Clinton Demands To Know Where Sanders Was During The Earlier Health Care Fight . . . Sanders Releases Picture of His Standing Right Next To Her

ecd701_f7648a5091aa41c083ac6b199915d2e3This election just seems to get weirder and weirder. On the heels of her praise and then unpraise for Nancy Reagan on AIDS, Hillary Clinton is again being charged with rewriting history in attacking Bernie Sanders for his absence on the health care fight back in 1993-94. New York Times reporter Amy Chozick quoted Hillary Clinton in a tweet saying, “I don’t know where he was when I was trying to get health care in 93 and 94.” The Sanders campaign quickly responded with a picture showing Sanders standing right next to her and then released another signed picture where she commended him for his work in seeking such national health care coverage at the time. CNN and other media outfits already called out Clinton for the “cheap shot” in falsely suggesting that Sanders did not support the auto bailout. This is not going to help those low trustworthiness numbers plaguing Clinton.


Sanders is shown in this picture at a Dartmouth College event pushing for healthcare reform in 1993 at Dartmouth College and Sanders proposed his own single-payer healthcare plan in March later that year. Then there is this note commending Sanders:

ecd701_3dd7366cc6cc407e9a1951cd382bd22d

It reads: “To Bernie Sanders with thanks for your commitment to real health care access to all Americans and best wishes.” It is signed “Hillary Rodham Clinton” and dated 1993. Yikes.

Yet, that does not mean it cannot be spinned. Rather than admit a cheap shot, Secretary Clinton’s communications director noted that the picture technically showed Sanders not by her side but behind her: “Hillary Clinton was out in front. Senator Sanders was in the background. She is the one that took the slings and arrows from the healthcare industry.” Now that is an Olympic quality spin.

In the meantime, Sanders supporters are flooding the Internet with videotapes that are calling out Clinton for another alleged misrepresentation.

Notably, Sanders wrote in his book that he did not favor the Clinton approach which he viewed as yielding to demands from outside groups. He wrote “the complicated and compromised bill which they brought forth was not something that I could support.” That would suggest that he was fighting for health care but did not believe that the Clinton proposal went far enough.

UnknownThe misstep is reminiscent of John Lewis’ highly controversial questioning of Sanders’ work for civil rights.  Lewis said he never saw Sanders in the marches.  However, Sanders’ supporters released pictures of his being arrested as a student at the University of Chicago and Sanders clearly was on the frontline of the struggle.

On both sides of the election, we have seen these glaring contradictions and false statements. Yet, each candidate seems to have a core of supporters who simply do not care about the allegations of dishonesty or falsity. That is what is so fascinating. It is not the shifting voters but those voters who have shown no desire to shift in the aftermath of scandals or missteps. The problem for Clinton however will be the damage to the Sanders base in later calling for them to join her if she is the nominee. Young people in particular appear to be growing increasingly anti-Hillary and not just pro-Bernie. This type of unfounded attack will hardly make such a reconciliation likely. The young people may just stay home or vote for someone like Jill Stein with the Green Party.

What do you think?

Source: CNN

71 thoughts on “Clinton Demands To Know Where Sanders Was During The Earlier Health Care Fight . . . Sanders Releases Picture of His Standing Right Next To Her”

  1. steveg:

    “I guess the folks in countries with socialized medicine and high taxes are math challenged. They’re also far happier than we are and the greatest proportion of their wealth and population is in a prosperous middle class. No?”

    No. They are not. Here is a Canadian article:

    http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-strategy/the-worst-run-industry-in-canada-health-care/

    Note the title is “The Worst Run Industry in Canada.” Because, what does the government run efficiently, with great customer service and accountability to its customers?

    I think this sums it up nicely, the entirely predictable result of government trying to run your life and solve all your problems for you:

    “Of course, Canadians are used to hearing this sort of thing. No matter how it’s framed, the phrase “health-care crisis” is so often bandied about by politicians, media and the general public that it’s become old news. As costs and dissatisfaction mount, most Canadians believe that the problem is rooted in either insufficient funding, demographic overload or corporate profiteering. But according to a growing chorus of health economists, policy analysts and doctors, the real issue is mismanagement — horrible, pervasive inefficiency that is preventing the system from running even close to as well as it could. More than anything, they say, the failure to adopt even basic business management principles is what’s standing in the way of preserving universal health care for generations to come.”

