Please not eight more years!

This video shows Hillary Clinton earlier today getting about as close to becoming unhinged as she's been so far.

She's literally screaming "Shame on you, Barack Obama!" and accusing Obama of acting like Karl Rove -- not because of genuine smear tactics, but because his campaign is distributing a leaflet criticizing her health care plan.

Obama_shame.jpg

I looked at the leaflet closely, and as political leaflets go, it's innocuous. Just run of the mill criticism.

HCleaflet.jpg

Not only that, the leaflet is accurate. If anything, it's an understatement of the problem posed by Hillary Clinton's health care plan from Hell.

I think Stephen Green put it best when he drunkblogged a previous Obama/Hillary debate:

Let's be honest about something here. The biggest reason to mandate health insurance is to force young, healthy people (millions of whom neither want nor need insurance) to pay in, thus lowering rates (and thus transferring wealth) to millions of old people who have a lot more money than young people. But old people also vote a lot more than young people. And by and large they vote for Democrats.
If anyone deserves shame, it's Hillary, for she promises to use the heavy hand of government to destroy the best health care system in the world.

Obama is right to criticize it. My only complaint is that he doesn't criticize it more strongly.

Hillary's ceaseless braying about "my health care" is already very hard on the ears, but if she's elected president, the volume will only be turned up.

Bad as it would be to have to witness the implementation of mandatory government health care by jack-booted nannies, there's something about the additional assault on the nerves from having to listen to Hillary while it's happening that I would find unendurable.

As it is, I can barely stand to watch her on video.

I hope the Democratic voters have the decency to put her out of our misery.

AFTERTHOUGHT: As I've pointed before, I've been tired of Hillary Clinton for a long time. "Clinton fatigue" seems to be the name of the phenomenon, and it's a major reason I'd prefer Obama, even though as a Republican I won't vote for either of them.

But right now, I'm wondering whether a lot of Democrats haven't also grown tired of Hillary. If they have, then obviously there's more to this than disagreements over policies.

Can it be that she made a mistake in the timing of her overall campaign? By starting the campaign so early, is it possible that she's alienated people who might have been inclined to go along with her had she not worn them out? By Hillary's own admission, this has been "the longest presidential campaign in history."

And who is to blame for that? Hillary herself. Because she started it way too early. (She's been informally running for president at least since 2002, and formally for over a year now.) You can't do that and not expect people to get tired of it. I realize the thinking was that people would need plenty of time to "get used to the idea" of having Hillary as president, as if people would be shocked by the fact that she's female. But isn't that a little dated? I don't think Americans would have any more problem electing a woman president than British did electing Margaret Thatcher. I don't think Hillary's femaleness is what bothers people, nor is it what required "getting used to." I think people were already very used to Hillary, but at some point in her endless campaign, she crossed that imaginary line that separates "getting used to" and "getting tired of."

UPDATE: Ann Althouse (guest-blogging at InstaPundit) expresses outrage over Obama's audacity:

How dare Obama hinge his argument on the notion that people will have ideas of their own about how to spend their money.

MORE: The more that I think about it, the notion that people have any right to decide how to spend their money does violate basic socialist principles.

But speaking of principles, I see that the Clinton campaign has been pushing the story about Obama hobnobbing with former Weather Underground terrorists. This is itself fascinating, as it opens up Hillary's own old Communist ties....

Whether Obama will return fire in what many leftists would call "red baiting" remains to be seen.

Were I in his position, I'd answer by saying that while I welcomed support from Communist radicals, I never went to work for them.

Nor did my spouse ever pardon terrorists to help my political campaign.

posted by Eric on 02.23.08 at 11:50 PM





TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/6234






Comments

I would venture to say that Mrs. Clinton has been running for president, or positioning herself to run, since 2000, when she began her campaign for United States Senator. Quite a number of us were already aware of her aspirations then, but we were conservatives and libertarians. Now the awareness of Mrs. Clinton's eight-year campaign for the Oval Office is penetrating the heads of Democrats...and it makes them more than a little uneasy.

Of course, it doesn't help much that the polls show her to be a probable loser in November, either. The Democrats don't nominate Goldwaters hoping for Reagans sixteen years hence.

Francis W. Porretto   ·  February 24, 2008 05:48 AM

This seems so 1994 and something she probably said to meetings at the White House to the staff.

"I am Hillary. I know better. Do not argue with me. Any questions?"

The raw emotion from many politicians is a humble but power hungry vibe.

With Hillary it is an almost medieval royalty where is afraid that the power could be taken from her so she demands absolute subjugation by her lessers.

That is what scares me about Hillary.

Tom   ·  February 24, 2008 09:17 AM

I have to take issue with you concerning "the best health care system in the world".

- In December, I was visiting the U.S., had a pain in my foot, and (not having a regular doctor), had no choice other than visiting an emergency room. After listening to a lot of screaming & yelling in the reception, I was eventually received, registered, and treated. It took a few hours.

Unfortunately, I had a recurrence a couple of weeks later, and had to go through the same procedure.

