Clinton claims credit for child program

[MagsDem]

Source: AP

NEW YORK - When she talks about health care reform on the campaign trail, Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton points to a multibillion-dollar health insurance program for children as one of her signature accomplishments.

THE CLAIM:

Clinton claims significant credit for helping launch the effort — formally the state Children's Health Care Insurance Program — as first lady during her husband's second term. Her new television ads prominently mention it as evidence of her long-term commitment to health care and children.

"She changed the lives of 6 million kids when she championed the bill that gave them health insurance," says one ad. "Hillary stood up for universal health care when almost no one else would, and kept standing until 6 million kids had coverage," says another. Is she justified in claiming so much credit?

FACT CHECK:

< ...snip>

With his wife's backing, President Clinton announced a plan to expand health coverage to as many as 5 million children in his 1997 State of the Union address.

<...snip>

"Her office was across from mine, and I knew what her priorities were," Sperling said. "I remember her having a lot of influence — you're getting this done because you know the first lady wants it."



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071006/ap_on_el_pr/clinton_fact_check_7

---

Gee, I didn't realize this at the time SCHIP was first introduced. Looks like Hilary is pretty darn effective. I know here critics will hate this, but credit where credit is due. As a health care professional I can affirm what a godsend this program has been for many, many working families.

[ProSense]

1. Here's another thread with

facts

[movonne]

2. As I have said before..I think we know that hillary has done some

good...but it is the other stuff that scares me..Lieberman-Kyl amendment, mark penn, her vote on the Iraq war and sticking with it and not admitting it was wrong, etc.

[beachmom]

3. Actually, Kennedy should get most of the credit. The original bill was written by Kerry & Kennedy.

Later, Kennedy teamed up with Hatch so that it would be bipartisan and pass. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton wasn't fully on board with Kennedy's bill. Hillary was the one that got him on board.

I think she deserves credit for helping on the WH side but the original concept was written by the two senators from Massachusetts, and then later meshed with some anti-tobacco Republicans.

[MagsDem]

4. This may be hard to remember after the Bush years...

But the WH doesn't write legislation. Sure, they can and frequently do propose it, but it's the job of congress to write it and pass it. It's no surprise that Clinton, as first lady, was able to find like minded Dems in congress that supported health care for kids. But legislation gets no where without the support of the WH except when congress holds a veto proof majority.

[AlGore-08.com]

5. Not strictly speaking true - - support for a bill (usually) has to have a veto proof majority

Regardless of whether the White House supports it or not. Sometimes, if vetoing a bill will cause the President enough political problems, the bill doesn't have to have a veto proof majority for the President to sign it.

[MagsDem]

6. Yes, strictly speaking it is exactly true

If the bill is supported by the WH it needs 50% plus one to be passed into law unless the other side invokes a filibuster. Even then you are talking about needing 60 votes, not 67 (a veto proof majority). There are innumberable laws on the books passed with slim majorities. Clinton's signature budget that set the course for his entire economic agenda passed on one vote. That's exactly why winning the WH is so important.

[karynnj]

7. Not really - a veto was suppose to be an extreme measure

Here although the Clintons had in 1992 run with healthcare as one plank, they were burned badly when Hillary Clinton's plan sank. At that point Hillary did push Congress on a bill to give vaccines to kids. She also realized they had to do things incrementally.

It was Kerry and Kennedy, though who saw the potential to create a national bill that was modelled after a bill recently passed over Weld's veto. It was the MA Senators who did the hard work of figuring out the details and writing the legislation. They then found Republicans some but not enough Republicans to support it as it was. Some changes were made and Kennedy and Hatch sponsored it (with Kerry and Dodd as co-sponsors) and it passed. Hillary was important because she persuaded Bill to accept it. (Though the idea that a Dmocratic President would reject a huge expansion of health care that a Republican dominated Congress passed is mindboggling.)

[MagsDem]

8. Your post implies Bill Clinton would have veto'ed

the bill. That's beyond ridiculous. Clinton's only hesitancy about the bill was tying it into the balanced budget agreement. Let's not forget he acted heroically when he stared down Gingrich and company over Medicare cuts. He couldn't really have let that victory mean nothing by going back on it. Hillary may have been burned badly on universal healthcare, but regardless she managed to help engineer a 24 billion dollar bill (more than ANY republican wanted) without a dem majority in congress. Those who deny her major role in that are wearing anti-Hillary blinders, IMHO.

I know lots of people here don't like Hillary (she just isn't pure enough for some folks), but she IS an excellent politician. I wasn't crazy about her Iraq vote, or Bill letting DOMA through (and a few other things). But I don't know how anyone can deny their political acumen -- something that is sadly lacking among Dems in congress now. I'm interested in the candidate who can get things done on the Dem agenda. She has proven she can do that, whether I like her Iraq vote or not. Iraq is not the be all, end all of all politics. Any Dem is going to get us out of there. I'm interested in who can advance the Dem agenda best.

[karynnj]

9. I was responding to this:

"But legislation gets no where without the support of the WH except when congress holds a veto proof majority" in your post that I responded to. I did not say Clinton would veto it. I said that he would reject it. There was concern he would push Congress to drop it out of the bill. Read the article.

Hillary did not engineer that bill. Kennedy had all the Democrats and almost enough Republicans - he made some changes to get Hatch, giving him enough Senators. There were also enough people in the House.

Read the NYT article, WRITTEN WHEN IT PASSED in the link Prosense has above. Hillary was crucial - but it was for obtaining White House support. She deserves credit for that, but she did not write it, design it, or push it through Congress.

If anyone engineered the bill it was Kennedy, Hatch and Kerry - all of who had much bigger roles. (Kerry was wrote much of it was given no credit by the Clintons for it in either of their books. But Bill Clinton gave Kerry no credit for the Vietnam reconciliation either in the book he put out in July 2004.)

What legislation has Hillary written in her years in the Senate?

[MagsDem]

10. More than Obama

Look, as even Kennedy has said, SCHIP would not have passed if Hillary didn't do her darndest to lobby for it within the WH, and beyond. And that was all she could do from the position she was in (and it was a crucial role). Can you think of any other first lady with such impressive accomplishments? Even Eleanor Roosevelt didn't have that much influence. If she can do that as first lady then that is pretty impressive. She has done a lot of good work as a senator helping to pass various healthcare and technology bills that required bipartisan support.

As far as what legislation she has written that passed, no more or less than any Dem that has been in the minority for the bulk of their time in office. Let's face it, when you're in the minority there aren't a lot of opportunties to do that. What other candidate that is running has been more infuential on law making and policy over the last 6.5 years? I can't think of any. Can you? And if so, examples please?

We are blessed with many good choices for president on the Dem side this cycle, but if a voter wants to vote on a proven track record, her's exceeds all of our candidates.

[karynnj]

11. I can think of many

On Iraq - Kerry, Feingold and Biden - all of whom were the ones that shaped what has become the Democratic position - Hillary now cites the points made in K/F, including the deadline. In 2006, she was one who led the Democrats to vilify Kerry for it.

On Mimimum wage - Kennedy led this successful effort

On the ethics bill - Obama and Feingold led in getting teeth in it. Hillary actually voted against an amendment designed to get Senate Democrats to vote against Peolsi's tougher proposals.

On S-CHIP expansion - Many Senators were more prominent than Hillary.

Veteran's benefits and pay - John Kerry led - Hillary was one of the people who supported him on this

The media refers to Hillary as a leader - but obsessive CSPAN watching doesn't see it.

[Frances]

12. Interesting thread

Hillary knows Repubs will attack her for her failed health plan when her husband was president.

Now the public wants the kids insured. So does Hillary.

So, health insurance becomes a plus for Hillary instead of a negative.

The average voter doesn't care who did the hard work on the bill; they just want someone in power who will not veto the bill the way Bush did.

This is a win issue for Hillary now.

Of course, there are many months before the election.

[karynnj]

13. That is a win issue for every Democrat

And with the SCOTUS and issues like Habeus corpus, unitary President, and torture, the moment it was clear that Bush would veto S-CHIP, one of the first realizations I had - is this is why I will vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election. She would not veto something like this. I will do it even with all the reservations I have about the characters of both Clintons.

[MagsDem]

15. I said legislation that PASSED when they were in the MINORITY

And you got nothing. You faulted Clinton for not having any signature legislation pass during her 6.5 years in the senate, and I asked name me another senator that has gotten something passed while in the minority. You cited bills that either did not pass, or have been passed since they took over the majority.

In other words, you came up with zip that would support the contention that Hillary is lacking in legislation passed in comparison to the other Dem candidates running for president.

Nice try though.

[Acadia Blue]

14. Claim your support for NAFTA, the DLC, and the corporatist agenda too.

I hate what the Clintons did with their republican light corporatist agenda and NAFTA. There little darling will be with the new American corporatist aristocrates and our children will be working for walmart or wages really low despite higher education.
Bill Clinton had a democratic majority when NAFTA was on the docket, and he is very smart, but he did not give a bloody damn about what he was doint to the Middle Class and the living wage working class.
Damn him and damn her too. I won't vote if she is my only choice and I am really liberal