We aren't nominating a health care plan, we are nominating a candidate.

[Clarkie1]

"The truth is that any candidate who’s running for national office, for the Presidency, puts together a staff and pretty soon they all say exactly the same thing. You were very generous to give me applause for what I said about education and health care and the work force but I think almost every other Democratic candidate would say almost the same thing. I know. I said it the last time I ran....We’d be making a big mistake if we made our decision between candidates on the basis of roman numeral three, sub-paragraph alpha bow legs one of their health care plan. You know when you say you’ll give $50 deductible for people with incomes less than $50,000 a year but he says he can pay that and there’s no deductible therefore I’ll vote for him. That’s not what makes a successful President. What you’ve got to do is look at people’s actions. Now, I’m in the business community a lot and I’ll tell you what any businessman will tell you when you’re gonna to put someone in a leadership position: Look at the record of their actions. People repeat their actions in life again and again and again. Are they strong? Can they make decisions? Can they handle pressure? Do they have a track record of dealing with tough issues effectively? Now that’s the basis on which you’d start in considering candidates in my view.

I wasn’t surprised. I was a little disappointed but when you put ten people on stage...last time it was like a beauty contest....and the amazing thing was that pretty soon everybody, after about five or six debates, everybody started sounding just alike. And I’m finding it now. Three years ago I was the only one saying we needed a new strategy. Now everyone says “Hey I’ve got this great idea, we need...”OK, OK, fine. It’s not about what people say. It’s about who they are and what they’ve done because that’s the best indication of what they can do."
-Wes Clark

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3178441&mesg_id=3178441

It's frankly somewhat humorous the time some are spending today to figure out who has the best health care plan (who "won" today), when in reality ALL Democrats agree on the basic principles of what needs to be done. As I see some of the threads today claiming this candidate or that candidate has the best plan, I have to ask myself: is this how we should be chosing our candidate? Any health care plan today (or any other plan, for that matter) will not be what comes out of Congress in 2009. What's important is that all candidates agree on basic principles. We ought to be looking more at the quality of the candidates, and less the details of this or that plan. We aren't nominating a plan, we are nominating a candidate. What's important is that all Democrats work together to do what needs to be done, and we nominate the best candidate to lead the charge.

[krispos42]

1. Who would you want operating on your toddler's brain?

Forget this 'who can I have a beer with?' standard of judgement.

"My kid has a hypothetical brain tumor that needs to be operated on by a surgeon in a very delicate procedure. A slight error can result in death or severe brain damage. Who do I pick?" should be the question we ask ourselves.

Could you imagine Bush beating Kerry or Gore based on that criteria??!?!?!?!

[AshevilleGuy]

3. How else did bush get close enough in 2000 to steal FLA?

He sure wasn't the brain surgeon. He won millions of votes of idiots who just didn't LIKE gore, or thought Gore was stuffy because he SIGHED during the debates. I hope these geniuses are happy now, and never vote again.

Millions of voters use the Have-a-Beer-With criterion, in some form or another and they are often the difference between winners and losers. Considering that so many repukes win elections, it couldn't be from thoughtful analysis - we don't like to admit it, but it is true nontheless.

[karynnj]

11. Even then it was the candidate that the MEDIA repeatedly

told you, you would enjoy having a beer with.

Consider the choices in 2000 and 2008. Even if you looked just at the Bush public image, not the many GHWB reference's to an angry out of control guy, would you want to have a beer with him?

The ONLY reason would be that he was one of the 2 candidates for President. In terms of an interesting pleasant conversation, Gore or Kerry would be far better choices.

Add in Tipper or Teresa versus Laura and it's a no brainer.

[AshevilleGuy]

16. Oh, WE would pick Kerry & Gore for conversation.

But the millions of swing voters who can't name their own Senators or governor would probably be far more comfortable drinking Bud and swapping guy stories with GWB or Fred Thompson. We can't forget this and win.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Choosing candidates on the bsis of any "plan" is...

problematic. Plans change, situations change. And any plan has to be negotiated through layers of Congress and the other permanent players, pretty much guaranteeing it won't end up anything like it started.

