I think Chelsea is being swift-boated.
Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)
Edit after 25 replies. I was hoping to have a conversation about the targetting of Chelsea to make her look prone to gaffs. Instead we seem to have the same old re-hash of which health care plan is preferable. My point is that if Chelsea is stating positions her mother is taking publicly, then she's not making political gaffs. Instead people are twisting what she says. Since she's a relatively minor player, then this attention feels coordinated to me.
**** original post ****
Having read responses to a thread entitled
'Chelsea: Mom will do something to address “the crushing costs of Obamacare.” 'and seen that a lot of Clinton supporters are buying the idea that Chelsea makes unthinking troublesome remarks, it's dawned on me that this may well be a concerted plan to swift-boat her. Below is a discussion of the distortion in the "crushing costs" thread. But I want to point out the first "Chelsea gaff" that hit the news some months ago, where she was lambasted for suggesting that Sanders wanted to dismantle ObamaCare. Why was she lambasted? It's exactly what the Clinton campaign has been saying. To get rid of insurance companies is to dismantle Obamacare. But even Clinton supporters seemed to buy that it was a gaff.
I think we supporters should take the time to track back to the original context the next time Chelsea is a target.
Discussion of the "crushing costs" thread.
The actual quote was:
"She thinks either of those will help solve the challenge of kind of the crushing costs that still exist for too many people who even are part of the Affordable Care Act,"
Of course it has been a main feature of Clinton's agenda to address the remaining problems in the Affordable Care Act. How is this a gaff on Chelsea's part?
= new reply since forum marked as read
You are against people getting subsidized healthcare because someone will provide the infrastructure and get rich from it?
I got a hide for pointing this out. Go figure.
the 20% overhead we pay due to for-profit insurance would shake out better for us as a society, as well as individual consumers, with the 2-3% avg. overhead a single payer system generates.
We all agree that medicare works, right? We don't want to get rid of that, we understand that medicare by virtue of its size is able to negotiate prices, etc that smaller entities cannot. So what's so crazy about extending the medicare model to the entire population? Especially given that older folks in general need more care. Putting everyone into one giant insurance pool and taking the profit-driven entites out of the equation makes sense, unless one happens to work for an insurance company.
There are two questions, beyond that, in terms of "will it work" or more specifically "will he be able to get it past the GOP house", and I think the answer to the second is probably not, but using that yardstick nothing Hillary does will get through, either. Only difference is that with Hillary in the WH the house will undoubtedly start with the special prosecutor bullshit on Jan. 21.
But leaving that aside, saying part of his plan is to get rid of insurance companies (it is) is NOT the same thing as suggesting he would in any way, shape, or form leave the american people with NO health coverage. The only way the first part of the process would take place would be in conjunction with the second.
So yes, it is disingenuous fear-mongering. And insulting the intelligence of the voting public, which is perhaps one of the worst aspects of HRC's campaign strategy to date- sort of like when she tried to explain away her ties to wall st. "because we were attacked on 9-11".
And again, it often seems like whoever is running her show thinks it is 25 years ago, and doesn't realize that people can fact check assertions in 15 seconds on google now.
Response to LAS14 (Original post)
