When watching coverage of the Democrats’ New York presidential Primary Debate in March, 1992, I had the sense that Bill Clinton* would win his party’s nomination. He simply looked like more of leader than did his two then-opponents, Paul Tsongas and Jerry Brown.
I had once maintained that his wife could never win the Democratic presidential nomination. While she had her husband’s last name, a name as beloved among Democrats as it is hated among Republicans, she lacked his presence, his charisma. Whereas he comes across as warm and caring, a man who cares about your problems, she comes across as cold and calculating, someone most interested in furthering her own ambition.
Watching the campaign so far, I have, however, changed my mind. A feeling similar to the one which came upon me all of a sudden in March of 1992 has been growing on me for some time. It’s not so much that Hillary appears any more presidential than she did in the past. It’s just that she’s been the weakness (and/or ineptness) of her opponents makes her look, by contrast, more like a leader.
She must be laughing when conservative bloggers (& pundits), some of them her harshest critics, delight in lampooning her two strongest opponents, Illinois Senator Barack Obama and former North Carolina Senator John Edwards. Those two Democrats do seem to get more flak than she does.
Hillary has benefited from the focus on these hapless men. Obama’s gaffes have made him appear less like a leader with each passing day. At the same time, Edwards’ opportunism, tapering his political views to fit those of the angry leftists who play a key role in his party’s nomination process, makes people see him as someone who would do anything to get elected (a charge leveled against her).
I wonder how she would do if she had a serious opponent. I mean, a lot of Democrats initially flocked to Senator Obama’s campaign largely because they saw his charisma as an antidote to her less-than-inspiring demeanor. Had he been able to combine that charisma with substance, he would likely be giving his Senate colleague a run for the money.
In contrast to her opponents, she appears level-headed and sensible. Combine that with her intelligence, discipline and determination** and you have a formidable candidate.
Whether the Norma Hsu scandal will put a dent in her standing among Democrats remains to be seen. Dean Barnett may be on to something when he writes that, “When it comes time to raise campaign funds, the Clintons employ grifters like Terry McAuliffe and Harold Ickes. When they get caught breaking the law, no one cares.” He may well be right.
I do think this scandal (combined with her decision to rely on Sandy Berger as a key foreign policy advisor even after he plead guilty to “charges of taking classified material without authorization“) will certainly help cement her negatives, but without a credible alternative, the episodes will likely not prevent her from steamrollering her way to the Democratic nomination.
Whether she will be able to build on the momentum she will no doubt gain should she (as I expect) secure her party’s nomination in early February depends how she holds up when the focus is on her. Will these scandals matter more to the independent voters she’ll need to sway in order to win in the fall? Or will she benefit from a divided Republican Party?
That remains to be seen, but for now, Hillary Clinton should be feeling quite fortunate for the opponents she attracted. Had a charismatic Democrat stepped forward who could provide evidence of leadership while rallying his party’s base, I daresay we’d be seeing a much different race for he Democratic nomination, not one where a former First Lady maintains a double-digit lead over her rivals.
*********
*Yup, that’s the place where he made his infamous, “I didn’t inhale” comment.
**I am somewhat indebted to blogger Jonathan Adler for this expression. He wrote that Mrs. Clinton is “intelligent, savvy, disciplined, and determined; by far the most impressive candidate in the Democratic field” (H/t: Instapundit). I would only add that given this Democratic field, it isn’t too hard to become the most impressive.
She’s going to be shocked as hell when she finally (if ever) discovers that Bush isn’t running in ’08. She’ll actually have to come up with stuff and won’t be able to get by on Socialist Medicine alone.
Talk about hapless! All the Republican candidates talk about is continuing and expanding the disastrous Bush foreign policy especially with regard to Iraq. Now that the surge will be with us for another year at least, they’ll all remained lashed to the SS Bush mast until it’ll too late to escape the plunge to the depths of the public’s disgust for all things GOP.
I don’t think you guys comprehend the drubbing you’re likely to take in next year’s election. And FWIW, Hillary’s not going to be the Dem nominee.
I used to think that if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee, the election is ours to lose. Now I’m not sure. Nothing has changed re. her lack of ethics, personality, honking voice, etc. except perhaps the spin she puts on her thin senate record, but public opinion has become decidedly negative and only in a debate does a Republican have a chance to directly contrast himself with her. The base is simply not enough for either party, but a war-weary public may just pull the lever for change for its own sake, ethics, last name, war authorization vote, family values, divorces, etc. be damned. And so I fear that the election and all the politically potential changes for the good that might come from a Republican victory will be like so many other casualties.
#3:
Surely, you must be aware that of the leading Presidential contenders on both sides, it is the Republicans (apart from Romney) who are the philanderers with divorces, not the Dems.
Well, Ian, regardless of who prevails in next year’s elections, at least your comment (#2) accurately identifies the presumptive theme of the Democrats’ 2008 campaign, the entire substance of their platform and for that matter, the only thing Democrats have to offer the nation: “disgust for all things GOP.” Best of all, it will fit on the bumper-stickers with room to spare!
I agree totally that HRC’s challengers are unbelievably inept. I think it is sad for the country that the Democrat party really has but the one person who can advertise herself as “experienced”. Edwards will never get past his 28,000 sq ft house, his tour for the poor, he isn’t a serious threat to HRC. I think Elizabeth might get more votes than John Edwards. Obama just lacks experience and is too liberal for America. Gore and Kerry are losers to the “dumb hick” from Texas. So that’s it. If the Dems were really true to their core beliefs they’d nominate Dennis K. And Hugo Chavez as his VP. The Republicans are marginally better. Rudy has executive experience. As does Mitt, but from Mass? Gives me shudders. Fred is right of center and he gets 25% the day he announces. I’d like to see candidates on both sides who can discuss issues at length without personal attacks, and think about the future and the good of the country. Newt, Evan Byah, Ben Nelson might be a few. Think about it, the Democrats have won the Presidency only 12 years out of the last 40 years. You had Carters nightmare and 8 years of the Clinton scandals. Bill was pulled to the center to govern and gave us NAFTA and welfare reform plus the family leave act. If HRC doesn’t win in 08, you got to conclude, that they really can’t win national elections. They are forced to hope we lose a war against terrorists so it will help them win an election. Question… what do they do if our troops continue to do great and the momenteum really builds for victory. What’ s the Democrat theme for next year? Vote for us, we’ll have less hurricanes? Vote for us we’ll tax gasoline to eliminate global warming? Vote for us, we’ll pass more campaign finance reform and eliminate Chinese illegal donors?
Have any of the Republican candidates or spouses been accused of rape, molestation or messin with 19 year old interns? When a woman is brave enough to come forward and make these kinds of charges facing the humiliation, it carries a lot of weight with me as a womens rights supporter.
You really are the poster-child for todays Democrat party – all empty rhetoric and nasty attacks with absolutely no clue whatsoever what youre talking about.
Jimmy Carter had a disastrous foreign policy that we are still paying for today. Turning his back on the shah, allowing the mullahs to come to power because he thought, no exaggeration, that theyd be good since they were religious. Allowing a hostage crisis to drag on for well over a year, completely dumbstruck when the soviets invaded afghanistan because they told him they wouldnt.
Disastrous is when you have to send your National Security Adviser to steal and destroy documents that belong to the American people so they wont find out that you passed on the opportunity to nab the man behind 9/11 several times for political expediency.
Disastrous is when you trust communists at their word not to pursue nuclear weapons, send them billions of dollars, dont verify squat, dont involve any other countries, and then act surprised when it turns out theyve been enriching uranium the whole time.
Disastrous is when you give Chi-coms the technology necessary to hit any part of the US with intercontinental ballistic missiles for campaign donations.
Disastrous is what pulling out of vietnam was. Disastrous is what pulling out of Iraq would be.
The only pulling out that needs to happen is democrats pulling their heads out of their asses.
You were wrong on vietnam, you were wrong on the soviet union, you were wrong on the cold war, you were wrong on the arms race, you were wrong on Reagan, you were wrong on slashing the military (over and over), you were wrong on slashing intelligence, you were wrong on the Church commission, you were wrong on “the wall”, you were wrong on Iran, you were wrong on afghanistan, you were wrong on North Korea….and Im just get started….and youre wrong now.
the fact that you think Iraq has been a disaster only shows how incredibly historically ignorant you are.
If you listen to and read the media reports, Hillary has aoready been crowned Queen of the World – the coming election is only a formality.
Personally, I don’t believe that Hillary has what it taked to be president. The only things she has going for her are her name, and a Clinton-worshipping media who will cover her inevtiable gaffes.
Regarding Hillary. Dont forget, Obama has Oprah on his side. And she is a very powerful woman, more powerful than even Shrillary in many ways.
but a war-weary public may just pull the lever for change for its own sake,
The thing is that the libs will not pull out of Iraq if they when the WH.
Hillary’s not going to be the Dem nominee.
Oh that’s right. You want her on SCOTUS where she can rule by decree and remain accountable to no one. Then again, what would be the difference between that and what she has now?
Think anybody will hold her accountable for violating FEC laws? Rosie O. chance of that.
The recent Move On flap won’t stick to Hilary. They are spread out enough with the other candidates that this idiotic political mistake won’t have legs in a month. Last years I predicted Al Gore would swoop in and seal the election from the Dem front-runner at the tail end of the primaries, and go on to win the general election,thereby getting his revenge on GW at last. I’m not too sure about that anymore. He has had too much exposure as a global warming hypocrite – do as I say, ignore what I do!”.
PS. I rather like Tsongas. He seemed like an honest guy, unlike like Mitt Romney, who at times comes of as a used car salesman.
Here’s the prediction link.
If Republicans lose… and I think they are going to lose next year as badly if not worse than in 2006… they have only themselves to blame for it.
Right now, no one is pointing out just how bad the left-wing agenda is. Take socialist health care. Only a few pundits on the right are really pointing out the reality of socialist health care. Do a majority of Americans really want the government to choose their doctor and make all their health care decisions for them? Do they want to wait 17 weeks to see a specialist, as is the norm in Canada, where some towns ration health care by lottery, and you only get to see a doctor if your number comes up?
Republicans can’t count on the media … most of which operates as the DNC’s public relations wing … to cover Democrat corruption, show the deranged radicalism of Democrat support groups like MoveOn and DailyKos, or expose the reality of the Democrat agenda.
Republicans also need to get back to basics… low taxes, smaller government, and national security (and border security *is* national security). And they need to walk the walk on this, because unlike the Democrats, no one is providing cover for them.
Not to mention, if Hillary or Obama is the nominee, and Republicans don’t point out the fact that both voted to extend amnesty to illegal alien felons and gang members, then the party is hopeless. Of course, if McCain is the GOP nominee, he can’t make that case, because he also voted to give amnesty to illegal alien felons and gang members.
Do a majority of Americans really want the government to choose their doctor and make all their health care decisions for them?
The sad truth, VtK, is that Americans DO want the government to relieve them of all those pesky responsibilities that come with liberty. Oh, they’ll piss and moan when they encounter the waiting lists and gummint-union hospital help but the response will be “we need more spending” and not “we need to take care of this ourselves”.
This is why people send their kids to government schools while complaining about them; why privatizing even a portion of Social Security is unlikely; and why more people know what Paris Hilton is up (down?) to than know what’s going on in Iraq.
I’ve seen the Indian Health Service at work – it’s a look into the future.
GPW is right: HRC has lucked into a race where all her opponents are more awful than she is. The nomination is hers to lose.
Whether or not she can win the presidency is a toss up. November 08 is a long way off.
