Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
On the meaning of 'universal coverage', and the meaning of 'participate', and the meaning of 'working', and the meaning of 'diplomacy': First steps toward a Hillary lexicon
Universal coverage (n) A proposed means of achieving partial coverage at the expense of voter support for health care reform.
She says: "Under my health plan everyone will have health coverage."
She means: "You'll have coverage because if you don't pay for it we'll force you to pay for it and if you try to avoid paying for it we have government agencies that will garnish your wages and hound you until you cough up the money."
Participate (v) To not participate.
She says: "I pledge not to participate in the Michigan primaries"
She means: "I'm not participating in the primaries, I'm just keeping my name on the ballot in order to try to get people to vote for me."
Working (adj): Whatever George Bush needs to define it to mean in order to claim that the Surge is "working."
She says: "The Surge is working!"
She means: "George Bush says the Surge is working!"
Diplomacy (n): War.
She says: "My vote for Kyl-Lieberman was a 'vote for stepped-up diplomacy'. (And similar remarks explaining her vote authorizing the Iraq war.)
She means: "If Bush wants another war, he should get another war."
Comments (12)
Ooops, you overlooked one. Saying "He will not debate" = he has agreed to 2 debates, but refuses to cancel appointments with giant audiences to do so.
February 15, 2008 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just a little piece of advice, dear poster above. Try to make your titles short. It's the polite thing to do.
February 16, 2008 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
On selecting titles for posts: don't be a column hog.
February 16, 2008 8:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
The late, lamented TPM Cafe...no good discussions anymore.
February 16, 2008 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the glossary! Absolutely correct (even the debate addition).
I'd add one more:
False Hope (n, adj) - whatever anyone else proposes as possible.
She says: "He's appealing to false hope"
She means: He talks prettier than I do, and people might actually believe his ideas are good unless I say something about it!
Seriously, though, the long titles are mean. :(
February 16, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone will have universal coverage in the same way they have social security and Medicare. Guess what, if you opt not to pay social security now, should you receive it when you're old? Should you be able to wait until a few years before retirement and then begin to pay?
The surge is "working" - hmm, I don't remember her claiming that.
Her vote on the Kyl Lieberman amd. Wasn't that attached to the defense spending authorization bill?
Let's see... Michigan. Did she campaign in Michigan? No. She didn't campaign in Florida either, just as she pledged she would not. Was her name on both ballots? Uh, yeah, when she applied to all primaries, caucuses in all states, her name was printed on the ballots.
February 16, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone will have universal coverage in the same way they have social security and Medicare. Guess what, if you opt not to pay social security now, should you receive it when you're old? Should you be able to wait until a few years before retirement and then begin to pay?
It's not even close to being a good analogy. With social security you pay a percentage of your wages. In other words, it's a progressive tax. With Hillary's health care plan there's no tax, just a "mandate" that you pay for health insurance if your employer doesn't pay for it already. The poorest would be covered, but the middle class and lower middle class, in jobs that don't include health insurance (which is a lot of them) simply get slammed with a bill for health insurance that they have to manage to pay somehow, in addition to their mortgages, etc., that are already straining their budgets.
In another reply you say that nothing in Hillary's plan mentions garnishing wages. Well of course not. But what do you imagine happens to the families who can't afford the "universal coverage" that Hillary says she's going to force them to pay for, if they can't or won't come up with the money out of their modest paychecks? Remember the big selling point is that this is "universal coverage," not just coverage for those who want and can afford it.
The surge is "working" - hmm, I don't remember her claiming that.
Google could have found this for you easily enough.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-dwyer/hillarys-war_b_61291.html
Her vote on the Kyl Lieberman amd. Wasn't that attached to the defense spending authorization bill?
No. Google again could answer these kinds of misunderstandings that are prevalent among Hillary's supporters. It's called the "Kyl-Lieberman amendment" because it was an amendment. There was a vote on the amendment itself. Hillary voted for it. Sen Webb called it "Cheney's fondest pipe dream." Just the names of the sponsors should be a big clue about how much of a warmongering angle this amendment had to it.
Let's see... Michigan. Did she campaign in Michigan? No. She didn't campaign in Florida either, just as she pledged she would not. Was her name on both ballots? Uh, yeah, when she applied to all primaries, caucuses in all states, her name was printed on the ballots.
She promised not to "participate" also. Harder to spin that one in the case of keeping her name on the Michigan ballot in order to try to get people to vote for her.
February 16, 2008 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everyone will have universal coverage in the same way they have social security and Medicare. Guess what, if you opt not to pay social security now, should you receive it when you're old? Should you be able to wait until a few years before retirement and then begin to pay?
Ummm....Hillary isn't proposing universal coverage anything like social security or medicare. That sort of universal coverage would be a single payer system funded out of payroll taxes. Just like medicare but for the non-elderly.
What Hillary is proposing is the equivalent of mandatory IRAs for retirement savings rather than social security. Her system would be the equivalent of requiring everyone to open and contribute to their own IRA accounts...say $4,0000/year. And if you don't have the money or have other spending priorities at the moment, tough.
February 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time to call things what they really are.
Clinton's "universal" coverage, mandated and reinforced with attachment of wages, is literally nothing more than a welfare program for the insurance industry.
February 16, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There isn't one line in her health proposal where she says she is going to garnish wages. Not one.
February 16, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bev, she's done her best to dodge the issue of enforcing her mandate, but she has admitted that she would be willing to go after wages.
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4445
Regardless of what side of the health care debate you fall on, there's no way you can possibly not admit that if Hillary manages to arm twist her way to become the nominee, Republican's won't wipe her face in that quote and effectively poison the well for any sort of health care reform.
February 16, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a great column in yesterday's IHT by Richard Bernstein: "The other Health Care Issue" Getting Costs Down". http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/13/america/letter.php
He points out that its not clear that universal coverage plans deal with the outrageous health care costs in the US (one example he gives is a friend's routine colonoscopy that cost over $8000). If Hillary effectively requires everyone to have health care, paid for by taxpayer dollars, but does not at the same time put huge pressure to bring costs down, it really will amount to a massive x-mas present to the insurers, doctors, hospitals, drug companies and everyone else who is making big bucks off the current system. Obama's plan to provide low cost health care opportunities, if it indeed puts more pressure on the system to cut costs, might be better. But this is just speculation and I welcome more informed views...
February 16, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment