Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Sen. Clinton Says Bush Plans Harm Health Care for Poor

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:14 AM
Original message
Sen. Clinton Says Bush Plans Harm Health Care for Poor
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sen. Hillary Clinton accused the Bush administration on Thursday of planning an "aggressive assault" on the Medicaid health program for poor Americans that would leave the public health safety net in tatters.


"We are about to experience one of the most aggressive assaults on the structure and funding of public health programs in our history," the New York Democrat told the Families USA health advocacy group.


"These are perilous times for America's health-care infrastructure," she added. Many lawmakers in both parties expect President Bush to propose major changes in the state-federal Medicaid health program in his budget next month, possibly turning it into a block grant to the states.


Clinton said America has a moral obligation to care for the sick, poor and vulnerable. Putting the Medicaid and Medicare programs for the poor and the elderly "on a glide path toward extinction" is "not in keeping with America's ideals and values," she said.


more...
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=584&e=3...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Erika Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:36 AM
Response to Original message
1. So Hillary is going to pick and choose when
Edited on Fri Jan-28-05 01:37 AM by Erika
she's going to espouse a democratic view? After her vote on Condi, she's history with me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Have you ever held an seat in an elected office by any chance?
it is a weird world out there, I tell ya.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BRockNYLA Donating Member (7 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. the infuriating left
okay. i've been an avid reader of DU for a while and have only posted recently. Kos had some terrific commentary on the Hillary hatred from the left today. I think people need to remember that Hillary is NOT the enemy. It is so infuriating to watch folks on the left completely absorb the MSM/Repug talking points on Hillary. Have we learned nothing at all over recent years? Let's just take the latest firestorm on the left over Hillary's abortion speech. Reading the NYT headline and article most folks came away with the notion that Hillary was "softening" her stand on choice. Its an easy mistake. Sure. even some of the women's organizations were instinctually skeptical. But upon further review (i.e. reading the actual speech) they correctly conclude that the article was terrible misleading. And that is my point: we can not rely on the media. We can not rely on the media. Read for yourselves. We have enough work fighting against the MSM and the Repug machine. We really shouldn't be so gullible and quick to shoot at our own.

anyway. slate had, i think, a most helpful analysis of the actual speech.

Two days ago, marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton gave a speech outlining her views on abortion, contraception, and abstinence. "Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions," said the front page of the New York Times. "Hillary in the middle on values issues," agreed the Washington Times. But Clinton isn't trying to end the abortion war. She's repositioning her party to win it.

Clinton's speech basically updated the pro-choice message for the age of terrorism. She began by talking about Romania and China, two regimes that in the last two decades forced women to abort (in China's case) or not to abort (in Romania's case) pregnancies. Fifteen years ago, when legal abortion in this country was in doubt, pro-choice Democrats framed abortion laws as big government to turn libertarian voters against pro-life Republicans. Now that abortion's legality seems more secure, it's harder to scare libertarians about government in their bedrooms. And post-9/11 conservatism differs in emphasis from the conservatism of the late 1980s and 1990s. It's more like the Cold War, focused on right and wrong and freedom abroad. Tyranny overseas resonates at home. Bush says he's liberating women around the world; Clinton said Bush is repressing them with a "global gag rule" against internationally funded family planning.

It's hard for Americans to remember abortion bans here, much less imagine them today. What China and Romania illustrate is the ugly mechanics of turning anti-abortion morality into law. "Once a month, Romanian women were rounded up taken to a government-controlled health clinic, told to disrobe while they were standing in line examined by a government doctor with a government secret police officer watching," Clinton recalled. "In China, local government officials used to monitor women's menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives." In both cases, "the government was dictating the most private and important decisions," said Clinton. "With all of this talk about freedom as the defining goal of America, let's not forget the importance of the freedom of women to make the choices that are consistent with their faith and their sense of responsibility to their family and themselves."

Note the concluding words: faith, responsibility, family. This is the other side of Clinton's message: against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom. Pro-choicers have tried this for 40 years, but they always run into a fatal objection: Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral. To earn real credibility, they'd have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.

Two days ago, marking the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, Hillary Clinton gave a speech outlining her views on abortion, contraception, and abstinence. "Clinton Seeking Shared Ground Over Abortions," said the front page of the New York Times. "Hillary in the middle on values issues," agreed the Washington Times. But Clinton isn't trying to end the abortion war. She's repositioning her party to win it.

Clinton's speech basically updated the pro-choice message for the age of terrorism. She began by talking about Romania and China, two regimes that in the last two decades forced women to abort (in China's case) or not to abort (in Romania's case) pregnancies. Fifteen years ago, when legal abortion in this country was in doubt, pro-choice Democrats framed abortion laws as big government to turn libertarian voters against pro-life Republicans. Now that abortion's legality seems more secure, it's harder to scare libertarians about government in their bedrooms. And post-9/11 conservatism differs in emphasis from the conservatism of the late 1980s and 1990s. It's more like the Cold War, focused on right and wrong and freedom abroad. Tyranny overseas resonates at home. Bush says he's liberating women around the world; Clinton said Bush is repressing them with a "global gag rule" against internationally funded family planning.

It's hard for Americans to remember abortion bans here, much less imagine them today. What China and Romania illustrate is the ugly mechanics of turning anti-abortion morality into law. "Once a month, Romanian women were rounded up taken to a government-controlled health clinic, told to disrobe while they were standing in line examined by a government doctor with a government secret police officer watching," Clinton recalled. "In China, local government officials used to monitor women's menstrual cycles and their use of contraceptives." In both cases, "the government was dictating the most private and important decisions," said Clinton. "With all of this talk about freedom as the defining goal of America, let's not forget the importance of the freedom of women to make the choices that are consistent with their faith and their sense of responsibility to their family and themselves."

Note the concluding words: faith, responsibility, family. This is the other side of Clinton's message: against the ugliness of state control, she wants to raise the banner of morality as well as freedom. Pro-choicers have tried this for 40 years, but they always run into a fatal objection: Abortion is so ugly that nobody who supports it can look moral. To earn real credibility, they'd have to admit it's bad. They often walk up to that line, but they always blink.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 02:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. thanks for this post!! I agree, us Dems must quit eating each other alive
cuz we only weaken our own party and the Repugs pat themselves on the back for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sherilocks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 05:21 AM
Response to Reply #6
8. Thanks for posting
my thoughts exactly, but better said.

BRockNYLA: Please join us more often. We need some sane commentary here to provide some balance.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:41 AM
Response to Original message
3. yeah, insurance companies are getting on him
about supplimental insurance for Medicaid and Medicare people, especially those with money...These plans are not cheap..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bouncy Ball Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:42 AM
Response to Original message
4. ....
Yeah. We need UNIVERSAL health coverage. And of course he's assaulting Medicaid. He's been assaulting Iraqis, gay people, Social Security, democracy, etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NVMojo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 01:50 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. I am waiting on his plan to assault Native Americans next ...
He seems to thrive on weakening those who are in the worse straits in life ....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-28-05 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
9. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC