Clinton Announces When She Will Disclose Her Healthcare Insurance Improvement Plan: She’ll announce it just as soon as the Republican presidential candidates tell us theirs. [Typo in sentence referencing Max Ehrenfreund’s Wonkblog post corrected 3/2 at 2:28 p.m.]
Paul Krugman has been incessantly complaining about some Sanders supporters who accuse him and other high-profile Sanders critics, especially academics, of conflict of interest. The Sanders supporters allege all manner of self-interested reasons for the Sanders animus, much of it (including Krugman’s) expressed with vitriol.
I’m not among the Sanders supporters who subscribe to the academics-who-want-a-position-in-the-Clinton-White-House general theory. And making that charge against Krugman is ridiculous. But there is one virulently anti-Sanders healthcare economist who I’m betting is motivated exactly by personal ambition: Emory University’s Kenneth Thorpe.*
Thorpe, a Clinton administration healthcare official, gets his Sanders’-single-payer-critique cred because he worked on the failed Vermont single-payer plan. Just before it was about to begin being implemented last year, the governor, a supporter of the plan, agreed to kill it because it became clear that its costs would significantly exceed former projections.
Weirdly, the failure of the Vermont plan is used, by Thorpe and others, as evidence that single-payer could not be cost-effective nationally. As if the tiny state of Vermont has the same contractual bargaining power, regulatory power, medical training funding power, and any other relevant power as the federal government has.
Thorpe recently made big news with a report that deconstructed the Sanders plan as little more than witchcraft in its cost savings and costs overall and in its costs to this or that entity—the federal government, the states, etc. But in a January 29 response published at Huffington Post, two healthcare economists, David Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler—both with credentials at least as impressive as Thorpe’s—deconstructed the Thorpe deconstruction as, well, odd in light of certain facts. Including several that Thorpe earlier had used.
Not to worry. Thorpe last week came up with a new headline grabber, this one likely intended to respond to us Sanders supporters who think Sanders would do better in November against Trump than Clinton would. (Or, it now seems likely, courtesy largely of elderly and middle-aged Southern African-Americans, will.) It is an issue that this week has become red hot now that Trump is the probable Republican nominee. And as of this week we Sanders supporters are no longer alone in thinking that Clinton is not quite the perfect candidate to compete against Trump. According to the NYT, the Clinton campaign itself now shares our concern.
The Washington Post Wonkblog writer Max Ehrenfreund on February 25 summarized Thorpe’s headline grabber thusly:**
Sanders estimates a middle-class family of four would pay an annual premium of $466 under his plan, with no deductible or co-pays. Less affluent households would pay less than that, or nothing at all.
But for at least 72 percent of households enrolled in Medicaid — in which someone is working — the costs of Sanders’s plan would exceed the benefits, according to an analysis by Kenneth Thorpe, a public-health expert at Emory University.
That figure includes 5.7 million households, or 14.5 million people — among them, 4.2 million Hispanic recipients and 2.5 million black recipients. The requirements for eligibility for Medicaid vary widely by state, so that group includes some households living in poverty as well as some that are modestly better off.
How? Well:
“The vast majority of low-income Medicaid workers, who are probably predominantly minority, are going to end up paying more in terms of payroll taxes, and aren’t going to receive really any financial benefits,” said Thorpe, a former Clinton administration health official.
Many lower-income people are already insured or eligible for insurance under Medicaid, at least in the states that expanded the program under President Obama’s health-care reform. Many Medicaid beneficiaries also work, and those workers’ wages would likely decline due to the additional 6.2 percent payroll tax the proposal would levy on their employers.
The lengthy blog post is titled “Study: Bernie Sanders’s health plan is actually kind of a train wreck for the poor.”
That, presumably, is because of course Sanders could not, or at least would not, tweak the plan to remove the payroll tax for people who qualify for Medicaid under current federal law. Because although the ACA is a very complex and very lengthy statute that took a year of drafting and amending to finalize, Sanders surely has thought of every possible issue and when that one came up he simply said, “Too bad.”