The debate about Iraq will turn more dramatically when someone with onions tells the story about oil and how it is really connected to our role in the wider Middle East. The leftists said early on, this war was about oil and they were partially correct. Not to make people rich from oil revenues. Not to steal oil from the rightful Iraqi owners. But simply because an out of hand Iraq, Iran and Syria would within short order have had the western Democracies by the short hairs. Iran, Iraq with nuclear weapons would for the first time hold the west hostage when it came to THE FREE FLOW OF OIL. The life blood of western Democracies!
They would have demanded the west do all the odd Islamo fascist things to stay in their good graces. Clean up our movies, less rights or no rights for woman and girls, etc.
If America was faced with $150 a barrel oil and $10 / gal gasoline, where would that have left our economy and our way of life? Bush 43 decided on his watch, this was not going to happen. The invasion of Iraq, precipitated by Sadaams breaking of his cease fire pact with the USA, allowed Bush to act. 50 years from now it will look more brilliant than it does now. In the short run we also freed 45 million souls from tyranny.
Hillary Clinton, 2002, Congressional debate on the Iraq war authorization.
But now Clinton has joined those questioning General Petraeus’ patriotism and integrity. Yesterday, the Giuliani campaign released a beautifully on-target Web ad about it, from which I took the above quote.
GPW, I’m not questioning your overall thesis, but this has to be an example of a big Clinton mis-step. Her comment to Petraeus, “[Your reports] really require the willing suspension of disbelief”, may well become the equivalent of Kerry’s famous last words, “I was for [the Iraq funding bill] before I was against it” – i.e., something that sums her up, gets a lot of play, and loses her the Reagan Democrats / Middle American moderates.
#14:
Of course no one is suggesting anything like that. No plan I’ve seen would have the government choosing your doctor or make all your health care decisions for you. Contrast that with what we have now: most insured people are in HMO’s or PPO’s (which do dictate what doctor you can see at least if you want it all to be covered by the plan). All the time, your claim or treatment authorization is carefully studied by a corporate bureaucrat whose bonus depends on how much money he can avoid having the company pay out.
And you don’t think you wait here? A few years ago, I was advised by my family doctor to have a routine procedure done and he referred me to a specialist. I got the referral in August, had to wait until October to see the specialist and then got on the schedule for the procedure in December. Of course, I ended up paying a copay of around $1000.
Actually, I could only find one town where that was “claimed” to be true and that was only in a couple of conservative publications. So who knows if it’s actually true or not. But assume it is true. A little investigation yields that the name of the town is Norwood, Ontario. Further investigation yields that this town of a couple thousand apparently only has one doctor. Interestingly though, there appear to be at least two doctors in towns about six miles away and a number of doctors and hospitals in metropolitan Peterborough (population: 116,000) only about 15 miles away. So, yes, maybe if you want a doctor within walking distance, you might be disappointed.
BTW, the US also has a doctor shortage that is most acute in rural areas.
#4, did you read my entire comment? Here is the list from the sentence from which you extracted the single word ‘divorces’:
“…ethics, last name, war authorization vote, family values, divorces, etc…”
Surely you realize that ‘family values’ is an issue the Republicans harp on, don’t you? Surely you realize that ‘ethics’ is an issue both parties harp on, don’t you? My point is that much of the public will likely vote for change for its own sake, meaning for the Democratic nominee and regardless of non-war-related issues because, as you surely realize, G. W. Bush is a Republican and change means voting for a Democrat.
Make sense now?
#20: Sorry, I thought you were suggesting that Repubs would have the position of strength on all these issues and I don’t believe that’s the case for divorce considering the candidates they’ve put forward.
Now the American Cancer Society is changing their ads from cancer information and education to full bore support for Socialist healthcare for the next year. Nevermind the comparably abysmal cancer survival rates in countries with Socialist healthcare compared to ours.
I got the referral in August, had to wait until October to see the specialist and then got on the schedule for the procedure in December.
An Addadicktome is not generally considered a priority procedure. And did you run off to Canada or Cuba to have it done? Furthermore, how many Americans do you know who go to Canada, Cuba, UK, Amsterdam, etc. for healthecare? There sure are a lot of them who come here though. Wonder why that is?
Also, any PPO I ever had you got to choose which doctor or hospital you went to. Add to that, I’ve never had anything denied regardless of PPO or HMO. Nor has anybody I’ve ever known with an HMO.
Conversly, folks with government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or Romney-Aid often find it difficult to find a doctor that’s taking new patients. So what’s going to happen when we’re all on Socialist healthcare, especially since there will be almost ZERO motivation for anybody to become a doctor. There ain’t a whole hell of a lot of motivation now and the libs want to make it worse?
Long story short, you’ve seen government run housing right? Now tell me you want the government to run your healthcare.
#21
Slicker than whale sh!t on an iceberg.
#19 Ian S reports: “No plan I’ve seen would have the government choosing your doctor or make all your health care decisions for you.”
I am a board member of a fairly large hospital which networks with the biggest and best hopitals in the US. If there are plans out there on how the government would organize national health care, no one in our nationwide network knows of even one.
We would be delighted to receive a source list from Ian S.
Health care:
Dems say the problem is big pharma, insurance industry and lack of affordable access for poor / uninsured.
Repubs insist it’s run-away lawsuits, medicare, and illegals getting care for free.
Reality # 1: Both sides are right.
Reality # 2: There is no easy solution to this problem.
Reality # 3: Both sides are soo partisan that they will absolutely never find common ground and tackle this mess.
OK, so how many comments will it take before one side or the other responds with “it’s their fault nothing got done”?
8: No, it shows how non-Bush followers are willing to admit that not only going into Iraq was a mistake, but it’s handling has been an even larger mistake. And what exactly was wrong in Vietnam? With all the resources we put with a draft military, we couldn’t win there. I’m sorry, but wasn’t a Republican in the Whit House when we had those images of the airlift going on? Vietnam should have been a lesson that to go and create Americna National policy outside our borders is a big mistake. I thought we were fighting terror. so, 6 years and 4day on from 9/11/01, why is it our kick-ass President and cronies still havent’ captured Osama Bin Laden?
15: Uh…where exaclty is it documented that Hillary, Obama (and I assume others) voted amnesty to dangerous criminal illegal aliens? sounds like another political lie to me.
And health care? let’s face it…the tide in this country has been slowly turning to a “socialist” health care system for a long time. As time goes on, more and more people are realizing that the for profit health care companies (first endorsed by Nixon in the 70s) are about linking their pockets and not providing real health care. If people are paying into a system, they want to see health care out of it…not denial after denial so they can’t get the heath care they’re entitled to while “country doctors” like Bill Frist get rich form not poviding care.
19: By the way, even if government officials picked your doctor, health care, etc, how worse could it be than the hoardes of of beaurocrats at the for-profit health care conglomerates who are their specifically to make sure their bosses get your money and you don’t get health care. What nonsense arguement.
#25:
No, lawsuits are an insignificant contribution to health care costs and so are illegals who generally don’t want to take a chance at getting caught by the system. Medicare is costly but provides far more bang for the buck than private insurance which has roughly 10 times the overhead of Medicare. Conservatives yap endlessly about the Canadian system but always fail to mention that Canada spends 40% less per capita than we do for health care. As for people going to Canada for care, it doesn’t happen all that often because you have to have a provincial health care card to get treated. Doctors and hospitals are just not set up to take cash or credit cards like they are here.
If Republicans are elected in 2008, this anti-war nonsense can be squashed, emergency room healthcare can be continued (at a profit for some) for uninsured Americans, and the world will be right as rain. Canadians are fleeing Canada to come here under the crush of high taxes and waiting list national healthcare. If we’ll just forget that silly separation of church and state idea, we can intertwine Christianity with government and keep Islam out. I’ll be damned if I am going to kneel and pray towards Mecca, but I’ll be perfectly happy to pray to God and genuflect before crosses and statuettes. As an added benefit we can put women and homosexuals and all these other liberal idiots in their places. Hell, some of them will even help us do it. How cool is that?
No, like I said, it shows you are historically ignorant. Or pehaps youd care to name a war that had LESS mistakes than Iraq? And that you think that removing a rogue dictator who violated every term of the cease fire that was the only reason he remained in power in the first place, violated all the worlds demands of him, had the capabilty to build WMD whether he had them or not, refused to fully cooperate even with the entire US military on his doorstep and even then prohibited inspections of some very large sites, used WMD before, openly supported and financed terrorism, harbored perpetrators of the 1993 trade center bombing, and whos subordinates are proven to have been meeting with al qaeda–shows youre defensively ignorant as well and illustrates precisely why the american people dont trust democrats with national defense.
um, abandoning the south vietnamese that we had pledged to defend, millions of people slaughtered in the killing fields, communist reeducation camps, boat people, millions of vietnamese enslaved to communism for starters.
and not only could we win, but we were winning. the north vietnamese have admitted so
LOL. Add constitutionally ignorant to that as well. It was the Democrat congress that defunded the war and stopped aid to the south vietnamese.
Holy cow. where did you get your miseducation? We werent “creating American national policy” anywhere, we were defending the south vietnamese from communists that were trying to invade and take control.
several reasons. Primarily because hes in the border region of a country that is a very unstable ally with nuclear weapons. if we were to attack in pakistan it could mean the end of the musharaff government and the takeover of a taliban style, Bin Laden supporting government. I know Barack Oprahbama thinks that would be a swell idea, and doesnt have a problem with extremist muslims gaining control of nuclear weapons, but all rational informed and even moderately sane people do. But what can anyone expect from the same party that ushered the mullahs into power in Iran.
Thank you for proving my point so well that you are completely historically, defensively, and constitutionally ignorant.
Please stop voting immediately before you do your country any more harm out of your arrogant ignorance and hysteria.
#28 Ian S states: “…. lawsuits are an insignificant contribution to health care costs.”
Our hospital and doctors have not been sued in many years. However, we can document that on average 40% of our operating costs are directly incurred by responding to the threat of lawsuits. A patient has every right to fight malpractice, mispractice and goofy mistakes. But hospitals, their doctors and the insurance companies are the great pot of gold for the trial lawyer industry. John Edwards has cost this country billions for his channeling charade. He caused all hospitals to protect against his bogus claims and malpractice insurance skyrocketed again for docs in the baby business. What Edwards suckered a jury into was pure bogus science, but all hospital deliveries are still having to spend to protect against his junk science claim.
Sorry, Ian S, once again you make a sweeping statement without dealing with the core issue. If trial lawyers were limited to in their share of the claim and their cost recovery were open to ajudication, the costs of medical care would come down significantly.
Socialized medicine like Edwards promotes could never have afforded Edwards his vampiric career. He’d never get a 20,000 sqft house in a truly government-funded healthcare system. Unless he was a well-connected government appointed administrator of a facility.
Americans have the illusion they will continue to get the level and timeliness of care they receive now and all of it for “free”. How many Americans are ready to see 10 – 14% of our paycheck immediately taken from us by our quality government to apply to healthcare?
America is not Europe – we are too overweight and our eating habits and lifestyle are pretty bad compared to Euros – and Euros don’t sue.
America is not Canada – we won’t have a United States south of our border to bail out our government healthcare system – and Canadians don’t sue.
Americans plan to get “free” healthcare and get it the minute they walk into a facility and will expect to sue for millions anytime any one thing does not go as they would like.
If Americans vote for our leaders to manage our healthcare as well as they’ve managed welfare and education, then America will deserve exactly what it gets.