Cost? According to their normal principles, I would have been charged about $600 for the first visit and about $350 for the second, which took less time.

However, due to some administrative screw-ups, I was actually charged a lot less for the first visit (no complaint!); and a bit less for the second. Total: about $550.

Why? Basically, because I had no U.S. insurance, but had purchased travel-insurance in Germany. So I could pay the hospital upfront instead of having them deal with a U.S. insurance company. The fact that I was paying them upfront gave me an automatic reduction (about 20%) in the bill.

The greater reduction in the first case was due to the mistake that, when I told them I had no U.S. insurance, they over-interpreted that to mean that I had no insurance at all - and they gave me a further 40% reduction in the price.

What that tells me is that the "normal patient with insurance" is paying about 50% more, to cover the fact that about 50% of the patients in an emergency-room setting have no insurance.

So, except for those folks who are actually turned away from treatment, everybody's expenses are covered somehow - but not necessarily by their own payments. Kind of sounds like insurance, doesn't it? But not a very transparent one, and not one that includes the right incentives for optimization.

Coming back to Germany, I had a scheduled appointment for a skin problem. I did have to schedule it a month in advance, and I did have to wait an hour to see the doctor. However, once in, I had a thorough treatment, which cost me about $15 in co-payment: This co-payment is good for the next 3 months, so I can see a doctor everyday for the next 3 months without paying for the visits (aside from extra tests, etc.). Prescriptions will of course be extra. I paid the $15 (to be exact, it was 10 euro) upfront, and I will never hear from the insurance company about anything else.

I have normal German health insurance, nothing special, which everyone (even on welfare) gets; people who want special features can get "private" health insurance, which may cost less or may cost more, depending on your age, marital status, etc. It's not cheap, and it's sometimes not fast, but it is a "no worries" approach to health care. For most people, I think it's a far better approach than what is available in the U.S.

Neal J. King   ·  February 24, 2008 09:19 AM

Sounds like she's still hoping to get an endorsement from Edwards.

Cris   ·  February 24, 2008 09:58 AM

I agree that we have the best health care in the world (I would not go anywhere else for treatment) but I do believe that we have serious problems with the 'system'. The comments by the person from Germany highlight some of these problems.

Treatment facilities often do what was described, namely, overcharging patients who have resources (insurance or personal) to offset costs to treat patients who have none. Parenthetically, many of the indigent patients are illegals who choose to use the very expensive option of emergency facilities for routine matters.

I have personal experience where utterly outrageous charges were presented to Medicare by a hospital and were promptly paid without question. Since this was in Arizona, I suspect these charges covered quite a number of treatment visits by illegals.

In any event, we Americans certainly need a number of improvements in how we administer healthcare. Hilliarycare is not the solution. I dare say Obama's is not either, although his proposal is not as bad as hers. We need to elect a Republican and then we need to look at market mechanisms to improve offerings and performance by health insurers and Medicare. We can do a lot without resorting to the kinds of measures being proposed by Democrats.

Bob Thompson   ·  February 24, 2008 12:20 PM

Neal

Just curious, but since it wasn't an emergency and you were willing to pay upfront, why didn't you go to urgent care rather than the ER?

Darleen   ·  February 24, 2008 03:04 PM

Darleen, that is a good question for Neal. I completely overlooked that even though I mentioned illegals inappropriate use of emergency facilities.

Bob Thompson   ·  February 24, 2008 05:01 PM
I looked at the leaflet closely, and as political leaflets go, it's innocuous. Just run of the mill criticism.

Seriously. Her anger in this matter seems personal, even visceral. As though the ad had awoken some past, suppressed memory that she hasn't quite resolved.

Strange, that...

Jared G.   ·  February 25, 2008 05:35 PM

Darleen & Bob Thomas,

In the neighborhood I was visiting (Oakland, California), there wasn't any difference between "urgent care" and "ER".

I was visiting another local hospital for a happier event (a 0th birthday!), and that was where they suggested I go.

Apparently, there is some difference in facilities or cost or insurance reimbursement in some places; but these are not relevant for Oakland, California.

In Germany, it would have been 10 EUROs out of pocket - total for both visits. Of course, you pay for the insurance, if you have a job; but you don't, if you don't. Everybody is covered. Period.

Neal J. King   ·  February 25, 2008 09:18 PM

By the way, just to "rub in the salt":

As I mentioned, the travel insurance company covered 100% of the bills I paid in the U.S.

Now, you should know that everyone in Germany is absolutely paranoid about not being insured, so everybody buys travel insurance for leaving Germany. The result? It's very cheap.

I pay $15 EUROs per year for travel insurance.

So, for 4 years, I got no benefit, so I "wasted" 60 EURO. And the 5th year, I got my U.S. medical bill (about 400 EUROs) paid off.
Negative: 75 EURO. Positive: 400 EURO.

I think I got a pretty good deal.

Anonymous   ·  February 25, 2008 09:25 PM

Post a comment

You may use basic HTML for formatting.





Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)



February 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29  

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail




Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives




Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits