If Hillary Clinton wins the presidency in 2016, it will mean four more years of Obama policies. As reported by the LA Times, Time Magazine quoted her as saying, “ Congress is careening from crisis to crisis instead of having a plan”. She attacked the “scorched earth” politics of the modern age.
Clinton criticizing Congress for what is obviously Obama’s problem is the type of deception we have become used to under Obama. He is the Imperial president taking us from crisis to crisis so he has an excuse to take out his pen and phone.
Hillary praised progressives for pushing “the cause of affordable, quality health care for every American back on the national agenda,” and spoke of her “many decades in the trenches of politics.”
Hillary Clinton was appointed by her husband in 1993 to lead a task force on healthcare reform, an effort which failed. She had no qualifications for the role.
The Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan and forbade their disenrollment until covered by another plan. It listed minimum coverages and maximum annual out-of-pocket expenses for each plan. It proposed the establishment of corporate “regional alliances” of health providers to be subject to a fee-for-service schedule. People below a certain set income level were to pay nothing. The act listed funding to be sent to the states for the administration of this plan, beginning at $13.5 billion in 1993 and reaching $38.3 billion in 2003.
Hillarycare and Obamacare are ideological twins only Hillarycare was worse and the way the Clintons tried to get it done was the same way Barack Obama would get it done more than twenty years later. Hillary has expressed the same interest in Single Payer that Obama has expressed.
Hillarycare was actually Clintoncare with Bill calling the shots and Hillary running the task force.
Senior aides advised the Clintons to consult closely with members of Congress, build bridges with business leaders, communicate clearly to nervous voters, move swiftly. They did none of that.
Through 1993, as the first lady’s healthcare effort became more-and-more secretive, unworkable and behind schedule, aides warned. The White House’s legislative affairs chief, Howard Paster, noted in one memo that members of Congress were “petrified” by the issue, the LA Times reported.
The Clintons didn’t know how to talk about the issue.
In one memo before President Clinton’s 1994 State of the Union address, an aide identified only as “Todd” fretted that the president might be misleading Americans by claiming that they could pick their doctors under the healthcare proposal. “I am very worried about getting skewered for over-promising here on something we know full well we won’t deliver,” he wrote, according to the LA Times.
In other words, Mrs. Clinton was going to tell people if they wanted to keep their doctors, they could keep their doctors. Sound familiar?
The complexity of the bill was described as “confusing” and “frightening” at the time.
Rep. Dennis Hastert of Illinois, then the chairman of the Republicans’ House task force on health care, began meeting with Hillary Clinton in 1993. He tried discussing changes to the healthcare bill such as adding healthcare savings accounts. He concluded that there was no negotiating with Mrs. Clinton.
I mentioned … to the first lady about medical savings accounts and just right away she said, “We can’t do that.” And I said, “Well, why?” And she said, “Well, there’s two reasons.” And I said, “Well, what are they?”
[And she said] “The first reason is with the medical savings account, people have to act on their own and make their own decisions about health care. And they have to make sure that they get the inoculations and the preventative care that they need, and we just think that people will skip too much because in a medical savings account if you don’t spend it, you get to keep it or you can … accumulate it in a health care account.
We just think people will be too focused on saving money and they won’t get the care for their children and themselves that they need.
We think the government, by saying, ‘You have to make this schedule. You have to have your kids in for inoculations here, you have to do a prescreening here, you have to do this’ — the government will make better decisions than the people will make, and people will be healthier because of it.”
I said, “Well, part of that’s an education process. People have to understand that [if] they behave in a certain way, they’re going to save money, [with the] preventive medicine issue — you get the prescreenings, if you can inoculate your kids you save money on it. I mean, they’re not sick. You save money.”
She said, “No. We just can’t trust the American people to make those types of choices … Government has to make those choices for people.”
The bill founded on arrogance and elitism collapsed in 1994, failing to pass Congress.
Mrs. Clinton’s ability to negotiate and work with Congress will be similar to Barack Obama’s based on prior experience.
Hillary Clinton hopes to replace the individual with the State. The family is the obstacle to the totalitarian’s goals. Reformers like Hillary won’t let the individual get in the way of her “burning desire to do what I can, a desire to make the world around me… better for everybody”, as she once said.
It is government agencies, bureaucracies, and regulations that will replace the individual.
Capitalism won’t fare much better under a Clinton presidency. She’s to the left of her husband and not as pragmatic.
In May, 2007, speaking in New Hampshire, Clinton acknowledged that instead of the “ownership society” that George W. Bush has promoted throughout his presidency, she prefers a “we’re all in it together society” where prosperity is “broadly shared.”
There is not point labeling. Hillary Clinton a socialist, has done that herself.
It is not the individual, but the collective which makes society meaningful to the Fascist and the Communist. The State must rise to power and individual liberty will of necessity be relegated to the State.
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society,” Hillary Clinton said in 1993 while serving as First Lady.
In a March 3 1996 Booknotes discussion with Brian Lamb about her recently published book, It Takes a Village: And Other Lessons Our Children Teach Us, she said, “I am a fan of a lot of the social policies that you find in Europe, and I know that they, too, are going through a rethinking about how to afford some of their policies..they see raising children as a social obligation, not just a parental obligation…”
It always goes back to the collective and big government for Hillary Clinton.
As a young college student at Wellsley, Hillary Clinton transformed from a Goldwater Republican to a leftist Democrat. While serving as First lady, she told a Newsweek reporter that she treasured the 1966 article by Marxist/Maoist Carl Oglesby, an article which tore down capitalism as oppressive and unfair. Oglesby was the leader of the revolutionary Students for a Democratic Society which defended Ho Chi Minh, Fidel Castro and Maoist tactics of violence.
Her senior thesis exposed her deep admiration for another revolutionary – Saul Alinsky. Another admirer of Alinsky is Barack Obama. Hillary continued to correspond with Alinsky until his death and as First Lady she lent her name and fundraising efforts to Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) in Chicago.
In her “autobiography” Living History, Hillary Clinton described her internship at one of the country’s most radical law firms, San Francisco based Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein. Doris Brin Walker was a lifelong Communist. Robert Truehaft left the party in 1958 after being called before the House Un-American Affairs Committee and labeled as one of America’s “dangerously subversive lawyers.” The other partner Malcolm Burnstein, maintained a lifetime commitment to radical causes.
The communist firm was known for taking the cases of the most radical: Communists, draft resisters, and members of the African-American militant group – the Black Panther Party.
She befriended leftists then and now. After college, she took a position with the Children’s Defense Fund. In a November 1973 article for the Harvard Educational Review, she expressed her view that America is an authoritarian, patriarchal, male-dominated society. She saw the traditional family structure as undermining the best interests of children.
Advocating the liberation of children from “the empire of the father,” she claimed that the traditional nuclear family structure often undermined the best interests of children, who “consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position.” “Along with the family,” she elaborated, “past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian Reservation system.” She added: “Decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect a child’s future should not be made unilaterally by parents.”
The same themes run through her 1996 book, It Takes a Village. Hillary prefers the collective to the individual.
Like Barack Obama, she admired revolutionary socialists like Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta who was also her friend. Barack Obama gave Huerta the Presidential Medal of Freedom, ironic given her totalitarian views.
Leftists like George Soros, Stanley Sheinbaum, and Leo Szilard have contributed to Hillary’s campaigns as have Planned Parenthood and Emily’s List.
Like Barack Obama, she is planning to make use of social media during her presidential campaign. She is announcing her candidacy on Twitter to appeal to the young and has hired google executive Stephanie Hannon who will “oversee her presidential campaign’s technology development and build new ways for Clinton to engage with voters”, Democratic operatives report.
That’s very convenient since google owns the Internet.
Recently she met with members of the mainstream press and socialist John Podesta, President of Soros’s Center for American Progress, for dinner. She is supposedly reintroducing herself to the press who have known her for decades.
More than likely, what she is really doing is laying the groundwork for her campaign, telling them what they can say, what they can call her, and how to deal with her platform.
Clinton has already shown us how effective she can be – or rather not be – when she served as Secretary of State during the Benghazi terror attack and cover up.
With Hillary as president, we can expect the return of the lies and scandals we experienced under Bill Clinton.
Pundits are already claiming Republicans might have a chance to win but more than likely, this is her election to lose. Strange given her recent flubs, lies and cover ups.
Four more years!
More Information: American Spectator