28. I agree completely. Furthermore, giving hospital corporations the ‘government subsidy’ of lawsuit protection has done nothing to reduce health costs or increase coverage.
So they passed tort ‘reform’ (a government intervention into the medical sector, btw). They said it would reduce costs and the free market would pass them on. Well – what happened? Did med mal premiums fall? Did HMOS, hospital corporations, and doctors pass those lower costs to the customers? Or did they just give extra bonuses to their top executives?
Free market economics don’t work very well when demand is hyperinelastic. People will pay just about anything to avoid death and the medical community has a responsibility to avoid sticking it to them just cause they can. The free market is failing the American people with regards to health care. Its time for the public sector to intervene more.
#30: Edwards did not employ “junk science.” He always argued based on the scientific knowledge at the time. See http://writ.news.findlaw.com/sebok/20040726.html for more analysis. As for a plan here’s one in pdf format. I think it may be overly complex but then I’d prefer everyone just be given a Medicare card. I’m not opposed to limits on malpractice verdicts but I’d also want to see steps taken by the medical community to better police their own. The most significant problem is the overhead of 20-30% that the insurance companies add to the cost of our health care. Not an insignificant part of that overhead is the up to 9-figure compensation paid to CEO’s of those companies.
Did med mal premiums fall?
Funny that Tom “in Houston” isn’t aware of this:
Opelt points to a drop in lawsuits, cut in half in some venues; the 15 rate cuts Texas medical liability insurance companies have made since September 2003 that total more than a 20-percent rate decrease; and the increase of carriers in the marketplace, with 34 new medical liability programs. TMLT alone, which makes up an estimated 50 percent of the market in the state, also provided a 20-percent renewal premium dividend starting Jan. 1, 2007, for a cumulative reduction from the company of more than 40 percent in 2007, according to the Texas Department of Insurance.
“Competition is generally good for consumers and good for the doctors,” Opelt says. “The new companies can only get business by offering better rates.”
Along with an influx of carriers is a dramatic increase in the number of physician license requests, including a “record number” from out-of-state doctors. The Texas Medical Board received 4,026 new physician license applications in fiscal 2006, which ran from Sept. 1, 2005 to Aug. 31, 2006. In 2001, the Board received only 2,446 applications. The numbers for half of 2007 have already nearly surpassed those for all of 2001—reaching 2,423 as of March with more than 2,700 licenses pending.
And I agree; the government should get involved more.
By outlawing contingency fees (where lawyers collect a percentage of any settlement) as champerty, by passing laws requiring the losing party in a lawsuit to pay all court and defense costs of the other — and by nationalizing lawyers, versus doctors.
No, Ian, the problem has nothing to do with “CEO compensation”.
It has everything to do with the fact that, because of Johnnie Edwards’s screaming shitfits and his need for a bigger house, hospitals and obstetricians cannot carry out normal childbirths under anything less than perfect conditions for fear of being sued and having to pay “nine-figure” judgments, so they perform Caesarean operations instead.
And do you know what that involves?
A caesarean section is major surgery with all the attendant risks. It is not safe. The maternal death rate associated with (but not necessarily attributable to) caesarean section is 4 times greater than in relation to all types of vaginal birth. Mother and baby morbidity is significantly higher. There are risks of anaesthetic accident, operative injury, infection, effects on subsequent fertility and psychological morbidity. The rate of respiratory distress syndrome in babies after caesareans is about 4-6 times higher than for vaginal births. This could be due to the caesarean birth itself or prematurity caused by miscalculation of dates. A woman’s psychological well being is often seriously affected after a caesarean, causing, in particular, higher incidence of post natal depression (up to 6 times) and lower breastfeeding rates. Anger, disappointment, grief over lost experiences and feelings of failure and violation are common reactions. Family and sexual relationships can be seriously affected. The post-operative pain and the high incidence of wound infections means a longer recovery period with physical mobility affected for months afterwards. And in addition to all that, caesareans cost the community significantly more than vaginal births.
So there’s fcuk-liar Johnnie Edwards screaming in court that “vaginal births cause cerebal palsy”, thus forcing hospitals to do a procedure which is MORE expensive and carries MORE risk, the cost of which is passed on to the rest of us– so HE can get a multimillion-dollar payout.
And what do you say about that, Ian? You seem more than ready to bash medical administrators whose job it is to oversee hospitals and other healthcare providers that serve millions of people and provide billions of dollars worth of benefits and jobs for receiving multimillion-dollar payments for their jobs…..but fully support payouts of the same size to Johnnie Edwards for increasing peoples’ healthcare costs based on his need for a bigger house.
And isn’t it amazing — according to Opensecrets.org, Anthony Sebok donated $1,000 to — you guessed it — the Kerry/Edwards campaign!
Which, if Ian and his fellow Democrats were following their own rules of consistency, would automatically prove his statements were wrong.
#36: Shrieking again I see. Of course, an elite corporatist toady like yourself would never deign to trust the riff-raff he might encounter in a civil trial by jury. Edwards won his cases because doctors and/or hospitals were negligent:
The doctor being sued was careless and negligent. But of course, you’d say that was just fine. Even if you yourself were to become the victim of malpractice. Yeah, you’d maintain your anti-tort “principles” just like good ol’ boy Trent Lott http://www.charlesboyk-law.com/library/the-harsh-education-o2.cfm
LOL!
Of course, an elite corporatist toady like yourself would never deign to trust the riff-raff he might encounter in a civil trial by jury.
LOL….or so says the gay leftist who screams bloody murder and tries to deny them their right when those same “riff-raff” vote on gay marriage.
Somehow, I feel much better in saying that the average person on the street lacks the qualifications to review complicated medical procedures, things that take YEARS of study, training, and residency to learn, and decide whether the actions in question constitute negligence — versus your saying that they should be denied the right to vote on issues that concern them.
And furthermore, Ian, why’d you leave off the first part of the statement you cited?
