Thursday, February 07, 2008

The Queen has a Empty Purse.....

So today we learned that Hillary has run out of funds for her Campaign....that her workers are "DONATING THEIR TIME"....hmmm, have we heard that before ? Oh, that's right...we heard it from that Rudy fellow....Oh, I am so glad that her Husband and she were able to give FIVE Million to THEIR Campaign...What a relief. This really bothers me, because she "susposedly" had 110 Million in Her War Chest as of the end of December, and then after Iowa she had approximately 28 Million, and then during New Hampshire she had about 10 Million Susposedly.... So where is ALL the Money ? I think if you are going to run the Country , you have to be able to be frugal and spend money wisely. And the Colonel Mustard Pantsuits and eye makeup should not cost that much - right? Am I being catty ? No. I just think while I am scraping and to pay for food and sky high heating bills and taxes soon, I have a right to worry about Money......

And I watched her on the talk Shows Last weekend, talking about how People that can't afford to pay for Health Insurance, she said "we will go after their wages"....that 's right WAGE GARNISHMENT for poor people who can not afford Excessively High Absurd Insurance Payments.....So when you hear her talk about MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE ....remember she had to lend her campaign money and HER PEOPLE are working for FREE right now...DO THEY have Healthcare ? Great the people who work for Her Own Campaign are not getting paid....Maybe this is Her" Reality Check".

***PLEASE READ THE POST BELOW: I wrote the post below that her money problems were something that bear watching, also People support candidates by giving. Barack has raised Money from lots of little people, $10 and $20 at a time....

((( Click the title "Money " by Pink Floyd )))

20 comments:

Cart said...

Perhaps her lookalike, Elizabeth Regina II could lend her a few coppers.
I have to say if I had the slightest positive feeling for Hill that ER image would kill it.

enigma4ever said...

and the Colonel Mustard Pantsuits gave you a Positive Feeling ?

( ahem...if so....we need to talk)

Larry said...

She used to boast of raising $110 million now she is paying her own way.

What do these people do with all that money besides pocketing part of it?

Christopher said...

The Borg Queen is paying the ghoulish, racist Mark Penn $5 million a year to run her campaign into the ground.

With Obama having more delegates, how's that working out for Hillary?

I say good. Bleed her dry and bleed her broke. Maybe the Borg Queen will drop out of the race and return to Washington.

Christopher said...

Barack Obama’s campaign is on track to raise another $30 million in February, sources close to the Illinois senator say, while Hillary Clinton’s spokesman revealed Wednesday that she had loaned her campaign $5 million and has asked staff to go without a paycheck.

Insiders in both campaigns say the growing financial disparity virtually ensures that Obama will be able to significantly outspend Clinton in the critical primaries to come.

Even before all the Super Tuesday votes were counted, Obama began airing advertisements in Nebraska, Virginia, the District of Columbia, Maryland and Maine, the next round of primary and caucus states well before Clinton did.

His campaign has raised $2.2 million in less than 24 hours, sources say.

enigma4ever said...

Goooood Morning....
Christopher...I don't like that she asked her staff to "Donate their TIME and WORK and services" while she took private planes all month...how they are suposed to eat and travel ?

( she could have ridden with press corp to save money...)

enigma4ever said...

Morning Joe ( Mika , Willie and Shuster interview him....they did great job) 8am


Mark Penn the jack ass :
Says that Kerry did the same thing...we are recieving money at unprecedented rate...

Shuster: Asking "How come you are having cash problems?"

Penn: "I think it shows such decication..blah blah...it is a winning messege blah blah..."

Mika: You Lobbying Penshaw and Burham makes 4 million- are you willing since people are working for free are you going to give your own salary...?

Penn: Some Name Juggling- he keep talking about the Country's Financial Problems ....Penn is now whining about how Obama turned down debate a week...and they are not accepting "our offers"
blah..bah healthcare...financial problems...

Shuster: " You brought up the drug problem issue do you think that hurt the campaign"

Penn" blah blah "ready" healthcare" economic crisis"
( what a Lying sack of shit- won't answer ANY questions....and people are working for free with this ass at the helm...I feel sorry for her workers)

Oh no now he is whining about Florida and Michigan....

They graciously thank him...cough..

BadTux said...

Hillary's plan includes subsidies for those who truly cannot afford health insurance. She funds this via savings on Medicaid (since fewer people will be going to emergency rooms, less Medicaid money will be going to emergency rooms), though my suspicion is that there will end up needing to be a small hike in the Medicaid tax when the numbers are actually crunched.

