Hillary is the only candidate with a real plan for health care reform

The other day we wrote about the growing battle between John Edwards and Barack Obama over what to do about health care. Earlier we had thought that this was good for Hillary because these two would argue each other away into obscurity while Hillary would remain the clear leader. But now it is becoming evident that this spat is all a big setup in order to get more press. Unlike Hillary, Obama and Edwards simply can't get the time they want on television because they aren't interesting enough to be interviewed. They have found a way around this though: create a fake controversy, get the media to cover it, and they now have a legitimate excuse to be doing interviews - to respond to their "competitor". Well it seems that Hillary, and now Vote for Hillary Online, is on to this game.

From Foxnews.com (sorry guys):

Clinton campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle has written a letter to her counterpart at the Obama campaign, asking the Illinois senator to stop running what she calls a "false ad" in New Hampshire that claims his health care plan would cover everyone.

"Your advertisement not only contradicts the judgment of health care experts but public statements by your campaign and your candidate," Solis Doyle wrote, adding, "Senator Obama has pledged to put 'honesty first' in this campaign. In that spirit I respectfully request that you stop running this ad which is misleading voters in New Hampshire."

The letter is the latest dig in an argument that has been percolating for weeks. Clinton's plan includes an individual mandate that would require every American to obtain health insurance, while Obama's plan only mandates coverage for children.

Clinton’s camp often cites experts who say Obama’s plan would leave out 15 million people of the 47 million who are uninsured and notes that even Obama has called the plan "virtually universal." Obama has said he would offer subsidies to the working poor, and that over time the savings through his plan would allow everyone to be covered.

This is excellent political strategy here folks. Not only is this getting Hillary involved in the media-covered health care debate, but she offers the most conclusive and all-encompassing plans of all the candidates. I'm sorry folks, but the whole logic of "if just one person was helped, then it was all worth it" just doesn't cut it in this day and age. There are better solutions. We should not settle for simply having more Americans getting high quality health care. Our job isn't done until every American has high quality health care.

Health Care needs to be mandated just like seat belt laws are mandated. We realize not everyone wants to participate, but the government needs to enact policy that is for the benefit of all people, not just the ones that opt in. Having so many Americans uninsured is simply an embarrassment for us and to our image as a nation to the rest of the world. It could be argued that many of those without health care coverage realize this, and they're purposely not getting coverage because it will contribute to the perception that America isn't doing enough to ensure the health of its citizens. Yes, we have been infiltrated. Not every American "citizen" wants to see us do well. If there's a policy set fourth to make us all better off, they'll be against it. And leaving the window open for people to not get coverage is leaving an opportunity for the rest of the world to mock our great nation as incompassionate. Hillary Clinton is the only candidate who recognizes this, which is yet another reason that we need to ensure her election (as if it wasn't clear already).

John Edwards And Barack Obama Duke It Out Over Healh Care

It appears that John Edwards and Barack Obama have decided to take a break from smearing Hillary Clinton and have turned on each other. This is great news for us, as these two will attack each other into oblivion where the last person standing without a blemish is none other than our own Hillary Clinton.

From siouxcityjournal.com:

Democrat John Edwards took aim at rival Barack Obama's health care plan Thursday, saying it would leave too many Americans uninsured.

Obama's plan would not require Americans to get health insurance as Edwards' plan would.

Imagine if these two loads of incompetence were the only front runners in the debate and there was no Hillary. I have to say, I feel a bit sick to my stomach just imagining that - then again, maybe that's what they want so we're lured into their flawed health care plans. On the one hand you have Obama, who obviously doesn't think that all Americans should have equal access to healthcare, and then you have John Edwards who apparently wants to force people to get health insurance at gunpoint. Fortunately we all have an alternative with Hillary.

I thought this little quote from Edwards was very telling:

"There are very substantive policy differences between us on this issue. I just want to make sure caucus-goers are aware of that," Edwards said.

Edwards said he has not seen details of how Clinton would enforce her mandate.

Hmm I wonder why John Edwards is so interested in Hillary's health care plan. Could it be that he's not confident in his own that he's trying to get ideas from the lead candidate?


By the way, we're noticing a large amount of new visitors to our site lately. If you're a Hillary supporter, on the fence about a candidate, or even supporting someone else, you're all welcome here. Hillary Clinton wouldn't turn anyone away, nor should we. If you've made it here, you're probably on the right track to discovering why we here at Vote for Hillary Online have dedicated our lives to ensuring her election. For a comprehensive list of her positions on various issue, please refer to this page.

Do not be deceived by those who claim less government is better

More and more these days we hear people clamoring that we need to return to our 18th century roots of bare-bones government. These people truly believe that somehow taking away the government's responsibility to its people will lead to this great utopia. Before I completely obliterate this flawed notion, I will concede that they do have good points about government inefficiencies. However, the conclusion they end up making is in the opposite direction of the real solution. I suppose it's easy to understand this growing trend of anti-government ideology if you look at how poorly the Bush Administration has done to drive America into the ground these past 7 years. When people see inadequacies of the government, or cite all these examples of how it makes things worse, these all stem from the corrupt and incompetent actions by the Bush administration. They are confusing the two. They see how bad the Bush administration is, so they blame it on the concept of government in general.

If you actually look at the problems that they cite as examples to why we need less government, you'll realize that the problem was in fact a lack of government intervention. Look at what happened after Hurricane Katrina. This was clearly a problem of not enough government resources able to handle a crisis situation. You have to have good leaders and resources in times of crisis, and when you don't it can lead to disaster. If you have a decision between making sure we can handle hard times or an option of saving a few dollars by less taxes, I think it's pretty clear which one is more worth it to the American people. Look at the 911 tragedy. We were unable to prevent it given the current power and resources the government had at the time. Which type of government do you think is more apt to preventing a terrorist strike: one of the 18th century? Or one where we can use the Patriot Act to stop crime before it happens.

These delusional people also believe that we would be better off if the government wasn't involved in health care. They apparently ignore the fact that if it was a true free market with no government assistance, doctors would be price gouging like mad and only the rich would be able to get decent health care. You think doctors will just start offering their services for free out of the goodness of their heart? Maybe a few of them perhaps, but it wouldn't be nearly enough to handle the nation's poor, and good hearted doctors shouldn't have to be burden with what should be the government's responsibility.

Without government programs, we would not have well maintained roads, public education for any child, welfare programs for the poor, police, firefighters, an army to protect our nation, or the FDA to ensure that the medication we give our kids is safe and effective. If you want to do away with all that, then by all means go off to some deserted island and start your own country. But some of us realize the value in these things. The problems arise though when they're mismanaged by administrations that have no clue what they're doing.

It's important though that in order to be more reliant upon the government, we must be more educated so we can elect politicians who will get the job done right. Obviously, more government in Bush's hands is a bad thing, but I guarantee you under Hillary it will be a hell of a lot better. And that's why the whole smear campaign against Hillary by the media is so important to address. It takes away the American people's ability to make a sound decision based on facts.

Seriously folks, is this what you want America to look like?