And as Edwards tells it in his book, Four Trials, even the defense expert hired by the obstetrician admitted in deposition that he would have elected for a Caesarean section at the outset.
Probably because you needed to cover up your hypocrisy, inasmuch as you’ve been screaming about how people slant their stories all week.
And of course, you completely ignored this part:
With the benefit of hindsight, many medical experts now feel that the monitors produce too many false alarms that have led to too many unnecessary Caesarean sections — and perhaps to too many erroneous findings of liability.
And perhaps you need a reminder of the “science” Johnnie Edwards was using in this case:
In 1985, a 31-year-old North Carolina lawyer named John Edwards stood before a jury and channeled the words of an unborn baby girl.
Referring to an hour-by-hour record of a fetal heartbeat monitor, Mr. Edwards told the jury: “She said at 3, `I’m fine.’ She said at 4, `I’m having a little trouble, but I’m doing O.K.’ Five, she said, `I’m having problems.’ At 5:30, she said, `I need out.’ ”
But the obstetrician, he argued in an artful blend of science and passion, failed to heed the call. By waiting 90 more minutes to perform a breech delivery, rather than immediately performing a Caesarean section, Mr. Edwards said, the doctor permanently damaged the girl’s brain.
“She speaks to you through me,” the lawyer went on in his closing argument. “And I have to tell you right now — I didn’t plan to talk about this — right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She’s inside me, and she’s talking to you.”
Read that whole article. Ironically, the reason the Red Cross ultimately ended up clamping down on gay men giving blood is likely related to the fact that your favorite trial lawyer sued them, not once, not twice, but THREE times over HIV contamination in blood.
As to private insurance companies having a higher overhead than medicare, again Ian, I know you’re wrong.
The new medicare programs being offered by private insurances are open access, which means that it’s up to the provider if they want to accept it or not.
They offer the same or better benefits than traditional Medicare. The payments are at Medicare rates, and are paid faster than the government does.
The Medicare premiums are still paid directly to the government, so it takes its share, before the insurance companies are paid.
And despite this, those ‘evil insurance companies’ still are able to make a profit.
Helitrope works in the health care industry, I work in the insurance industry. You can’t win this arguement, you’re outclassed.
I remember when I worked for a doctor, briefly, he used to have a bloodwork panel for new patients. He had just switched to a new lab when I started so I don’t know the details of what they used to do. At any rate, with Medicare, you couldn’t request lab work without a diagnosis. They wouldn’t pay for it. But you couldn’t get a diagnosis without the bloodwork. I know that’s not always the case, but with the new patient panel in in several other cases when I worked there, you couldn’t do some lab work because you didn’t have a diagnosis.
Further, in my experience in the medical field (mostly in EMS), I discovered many other instances where Medicare wouldn’t pay for treatment or diagnostics. I was told by the billing department at the private service I worked for that Medicare required more paperwork and jumping through more hoops. Of course that’s not my experience because I didn’t work in billing. I did, however, help file the paperwork at night and prepare the billing paperwork for mailing and can tell you that there was an assload of it per patient.
Also, the libs want to change Medicare D to (supposedly) be more like the VA where they can “negotiate” lower drug prices. That ASSumes that they companies are going to go for it. They don’t explain what happens when they want a lower price and the drug company says no. Plus Medicare D has more drugs on it’s formulary than the VA does which is why many veterans are ditching the VA and switching to Medicare D.
Long story short, if we switch Medicare D to be more like the VA, there’s going to be a lot of drugs that seniors need that won’t be on the formulary anymore. Therefore, it seems to me that the liberals are hell bent on denying necessary medication to seniors.
BTW, if one bothers to look, one can find that there’s many programs out there to help people get their medications for free, if not a discounted rate. Many of the programs are offered by the mean, cold, bastards at “big pharma” that the liberals love to hate. Can’t think of the name of the website, but those ads that Montel Williams has on TV shows the website. The site can show you several options for assitance with medication. Problem is you have to look for it. You won’t get anything by sitting behind your keyboard bitching about it.
Reading these comments, I am again struck by how easy it was for the Democrats to accomplish bringing this debate to the political forefront with the cooperation of a sycophantic main stream media. As I have commented elsewhere on this site when this issue has come up, part of the Republican strategy to defeat this proposal must be putting the cart back behind the proverbial horse. This frenzied healthcare debate did not grow out of widespread national outrage from the citizenry in response to an epidemic of criminally deficient healthcare or its availability. This debate is the product of Democrats screaming over and over and over again that the U.S. healthcare is irrevocably broken and that the only way to save it is to take it by force from the evil clutches of billion-dollar insurance conglomerates hellbent on denying even basic medical care to its policy-holders.
Sorry. I don’t buy it. Have U.S. citizens been wrongfully denied essential medical services or life-saving treatment by their insurers? Of course. Is it wrong? Of course. Have thousands upon thousands of Americans been victimized this way? No. Have I? No. Do I know a single person that has ever had anything bad to say about their medical provider? No.
Republicans need to take a step back from their debate with the Dems on this issue and stop exclusively arguing that a government system would be disastrous. Of course, such a system would be disastrous, but why are we arguing about the potential efficacy of a proposed government system without first challenging the Dems to prove the premise upon which their entire healthcare agenda is based–that our current system is busted beyond repair? And no, Hillary just announcing that U.S. healthcare is a disaster (like she has been since her first day in the WH as First Lady) should not be accepted as an adequate response.
Does anyone else find it at all significant that Michael Moore’s “Sicko” earned less than one-fifth of what “Fahrenheit 9/11” did? Is it possible that Americans are, in fact, NOT as outraged about the state of healthcare in this country as Hillary says we are?
#26
And what exactly was wrong in Vietnam?
How about liberals contributing to genocide?
so, 6 years and 4day on from 9/11/01, why is it our kick-ass President and cronies still havent’ captured Osama Bin Laden?