The problem is that the people who *are* paying for health insurance are paying for people who *choose* not to have health insurance. Most of the people who choose to not have health insurance are young people who see themselves as healthy and say "I won't get sick, so health insurance would be a waste of money", despite the fact that health insurance for young people is *very* cheap compared to health insurance for old farts like me (if you're between ages 18 and 28, your health insurance is less than 20% of what it costs for old farts like me). So what ends up happening is that invariably some of them get sick -- and they go to the emergency room. And *I* pay for their health care.

We can't have universal health care unless *everybody* pays. Call it a tax, call it garnishment, call it what you want, but there ain't no free lunch, people. Right now I'm subsidizing deadbeats who have the ability to contribute at least *some* money to their health care but aren't doing so. Unless, like with Medicare, *everybody* pays, it simply isn't going to fly politically. Nobody wants to subsidize deadbeats who have the ability to pay at least *something*, even if not the full cost.

BTW, the next argument is that this is a subsidy for the health insurance industry. But Hillary's plan includes a Medicare-like government-run health insurance plan for families called FamilyCare. So you don't *have* to send your bucks to private insurers, you can send it to FamilyCare instead. Either way, I view this as more of a "hidden tax" than something horrible. A tax is a tax, whether you call it a tax or call it a "garnishment" or call it a "fee" or whatever, it still ain't in my pocket. It's just that right now, I'm paying the taxes of other people too when I pay my health insurance bill... which simply lacks any semblance of fairness. If we want universal health care for all the good reasons, *everybody* has to pay. I'm willing to subsidize people who can't afford the full cost of health care, but they have to contribute at least *something* or else they're just deadbeats.

- Badtux the Wealthy Penguin

enigma4ever said...

Badtux:
Sorry friend- I am a nurse with MUCH Health Care Experience at ALL levels. BTW I am UNINSURED- AND NOT A DEADBEAT- I AM ONE OF THE ONES THAT HAS BEEN DENIED COVERAGE....and can not afford 600-800 /month- that does not make me a Deadbeat...I have MANY neighbors and friends that are the same way...She will "CAP" high prices AFTER SHE HAS MET WITH INSURANCE COMPANIES... and ONLY FULLTIME workers would get to be part of the Plan( I have listened to MOST of her speechs on CPSAN)

ANd you are incorrect on multiple points about her plan- you need to read my Analysis Below ( post from last Sunday)....

She has made Deals with the Insurance Companies and Drug Companies- UNDER "her"plan....Nothing will change for the Millions of Un-Insured and Under Insured- She would be working for the Drug Companies....Helping them make more money off the People...She wants MANDATORY INSURANCE- that is NOT universal Health care- that is treating OUR health like a Dented Fender.....

Sorry Badtux- not trying to argue with you- but on this issue you and I disagree- and you are being sold a bill of goods.....read my post on it down from Sunday- and you wll see that once you clog through the details how BAD her plan is...

It's nice she cares about Health - but she is more consumed with the Health "INSURANCE " ANGLE of it NOT THE HEALTHCARE OF ANGLE OF IT....there is a Big Difference between Health Insurance MANDATORY for All....Versus HEALTHCARE FOR ALL.

BadTux said...

I am not sure why you keep believing that what Hillary has published on her web site is not what her plan is. I repeat: HILLARY'S PLAN IS ON HER WEBSITE! At least read the *SUMMARY* of her plan, the summary is only 5 pages long.

Here's some facts that you would know if you actually *READ* her plan1 instead of relying on what the Obamabots tell you.

Fact #1: Her plan PROHIBITS INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM DENYING COVERAGE. So those who are currently "uninsurable" (as you, apparently, are) will be able to purchase insurance.

Fact #2: Her plan PROHIBITS INSURANCE COMPANIES FROM PUTTING PEOPLE INTO "EXPENSIVE" POOLS BASED ON THEIR HEALTH. Only age-and-sex based pools are allowed and the rate differences between them are regulated. So you would pay the same rate as every *other* person of your age and sex.

Fact #3: Her plan INCLUDES SUBSIDIES FOR THOSE UNABLE TO AFFORD THE FULL COST OF INSURANCE, and also expands Medicaid and SCHIP coverage for those who can't afford any insurance at all.