I say choose candidates on the basis of their ability to slog through all the muck and mire of our government and actually get something we might like done.

We have a lot of problems in this country, and rather than see "plans" about health care, pensions, the disappearing middle class, education, various environmental problems, energy costs, the debt and trade deficit, employment... I'd like to see someone who will take these, and the rest of the potholes out there, and genuinely consider them priorities. The actual "plan" will be hammered out, but only if those in charge actually give a damn.

[John Q. Citizen]

4. Choose a candidate based on their willingness to compromise your interests?

No thanks.

I'll choose a candidate who starts from the premise that private health insurance companies have no right to dictate the quality of care I receive, the cost of care I receive, or the availability of care I'll receive. They are gangsters sucking off the system. This is why health care costs so much right now. Haven't you noticed?

We have seen our party drug to the right for too long.

I'll choose a candidate who starts from a Democratic perspective.

If you go with a candidate who advocate from a Republican premise, then you will end up with a Republican plan. Subsidizing gangster insurance companies is a Republican Plan.

We already saw Hillary hammer out a lame plan in 93 that progressives didn't back because it subsidized insurance companies and that was shot down by who? Who actually made sure we didn't get the lame plan Hillary proposed back in 1993?

Insurance companies. That's who. So the answer is to accommodate the insurance companies?

Where's a real Democrat when you need one? One who would stand up to the Trusts, the banks, the insurance companies, for the people of America?

And who are the ones who would accommodate the trusts, the banks, the insurance companies at the expense of the people of America.

Heck, I've seen so many posts about the lack of spine in our Representatives. I think it relates to the lack of spine in our voters.

It's about values people. If you choose a candidate whose values produce Republican privatization plans to subsidize private insurance companies, well that's what you are going to get. If a competent candidate wants to institute a lot of republican plans about health care, defense, and the Patriot Act, then that is what you are going to get.

A candidate's plan for health care or other issues tells a lot about that candidates values, and for whom they really give a damn.

bush got a lot of things done. he could hammer out a deal,

"...on the basis of their ability to slog through all the muck and mire of our government and actually get something we might like done."

Of course, Roosevelt could hammer out a deal too. He came up with the "New Deal." Which worked pretty good.

Not paying attention to actual plans isn't smart. Understanding your candidates understanding of an issue and a solution to the issue is crucial to democracy working for people.

[Clarkie1]

5. Are there really any significant differences between Democratic plans from leading candidates? nt

[MadHound]

6. The leading corporate candidates, no. However Kucinich has proposed the best health care plan

Single payer, Canadian style healthcare for all. But damn, Kucinich has a tendency to do that, have the best plan, be on the right side of most issues, be out ahead of the back. But since the media, the DLCers and the corporate interests keeping saying that Dennis is unelectable it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

I find it ironic the amount of time, column space, etc. devoted to ripping Dennis. Never have I seen so much money, effort and vitriol directed at a candidate who "doesn't have a chance" Me thinks that they doth protest too much. Makes you wonder what these corporate candidates are afraid of, perhaps that Dennis is a lot more with it than they are, that he isn't beholden to Corporate America like they are, and that Dennis' positions are consistently out ahead of the rest.

[John Q. Citizen]

10. here's the deal. If the progressive wing of the Dems back Kucinich, he will

arrive at a brokered convention with a good size chunk of delegates, say in the 20% or more range.

This will give Dennis considerable clout on issues such as who the nominee is, what the platform looks like, and what gets discussed.

I'm voting for Dennis because I know he's going to lose, along with everybody else in the field this year who isn't selected as our nominee. That said, I want to see Dennis go to a brokered convention with a respectable chunk of delegates.

I want a left presence at the convention and this is a good way to do it.