    Personally, I think a focus on whole body health and functional medicine would be very helpful, rather than pandering to pharmaceutical companies, as Canada does.

    Of course, since Canadians pay for their health insurance by writing checks to the government rather than health insurance companies, they want what they paid for, and nobody had better take it from them!!! However, “as customers continue to pour money in, they’re increasingly disappointed with what comes out. Quite simply, says Duncan Sinclair, former dean of medicine at Queen’s University, “if [the Canadian health-care system] were a business, it would be out of business.””

    We see this paradigm at work consistently in the US. The government could care less if it’s “customers” are not satisfied with their service, have a complaint, or thing they are wasting their money. Heck, apparently you can even kill people through fraud and negligence in the VA, and you won’t go to jail. You’ll get a raise. Do that in the private sector and you’ll have a cell mate.

    I do not think government creep and bloated bureaucracies are helpful. Agreeing on the problem, the high cost of healthcare, does not mean that there is only one solution. I dislike this focus on prescriptions over prevention. Here in the West, it seems unbalanced. We need integrated medicine that includes everything from stress, mental health, physical fitness, relaxation, sleep, nutrition, exposure to toxins, preventative health care, chiropractics, and supplements, as well as typical Western solutions of medication and surgery once injury or illness hits. Health insurance is only one arrow in the quiver of health. We make buying junk food cheaper, medicating the resultant diabetes and heart disease cheaper, while getting healthier habits is more expensive.

    1. Karen writes, “Note the title is “The Worst Run Industry in Canada.” Because, what does the government run efficiently, with great customer service and accountability to its customers?” I sure like Canadian prescription-drug prices. Here’s a literate Canadian talking about Canada’s system as it affects him:

  2. re: Paul C. Schulte. In states which do not allow independents to vote in the primaries, many independents are registered as Democrats or Republicans precisely to vote in the primaries.

    1. Deirdre – to change my registration from independent to R or D defeats the purpose of being an I. During the state primaries, I am allowed to select a R or D ballot without having to change parties. However, last time the Democrats cheated and selected all of their candidates in caucus, so on the Republicans had anyone to vote for.

  3. Tnash: re you having requested sources, could you provide a source for the following statement before you request sources?

    “One cost benefit of countries with socialized medicine is the ability to officially practise euthanasia. The 60,000 U.K. patients put on the ‘quiet pathway to death’ may have objected to the witholding of potential treatment, hydration, and nurishment had they had a say in their care.”

    Thanks.

    1. Steve….I’m not sure if you habe read the Daily Mirror article I referenced.
      There are numerous other articles on the UK euthanasia program, and the cost saving/NHS budget is mentioned as a motivating factor in”helping patients along” dying.
      As far as an advanced medical directive or power of attorney, I have both.
      My point is that in a single payer system, where the government is calling life or death shots, those directives would be essentially worthless.
      They can not “force” continued treatment if the national health care policy is to discontinue treatment ( and nourishment, hydration, etc.)
      That is especially true in the UK example, where the patients and their families were not involved in informed consent.
      They were essentially blindsided, and when the State has virtually total control over treatment and even information, I think there’s cause for concern.

      1. tnash: Thanks for your thoughtful post. Admittedly, I haven’t read anything on the UK’s “euthanasia program,” and I don’t know much about bioethics. As Bernie Sanders likes to say, let me just say this:

        First is the Hippocratic Oath and specifically the following: “I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. Above all, I must not play at God.”

        If the UK doesn’t subscribe to this provision, then it is not the appropriate example of policy or law. It’s the right of the patient’s privacy that’s at issue, not budget. If a patient gives informed consent to be euthanized, then he or she should have that right. If the British Isles has legislated such a draconian budget, then shame on them.