Before you tell me that I don't know what Hillary's plan is, *READ IT*. Don't rely on what Obamabots (who are as annoying as Bushbots in my opinion) tell you that it is. I've read it. I've read Paul Krugman's economic analysis of the plan. I've read John Edwards' reasoning about why various parts of the plan are the way they are (once again, Hillary's plan is virtually *IDENTICAL* to Edwards' plan -- yes, I *did* read both plans, I'm not relying on what anybody else is telling me, I'm relying on what MY OWN TWO EYES TELL ME AFTER READING BOTH PLANS).

Now, you may be swooning over Obama's lofty rhetoric and such, but I been there, seen that. I remember some other sweet-talkin' politician. Said he was a uniter who could bring people together. Said he wanted a foreign policy of humility, not of arrogance, where the United States would no longer be invading random foreign countries. Said he was goin' to be a compassionate President. And he slick-talked 'nuff folks into voting for him that Karl Rove didn't have to work too hard to finish stealin' the election for him. Yep, I'm talkin' about GEORGE W BUSH in 2000. Talk is cheap. So that's why I look at the actual nuts and bolts AS THEY ARE IN BLACK AND WHITE VISIBLE WITH MY OWN TWO EYES, rather than on what some candidate says in a stump speech or what some candidate's people say the other person's policies are.

READ. Please. Please read. To quote a very wise man: "trust none of what you hear, and less of what you see." That is why I looked at the actual plans, rather than what the candidates said about them. As did economist Paul Krugman. Read his economic analysis of the two plans -- and it is an economic analysis backed up by other economists too. Hillary's plan covers everybody. Obama's plan only covers 97% of the public, at best. That's the biggest difference between the two, because without the mandate -- the health care tax, if you will, since if you fail to purchase health insurance you instead will be taxed for coverage for FamilyCare when you file your income tax -- universal coverage simply *does not happen*.

- Badtux the Literate Penguin

enigma4ever said...

Badtux:
You need to calm down- please don't come here to argue- I post what I post because as a Nurse of over 20 years I have researched VERY carefully for many years...I really try to have a place here where people talk....dialogue-- NOT argue....I do have to say- that Hillary Voters don't hang out here, they left, angry at me- so I don't feel like arguing....As a Woman I want to be able to support WHO I think is the best Candidate....period. Hillary is not, and how she and Bill conducted themselves last month is pathetic...

I think little of Paul Krugman as a Health Expert- he isn't - it is that simple....I have taken are of 1000's and I have the Expertise to support my convictions....an Expertise that is backed by patients and families...and true Empathy and Hard Work.....

I have read ALL of Both of them...( I even bought Hill's Books too )....I gave them both the fair shake...and close scrutiny....

You don't come here often, or much over time....if you did you would know that as a Nurse, a Single Mom and that this blog is where I encourage people to dialogue...talk....have empathy and compassion for each other and learn about the issues effecting all of our lives.....from Homeless VETS to Families suffering...to people Dying without Healthcare...

The issue is Lack of Healthcare of Millions....As an Advocate for Health of People that I have cared for...I have every right to write my blog on this issue....

Instead of quoting Krugman- not an expert- I reccomend that you read the Huff Post artlcle by the Director of California Nurse Association, she outrightly called HILL'S PLAN A FRAUD... that is pretty harsh- and wellfounded....Nurses DO KNOW that Care is Critical at this point....( I will add her name and article to the post above- it came out AFTER my post)

Please calm down...and if you want to fuss and fight- you probably need to go elsewhere...I am mostly about quiet dialogue...about things that truly matter...

BadTux said...

Krugman is an economist, not a health care expert. As such, he is quite qualified to comment on economic issues -- such as, how do we pay for health care. Which is the only thing in which Obama and Hillary's plans differ -- everything else is identical about them. Obama's plan doesn't require everybody to pay into the system. Hillary's plan does -- the "individual mandate". And as a matter of fact, every economist who has examined the issue agrees -- without a universal mandate, you simply cannot get universal coverage. Not because of anything dealing with health care -- but because of how the economics work out.

Once again, you are talking health care, I am talking about the economics needed to make health care happen. As for your need for me not to "argue" with you (as in, bring unpleasant facts to the table that you don't what to hear), I'm sorry. After Obama's dishonest attacks on Hillary for proposing what both he and she knows is necessary for universal health care to happen with a mixed public-private system such as the one they both propose (i.e., a universal mandate), I simply have no patience for the man. Mandates are needed to make universal health care happen. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Either everybody pays, or it doesn't happen. This isn't a health care issue, this is an economics issue of how to make health care happen, and thus I will ask an economist for his opinion before I ask a nurse. I mean, my mom is a nurse. She can't even manage to balance her checkbook. Knowing about health care doesn't mean you know about economics.

I have now posted links on my own blog to folks who reference every reputable economist who has actually worked the numbers. They all crunch the numbers and come up with the same thing -- Hillary's covers effectively everybody, Obama's only covers half of those who are currently uninsured, for essentially the same cost as Hillary's plan. Once again, this is how the economics of paying for health care coverage works, this isn't about the actual health care itself, where both candidates' proposals are identical.

I'm sorry that you believe that me bringing up unpleasant economic facts is "arguing". But facts remain facts, regardless of whether we like them or not. I just get irritated and upset when people *LIE* about the facts, which I see happen far too often. If you are going to argue from facts, argue from *FACTS*, not from half truths, distortions, and third-hand knowledge passed down to you by people without the expertise to evaluate it. In the end, I have allegiance to only one thing -- TRUTH -- and when I see people who are saying things that are not true, I will speak up. If truth is not something you are interested in, please let me know, I will remove you from my blogroll and will not come back again.

- Badtux the Economics Penguin

Cart said...

"Krugman is an economist" I have been arguing for some time now that economics in the US has been devalued to monetarism rather than the broad discipline it should be.
Too often the arguments are based on the markets rather than the broad economy.
In fact I've been told by Americans, often, that legitimate economics is something akin to socialism.
We need to really define terms well in these sorts of discussions.

enigma4ever said...

First she said she had accumulated 13.5 Million for Jan.....then she admitted She Donated 5 mill- that means she ONLY earned from supporters * 8 Million!!!! last month as compared to Obama 's 32 Million....

enigma4ever said...

Badtux:
I think we will have to Agree to Disagree....the issue is HEALTHCARE FOR ALL ,NOT MANDATORY HEALTH INSURANCE....please do read my Healthcare Post below- scroll down- it is About Healthcare and People -us- that need it---- again it is time for Health Professionals to be heard on this Issue...Lives are depending on it....

Sadly because the bean counters and Health Insurance People were allowed Control and Manipulate the health care system in this country back in the 1990s that is WHY we are in this Mess....it should never have been Economically Driven as a FOR PROFIT Industry...

Cart:
Sadly I posted below about the Problems with the Healthcare Proposals ( actually by both) and also what they both offer in my Healthcare Post below....sadly I don't think Badtux bothered to read it....but it is Important that Healthcare Professionals , NOT Insurance Companies Decide and consult on this huge problem.....

And Considering Hill can not even Manage her Campaign Monies ( 100 Million missing in a Month????) and her People working for FREE....she is not consulting people that have OUR money or interests at heart...

enigma4ever said...

Badtux:
I reread what you wrote- I just said I dont want to argue...that I prefer dialogue...and as a Nurse and a Mom I simply asked you to read about the 2 healthcare plans that I wrote and researched...as a RN with 20 years I think I have substantial Background to discuss Healthcare.....

All I asked was that we talk....NOT argue...your tone was argumentative...and judgemental...( I am sorry but I have many VETS that read my blog- so for you to imply that people without Insurance or proper care as "deadbeats" or "freeloaders" , that is not tolerable).

I asked politely if we could just talk....I view Healthcare as a PEOPLE ISSUE, OFTEN SICK PEOPLE it is not all about $$$$$, and that is the sad fact...People should be treated as Human Beings...and yes, many Hill's Supporters and Hill herself have a very difficult time reconizing that this Issue does require Empathy.....

I am sorry that you are leaving in a huff...I have no hard feelings I was just asking for a quiet discussion about Healthcare ( which you never did go down to that post of even read it)....So sorry that we could not have a quiet discussion about something so important...but alas that is the problem with the DEM party right now....

Namaste.

BadTux said...

You cannot talk about health care without talking about how we pay for it. I'm sorry, there is no magic money tree, and "don't tax you, don't tax me, tax that feller behind the tree" is not a viable plan.

This is just Economics 101. There is no free lunch. The only fair and viable plan is that everybody with the ability to do so pays for the nation's health care. You can call it a "mandate". You can call it a "tax". Whatever. But there is no free lunch. *Somebody* pays. You simply cannot separate out health care from how we pay for it, because as you know that greatly affects the quality and effectiveness of health care received. Now, you might say that this isn't how it should work. But we live in the world we have, not in the world we wish we had. And in this world, if the economics don't work, it won't happen.

So you can't separate out the economics from the health care here. Note that the economics is the only way in which Obama's and Hillary's plans differ.

BTW, I'm no big fan of either plan, we need a single payer plan such as the one that Kucinich proposed, but Kucinich isn't here. Edwards made an argument that FamilyCare -- the Medicare-like plan that he proposed, and that Hillary and Obama *both* have adopted as part of their plans -- would become the core of a new single payer plan since it would be inherently more efficient than private insurance and thus gradually would force the private insurers out of business. That might be the case, but only if, like Medicare, *everybody* is required to participate in it or in the competing private plans (if you are age 65 or above, you *must* participate in Medicare). Otherwise what you'll end up with is cherry-picking -- unhealthy people paying all the costs of health care, and healthy people "opting out" of the insurance system. That's just how the economics works, and other than mandatory participation in a universal health care plan where everybody pays, you can't change that unpleasant reality. Look up "Gresham's Law", a fundamental law of economics, for why that is so. It's just how we hairless monkeys (and occasional penguin) are built.

BTW, I don't stomp off in a huff unless I'm told to do so. If you want to have a factual health care debate, I'm quite interested in that subject, and have been for quite some time, which is why I supported Kucinich until he dropped out, then Edwards until he dropped out, because they had the best health care proposals. All I'll say is that I worked the same numbers that Krugman worked, and I think Krugman is being *generous* about how many Americans Obama's plan will cover in the long term. From an economic perspective, Obama's plan results in the *majority* of Americans being uninsured within the next twenty years, because it will result in a spiraling upward of health insurance costs as healthy people drop out of the health insurance system and the health insurance system thus becomes increasingly funded only by unhealthy people. It is the same spiral that we're seeing today, except that today's spiral is somewhat moderated by the fact that health insurers kick off the unhealthy people before they drive up costs too much. Anyhow, the point, the point... without some way of forcing healthy people to subsidize health care for unhealthy people -- i.e., that nasty *MANDATE* word -- you simply cannot end the death spiral that results from Obama's policies.

Now, that may be an incentive in the future for *real* universal coverage -- a single payer system -- but in the meantime, Obama's plan does *not* end up making health care more accessible in my analysis. That's why I think Krugman is being *optimistic* when he says that Obama's plan "only" leaves 15% of the population uncovered.

I have a posting about the health insurance death spiral on my blog somewhere, ah yes, from September 2007. Hillary's plan ends the health insurance death spiral, albeit at much higher costs than Medicare For All (my proposed universal health care provider). Obama's plan includes a "high-expense reinsurer" that will take the sickest of the sick off of insurer's payrolls and put them into a government reinsurance pool, but I'm not sure that this would end the death spiral that otherwise results from mandating that insurers accept all comers, but not mandating that everybody buy insurance. When I work the numbers, Obama's plan simply doesn't work -- the health insurance death spiral gets even worse.

Once again: This is *economics*. How we pay for health care. It is a sad fact that how we pay for health care determines the quality of the health care we get. My point, the point I've been making all along, is that unless *everybody* is required to participate either via buying private insurance or participating in a public program (and remember, at least 5 million of the uninsured *CURRENTLY QUALIFY FOR PUBLIC INSURANCE PROGRAMS*, they've just never gotten around to signing up), we end up with a system where only sick people pay -- and, in the end, with a lot of dead people.

- Badtux the Economics Penguin

Cart said...

BadTux just dealing with your opening argument here, the platitudes are fun, but they don’t deal with the real issues. This is not economics 101, it is pure Ayn Rand, and misplaced plagiarism.
Health economics is of course a specific discipline, but only insofar as it exists in the wider economic environment. In the case of the USA this is an environment that currently favours corporate welfare over community welfare. It is not a question of where the money might come from, but where it is distributed too.
The real argument is; should the markets – the corporations be protected at the cost of the wider community. Call it what you will, ‘Reaganism’ neo-liberalism, monetarism, market economics, the current paradigm steers money away from people to corporations.
The money is there my friend, how it is to be used is the real question.

enigma4ever said...

Cart:
Thank you for sorting this all out ....If we want to talk about the Healthcare Plans...the post is still open for that down below.....

enigma4ever said...

Badtux: One final thought...if she and her people are so GOOD with money..WHY is her Campaign BROKE? and so she cried and said the Staff were unpaid and she invested in the campaign ....5 million ( 100 Million???where) ....and so she did raise some ....But that is not good Economics 101...But I am just a penny pinching nurse....