Sort of like Hillary Clinton, who regularly professes plans to build on Obamacare and move toward universal coverage for all—$10,000 deductibles? No prob.—but who never hints at what her building plans are, and, curiously, is never asked. Not by the likes of Thorpe or Krugman. And not by the likes of anyone else I know of.
But she’s definitely working on a plan for that move-toward-universal-coverage thing, and, as with the release of the transcripts of her highly-compensated speeches to large finance-industry and other big-corporate players, she’ll give us a hint about how she plans to do that the very minute after the Republican presidential candidates outline their plans to move toward universal healthcare coverage.
Or instead, she could refer us to Thorpe. Since he will again be a healthcare official in the Clinton administration.
*This entire paragraph was inadvertently deleted before the post was published. So now it’s back. And the post makes sense!
____
UPDATE: Reader J.Goodwin and I just exchanged these comments in the Comments thread:
J.Goodwin
March 1, 2016 6:08 pm
Is there a reason we should anticipate that it would be significantly different than the Health Security Act?
I.e. larger federal subsidies and a stronger employer mandate than the ACA?
Me
March 1, 2016 6:54 pm
I think it wouldn’t be anything at all, J.Goodwin. I think it’s outrageous of her to keep saying generically that she wants to build on the ACA without saying what she wants to do, yet criticize Sanders for his plan.
And I think it’s outrageous of the Hillary shillary economists brigade–Thorpe, but Krugman too, and probably others–for not mentioning that she has said nothing at all about what she has in mind, yet keeps saying she has, well, something in mind.
Then again, I don’t know why Sanders hasn’t pointed out that she’s taking a page out of the Republican playbook: just keep saying you plan to do something about the uninsured; just don’t say what that is.
Added 3/1 at 6:59 p.m.
_____
**Sentence edited and separated from preceding paragraph, to make sense. 3/2 at 2:19 p.m.
Gotta tell ya, Microsoft updated its Office 365 last week, and since then I’ve had nothing but big problems trying to write anything using Word. With this post, two main parts were just missing from the post by the time I pasted it into AB’s new-post function. There was the mysteriously deleted paragraph that I reinserted last night, and there was a sentence between this now-edited one and the preceding paragraph, and they were two separate paragraphs, as they are now.
This post is not the only thing that the Word update has made very hard for me to write. I am not happy about this, and do not look forward to calling Microsoft and having them FIX THE SETTINGS SO THAT I CAN USE WORD AGAIN.
Okay. Rant done. Now back to trashing pols and economists.
I’m very grateful to Yves Smith for reposting this post at Naked Capitalism this morning, and I’ve now posted the following comment to the repost there:
POST SHOULD READ:
“… Not to worry. Thorpe last week came up with a new headline grabber, this one likely intended to respond to us Sanders supporters who think Sanders would do better in November against Trump than Clinton would. (Or, it now seems likely, courtesy largely of elderly and middle-aged Southern African-Americans, will.) It is an issue that this week has become red hot now that Trump is the probable Republican nominee. And as of this week we Sanders supporters are no longer alone in thinking that Clinton is not quite the perfect candidate to compete against Trump. According to the NYT, the Clinton campaign itself now shares our concern.
“The Washington Post Wonkblog writer Max Ehrenfreund on February 25 summarized Thorpe’s headline grabber thusly:”
I just corrected the original post at Angry Bear and added a note at the bottom raging about Microsoft’s update to Office 365 that has caused big, big problems for me in drafting anything in Word. In this case it mysteriously deleted an entire paragraph, which I reinserted last night, and also a sentence that had prefaced the one mentioning Ehrenfreund’s blog post and making clear that his post was about Thorpe’s latest attempt to take down Sanders’ healthcare plan, not about the Clinton campaign’s concerns about the strength of Trump’s candidacy and problems with her own.
Is there a reason we should anticipate that it would be significantly different than the Health Security Act?
I.e. larger federal subsidies and a stronger employer mandate than the ACA?
I think it wouldn’t be anything at all, J.Goodwin. I think it’s outrageous of her to keep saying generically that she wants to build on the ACA without saying what she wants to do, yet criticize Sanders for his plan.