        Second is your argument that a public system (at least the UK’s) is more inclined to involuntarily euthanize than a private system like the one we have here. (That’s your argument, isn’t it?) I mentioned that I think that happens a lot. Here’s the classic scenario: a private hospital administrator tells the attending physicians that the expense of keeping non-consenting patients on life support will not allow the hospital to sustain itself, other patients who suffer less severe prognoses, and medical staff salaries (wink, wink). And shareholders will not stand for it. One physician in his $250.00 Nikes high fives the other and says, “Let’s do this thing,” and they go about signing the appropriate certificates.

        It goes beyond bizarre when we refuse a socialized system for fear that it isn’t ::ahem:: self-correcting in the marketplace (i.e., it’d be exempt like big banks). As a result of the overblown, disproportionate military defense/war budget here and the rejection of socialized medicine, providers may very well impose in some cases an underhanded system of priority to other patients in a society which spends (wastes) as much on wars as we do is the basis for most of our taxation when government revenue should be directed primarily toward healthcare, among other things.

        Sound too fantastic? I don’t think it’s fantastic at all.

        In fact, any system which budgetizes euthanasia, effectively weighing it against the patient’s right of privacy to make such a choice by him or herself alone is unethical and an abomination. But which system do I think lends itself more to the above scenario? Unquestionably, a private healthcare system because of shareholder constraints.

        Speaking of law, do you have any information on the legality in the UK of pulling the plug without consent when the patient’s needs are over budget? If so, I’d be interested in seeing it. I wonder whether Denmark and the Scandinavian countries have opted for the same?

        Best regards.

        1. stevegroen – I have heard that less than 1/3 of medical schools have their students take the Hippocratic Oath anymore. Kind of make you think about the level of care you are getting from those young doctors.

          1. Stevegroen….thanks for your post. I have followed the U.S. health care system closely for a number of years(decades), and remember when MediCare was passed 50 years ago.
            I posted an extensive review of the MediCare program some months back on this site ( will try to find it), but won’t try to cover all details here.
            A few of the items…..Medicare TOTAL payroll taxes (employer and employee) were .07%, up to $6,600 in income in 1966.
            Roughly $50 per year annual maximum payroll tax, split by employee and employer.
            That tax is now 2.9% (1.45% employer, 1.45% employee) with no ceiling.
            There’s actually a surcharge/ surtax that boosts the rate even higher for those in the highest income brackets( $250,000, I think).
            Total payroll taxes would be c.$7,400 on an income of $250,000. And $740 on an income of $25,000.
            So one individual may be paying 10× as much per year as the other, for “insurance” that MAY be there for them at age 65.
            (If they “means test” eligibilty, that $250,000 earner may not qualify for MediCare).
            That’s an odd type of “insurance”, in a creaky system propped up by ever higher taxes to support c
            17-18% of the U.S. population.
            And higher PART B premiums ($3 in 1966, c. $108 currently) and higher deductibles.
            The CPI is up c. 600% over the past 50 years. $1,000 in 1966 $$$ = c. $7,000 in 2016 $$$ Dollars.
            Health care cost inflation, which roughly tracked the CPI from 1916-1966, has in outpaced thd overall CPI in the 1966-2016 period.
            My best estimate is that a procedure (e.g., gallbladder surgery) costing c.$500 in 1966 would currently cost c.$10,000- $15,000 today, including all hospital and MD charges.
            Apples to apples costs in health care inflation have outpaced the CPI by c.200-300%, and the MediCare system itself is responsible for much of those exploding costs.
            ( TOTAL health care spending, as a % of U.S. GDP, was 5% in 1966. It’s currently 17-18% of GDP).
            In my view, the hybrid government funded/ private insurer system, with its lack of transparency and any real competition, has resulted in an unsustainable Ponzi-scheme type of system that can not be solved by additional governmental control and involvement, whether that is in the form of layering on more governmental intervention ( ObamaCare), or throwing in the towel and going to a single payer system.
            I’ve witnessed what 50 years of MediCare has “done for” our health care system, and have little confidence in additional governmental control and involvement as the answer.
            I have cited Paul Ryan’s voucher/ Medicare option plan as worthy of consideration, but any serious attempt to deal with the serious systemic flaws in the MC system is likely to be demagogued to death.
            So the path of least resistance will likely be ever higher payroll taxes, higher deductibles requiring additional MediGap insurance, and other “pass it on to the next generation” solutions.
            I do think that surrendering total control of the health care system to the government (a single payer system) does leave patients more open to governmental control over life and death decisions.
            An interesting example of how this currently affects health care decisions was what I witnessed with a 9@ woman ( affluent, mentally sharp, seriously ill) viven the bum’s rush out of the hospital to a nursing home ( not the best ones on this small community) .
            She was begging her doctor to give her another 2-3 days in the hospital for further treatment/ improvement, which was realistic in her case.
            The DR. said no. MediCare only covering these two days.
            She said I’ll PAY for the remainder of my stay. He said Medicare does not allow that.
            I’ve generally had good MDs with patients’ concerns addressed, but have also encountered some who have displayed extreme arrogance ( and some outright incompetence).
            A structural change to a single payer system would likely enhance those “bad players'” leverage over decisions that should be made by patients and their families.
            IMO, the “formulas, restrictions, rules” government currently imposes would likely magnify under a single payer system.
            For a look at the cost of single payer universal goverment system, take a look at Bernie Sanders’ Green Mountain CARE proposal for Vermont.
            It didn’t get off the ground, due to the projected $4.3 Billion annual cost in a state with a total budget of $4.9 Billion.
            And Sanders’ plan will save an average of $5,000 per year per family for an increase of $1,000 additional taxes?!???.
            Anyway, on both a macro and mico level I’ve followed costs/ regulations etc. for a long time. 38 days in the hospital 45 years ago (two major surgeries before my sophomore year in college) gave me a perspective on costs, regulations etc. In that era vs. today.
            I’ll generally been pretty well covered, insurance wise.
            So my concerns are more about the “macro-mess” of the U.S. healthcare system, which I feel will increasingly burden each generation.
            I don’t see an easy way out of this, any more than an “easy way” to deal with a U.S. debt pulling $20 Trillion .
            I’m just very skeptical that increased governmental involvement is desirable or workable in America.
            ( didn’t mean for this “summary” to turn into a marathon”)

