Insurance Program is his effort to score political points at the expense of our children’s wellbeing.'' Reid said. "Today’s excuse – that President Bush would rather protect Big Tobacco than America’s kids – is not only morally abhorrent, it is the latest in a never-ending line of phony excuses for not doing the right thing.

"First the president falsely claimed our bill covers the wealthy,'' Reid said. "Then he falsely claimed our bill covers too many adults. Then he falsely claimed our bill covers illegal immigrants. Then he falsely claimed our bill is a first step to socialized medicine. Though these charges were completely unfounded, Democrats and Republicans have worked together to revise this bill in a way that ensures those who oppose the CHIP bill can no longer misrepresent it.''

Bush insists that he will support a plan that places the poorest children first, not one which he maintains will encourage middle-class families to drop private coverage and go to the government – which is what he says the vetoed plan would do.

“There's an interesting debate raging here in Washington, and it's an appropriate -- Halloween is an appropriate day to talk about it, because there's a bill moving through the Congress that's disguised as a bill to help children, but I think it's really a trick on the American people,'' Bush said today.

“The bill... would cause moms and dads to give up private insurance and -- private insurance for their children and move them on to the government rolls,'' he argued. “It would move us closer to a health care system dominated by the federal government.

“It would fund massive new spending by raising taxes on the American working people,'' he said (the congressional plan relied on an increase in tobacco taxes to finance it.) “The legislation... is a path to government-run health care, which I believe is the wrong path for the United States...

“Here's my philosophy -- that government ought to trust private medicine -- that we've got a fabulous health care system,'' he said. “Does it have issues? Sure, it's got issues. But when you compare it to other health care systems in the world, the United States has got a fabulous health care system. We got great docs, we've got wonderful new technologies. Our system is so good that many people from around the world like to come here to get treatment.
“The goal of a good health care system is not to weaken the health care system, but strengthen it; and a goal is to bring as many Americans as possible into the private system of health care,'' he said. “That ought to be a goal....

'There's a different view in Washington,'' the president said. “They believe -- those who have a different view believe that expanding federal control is the key to improving health care...

“For those who believe that, I would hope they would look around the world at other nations who have tried to nationalize their health care systems,'' he said. “I think what they would find is that socialized medicine has led to lower standards, longer waits, rationing of care...

“The strategy is to expand programs for senior citizens to include younger citizens, to expand programs for children to include adults, and to expand programs for the poor to include the middle class,'' he said. “I'm not making it up.''

Comments

"Bush's Bank Shot At Hillary Clinton On Health Care"

This is great news for Hillary, if the Coward in Chief takes a shot at you it means you must be right about something.

When you listen to the pathetic group of GOoPer candidates debate you'd think that Hillary had been the President the last 6+ years and not their very own W/Cheney.

Posted by: John E | October 31, 2007 1:56 PM

These comments coming from the guy who gave you the multi-billion dollar mess known as Medicare prescription care.

So what is he program for S-CHIP?? Let's hear his specifics, or the plan from his party. So far all they have done is say "no".

Posted by: BobinATL | October 31, 2007 2:06 PM

I love the way Mark writes this. HillaryCare in 1994 was defeated by the insurance lobby, Mark tells us. Seems to me, Mark, most Americans were against it in 1994 and most Democratic members ultimately felt it was too expensive and not a good solution.
Bush says the expansion of the S-CHIP program is a tax increase on working peoploe, but Mark adds that the S-CHIP expansion will be funded by cigarette taxes. Well, Mark, aren't cigarette smokers, working people? And why should they be singled out? I don't smoke. Never have, never will. But why should cigarette smokers fund everything? And, as the cigarette-smoking public dwindles, who will end up paying the difference? Is it fair for one group of people, and most smokers tend to be middle class or poor folks, to pay for someone else's health care costs, especially that of a 25-year-old or a fanily that makes $75,000 a year?
Hillary's "new" plan and the Dem's expansion of S-CHIP is incrementalism.

I have a solution. If the media, Democrats and liberals want social programs to be expanded, then how about a tax on just those folks? If it's OK to tax smokers or beer drinkers or bottled water drinkers to pay for things, then how about a tax on just Democrats and media (leave the trade press out of it) to pay for the programs they want expanded? So, Mark, let's say the government taxes you 10 cents for every word you write?

