When Clinton tried to pass National Health Care numerous Dems voted

against it. Does anyone know if Kerry or Leiberman voted against it? How about Gephardt or Daschel? I know it was soundly defeated and the Democrats had control. How did Kerry vote on it?

Just an innocent question, right?

Are you afraid of the results? And actually I like Kerry a lot. I also like Gephardt but Daschel has disappointed me greatly. I am not in Dean's camp or Clark's either as of this moment. I don't care for Leiberman so I guess it could be considered anti-Leiberman if you like but I suspect he probably supported the Clinton's idea anyway. I am curious as to the others though.

What partisans are you looking for sangha? Democrats?

I was first year phd program - so my reading of the news was rather.. cursory. But my memory was there was a huge hoopla (first positive) over the group coming together to work on a plan. Then a huge hoopla (now negative) over the role Hillary had in the effort (too powerful for an unelected first lady!) and for the perceived lack of transparency of the work of the group (now fast forward to Cheney's energy task force to see the BIG joke on Dems - as there was much more transparency on the healthcare task force). Then there were the huge ad campaigns to spread fear (take focus off the nature of broad coverage - focus on a mc couple fortunate enough to have coverage and enter the bugaboo of 'choice'.)

I was under the impression that the whole thing collapsed before a vote. But I could be incorrect.

sort of reads like a nonsequitor here.

Did it even come up for a vote? I wasn't paying much attention to politics at that time.


Maybe you should tell the Dean campaign to check into this one, lol.

to put it up for a vote?

All I remember is that every bit of news about the deliberations just made me think, "Huh?"

... with the provisions of the Clinton health care plan, which kept private insurance companies in place. I don't remember all the details, but the plan was a big, messy thing that tried to give something to everybody.

It would have been nice, however, if Congress had just tossed it back with some suggestions for revision. The WAY the right wing shut it down took national health care off the table all these years since.

It was basically an attempt at a 2-tier plan much like is currently causing big problems in the UK, from what I understand.

That, to be quite honest, is one of the big problems I have with Dean's plan. I'm just fearful that it will turn into another rehashing of the same fight from 1993. It's also why I completely support single-payer as the only true answer -- especially if it is ADMINISTERED on the state level, as Canada does.

It is a defense and a good one. I didn't like Clinton's plan but since it was all that was being offered and way better than nothing I was for it. I don't like employors being forced to provide insurance for their employees. I think that is a governmental responsibility. I was just curious which Democrats went against their president at that time. I also did not like Nafta or Gatt or many other things Clinton accomplished but those aren't the question either.

But then I have been for 20 years. I'm either WAY ahead of my time or completely out to lunch. :-)

I think it will happen someday, but we need a higher percentage of the working population to experience life without employee-benfit health insurance before they will get behind it.

I think that Maine voted recently to provide public health care to its citizens, based on the fact that the local BCBS affiliate had driven out all competition, established a monopoly, and then proceeded to jack up rates exponentially and start kicking people off of coverage.

It's kinda funny in a lot of ways, but many times I think that Maine may just be a state that is on the cutting edge of progressive reform. First Clean Money, Clean Elections public campaign financing, now public health care! I have to wonder what is next!

Another advantage: It's close to Canada, in case we have to bail out entirely on short notice ...

But the latest says most Americans now support a single-payer plan.

took the part of the bill they knew would pass and crafted the CHIPS bill to extend healthcare to all children.

He's looking for a vote he can use to attack other Dems. Why someone voted a certain way, or what else they may have done, isn't important.

Show me one post I ever made attacking any of our candidates. Just one. I support every single one and always have. I will vote for the Democratic Nominee. You are the one who is quite consistent in attacking others. I have posted numerous times praising Kerry and Gephardt and although I have not praised Leiberman I have never attacked him. So I say to you "Put up or Shut up". I have never said a derogatory thing about Clark except how I feel about officers in the Military and I have cheered Dean on but never advocated for him.

The posts I recall seem more probing for all the candidates. Maybe you recollect a bad day? Heck, some people actually think I have bad days. ;))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

From PBS Newshour it's a complete and very detailed and objective timeline of the machinations surrounding the 1993-94 health care plan.

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:xh6I3dUIJX8J:www.pbs.org/newshour/forum/may96/background/health_debate_page1.html+clinton+health+care+plan,+democrats&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

(You have to go through the Google "cache" link. It seems to be down the memory hole on the main PBS website.

Some legislators named but not all. However here's one that is especially illuminating. It basically says the Repubs were afraid of a Health Care Plan because that would revitalize the democratic Party. Hmmmmm...


December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

December 19, 1993 - Stories about a new Clinton scandal -- "Troopergate" -- and Whitewater continue to chip away at the reserves of political capital the President and First Lady will need when Congress returns in January.

January 3, 1994 - Harold Ickes, the new deputy White House chief of staff, is chosen to be the political director of the health care reform battle in its critical final phase. For his first two weeks on the job, when he should be focusing on health reform, he is forced to spend nearly all his time coordinating the White House response to a torrent of Whitewater stories and increased calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor. Republicans link Whitewater with health care reform in an allout campaign coordinated with the conservative talk radio network. The result: rising doubts that the public can trust Clinton in either case.

I don't know about Lieberman.

Interesing that Wellstone did not back the plan and proposed his own..

http://my.netian.com/~pynchon/doc/healthcare.htm

They not only criticized the President's plan, but they presented their own bill¯McDermott-Wellstone bill, sponsored by Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA), and Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN) and cosponsored by 12 committee chairmen and 36 subcommittee chairmen of the House. The bill would create "a Canadian-style system, nationalizing the health insurance industry by instituting a universal coverage plan under which the government would collect premiums and pay providers."

the foot in the door approach, trying to be everything to everyone, it set them up for failure. It set them up for attacks from the right and the eventual defeat of the plan, which became a hot potato item all throught the Clinton administration. No one wanted to touch universal health care after that.

It was not a good plan and I hope if Dean or Kucinich become President that they will put in the plan proposed by the Physicians for National Health Care. http.//www.pnhp.org or at least something similar if it's bare bones that can be improved upon as time goes by.

We need to wake up and not just be slaves to the masters. Question our leaders. Can any of you name one thing Hillary has ever accomplished? Her health plan ideas were stupid and would not work.

I would rather listen to Dr. Dean on this issue than Hillary who never has done anything.

We need to start doing what is right for we the people and stop being slave to anything certain leaders say or recommend.

We need to wake up in our party. I live both in Hawaii and Ca and you should look there to how our party is going down the tubes because of picking poor leaders and crooks.