Monday, February 25, 2008

Hillary Is Mad As Hell! But Does She Have A Point?

So, trailing by 4 with 3.2 seconds left in the game, Hillary goes for her desperation heave this weekend, castigating Barry Obama for an inflammatory campaign flyer.

An enraged Hillary Clinton has dramatically ratcheted up her attacks on rival Barack Obama, telling him "shame on you".

Desperately fighting to salvage her White House campaign, Senator Clinton fiercely accused Senator Obama of distributing "blatantly false" leaflets about her healthcare plan and views on the North American free trade agreement. Senator Obama coolly dismissed her attack as a political ploy.

The former first lady, who is badly trailing Senator Obama in the US presidential race and must win the next contests in Ohio and Texas on March 4, challenged him to "meet me in Ohio and let's have a debate about your tactics". She said she was deeply disappointed by the use of the "false and discredited" information because Senator Obama had promised a new style of politics.

Senator Clinton went a step further, saying he was adopting the tactics of Karl Rove, former key strategist of US President George W. Bush.
Yikes! I haven't seen a black man get his ass handed to him like that since Tyson vs McBride. Never mind the fact that the mailings in question have been out there for over 6 weeks now. I guess Hill just conveniently got angry about this now that the latest polls show Obama gaining momentum in the Buckeye state. I just can't figure out why she did this on a Saturday, when hardly anyone (but me) is home watching CNN. Monday wouldn't gotten more run, but hey, I'm talkin' about it, soooo....

That said, once you get beyond the entirely inappropriate condescending tone ("Shame On You!"? Who does this broad think she's talking to? A 3rd grader?) I wonder if Clinton's plan is actually better than Obama's, so I did a little investigative reporting and whatnot.

I'mma be 100 with ya'll, healthcare is not one of my Top 5 issues. Not by far. I've worked on the same plantation for the same employer over a decade now, and I've been blessed with excellent healthcare that covers me and the whole fam. We get top notch care from great doctors, dentists, even eye specialists. We seldom, if evar, pay anything out of pocket. So, for real, for real, I just can't relate much to this topic. Call me ignorant, or shortsighted, but it's just not something I weigh too heavily when sizing up candidates.

The general economy (and specifically my mutual funds, 401k's, profit sharing, and 529 plans for AverageToddler), well, that's a whole nother' story, and it's one I haven't heard anyone voice real solutions for.

Note to all candiates: Everybody's issue ain't just home foreclosure.

[Editor's Note: Again, I know this sounds shortsighted and selfish, but I don't really see this as being a prevailing issues in whom I'm voting for. And after all, voting is pretty much the most selfish of acts you can commit, because, hey, everyone gets the opportunity to do so, so why not vote for what you want most, others be damned? I'm just sayin', think about it.]

Anyways, in the interest of being non-biased (since some of you have accused me of being a homer), I decided to look more in depth on each candidate's plan, which lead me to a helpful article in today's Post.

Both candidates want everyone to have healthcare. Hillary advocates a plan of "individual mandates", which means you don't really have a choice, you must purchase healthcare. If you either don't want coverage (it happens, especially in my line of work when you're talking about independent contractors or new college grads) or can't afford it, you'll be hit with a penalty, which is likely going to mean garnishment of wages or federal tax refunds.

Obama's plan focuses more on forcing healthcare providers to reduce the cost of coverage, while mandating that only children be required to have coverage.

You could make arguments for either side. States already require you to have auto insurance, so why not make you pay for health insurance as well? States are forced to cover the costs of the indigent, and if more people had their own coverage, this wouldn't be as much of a drain.

On the other hand, why can't you choose to have no coverage if you don't want or need any? People, for better or for worse, drive around all day, erryday without car insurance. And if you can't afford coverage, doesn't hitting you with a financial penalty just push you that much further away from being able to eventually get insurance?

I guess at it's root, the differences in these two plans come down to the classic Republican vs Democrat debate: do you want more government or less?

Question: After learning more about the differences in each candidate's healthcare plans, which plan (assuming you care) appeals to you more? If you don't know enough about the plans, peep the link below first. Also, if healthcare isn't the biggest issue you're concerned about, what is?

Watch Hillary completely emasculate Obama in the video below. Damn, I wonder how bad Bill caught it after that whole Lewinsky snafu.

Simple Question Defines Complex Health Debate [WaPost]

blog comments powered by Disqus

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.