And I think it’s outrageous of the Hillary shillary economists brigade–Thorpe, but Krugman too, and probably others–for not mentioning that she has said nothing at all about what she has in mind, yet keeps saying she has, well, something in mind.
Then again, I don’t know why Sanders hasn’t pointed out that she’s taking a page out of the Republican playbook: just keep saying you plan to do something about the uninsured; just don’t say what that is.
typical clintonian argle bargle. She “Fights”, “Works”, “Tries”… policy not so much.
Yup. Always about her. Always.
We got nearly nothing from 7 years of “yes we can….” or was it small “change we can believe…”
And Obama had more credibility than HRC.
She will, like Obama, sink US further into the morass supporting Saudi terrorists throughout the greater Middle East.
We cannot do national health care but US can outspend half the world and keep troops deployed forever keeping history at bay.
I’m not arguing that she will attempt to actually do anything. I think it’s most likely the last thing she would do (attempt anything substantive). She loves power so much, that if she had it, she would be afraid to do anything with it that wasn’t the clear political move for fear of losing it. She certainly wouldn’t challenge congress to get anything done, any more than Obama did.
However, if she did present something, I’m not sure why it wouldn’t be a slightly polished version of what the Clintons brought to the table more than 20 years ago.
1. I agree that the Gang of Five gang-up on Gerald Friedman and Sanders for showing an impact from all the things they say are good — like huge infrastructure spending — was obnoxious and stupid, and probably was wrong on the merits. Friedman’s response seems a lot more solid than the Romers’ post hoc explanation with its highly pessimistic view of the economy’s potential.
2. I agree that the Thorpe alleged take-down of Sanders’ single payer proposal is ridiculous. As you say, you can’t expect a candidate to dot every i and cross every t in a broad campaign proposal. The experience of other countries indicates almost certainty that in the long run, everyone would come out ahead with a “Medicare for All” system.
3. I disagree completely that Clinton has no proposals for healthcare. She has quite specific proposals, including tax credits up to $5000 to reduce co-pays and deductibles (which she says are excessive), efforts to reach 16 million people who are eligible for Medicaid (a single payer plan) but haven’t signed up, and revival of the public option, the primary purpose of which was to make a genuine non-profit, efficient insurance offering available and force insurance costs further downward through direct competition. Whether they are adequate or not is a matter of opinion, but it should not be said that she has no proposals. They are there for everyone with a finger and two seconds to see.
While a single payer plan is superior in theory — and has been proven in practice — thought should be given to the extreme political danger of offering a program at this time that can and will be painted by Republicans as one that will destroy half a million jobs in many different states. There was more than spite in Joe Lieberman’s objection to the public option. Think Hartford, Connecticut, insurance capital of the country. We would see “Harry and Louise” in spades. (Look it up if you’re too young to remember, and see what happened to Congress in the following election in 1994.)
I would suggest what happened to the congress in election of 1994. Had more to do with that great sucking sound (North American Free Trade Agreement) predicted by Ross Perot the third part candidate running against Clinton and Bush. Also remembering Bill Clinton had run on jobs and the economy.
It is not that Sanders’ did not dot all his i’s and cross all his t’s, it is that he presented too many i’s and t’s. It would have been much better if he had less specifics and more generalities, though he may have felt he had to push the envelope.
The truth is that the campaign screwed up royally in allowing Friedman to review the program without input from other people. You can attack Thorpe all you want(and the math is well beyond me)m but the fact remains that the Sanders’ campaign has changed the numbers initially issued by Friedman to the tune of more than half a trillion dollars a year.
Some of those changes were so incredibly obvious to even me it was scary. Friedman actually had prescription drug savings at a total greater than the US spends on prescription drugs.
And now, in response to the costs to low income families, the Sanders campaign response is that you cannot put up those kind of numbers without figuring in the new $15 an hour minimum wage.
Too many i’s and too many t’s.
Well we know what the Trump plan will be, in his words – “Something Terrific.”
We do know he wants insurance across state lines, HSA’s, and has spoken positively about universal plans.
Amen ilsm.
I’m still waiting to hear Kerry’s plan for getting us out of Iraq.
