Clinton's position on single-payer is same as Obama's:

Clinton:


http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/hillaryc.htm

Q: Would we be better off with a Canadian-style single payer system if it were politically possible?

Clinton: I think our system has so many unique features to it. You know if we were talking 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, before we developed the kind of mixed system that we've got of public and private resources, I don't know, that's a hypothetical, but given where we are today I think it's imperative that we take it step by step, and that we build on what works.


Obama:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22/clinton-hits-obama-for-wa_n_82662.html

In a profile of the Senator in the New Yorker this past spring he offered that, "a single-payer system-a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment-'would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'"

In fact, the man responsible for it recently won the CBC's "Greatest Canadian" call-in vote contest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Douglas

You set a goal and aim for it. Then you figure out the steps you need to take to get from here to there.
You don't toady up to the insurance companies by suggesting that the transition will be too difficult.

No matter the outcome, Busch wins.

Pathetic.

:banghead:

system, the same vampires who have so genrously funded Hillary's campaign. You can be sure there will be no meaningful health care during another Clinton administration. There is too much payback that she will have to cough up.

I just got a glossy flier from the Hillary campaign in the mail, a flyer that my two top candidates can't afford to send out because they have refused to take corporate blood money from the health care and PHARMA industries. Too bad, I already voted by mail and it wasn't for Hillary.

I think the Corporate controlled Media (Rupert Murdock et al) support her because we are supposed to have a "Win" and end up with Hillary obstructing the real changes we so desperately need.

WE can not afford any DKC centrist moderating away the people's power.

presidential candidate. She isn't my first choice and I know the Clintons triangulating ways will not get us desperately needed health care reform. Bill Clinton wouldn't revisit it after Hillary's plan went down in defeat in his first term and I don't think Hillary will either if she doesn't get her very complicated and expensive plan passed in her administration. I don't know how many people will die in the future because they couldn't get quality health care at a time that they needed it. Keeping the health insurance companies delivering health care for profit isn't going to make that happen.

Though I am encouraged that both Edwards & Clinton's plan have possible bridges to single payer.

and, yes, that's sarcasm.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22163.html

It's a sad day when our two so-called frontrunners' healthcare policies are straight outta the Nixon playbook.

from our treasury that doesn't deliver what is needed to the health care seeker.

that his plan MAY lead to a single-payer system, that means it MAY NOT.

There is only one candidate who will advocate for a not for profit, single-payer system and the corporate media has silenced this idea.