            1. tnash, I apologize for a relative one liner here, but how does highly-regulated euthanasia become a problem under a law such as the following:

              http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2016/03/california-to-permit-limited-assisted-suicide-for-terminally-ill.html?DCMP=NWL-pro_top&mc_cid=a6078752fd&mc_eid=9937983421

              You haven’t provided any law that would allow British citizens to be abused by that system for budgetary reasons. And if euthanasia were confined by law to the conditions in the law taking effect here on June 9th, I don’t see a problem other than insurance companies controlling healthcare providers under a private system.

              Certainly were we to rid ourselves of the bloated MIC budget and transition to single-payer, abuse of extended care for the terminally ill or brain dead by euthanasia would not be as big a problem as you suggest. And frankly I’m having great difficulty believing the UK would not prosecute as a homicide the deliberate failure to treat.

              In a broad brush stroke, again using Bernie Sanders’ let me just say this: The figures you’ve given are prior to paying private insurance premiums to third parties. Let’s forego the middleman, resolve that healthcare will always be expensive when it’s running second to a war industry, and insure everyone.

              For example, we have the VA system. I’ve said many times on this listserve that I’m thoroughly content with it. I’ve heard vets in the waiting room complaining about how long the waits are, blah, blah, but
              I assume they’ve never been on the outside where one sees his or her GP for three minutes after a half-hour wait, I can communicate via email with my GP, see my medical records and all tests and reports pending, have any meds mailed to me rather than picking them up at the local CVS after another half-hour wait, etc, and if my VA clinic isn’t open (it isn’t on the weekends), I can walk into the emergency room at the VA hospital for treatment without feeling like I’m doing something wrong. No waiting, and I’ve done that. It’s what healthcare should be, and I’m sorry you’re missing out on it. Hopefully, before I head for Hale-Bopp, this kind of healthcare will be extended to everyone.