Pop quiz, Kevin:
Did the British, with 40,000 soldiers, capture or kill the Faqir of Ipi? Why or why not?
#40:
Well then you know how much the private Medicare plans are subsidized to enable them to compete.
So you work in the insurance industry. Perhaps you can tell us what it is you do exactly that improves the health of those you insure. You ever deny a claim? You ever cancel a policy? What’s your bonus based on? How much you pay out in claims LOL?
You did actually read your citation, didn’t you, Ian?
About a fifth of elderly Americans now belong to private Medicare Advantage plans, which — thanks to government subsidies — often charge less or offer more than traditional Medicare.
Or later:
Thanks to the big subsidies they get, such plans are often a good deal for beneficiaries, charging less for the same benefits or adding benefits without raising prices.
Now, Ian, since you insist that the government is “more efficient”, then it should be able to offer exactly the same services and premiums as these plans at a lower cost.
But, as your article admits, it doesn’t — because it can’t.
You ever deny a claim? You ever cancel a policy? What’s your bonus based on? How much you pay out in claims LOL?
Again, Ian’s lack of knowledge on this topic comes shining through.
Ian insists that Medicare and Medicaid never deny claims or refuse to pay for procedures.
Ian insists that Medicare and Medicaid do not have caps on their maximum payments.
All of this is, of course, why Medicare supplemental insurance is a multibillion-dollar industry and why Democrat union supporters demand retiree healthcare, versus doing as they SHOULD and going on Medicare.
#42 You’re right, of course, Sean.
Does anyone else find it at all significant that Michael Moore’s “Sicko” earned less than one-fifth of what “Fahrenheit 9/11″ did?
It’s my understanding that it’s not the Bush bash-fest that Farenheit was. I suppose, since that’s all liberals live for, aside from absolute power, they wouldn’t be interested.
I have to wonder how we can look at the colossal failure of a multi-trillion dollar “war on poverty” and say to ourselves “By damn! I want the government to handle my healthcare too!”
Yeah. It really makes no sense.
Dan, your earlier presumption that she would not have staying power was premature, obviously. But how could her slow, sure ascent (so far, among Democrats only) not be a surprise? She’s been preparing for her candidacy for years, if not decades. She has a small army of Clinton White House activists working for her, including the women of “Hillaryland.”
Referring to her primarily (or at all) as “Hillary” conforms to one of her biggest calculations: her *deliberate* repackaging, post-2000, as “Hillary.” It’s soft but strong, unique but generic, etc. “Ms. Rodham Clinton” is a sterner and shrewder moniker. Even “HRC” is better: remind readers of who she is, where she comes from, to get where she is.
So, people, please start to do your part: stop calling her “Hillary”!
All in all, good post. Harsh criticism delivered in a moderate tone will stand the best chance of winning over those 3 or 5 or 10% of “Undecideds” at the polls next November.
#47
Add the Walter Reed kerfuffle and it makes even less sense.
#45: You have to compare the fee for service plans with Medicare. As the article states:
Ian S seems to have the insurance industry stuck in his craw. I would remind Ian that every state has an insurance commission to regulate the industry in that state. State legislatures can write about any form of law to regulate the insurance industry. But there is a curious hypocisy in the power of the state in regard to insurance. Many governments carry no liability insurance because they are covered by sovereign immunity. For instance, states have laws that limit the amount a wrongfully imprisioned person can seek. They do not have to pay a dime, unless they have put a law in place that outlines their program.
On the other hand, governments do insure themselves against those problems for which sovereign immunity can’t give them relief. They buy fire and hazard insurance on their property, they pay for health insurance on their employees, they provide workman’s compensation insurance, and so forth.
Now if government really had a clue on how to streamline the insurance industry, it would do a great deal of self-insuring. After all, the taxpaper can always be squeezed to pay the bill.
But isn’t it passing strange that time and time again, government plans for self-insurance have failed? Have you examined the stats on Social Security or Medicare recently? If any insurance company were running a Ponzi scheme like those programs, their “fat cat” execs would be in prison.
Ian S may hate the insurance industry and he may even be one of those ubiquitous uninsured motorists who blow everyone else’s auto insurance rates sky high. But when he thinks the government (we the taxpayers) can provide quality health care for every man, woman and child in America without restriction, he is dreaming the impossible dream.
The insurance industry is nothing more than an amalgamation of underwriters who are willing to take a risk with their money. Ian S imagines a risk free system where you can present any health problem to the government and it will be paid for without significant cost to the patient. Of course, people who love this plan never consider how the bills are paid.
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 09/17/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
#51:
Where have I suggested any such thing? I have simply pointed out that our current health care system is far more expensive and exclusionary than it has to be. And that stems from the fundamental nature of the private insurance system itself: high overhead combined with financial incentives to not make payouts and to not insure anyone at risk. Other countries have less costly systems with better health outcomes than we do. It can and should be done here.
I don’t deny claims, sorry Ian.
A former Insurance CEO once said “We’ll cover anything, you just have to pay the premiums.” It’s true. The PFFS plans, along with other managed care program, try to strike the best balance for everyone. The doctor, the patient, the company paying for the patient’s insurance. no one gets everything they want.
You take a plan that doesn’t cover DME? Well understand it doesn’t and buy a used C-pap, or get one over the internet. You want Name Brand Drug instead of Generic x? going to pay more for it. You want a plan that covers everything under the sun? Don’t gripe at me if your premiums are sky high. You want us to cover A B and C? Then make sure you and your doc follow steps X Y and Z.
I can take pride in my company, because they do give a damn and do react fairly fast. We initially didn’t cover the Wound Vac devices. I had a member call and point out they’re FDA approved. I forwarded it on. a month later we were covering it. Me, a lowly guy on the phones, got that started. When’s the last time you got anything changed from the government in a month?
Does everyone get what they want in their policy? Hells no. If they did, it wouldn’t exist. But if you honestly think the Government can do it faster, better, and cheeper than the Private sector can, you’re smoking something heavy.
Helitrope, please correct me on this if I’m wrong, since I don’t work on the contract side of the field. But when an insurance company sits down with a doctor or a hospital it’s a give and take, or what we on the right like to call a negotiation. When Medicare rolls in and talks to the hosptial it’s a ‘take this or nothing’ arrangement. What the left likes to call a negotiation, yes?
Oh and as to ‘not wanting to insure anyone with risks’ that’s bull too. The reason employers buy health insurance now is that they have clients in large groups. So my coverage (overweight, family history of heart disease) balances out with the granola eating nut sitting 3 cubes down from me. My policy gives me incentives to get healthier (besides those damn greepeace people trying to toss me in the ocean whenever I’m near it). I’m choosing not to take advantage of all of them. The ability to make unhealthy choices sure is better than the ‘Go to the doctor when we tell you too.’ verison we’re hearing.
All businesses are about mitigating risks. What makes you think a central healthcare system is any better?
Other countries have less costly systems with better health outcomes than we do.
Other countries don’t allow unlimited lawsuits and settlements.
If Johnnie Edwards and the rest of the Democrat left truly want to lower healthcare costs, they could start by imposing a system like Sweden’s, in which claims are reviewed by qualified professionals and paid out based on a fixed scale by injury.
Instead, they want to force businesses to pay taxes to increase the number of potential claims — and keep unlimited lawsuits so they can sue the GOVERNMENT, who will then have to raise taxes to pay their judgments and settlements that they milk out of juries.
All businesses are about mitigating risks. What makes you think a central healthcare system is any better?
Actually, it’s WORSE, TL.
After all, under Ian’s magic system, no healthcare claim can be denied or not paid in full for any reason — since he screams about private insurance companies being evil for doing so.
Therefore, there’s no incentive at all to take care of yourself. Furthermore, under our private system, you pay more if you are a higher risk and less if you are a lower risk; in comparison, under Ian’s system, those who take care of themselves are penalized and those who don’t are rewarded.
57: Gee, if they’re not denied, then maybe that means people can actually get the care that their insurance plans actually claim to provide. From the moment you file a claim for care that actually costs money, the insurance companies immediately start working to deny you benefits, from only partial care, to claiming that your care is “experimental” to the charming tactic of trying to get the money back from you even after the claim has been paid. For-profit health care has been a bad idea from the get go when it was endorsed by Nixon and time has only proved this over and over again.
#54 Livewire asks about the “negotiation” with Medicare and the medical practice or the hospital. Not only is there no negotiation, but unless you make your hospital or practice exclusive of any “assisted” practice, you will lose all manner or tax benefits and government grants and aid unless you agree to the negotiation. Plastic surgeons and abortionists generally own and operate their own facilities and charge the market for their profit.
As an example, Medicare will not pay for an annual wellness physical. However, there are ways to get the testing done, but the doctor has to “fiddle the system” which ends up being far less efficient and more expensive in both time and dollars for the doctor and for Medicare.
29
If we’ll just forget that silly separation of church and state idea, we can intertwine Christianity with government and keep Islam out.
Aren’t we supposed to be intertwining global warmism with government so we can bilk the average family out of $10,800 annually so Algore and the limo libs can jet around the world with a clear conscience???
#58
to claiming that your care is “experimental”
Huh? That’s a new one. Why don’t you add the claim that the care doesn’t exist in this space/time continuum??
#43 *UPDATE*
Pop quiz, Kevin:
Did the British, with 40,000 soldiers, capture or kill the Faqir of Ipi? Why or why not?
Anyone? Anyone?
BTW, if Bush is the kick-ass president, does that make BJ the half-assed president? Or would that be the kiss-ass president?
Oh. Sorry-ass president. I should have known from the start.
#53 Ian S says he is not in favor of socialized medicine and points out that “I have simply pointed out that our current health care system is far more expensive and exclusionary than it has to be.”
Every hospital would love to cut costs and remain legal and protected from trial lawyers. Please suggest where these cuts could take place without negatively affecting the care being given or exposing the institution to the law or the lawyers.
In what areas are the hospitals exclusionary except in the areas of abortion, elective plastic surgery or experimental treatments? (You might spend a night in the emergency room…..I suggest Thurday….to test your exclusionary theory.)
Many places have “PromptCare” type private storefront 24/7 medical clinics. The bills from those places are far higher than from the average doctor’s office or out patient hospital. Their insurance risk and deadbeat risk is enormous. Therefore, those who can pay must carry the losses. Operating a medical practice on a “for profit” basis is a tough business.
When it comes to serious medicine, everyone has an anecdote. My sister has huge bills for her MS. My wife has had continuing expense and partial cures for her pancreas problem. My nephew can not afford his AIDS cocktail. My mother was fighting breast cancer, bone cancer and depression before a heart attack killed her.
The human body is a complex machine and we have some very exotic and expensive procedures that few can afford. I can not forsee the day when the average Joe can walk into Sears and get a heart transplant or even kidney dialysis on sale. (In the case of heart transplants, we must consider the “black market” from the third world and whether we are interested in bending our ethos to accept “donors” from places where life is a commodity.)
Notice the hypocrisy of the Kevins and Ians of the world.
Gee, if they’re not denied, then maybe that means people can actually get the care that their insurance plans actually claim to provide. From the moment you file a claim for care that actually costs money, the insurance companies immediately start working to deny you benefits, from only partial care, to claiming that your care is “experimental” to the charming tactic of trying to get the money back from you even after the claim has been paid.
But then, guess what the plan they support and the government program they demand does:
As an example, Medicare will not pay for an annual wellness physical.
Now watch them both start to spin and whine about how it’s a GOOD thing that Medicare denies that, that it doesn’t cover that.
Pot, meet Kettle.