The current adminsitration is not so closet neocon. HRC was a neocon the entire time of her service at state.
US needs Iraq whole, it needs to pay off and arm the Sunni tribes if they get them out of ISIS whom they defected to en masse. Sunni 1/3 must stay in Iraq! Or else the Saudis will not have such a large base to train mujahedeen. While Sunni Wahabbists are entrenched in Fallujah!
It needs Iraq whole so a Kurdish republic cannot raise arms against the Turks.
It needs Iraq whole so the 2/3 of Iraq who are Shiite have to worry about the Wahabbists!
Get out now. Let Iraq divide! It is the tide US is fighting.
Won’t happen with a mainstream president who look to Likud for orders.
Hey now the establishment republicans are talking about endorsing Hillary in the general it will be neocon/neoliberal vs. whackadoo…
The weird are definitely turning pro… HST you left us too soon, too soon!
Last nights vote only proves just how gullible the American people really are. About half the voters proved that they either don’t know the issues of what has happened in the past or they just don’t care. Giving blind trust and loyality to someone is just plain stupid. So if we can’t fix stupid I doubt we will be able to fix the government. More blind trusters should go see “The pitch forks are coming” from Nick Hanauer on U-tube before they vote.
Nick Hanauer: Beware, fellow plutocrats, the pitchforks are coming
Guys, I’ve pretty much given up on trying to convince Dem baby boomers and silent generationers that it’s no longer the ’80s and ’90s and that the Bernie-is-a-SOCIALIST thing would mean a George McGovern-like trouncing and a Repub sweep in congressional elections. Finally, that argument is no longer being made by the punditry; instead it’s now the reverse: Can Clinton beat Trump, given the public’s now-obvious anti-Koch-brothers-Republican-platform mood.
But I do want to respond to Urban Legend’s concerns about Harry and Louise, whom I remember quite well.
The reason for the success of the insurance industry’s anti-Hillarycare ad featuring the young couple Harry and Louise was that the essence of Hillarycare was that it would all-but-force people who had choose-any-doctors-and-hospitals-you-want insurance into HMOs or PPOs that limit the choice of doctors and hospitals to those in a network, sometimes a small network, especially back then, and that sometimes required a referral by a primary care doctor for access to a specialist.
Most people back then had employer-provided insurance that did not have those limitations. Their insurance was like Medicare—usually like Medicare with a supplemental plan is now. The problem back then was that there still were tens of millions of people who had no access to insurance, many of them because of preexisting medical conditions, and also that premiums had been skyrocketing. And suddenly many employers were no longer paying the entire premiums.
But of course now, very few employers provide insurance that does not involve healthcare networks. And very few now pay the full premiums. And most policies have much larger copayments and much larger deductibles.
These are the really big problems with the ACA’s marketplace plans, too.
And these are the problems that Sanders’ Medicare-for-all proposal would eliminate. No provider networks, no large copayments, no large deductibles, and affordable premiums.
In other words, Harry and Louise would support the Sanders plan now.
Bev:
And you are not a DEM baby boomer??? You seem to forget all of the back and forth we had with the story tellers and Repubs during passage of the PPACA and the false horror tales being told afterwards.
You would have to go back several decades before you would find a company paying 100% of premiums.
ILsm,
Your obsession with Hillary’s neoconism to the point that you would prefer Trump to her is getting totally out of control that you drage into a debate over health care proposals. Hillary is very hawkish, but there is at least one important Middle East issue where she is clearly more reasonable than any GOP candidate, including Trump.
That is Iran.
They all, including Trump, have made it clear that they will cancel the nuclear deal with Iran (oh, Bush said he might just try to enforce it, but he is gone). Trump has said he will cancel it, that it is the worst deal ever made, or some such ridiculous language.
As it is, thiis is probably the signal foreign policy success of the Obama presidency, and Hillary supports it and indeed helped get the negotiations that led to it going at its beginning while she was SecState, despite he bad email usage and bad policy advice on Libya and Syria. This is an agreement supported by virtually the entire world except for Israel, even Russia and China on board.
It has been adhered to bey the Iranians contra the forecasts of all the Republican commentators and candidates, as well as Bibi’s government in Israel. We have just seen an election in Iran where moderates have made substantial gains, clearly rewarding President Rouhani for this successful negoation with the US and the world. It is a smashing success.
You want to throw that away because you are constantly whining about what a big neocon Clinton is?
BTW, to Beverly, I see in your new post that you recognize that Hillary actually has made health care proposals, even if nobody has estimated their costs. In your post here and some comments you declared very forcefully and angrily that she had not done so.
Would you care to admit that you messed up in this thread?
We’ve all been misled as to the real cause of this mess.
Its the WTO GATS agreement signed in 1995 –
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725
And we need to get on top of this, because TiSA, almost completed in Geneva now, after 10 years of talks, (ss http://www.maine.gov/legis/opla/ctpchlthcaresub.pdf ) will make it totally impossible for us to ever decide our health care mess via democracy, ever again. (health care arguably was hijacked by GATS 20 years ago)
I tried to paste in some of the bullet points from the late Nicholas Skala’s 2009 paper on WTO’s conflicts with US health care reform. but the table formatting is messed up- – you need to read the actual paper, this is just a teaser- Then you’ll see the real reason our health care now is so horrid..: – But, thats not all- “progressive liberalisation” (use that spelling) is a divide and conquer scheme to pit the people of the developing and developed worlds against one another and this health care mess is part of the leading to that as well. Read jene kelseys book, “Serving Whose interests” – you can read most of it online- its a history of trade in services agreements-
So, please understand, we’re being victimized by is a global scheme to hijack health care and education in dozens of countries- that started in 1994-1995 with WTO – which Hilary Clinton is in deep with, so they are SQUELCHING any discussion of the real causes here- I doubt if this post will be seen, either, is anybody listening-
We never had any debate- At least one ther country did, though, go to indian web search sites (or use the site modifier and the .in top level domain) and search on “site:.in India GATS WTO education” and you will find a discussion there that we never have had here.. GATS makes them give up a right to education forUS corporations can sell education to them and vice versa- also, there is an implicit promise f jobs being made to them, jobs here-)
The following is from Skala on International Trade Law and U.S. Health Reform
– Please read the original paper at:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.405.5725
What the GATS Rules Require
Broadly speaking, there are three “tiers” of GATS rules affecting health care.
The first tier of rules, General Obligations and Disciplines, apply equally to all
service sectors of all WTO member countries, regardless of whether those sectors
are committed in a country’s schedule or not. The second tier, Specific Com-
mitments, apply only to those sectors that a country commits to its schedule. These
rules are more far-reaching, and members were given the opportunity to write
any exceptions or limitations to them into their schedules.
Finally, under GATS
Part III, Article XVII, WTO member countries are allowed to negotiate a third
“tier” of rules to govern their commitments above and beyond the underlying
Specific Commitments rules that normally apply. Citing this provision, the United
States has inscribed its Financial Commitments schedule with the “supplemental”
rules of the Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services. These rules
apply in addition to the underlying GATS Specific Commitments rules on
Market Access and National Treatment (described below).
Table 1
Selected rules included in the General Agreement on Trade in Services
Rule tier Binding upon Rule content
General
Obligations
(Tier 1) All member states of the
World Trade Organization 1. Most-favored nation treatment.
2. Prohibition on “new monopolies”
3. Disciplines on domestic
regulation
Specific
Commitments
(Tier 2) Only those service sectors
that members choose to
bind in their schedules of
commitments 1. Open market access obligations
2. National treatment of all
foreign service provider
Supplementary
Voluntary
Commitments
(Tier 3) Service sectors already
scheduled that members
choose to make additional
liberalization commitments
in (financial services in the
U.S.) 1. Subjection of public entities
to GATS rules
2. “Standstill” of existing
exceptions to liberalization
3. Requirement to allow any
new financial service
4. Requirement to “endeavor
to remove or limit any
significant adverse effects” of
domestic regulation
General Obligations and Disciplines. These rules apply to all service sectors of
all WTO member countries, regardless of whether or not the sectors have been
committed to a nation’s schedule. While these are generally the least controversial
provisions, several may have serious implications for reform or regulation of
the health sector (4).
Most-Favored-Nation Treatment: This provision requires a member to give
service suppliers of any other WTO member no less favorable treatment than it
gives service suppliers of “any other country” (4, Art. II).
Prohibition on New “Monopolies”: This provision requires that if a country
grants new “monopoly rights” regarding the supply of a service covered in its
schedule, the country granting the “monopoly” must enter into negotiations to
provide compensation to any other member adversely affected by it. If an agree-
ment is not reached, the affected member may refer the matter to arbitration, and
the “monopoly” may not go into force until the compensation required by the
arbitration has been made. The term “monopoly rights” is not defined anywhere
in the agreement (4, Art. VIII).
“Disciplines” on Domestic Regulation: In sectors where no commitments
have been undertaken, the GATS states that a special Council for Trade in Services
shall develop “disciplines” that assure that qualification requirements and proce-
dures, technical standards, and licensing requirements for the provision of services
are “not more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service.”
Regarding sectors in which commitments have been undertaken, however, it
is unclear whether such a “necessity test” is already in force (4, Art. VI).
Specific Commitments. These rules apply only to service sectors that members
have volunteered to submit to the rules by inscribing them in their schedules.
Members were also given an opportunity to reserve specific exceptions to the
rules during the negotiations of their schedules. Rules in this section fall into two
broad categories, Market Access and National Treatment.
Market Access: The rules in this section are aimed at preventing governments
from limiting the number, type, form, or size of foreign service suppliers in their
markets or intervening to affect or regulate the way the firms provide the service.
Examples of prohibited measures include (4, Art. XVI):
•
•
•
•
Limitations on the number of service suppliers
Limitations on the total quantity of service output
Requiring a specific type of legal entity (e.g., nonprofit)
Limitations on the “total value of service transactions or assets”
National Treatment: This set of rules requires that foreign service suppliers
receive, “in respect of all measures affecting the supply of services,” the same
treatment that a nation gives to its own service suppliers.
It is easy to think of
situations in which a country may want to shape policy to favor domestic industry
over foreign operations, but the GATS rules go even farther than these require-
ments.
Under the National Treatment rules, any measure that modifies the condi-
tions of competition in favor of a domestic supplier is a GATS violation. In other
words, even if a policy has no intent to discriminate against foreign service
suppliers—indeed, it can be totally unrelated to service provision at all—if it
has the effect of disadvantaging them, it is potentially a violation of the GATS
(4, Art. XVII).
Special Rules for Health Insurance. The United States committed health insurance
to its schedule under the Financial Services section. Two special sets of rules
apply to commitments made under this section. The first is the Annex on Financial
Services, a unique set of constraints that apply to all commitments in financial
services, no matter what nation makes them. The second is an even more expan-
sive Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services, a set of extreme
liberalization rules that are an optional “attachment” to commitments in finan-
cial services that the United States has chosen to take. These rules go so far in
constraining governments that only developed countries have signed on to them.
The Annex on Financial Services: Most financial services are related to banking
and investment, hence the Annex provisions pertain mostly to them. One provision
in particular is significant in assessing the impact of the GATS on health care:
• Subjection of “Public Entities” to GATS Rules: Normal GATS rules make an
exception for government services and procurement (with significant limita-
tions). The Annex specifically states that if a nation allows domestic service
suppliers to compete with “public entities,” those entities are subject to
GATS rules. This will have significant implications for Medicare, as we will
see (4, Annex on Financial Services, §1(b)(iii)).
The Understanding on Commitments in Financial Services: The most far-
reaching document in the GATS, the Understanding binds signatory nations to
an extreme level of financial services liberalization. The commitments undertaken
by signatories to the Understanding include (interpretation of the Understanding
[5] aided by Kevin C. Kennedy, Professor of Law, Michigan State University
College of Law):
• The “Standstill” Provision: The signatories pledge that any exceptions to
the commitments they have made are limited to existing measures. The
implications of this vaguely worded provision are not entirely clear. Some
commentators believe that the signatories bind themselves to never enact a
limitation on their commitments in the future that was not in effect when
the Understanding was inscribed in their schedule. In effect, the level of
privatization at the time of the implementation of the Understanding is
“locked in” (5).
• New Financial Service: Signatories pledge to allow foreign firms to offer
any new financial product in their territory, as long as another WTO member
offers it (5, Art. B(7)).
• Domestic Regulation: Signatories pledge to “endeavor to remove or limit
any significant adverse effects” on foreign investors of any laws that “affect
adversely” the ability of foreign firms “to operate, compete, or enter” the
domestic market (5, Art. B(10)).
—– The following document is an outline of TiSA, TiSA is much worse because its “negative list” which means all service sectrs and modes of supply are included. thats potentially 70% of all jobs – “Everything you cannot drop on your foot” This will effect millions of US jobs.
You may need to right click to save to diak.
In the presidential race I believe that Hillary is the best candidate to become president. She has experience as Secretary of State and knows foreign policy very well. Bernie Sanders on the other hand does not have know how to bring his plans and goals into fruition, because they are to unrealistic.
Hillarys’ accomplishments;
NAFT and WTO
Embassy under her watch destroyed
War with Iraq (distabled Middle East/causing longest war in US history)
May be first presidential candidate to be indicted
Seriously?
– Benghaziiiiiii????
– Started the war in Iraq????
– To be indicted? On what Supposition, conjecture, and BS???
– NAFTA: “The impetus for NAFTA actually began with President Ronald Reagan, who campaigned on a North American common market. In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Tariff Act. This is important because it gave the President “fast-track” authority to negotiate free trade agreements, while only allowing Congress the ability to approve or disapprove, not change negotiating points. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney agreed with Reagan to begin negotiations for the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, which was signed in 1988, went into effect in 1989 and is now suspended since it’s no longer neeeded. (Source: NaFina, NAFTA Timeline)” http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_History.htm
Run, its not when someone wanted or started thinking about ways to do something. It is who actually did the deed.
Obama would sign the new trade deal if he thought it would not hurt democrats running for re-election.
Hillary gets direct responsibility for the destroy embassy.
Hillary also voted with Bush on the war, in spite of everyone was almost sure WMDS were a lie.
“To be indicted? On what Supposition, conjecture, and BS???”
“Hillary Clinton’s current lead in the Democratic primary is just as deeply a crisis as Donald Trump’s lead is in the Republican primary. This is what years of tolerating voting for the lesser evil has delivered voters in the United States. The leader in the Democratic primary for U.S. President is under a criminal investigation while the Republican leader is being called a fraud and a con man by his own party. The New York Times editorial board on Tuesday called Trump “a shady, bombastic liar” while the Los Angeles Times editorial board wrote yesterday that Trump is “not fit” to be President, calling him “a racist and a bully, a demagogue,” while noting that “He has proposed killing the families of terrorists, a violation of international law so blatant that a former CIA director predicted that U.S. troops would refuse to carry out such an order.”
More………..http://wallstreetonparade.com/2016/03/mrs-clinton-this-is-how-we-previously-handled-classified-material/
Of course if I’m lucky, Bernie could win by default.
You did not bother to read the link, did you? Hillary was not the one who did NAFTA. Others before Clinton initiated it. She was not responsible for Benghazi. Rice, Collin Powell did similar emails. Her topics were declared secret afterwards and not beforehand.
She is a good and viable candidate who will win over Trump or any Republican stronger than Bernie even though I like him. Sam Wang the statistician favors and I go with him.
Run, your right I stopped reading at the end of the first sentence. “NAFTA is the North American Free Trade Agreement. It was envisioned at least 30 years ago to reduce trading costs.”
This time read entire article, still does not change the way I answered earlier; which was desire does not change history it is who did the dead.
The following is a quote from the URL you posted. “It was finally signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and entered force January 1, 1994.”
Hillary was given credit by some talking head who said she work tirelessly on NAFTA.
Run, till I read an article today which stated that it was still possible for Bernie to gain enough delegate votes to win. Sorry forget the author of the article; but in his opinion it was almost a given for Clinton to win the southern black vote. But after super Tuesday Bernie chances improved because of the demographs.