Posted by: John D | October 31, 2007 2:24 PM

"It matters little that Clinton is not proposing nationalized health insurance in her campaign."

Exactly. This president repeatedly lies to the American people, and the media let him get away with it. We need a media that says 'STOP' and forces these Republicans to stop lying about Democrats. First we need a media not controlled by corporations, of course, that donate millions to Republicans.

Posted by: Paul | October 31, 2007 2:27 PM

have a solution. If the media, Democrats and liberals want social programs to be expanded, then how about a tax on just those folks? If it's OK to tax smokers or beer drinkers or bottled water drinkers to pay for things, then how about a tax on just Democrats and media (leave the trade press out of it) to pay for the programs they want expanded? So, Mark, let's say the government taxes you 10 cents for every word you write?

Posted by: John D | October 31, 2007 2:24 PM

Lil Virgin Johnny,

Why don't we raise taxes for the $235 Billion that the Coward in Chief want's for his wars? If it's as important as you and the rest of the Wingnuts say it is then we should ALL pay for it, right?

Posted by: John E | October 31, 2007 2:31 PM

It might interest you to know that MITT ROMNEY'S Healthcare Plan for Massachusetts which he touts at every campaign stop is another step on the way to "federalizing" health care. They subsidize with federal reimbursements a premium for single people up to $30,000 per year and a couple at $50,000 for premiums that cost as little as $35.00 per month for working folks.

Posted by: Shadrap | October 31, 2007 2:35 PM

Only 22% of citizens say they agree with Bush's health care positions.

CBS poll
WOULD YOU FAVOR OR OPPOSE EXPANDING S-CHIP?

Favor 81%
Oppose 15%

WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO PAY MORE TAXES TO EXPAND S-CHIP? (Among those who favor expanding S-CHIP)

Yes 74%
No 17%

Posted by: John E | October 31, 2007 2:37 PM

At what point does Bush just declare a Global War on Healthcare, seeing as the lies and fear mongering are starting to roll in a familiar tone?

Posted by: kb | October 31, 2007 2:43 PM

John D:

Your arguement is week. Tax money goes to fund a war 70% of Americans don't want. Should wingnuts like you be responsible for paying for the war exclusively? Should the only soldiers sent to Iraq be Dittoheads?

Maybe you should inlist.

Posted by: nisleib | October 31, 2007 2:45 PM

Tell you what John D, I think you have a brilliant idea. I'm more than happy to agree for Democrats and Liberals to pay for the SCHIP increase, just as long as you Republicans and conservatives are willing to pick up the entire cost for the War in Iraq. Deal?

Posted by: AJF | October 31, 2007 2:49 PM

The full retirement age is based on maintaining a 50% death rate, so the government does not have to pay any paid for benefits but to half of the investors. The government gets 15% of all wages in and is so incompetent with our money the fund can just pay back what you actually put in, instead of competently investing our money and growing the funds. The problem with Social Security is totally caused by government. No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.

Posted by: Dr Coles | October 31, 2007 3:06 PM

Little Johnny D,
I'll go along with your plan. Especially if every Republican that support Iraq signs up and goes over there. You fight the wars you believe in so much and us "Democrats" will stay behind and pay higher taxes.

Posted by: janet | October 31, 2007 3:16 PM

The Republican plan for Schip was signed into law about 9 years ago. Several states got exceptions to allow adults and those with above average incomes to qualify for federal subsides. The Democrat leadership wanted to expand even that. Even The Swamp covered the story where illegal aliens and childless adults were to be removed from the vetoed bill for a second try.
If you want our medical system to be run by the government expect Stroger Hospital results.

Posted by: whatnow | October 31, 2007 3:34 PM

"With each step, they want to bring America closer to a nationalized system where the government dictates the medical coverage for every citizen.''

What a liar!!

Try, "expanding coverage on a reasonable basis that keeps up with the exponentially growing cost of quality health care."

That's all that is being asked here, repubs.

And I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until you wingnuts get it through your head.

Access to quality health care is a RIGHT, not a PRIVLEGE.

Whether you are worth 2 bucks or 2 million.