              In closing, it absolutely disappoints/enrages me that my fellow citizens would rather spend more money on pandering/bailing out banks, the military-industrial complex and empire than they would our own citizens.
              Perhaps things really need to get much worse before they’ll get any better. In this light, perhaps Donald Drumpf is just the guy to get us there.

              1. Stevegroen…as far as I know,there were no prosecutions for the 60,000 Britons put “on death pathways”.
                My understanding is that active euthanasia…e.g., giving a fatal injection to one to end life….is illegal in the U.K.
                “Passive euthanasia”
                ..witholding treatment, hydration, nutrition, and information on treatment options…is not illegal im the U.K.
                The 60,000 UK patients “helped along the way” by witholding basic needs for nutrition, etc.- would likely considered as “passively euthanized” under British law.
                Washington
                ….my home state….and Oregon were among the earliest states to allow “assisted suicide”….active euthanasia.
                They technically probably have all of the “safeguards” built into the CA. law you cited.
                I happened to be in Oregon when the case of Dr. James Gallant of Corvallis was invesigated for actively euthanizing an elderly patient, at her daughter’s request, in the E.R.
                This went well beyond an kind of informed consent of the patient, and involved repeated attempts to kill the patient with drugs, stopping her pacemaker, etc.
                He (and the daughter) were ultimately successfull in killing the mother.
                I’d have to recheck this, but I’m pretty sure that there was no criminal prosecution. Dr. Gallant MAY have had some minor sanctions by a board overseeing medical misconduct, but if there was any administrative action taken, it was very minor.
                There was no law allowing Dr. Gallant to take the action he did…there were, in fact, “safeguards” in the Oregon assisted suicide law against involuntary active euthanasia.
                If those laws aren’t really taken seriously, and no action is taken by officials/ prosecuting attorneys, it consideted to be a “no harm, no foul” type of thing by many Oregonians.
                I’m not sure how common these kind of actions were in DR. Gallant’s practise, or those of other Oregon doctors.
                I’m citing this one because this incident DID become public….it may well be unknown how many incidents like this are “under the radar” when active, involutary euthanasia is practised.
                The 6 month clause ( about no hope if recovery as “documented” by physician(s)) is in both the WA. and OR. assisted suicide laws, as I understand them.
                There was a debate in Washington about the assisted suicide measure on the ballot. One MD said ( privately) “I could use this a lot”. Maybe he is.
                They 6 mo. prognosis can often be way off the mark..
                I have seen it happen, and I’m not a health care provider.
                So “fudging” the prognosis is one problem that can arise in the hands of an “overeager” MD.
                There is supposed to be some counciling involved, but if it’s suggested..even subtly..that an elderly patient is becoming a burden to others, this supposedly “neutral” counciling/ consultation can take a wrong turn.
                I do have a couple of “anecdotal” experiences I become aware of, but I’ll pass on those for now.

    1. Rubio nailed Trump on that a couple of weeks ago in the debate.
      While eliminating state barriers for insurance carriers may well ne part of a solution, that was Trump”s entire health care reform plan.
      Trump has stated that Americans will be “so happy with his very very good health care plan.
      Absent free over the counter Prozac for all, I don’t see that happening with Trump’s “plan”.

  4. I have one quibble. You state, “On both sides of the election, we have seen these glaring contradictions and false statements.” When has Bernie done this? Or do you mean only Hillary and the Repubs?

    1. Elena Carlena –

      SANDERS: “Almost all the new income and wealth is going to the top 1 percent.”

      THE FACTS: Sanders appears to be relying on outdated data. In the first five years of the economic recovery, from 2009 through 2014, the richest 1 percent of Americans captured 58 percent of income growth, according to Emmanuel Saez, a University of California economist whose research Sanders uses. While certainly a large gain, that is a lot less than “almost all.”

      In just the first three years of the recovery, from 2009 through 2012, the richest 1 percent did capture 91 percent of the growth in income. But part of that occurred because of impending tax increases on the wealthiest Americans that took effect in 2013.

      Many companies paid out greater bonuses to their highest-paid employees in 2012 before the higher tax rates took effect. Those bonuses then fell back in 2013. And in 2014, the bottom 99 percent finally saw their incomes rise 3.3 percent, the biggest gain in 15 years.