[DemBones DemBones]

18. You're right. Dennis is the only progressive choice

and all this "We have to vote for someone who can win in November 2008" talk is a smokescreen for the reality that the other Dems are middle of the road.

And as Jim Hightower says, "There's nothing in the middle of the road except a yellow stripe and dead armadillos." Why do we want anything to do with yellow stripes and dead armadillos?

[DemBones DemBones]

17. Agreed! nt

[John Q. Citizen]

8. Some leading candidates don't have a plan. I find that absolutely amazing.

Some do which represent no change from how we are doing things now, just a tax fueled expansion of how we do things now with subsidies for private insurance companies.

I'm sorry, but I have to say how wrong that is. It smells Republican, subsidizing insurance companies.

Others have incremental plans that do the same wrong thing, incrementally.

Only Kucinich, Gavel, and Gore have the vision to flat out say what needs to be done, even if it means change. That's a single payer fee for service universal health insurance system.

The leading candidates are leading with the insurance companies, that's for sure. That always bugs me in a candidate. I prefer to see insurance companies opposed to my candidate. But then again, I'm a Democrat.

[MGKrebs]

9. Rewrite history much?

edit: On re-reading your post, perhaps I don't understand your point. Are you saying that insurance companies shot down the '93 plan because they didn't like the subsidies they were going to get?



Your recollection of the health care plan of '93 is completely at odds with mine (and PBS's).

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html

Some excerpts:

Spring 1991 - Minority Whip Newt Gingrich, in a private discussion about long-term Republican political strategy, predicts that the "next great offensive of the Left," as he puts it, will be "socializing health care." Gingrich declares the need for hardline Republicans to begin positioning themselves now to keep Democrats from winning in the future.

July 15, 1992 - Clinton accepts the Democratic presidential nomination. He vows to "take on the health care profiteers and make health care affordable for every family.

April 30, 1993 ... It is common knowledge among many of those present that the staff of Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole has told Republicans they are not to meet with the First Lady.

May 3, 1993 - A chart that has been leaked to the New York Times detailing possible methods of implementing reform and highlighting their impact on national spending, appears in the paper. Not only has the chart been leaked, but its appearance has been altered to make it seem as if Clinton is calling for $150 billion in new taxes.

May 28, 1993 - Bill Gradison, the head of the Health Insurance Association of America (HIAA), writes a letter to the First Lady restating his support for universal coverage but complaining of three recent occasions in which Hillary has attacked the health insurance industry for "price-gouging, cost-shifting and unconscionable profiteering." Gradison is actually playing a double game. He wants to diminish public support for a Clinton plan that can adversely affect the industry but he also is eager to appear accommodating so that he will be able to make adjustments in the reform bill he believes will ultimately pass.

June 15, 1993 - House Democrat Jim Cooper -- who introduced a bill in 1992 based on the principle of managed competition -- meets with Hillary Clinton to explore their differences over health care. He has serious problems with employer mandates and universal coverage that are part of Clinton's plan and expresses his concern that the administration is being pushed to the left by liberals in the House. Cooper says he will not be able to support the Clinton plan unless changes are made.

August 6, 1993 - Clinton's budget is approved with Vice President Gore casting the tie-breaking fifty-first vote. Clinton's presidency is saved, but by the slimmest possible margin of victory. It is a clear and dramatic warning about the growing difficulty of passing anything in a bitterly divided Congress.

Late August 1993 - In a memo about Bill Clinton's upcoming health care speech, Ira Magaziner advocates a moderate, centrist approach stressing political flexibility, openness to new ideas, and a true bipartisan spirit. Magaziner also suggests emphasizing that this is not merely a "Clinton plan," but the work of many Republicans and Democrats over the years. Ironically, while Clinton planners privately stress a conciliatory, middle-ground approach for reform, the public and many on Capitol Hill are beginning to form an impression -- painted in part by opponents and in part by the Clinton team's own actions -- that the administration's plan is a liberal, secretly concocted, Big-Government scheme that will dictate how people get their health insurance and medical treatment.

