‘Both of us share the goal of this and that. But only one of us will try to score the goal.’
This is not about math — this is about people’s lives, and we should level with the American people. Every progressive economist who has analyzed that say the numbers don’t add up. And we should level with the American people about what we can do to get quality affordable health care.
— Hillary Clinton, at tonight’s debate
Yes. Leveling would be good.
Repeatedly tonight, Clinton said, as she has in earlier debates, that both she and Sanders share this goal, or that goal. She shares the goal of universal healthcare coverage, for example. She just doesn’t want there to actually be universal healthcare coverage, because that would increase the size of government.
She estimated that the government would grow 40 percent under Sanders’ proposed policies. Policy goals which she shares. Just not the percent.
She’s leveling with the American people, though. She does think universal healthcare coverage is a nice goal, although not one that she has any plans at all to accomplish. Because this is about people’s lives. Just not the people who are uninsured. And not the people who are among the 90% who she incessantly says have healthcare insurance, but who struggle to pay the premiums and live in fear of actually needing healthcare and having to pay several thousands of dollars in medical bills before the coverage kicks in—a fact she is blind to.
Universal financial access to college is another of Sanders’ goals that she shares. She absolutely leveled with the American people that she shares that goal. As a goal. Just not one she plans to score.
Good thing she’s just running for president. Rather than, say, playing professional hockey or soccer. Or football. Some game in which players have to try to score. The game she’s playing isn’t one of them.
She’s leveled with the American people about what, in her opinion, we can do to get quality affordable health care: Nothing further. And that is what tomorrow’s headlines should say.
Getting worse.
Sharing goals is so much more progressive than you know, policies.
It’s the sharing! Sharing sharing sharing into infinity!
The one that gets me is the response that he would not be able to get any of this done because: Congress. As if the people would not change that too or that not enough people in congress would see the light or that there is no effective way to use the presidential bully pulpit.
It’s as if she just does not understand that as much as people may want all this, they are not blind to the first step: making the conversation change in their direction.
However, if she does see that the change people want is the conversation initially such that it no longer off handedly dismisses such socially inclusive programs, then she truly is trying to be the wall to protect the establishment.
How can she not see that Bernie is making the conversation change as the people want and not understand that the way to be him is to go with the change plus one step to proposing ways to make it real with explanations as to why it is overall better, why looking at the end cost does not present the full story, etc. Frankly, I think Sanders could stand to do a better job of offering some basic foundation as to how things fully work to then support the move toward more inclusive policy because: We the People.
It seems to be pretty clear to me. Clinton wants to maintain the current system, Sanders wants to change it, republicans want to move it backwards.
Jerry, I think you have nailed it. Politically I think the odds of moving backward are better than they are moving forward, but I would be delighted to be proven wrong. All I can say is that if young people get Sanders the nomination they better turn out in November or things will get a lot more dystopian
Clinton blaming the future congress is also an admission that she has no coattails. That is a bizarre statement.