    2. Elana Carlena
      …you might be interested in reading” Bernie Sander’s single payer health care plan failed in Vermont” – The Daily Beast, Jan. 24, 2016
      Anyone gullible enough to believe Sanders’ claim that an extra $1,000 in taxes will save $5,000 deserves SandersCare.

    1. One cost benefit of countries with socialized medicine is the ability to officially practise euthanasia.
      The 60,000 U.K. patients put on the “quiet pathway to death” may have objected to the witholding of potential treatment, hydration, and nurishment had they had a say in their care.
      The increase of active euthanasia is is real money saver in the Netherlands.
      But as long as the greatest portion of their population is said to be prosperous and happy these cost saving features, these minor glitches should be dismissed. No?

      1. Tom Nash – England has had a problem with “pathway” deaths. It seems a lot of people were put on the pathway without theirs or their families permission. Someone in the hospital just decided to kill them by withholding nourishment and liquids.

        1. Cost effective, but not yet officially praticed in the U.S.
          We may be heading that way…
          …an arbitrary treatment cutoff line…..say at age 80…would not statisically alter longevity, etc. statistics.
          I don’t see that debate too far off in our own future

          “Medical tourism” for those with passports may have more than price competition as a motive…it may become a lifeline if treatment is cut off for “certain groups” here.

        2. Paul writes, “England has had a problem with “pathway” deaths. It seems a lot of people were put on the pathway without theirs or their families permission. Someone in the hospital just decided to kill them by withholding nourishment and liquids.”

          We’ve had that happen a lot here. but it isn’t corporate policy, nor is it government policy or law in the UK even if it is true. What’s your next argument? Nursing assistants sexually assaulting brain-dead patients?

          1. stevegroen – it seems to be corporate policy in the UK. The same people are running the hospitals there as are running the VA hospitals here.

        3. Stevevroen. ..you stated that (in reference to thr 60,000 U.K. patients put on” death pathways”) “we’ve had that happen a lot here”.
          Not as U.S. governmental policy…..yet.
          Then you jump to the weird comment abouf “sexually assualtinv brain dead patients”.
          Real powerfull “logic” and “sources “on your part.

          1. Tom Nash – glad you jumped on that. I was wondering if there had been 60,000 sexual assualts on brain dead people. Or is this just a Tarentino plot.

            1. Steve and Paul C. I had a few specific objection to Steve’s 6:04 PM comments.
              The first is Steve’s statement that “we’ve had that a lot happen here” in an attempt to equate it to the 60,000 patients kissed off in the U.K.
              I don’t see a source to back that up.
              British Health Secretary called the “pathways to death” program “a fantastic step forward”.UK Daily Mirror, DEC 30, 2012.
              Steve, you evidently did not bother to see if this really happened; instead of confirming or refuting this, you wrote “even if it is true”.
              You the write “nor is it government policy or law” in the UK. Who the hell do you think funds and administers the British National Health Care system?

          2. Tnash: The idea that euthanasia is unjustifiable because one cannot control government evil in fast-tracking death of someone otherwise healthy – which I think is the argument you’re making – is absurd. A proper power of attorney for healthcare including advanced healthcare directives is one device which forecloses your concern. And the VA constantly reminds patients ad nauseum to provide a copy of one’s living will or take one of their form living wills to contemplate.

  5. Open mouth and insert foot !!

    Subject: [New post] Clinton Demands To Know Where Sanders Was During The Earlier Health Care Fight . . . Sanders Releases Picture of His Standing Right Next To Her #yiv6992940909 a:hover {color:red;}#yiv6992940909 a {text-decoration:none;color:#0088cc;}#yiv6992940909 a.yiv6992940909primaryactionlink:link, #yiv6992940909 a.yiv6992940909primaryactionlink:visited {background-color:#2585B2;color:#fff;}#yiv6992940909 a.yiv6992940909primaryactionlink:hover, #yiv6992940909 a.yiv6992940909primaryactionlink:active {background-color:#11729E;color:#fff;}#yiv6992940909 WordPress.com | jonathanturley posted: “This election just seems to get weirder and weirder. On the heels of her praise and then unpraise for Nancy Reagan on AIDS, Hillary Clinton is again being charged with rewriting history in attacking Bernie Sanders for his absence on the health care fight” | |

  6. As I understand it, Sen.Sanders supported the proposal for iniversal health care for all Vermont residents.
    It was known as GREEN MOUNTAIN CARE. The projected cost for this program wax $4.3 Billion annually.
    That proved to be a problem, given that the ENTIRE annual Vermont budget was $4.9 Billion.
    Details, details.

  7. The Federal Anti-Nepotism Statute came up as an issue during the HillaryCare push for health care reform.
    A 1992 Clinton campaign pledge was “two for the price of one”.
    When the Clintons claimed special status for Hillary as a de facto administration policy maker and advisor, objections wers raised under the 1967 law.
    I’d have to review it, but as I remember it this law put certain restrictions on how Hillary could staff/ promote/ formulate administration policy.

  8. Did Hillary corrupt Huma as a bisexual? Trump has dirt on Hillary, Huma and Anthony Weiner and state department classified email documents.

  9. Ivan…
    …when George Wallace ran in 1968 as a 3rd party candidate, (American Party, I think), he would engage the protesters/ hecklers disrupting his speeches.
    Despite Wallace’s high-profile segregationist views, he actually had a sense of humor and a keen intellect.
    He’d exhort the protestors to keep it up…”Everytime you show up, I get another million votes”.
    He once invited an unkempt hippie protester (the protesters were ALL hippies, in Wallace’s mind) to “come on up here, I’ll sign your sandals for you”.
    When his running mate, Gen. Curtis LeMay, started talking about using nukes in Vietnam at one event, a panicked Wallace interrupted him almost immediately.
    I think Wallace carried 5 states, the last time a 3rd party actually won electoral votes.

  10. @swarthmoremom

    I support both Trump and Sanders. Unfortunately for Bernie though, Trump is right: Bernie supporters organized a large effort to actually shut down a Trump rally and, after they succeeded, large groups within the rally location were videotaped cheering “Bernie, Bernie, Bernie.” This tactic of shutting down an opponent’s rally will backfire.

  11. If The Bern had been a woman, Hickory would’ve been all over that. Of course she doesn’t remember him. Why would she? He spent his time cozying up to brutal Communist dictators and not enough time in dyke bars. Their paths didn’t cross much. He’s got a few too many parts for her liking. Huma is more her type–dark and swarthy.

  12. What did you expect that you were going to see from an old, butch, menopausal, lying, conniving, sociopath when she tries to denigrate her even older, less butch, testosterone-depleted, lying, conniving, sociopath of a running mate? A love fest?

  13. “Yet, each candidate seems to have a core of supporters who simply do not care about the allegations of dishonesty or falsity.”

    And that is why things do not change. All the big politicians are for sale. Who can blame the businesses for buying what is for sale, when DC has been quite clear it’s the cost of doing business? The Koch Brothers, Big Oil, Wallstreet, Big Labor, Big Unions, Big Construction, Big Government Contracts… influence and contracts are bought and sold routinely. Everyone blames the other side, but the True Believers turn a blind eye when their own favorite does wrong. It’s always some else’s fault while we’re holier than thou.

    If you don’t like lies and corruption in politics, then stop voting for it .

    Personally, I have this peripherally related issue I have not yet resolved. I am tired of the status quo and the establishment, for the above reasons. And yet, whenever anyone runs who is not part of the political ruling class, they get hammered for lack of experience. Is it now necessary to be a career politician to be a realistic candidate for president?

    I don’t care about race, ethnicity, or creed. I just want a fiscal conservative who will balance our budget, rein in our spending addiction, and lead our country during very dangerous times. I want government to get out of the way of opportunity. As it stands, it appears that America is the “Land of Opportunity”, unless you actually become successful, whereupon you “didn’t build that”, “don’t pay your fair share”, and how dare you use the infrastructure for which you paid massive taxes to build and maintain. You become the hated enemy of the people, spit upon by politicians as well as the poor whom you help support.

    As it stands, the top 3 contenders of the Duopoly are all basically Liberals who are hip deep in controversy, and it will be business as usual. Bernie is beholden to the Unions and will tax us into a banana republic, and Donald…where to begin? Let’s set aside his personality problems. When pressed on healthcare reform, all he can say is redraw the lines, and he’s on record supporting nationalized healthcare, and he’s bought and sold favors in Washington as part of doing business for decades.

    I hate to break it to Bernie Sanders, but if he destroys our economy with an astronomical tax rate, people struggling to put food on the table don’t give a hill of beans about the environment, equality, or anything else. The worst economies are some of the worst polluters. The strongest governments with helpless citizens are right up there, too. So be careful what you wish for in expanding the power and influence of the sphere of government.

    As far as health care, just a few years ago, people were adamant that they liked their health insurance and did not want to lose it. That’s why Obama started the “if you like your health insurance/doctor you can keep it,” and the “you will save $2500 a year” lies heard round the world. Now, health insurance is unaffordable for the middle class. Everyone has the same coverage, and it all is substandard. You can no longer decide for yourself what coverage you want. They are all identical. Many doctors don’t accept it, and those who do engage in the dreaded factory healthcare model to make up the 30% pay cut Obamacare caused. You have less time and access to your doctor.

    Copays and deductibles lead people to self ration their health care. In a perfect world, it is affordable, and people save a few dollars by going to the doctor only when necessary. Now, people have to make very hard choices in order to afford their premium, and then they ration health care they need because they can’t afford the deductibles, and so much isn’t covered at all now, like the uber restricted drug formulary. If they lose their health insurance due to hacking or theft during the year (as I did), they are forced to be without insurance until the next Open Enrollment, unless they can find a job that can provide it.

    In socialized medicine, everything is “free” via massive taxes. People challenged in math do not realize they end up paying more. Since there are no copays and they’ve paid massive taxes, people do not ration their health care, and would go to the doctor for every cough, splinter, and headache, clogging up the system. So the government rations it for them via long wait lists and lack of availability. The government decides what you need and if you can get it. You just handed over your access and choice to the same people who inspired Monty Python.

    The entire point that is missed is how to improve overall health. We could integrate our health care system to include nutrition and whole body health. Instead we spend huge amounts of money on a system that basically chases symptoms when the horse is already out of the barn. One of my friend’s employer health insurance gave a premium credit for those who clocked in at the company’s gym, or logged in exercise. Healthy metrics on their physicals also gave them credits. Unhealthy habits like smoking added to the premium. (Basically, this is how insurance works. Health = low risk = lower premium, and you actually have the ability to save money). But in addition to insurance, we need to lower the cost of health care for those who have health problems, as well as help people seek greater health. We could be doing a better job of teaching nutrition in schools, planting community gardens, and having our culture move towards valuing healthy minds and body more than it currently does. Stop subsidizing processed food. Improve welfare benefits to give more access to farmers markets and whole produce, and lessen the ability to use benefits for cigarettes or strip clubs.

    1. Karen writes, “In socialized medicine, everything is “free” via massive taxes. People challenged in math do not realize they end up paying more. Since there are no copays and they’ve paid massive taxes, people do not ration their health care, and would go to the doctor for every cough, splinter, and headache, clogging up the system. So the government rations it for them via long wait lists and lack of availability. The government decides what you need and if you can get it. You just handed over your access and choice to the same people who inspired Monty Python.”

      I guess the folks in countries with socialized medicine and high taxes are math challenged. They’re also far happier than we are and the greatest proportion of their wealth and population is in a prosperous middle class. No?

  14. Who paid the professional disrupters? Bernie? Rubio? Chicago Bears fans?
    What I want to know is who are da Bears gonna vote for in the Primary in Illinois?

  15. Hillary underestimated ISIS video. ISIS is using chemical weapons in Syria & Iraq.
    Who will pay for professional disrupters to attend the Clinton rallies?

  16. He had only one way to go. Price of oil is down, no thanks to him. That’s the biggest reason.

Comments are closed.