September 2, 1993 - Clinton's political and policy advisers agree on an explicit congressional strategy. Rather than start from the center, writing a bill that will appeal to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (while telling the liberals this is the best deal they can get), Clinton decides to follow a strategy of starting from the left and moving as far to the center as is needed to reach a majority. The advisers do not know that Newt Gingrich is determined there be no Republican support for any Clinton-designed reform and that the whole effort be derailed.

[John Q. Citizen]

12. Clinto was elected on health care reform. It was the hot issue of the year, having

culminated a decade of work by the left to put single payer health insurance up front and center. US Senators (PA) were being elected on health insurance reform and Clinton swept into office on a tide of interest in health care change.

Then Clinton turned health care over to Hillary who never proposed a plan until after the Repos had taken the House and the Senate in 04. At that point it was all re-election in 06. The Republican revolution was facilitated by the lack of Democratic spine to challenge the status quo.

Which is what the Repos did, but in reverse.

[MGKrebs]

15. From the same link:

"November 1992 - Clinton wins the election. Polls indicate that voters rank health care far behind the economy and slightly behind the budget deficit in importance. The majority of the public has only the fuzziest notion of what Clinton has in mind for health care reform."

And the second part is flat out contradictory to this same story. It says the plan was being shopped around all summer and being tweaked, but by September '93... well, here:

"Early September 1993 - Magaziner and his staff complete a rough draft of the plan embodying Clinton's final decisions on alliances, proposed price ceilings on insurance premiums, and the extent of Medicare cuts. He and Hillary go to Capitol Hill to brief members of Congress and their staffs. Pete Stark, of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, throws a tantrum and demands a copy of the draft plan. Soon after Stark receives it, the supposedly secret plan is leaked to the press and to anti-Clinton lobbying groups."

If you have different information, please let me know, because I will ask them to fix their website.

In any event, I agree with the gist of the O.P. In the universe of "universal healthcare", whatever details they may be suggesting now are all subject to change. The main thing, if this is an important issue for a voter, is to find a candidate who is committed to the process of getting something done. There probably isn't some magical plan that is currently a mystery to everybody. Many countries already have universal healthcare and therefore we have a pretty good idea what it takes to make it work. We just have to be able to sell it to the voters (and to the Repubs I guess).

[John Q. Citizen]

20. If we start with a Democratic Plan then we might end up with one. If we start

with a plan for corporate welfare for insurance companies, then we shouldn't be surprised if we end up with a Repo plan for health care.

[depakid]

7. Unfortunately the Dems DO NOT agree

and many of them would gladly sell us all out to the insurance parasites.

[TwilightGardener]

13. While I would like to see some sort of health care plan come out of

the next admin, what's most vital to me in this crop of candidates is not specific policies, but an overall vision of America's purpose and direction--how do we restore our greatness, our Constitution, and our democratic principles, after their debasement by Chimpy?

[Donna Zen]

14. Just for the record:

Wes Clark supports a "single payer" program. I don't know if it is like the Kucinich is proposing. I live close to Canada, and while the people of that country like their system, I think we can improve on the model.

[flaminbats]

19. I don't want a candidate without a healthcare plan..

we had one in 2000, and I held my nose as I voted..because Bradley did terrible in the primaries!

Kerry had a plan, and I actually campaigned for him in 04! The only reasons I voted for Gore in 2000 was to have a President to block the actions of a Republican Congress and to keep Bush out of office. But Gore really fell below my expectations as a candidate.

I want a candidate with a healthcare plan, a top reason I'm a Democrat..and not an independent, is because Democrats have been leading the fight on this issue since Harry Truman...whether it is ending insurance discrimination against those with pre-existing conditions or covering the uninsured! If the Republicans even had one candidate in their primary who had some kind of plan for universal healthcare, I would consider voting for that candidate...

never fear, it won't happen in my lifetime!!