Posted by: Steve34 | October 31, 2007 3:36 PM

"It matters little that Clinton is not proposing nationalized health insurance in her campaign."

Exactly. So why are you reporting on it, Mark? Just because the President says so? Doesn't that make you feel used?

Or is it because the President is entering the fray of the Presidential campaign? Even if that's newsworthy, it seems it's more newsworthy that the President is, once again, misrepresenting the facts.

That should be the focus of the story, rather than an afterthought

Posted by: Huh? | October 31, 2007 3:49 PM

Wow, how did I know all you Loon Kooks would want us "war supporters" to pay for the war?
Anyway, big difference between paying national security (the major function of the federnal government) than socialized medicine (not a major function of the federal government).

And nislieb, I am sure it was an accidental type, but the "week" you referred to is spelled "weak."

Posted by: John D | October 31, 2007 3:54 PM

President Bush is right we don't need Hil's socialized medicine.
Mark I know you and all the driveby's tell us she has changed.When it comes to Clinton's nothing changes.
They are both dangerous.
Health care in America is better than anywhere else in the world. If you go to socilized medicine, you will up the demand for health care because nobody passes up a free lunch. Problem is the bureaucrats will start rationing and delaying procedures like in Canada and Britain. Sort of like Jimma Carter's long rationing lines at the gas pumps in the 1970's and no gas on Sunday like a dictator. I bet he really loves Hugo and Fidel.Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Posted by: Jerry White | October 31, 2007 4:06 PM

Johnny Doo Doo just keeps stepping in it (let's just tax those that want it?). You didn't really think that one out, did ya? And you, who calls everyone else stupid, ignorant and clueless. BTW, it's no secret what happened to Hillary's health plan in '94:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Harry_and_Louise_ads_defeat_health_care_reform

Posted by: dt | October 31, 2007 4:15 PM

John D-

National Security?

We we're talking about the war in Iraq.

The only thing that the War in Iraq has to do with national security is that it has made our nation less secure.

Posted by: AJF | October 31, 2007 4:22 PM

Posted by: Jerry White | October 31, 2007 4:06 PM

I knew it wouldn't be long before Jerry Springfield from White, IL. came on here and played the "socialist" card.

This is what America has become under Repuplican leadership:
http://www.bushflash.com/14.html

If you want more of this vote for Rudy or Mitten's Romney in 08 and you'll get it....and WW3.

Posted by: John E | October 31, 2007 4:24 PM

John D

Whoops, it was a typo. Busy day today.

When our national security policy weakens (note the correct spelling) our nation many people balk at the idea of paying taxes that will be used to bomb people we have no problem with. We wouldn’t like it even if it did make us safer, but when it hurts us… Well that is just untenable.

Righties and Lefties love the idea of designating what our tax dollars can be used for. It just isn't possible, that is why your argument is weak.

That said I can't stand Hillary Clinton and if I thought Bush criticizing her would weaken her I would be all for it. I don't think it does though, I think it strengthens her.

Posted by: nisleib | October 31, 2007 4:35 PM

"Wow, how did I know all you Loon Kooks would want us "war supporters" to pay for the war?"

Uhhhh, Dyslin? Your point was that those who want social welfare ("liberal" cause) should pay for it themselves. I don't see why you're complaining about the obvious rebuttal, that conservatives who prefer war should pay for it themselves. Or are you the only one who couldn't see that one coming? Sharp as a tack you are not, son.

And by the way, let's take your idea one step further- end the welfare payments from blue states (net federal tax exporters) to red states (tax importers). Without the high tax/ high economic output of the blues states, the red staters wouldn't have their big bloated farm bills and other federal subsidies. And they'd actually have to raise enough taxes themselves to support their own spending. Gasp!!!

Posted by: Distrust and Verify | October 31, 2007 4:52 PM

2008 GOP platform:

"We don't want to help people because we don't think it's the government's job. We don't think it's the governments job to do anything....except bash gay people and abortions. This means everything else is off the table. We believe that businesses should sell toys that poison children, because we don't want the government involved in socialist regulation of business. We don't think the government should decide that all people should be able to vote. We don't believe that the government should be capable of doing anything except nothing. So it should be no surprise that we don't give a hoot if your kids have healthcare.

So what's our job as Republicans? To get elected and do nothing. Thank you very much, Mr. Taxpayer, for making sure that people like us who hate government continually strive to make it ineffective."

Posted by: The Big Orange Satan | October 31, 2007 4:58 PM

Health care in America is better than anywhere else in the world.
Posted by: Jerry White | October 31, 2007 4:06 PM

jerry, I know hannity and limbaugh keep spouting that nonsense but the World Health Organization feels otherwise.

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America

Notice anything about these rankings jerry? How about the fact that the UK and Canada are rated much higher than the US?

Posted by: Bill H. | October 31, 2007 4:58 PM

"...fabulous health care system"? Where? I work in health care, and it doesn't look very fabulous from where I sit!

Posted by: Larry M | October 31, 2007 5:03 PM

Distrust and Verify, my original post largely was lampooning politicians who pass tax increases on cigarette smokers. Perhaps you should have a cup of coffee and re-read it.

But I'll make the point again. I do not believe smokers or drinkers should have to pay all the time for social programs. If they are to be social programs, then everyone should pay. But you see these politicians don't do that because then everyone or most everyone would balk at the higher taxes. Since approximately 20 to 25 percent of the population smokes, they become an easy target to tax and both parties tax them so their allegiance is split over the two parties or smokers don't vote. But the point being, if the government wants socialized medicine then tell the American people that all of you will be taxed more, just not the smokers.
Anyway, as the smoking population dwindles, and hence tax revenue generated from smokers, who will end up paying the difference?

Posted by: John D | October 31, 2007 5:58 PM

I've got a solution ... anyone who is in favor of universal health care should be the ones who pay for it. I'm sure the compassionate libercrats out there would be more than willing to part with 60 - 70% of their income.

And btw Bill H., do you actually believe that countries like Colombia and Oman have a better health care system than the U.S.? If so, prove it. Next time you need medical care, schedule a trip to Bogota and entrust your health at one of Colombia's "world-renowned" hospitals.

Posted by: Ben R. | October 31, 2007 6:43 PM

Health care for the people is worth a tax increase more than warfare for the bank accounts of those liars in Washington who are using our money, folks, to wage war, for their pocketbooks, not for democracy. If you believe we are more secure because of the Iraq War, then you are totally and undeniably stupid or naive, in self-denial, and I have a really great bridge I can sell you, but keep it between us (I think the WMD's may be hidden underneath it!)

Posted by: the truth | October 31, 2007 7:19 PM

Math Whiz and Nislieb,

As far as I know, every military personnel is a volunteer and since we have been in Iraq for 4+ yrs now, I think they knew what they are getting into.

AJF,

I'll let my tax money pay for the war. If your tax money (if you have any) pays for Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, Dept of Education, Interior, HHW, and all those John Murtha earmarks, etc...

Deal?

Janet,

If the GOPers were to all fight and leave the dems behind to pay for it, there would be no money to fund the troops since the dems do not produce anything vut leech off of society.

Steve34 - please show me where in the constitution that healthcare is a "right"?

Bill H.

As far as England's great healthcare system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=490233

Posted by: Terry | October 31, 2007 8:21 PM

John D.,

I think we have a pretty good health system for those that can afford it (and the premiums that greatly outpace the rate of inflation each year). What about those that fall through the cracks? Are you going to tell me you don't have a Mother, Father, sister, brother, aunt of uncle, or cousin that have benefited from Medicare?

You're o.k. with corporate welfare and farm subsidies to the red states, but you bristle at government programs or policy to help the disadvantaged. Compassionate conservative=I've got mine so F.U.

Posted by: dt | October 31, 2007 8:57 PM

For the first time in the history of America. The life expectancy of today's children is less than that of their parents. This is catastrophic. And our infant mortality is equal to that of a third world country. Current U.S. adult life expectancy is down from #1 to #42. And dropping fast. These facts are what is known as EXTINCTION! indicators. These are the early signs of the final phase of the EXTINCTION of the American people.

You have to take the profit motive out of health care delivery. The profit motive does not work with health care. Or any other essential public service like police, and fire. The sooner everyone faces this truth. The sooner you will be able to adopt a real solution to the problem. The days of paying for health care out of pocket are at an end. Just like the mob days of paying for protection out of pocket came to an end.

HR 676 is the way to go. Single payer Universal National Health Care For All. Medicare for all. Accept no substitutes. The sooner you face this. The sooner you begin to heal the Cancer of private for profit medicine that is destroying this entire society. Other developed countries realized this years ago. It's a no-brainer now. See sickocure.org

Money, greed, and the profit motive has just decimated health care in America. And killed, and injured millions needlessly. Just for profit. But that is what large amounts of money, greed, and a lust for power always does. No one is immune from this corrupting power. The smart ones know this. And avoid letting them-self be put in compromising positions. But that is easier said. Than done. And very few succeed.

Most in the US go into medicine primarily to become wealthy. That is who the medical schools mostly choose. Most of the medical schools faculty are in bed with the drug companies, and others. And like the story of Dr. Faustus. They end up selling their soles. One compromise at a time. Until Lucifer owns them.

In medicine. Compromised care means. Injury, disability, and death. It's sad really. But HR 676 can fix this disgrace. Like it has in other developed countries. The only question is. How many more millions will be hurt, injured, and killed. And how many more of your children will die before their time. Before we fix this disgrace of private for profit health care in America.

I realize there will be a few people that have what they believe is good health care coverage. Who will want to opt out of a single payer system like HR 676. But let me remind you we rank # 37 in quality of health care for all. Down from #1. Never the less. A few opting out is not a problem. As long as all other Americans are automatically covered at birth through life. Unless they choose to opt out of HR 676. The government takes out 1.4% from your paycheck now for Medicare. All they have to do is substitute for HR 676 what they now take out of your paychecks for private health insurance. Remember, we already spend more on health care than any other country in the world. Right Now. We are being ripped off. And raped.

The SCHIP program is a desperately needed program for Americas children. But with the impending EXTINCTION of Americas children. And their current catastrophic health care condition. SCHIP needs to be extended to cover all of Americas children, immediately. Parents should have no hesitations, or financial worries about seeking medical care for their children. Whenever they have any concerns about their children's health. Especially in the richest country in the world. I would submit that any President, or politician that fails to do this for the children. Betrays their most solemn oath to protect the American people. Especially when you consider that all other developed countries have done this. And that we are the richest country in the world.

So get on it America. Get it done. You have been doing great over the past several months. Keep it up. And step it up. You have to force it, and take it. It's the right fight, and the right thing to do. Now is the time... Take no prisoners.

Posted by: jacksmith | November 1, 2007 6:29 AM

"Steve34 - please show me where in the constitution that healthcare is a "right"?"

The preamble!! I believe that would fall under the phrase "General Welfare".

But, of course, rebublicans only interpret the constitution in favor of the extremely wealthy. Never towards the betterment of the nation as a whole.

Posted by: Steve34 | November 1, 2007 8:57 AM

Healthcare for all! Stop scaring people to believeing Healthcare for all is bad! How can it be bad that everyone is taken care of?

We'll need to hire more nurse, doctors; build more hospitals to accomodate. It's good for the economy.

Posted by: Lou | November 1, 2007 10:23 AM

The World Health Organization is part of the UN. Everything UN tilts to dictators and socialists. What a silly list made by pinkos. Jerry White, Springfield, IL

Posted by: Jerry White | November 1, 2007 12:30 PM

Big Government? Bush is for Big Government as long as it involves raiding the US Treasury to fund an illegal war that benifits his cronies. He is a privatization freak. He has privatized the war with Blackwater companies. Imaging private overpaid security protecting our underpaid troops. It is embarassing!!!

But CHIPS and Healthcare for Children? Forget it. Repubs are just going to try to scare us Again. Guilanni uses the word terror over and over like a play toy.

We NEED HEALTHCARE as much as DEFENSE. Let's do it intelligently this time folks. Don't beleive the Repub. hype. Don't let them fool you again.

Posted by: Jeff E. | November 1, 2007 2:32 PM

One really has to ask why the views of a discredited idiot are worth reporting?

His own party will be running away from him come election time. Many already are.

Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | November 1, 2007 2:56 PM