<p>It’s interesting that when I google Clinton and Health Care, I get lots of hits about her FAILED universal health plan! She was singlehandedly responsible for that failure too, if using mini’s logic. Several articles suggest that she has a better chance now for getting “her” health plan through. Why would that be, if we already had two for the price of one? Why would it be any different now? :)</p>
<p>From one of my google hits dated this week . (Newsday)</p>
<p>"LAS VEGAS – Hillary Rodham Clinton exhorted Democrats Saturday to make universal health care the “No. 1” issue in 2008, hoping to transform what was once her most humiliating political failure into a theme that catapults her to the presidency.</p>
<p>Speaking during a candidates’ health care forum at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Clinton delivered a hyperkinetic, Red Bull performance on a red-meat Democratic topic that’s been a signature issue since the unsuccessful “Hillarycare” proposal of the early 1990s."</p>
<p>Katliamom, I DID google “Hillary Clinton” and Children’s Health Insurance Program. What I found was that it was part of the Social Security act of 1997, passed by Congress. The only connection to HC had to do with suggested changes in 2003-2004, when she was a Senator. If mini has further information, I’d like to read it. I don’t particularly like HC, but I don’t like to criticize someone who had done something worthwhile, even if I don’t agree with her on everything.</p>
<p>As far as the typical role of first ladies, I don’t think they should play with policy since they aren’t elected. Of course, they influence their husbands but I find it hard to believe that she “singlehandedly” brought about major legislation.</p>
<p>sjmom, voters didn’t elect Rumsfeld either. Nor Condoleeza. Nor Gonzales. Fact is, the president can appoint people he feels are qualified, and Clinton appointed his wife - as he said he would.</p>
<p>Uhhh…off the top of my head, only two people in the entire Executive Branch of the government are elected. Are you suggesting that the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and Attorney General should not “play with policy”?</p>
<p>sjmom, Clinton did not appoint HC to a cabinet-level position. He did, however, appoint her to head a taskforce on health reform, a taskforce of experts that even included Republicans. ;)</p>
<p>PS: Probably a tip of the cap to the Clinton opponent opps folk for getting the story written…and probably for planting the college kid with the tough question that staggered Obama back on the ropes during the candidates forum. I doubt he ever saw the punch coming; walked right into it.</p>
<p>Most White House staffers who write proposed legislation are not Cabinet members and do not have to be confirmed by the Senate. Cabinet secretaries are generally focused on enforcement and application of the laws, not drafting them. Every White House has liaisons to Congress who specialize in this kind of thing. The reason you’ve never heard of them is that they do not have to be confirmed, and their work is publicized as the proposal of the White House rather than of Joe Schmo, Deputy Legislative Liaison, or whatever their title is.</p>
<p>Well, Katliamom, if Hillary really did singlehandedly push the CHIP program through Congress, she should use it in her campaign for President. She’s too smart to miss that kind of opportunity. Has she? If not, then perhaps it’s because there is evidence to the contrary.
So why should Hillary Clinton be given credit for the CHIP program?</p>
<p>There are plenty of books written about the Clinton White House besides those offered for sale on Rush Limbaugh’s website. I always try to read a few well-respected books about every administration.</p>
<p>Hillary was in charge of health care reform from the day the Clinton administration took office. She blew it the first time by over-reaching (trying to move too far, too fast) and interacting arrogantly with Congress. By the end of the Clinton White House, she had learned the politics of getting legistlation passed, knowledge she has put to use in what is widely regarded as an effective Senate career.</p>
<p>sjmom, ‘singlehandedly’ was mini’s observation, not mine. </p>
<p>And she IS using it in her campaign. Again, I suggest reading mainstream press. And to use google. You may come accross an interesting chocolate chip cookie recipe while you’re at it :)</p>
<p>I didn’t say anything about Hillary one way or the other. I was simply rebutting your point that appointees who are neither elected or confirmed shouldn’t “play with policy,” when that’s standard operating procedure in every administration.</p>
<p>Do either of you see why your comments about my reading materials might be offensive? I’ve never read anything by Rush Limbaugh. And, katliamom, as I said above, I DID google, and came up empty handed. I’m not the poster who brought up the cookie recipe. Why don’t YOU try googling to find a link which outlines Hillary Clinton’s role in passing Title XXI of the 1997 Social Security Act. I would happily read any such link, and give credit where credit is due.</p>
<p>By the way – just from my point of view – adding a smiley face doesn’t really negate any veiled slam.</p>
<p>Hanna, I think I said that the spouse of an office holder shouldn’t play in policy. I think that’s different from other political appointees.</p>
<p>Thanks for the link, interesteddad. I was looking for a more objective analysis of her contribution, though. I will agree that if she’s using it on her campaign site, it probably has some support.</p>
<p>I’m sorry you were offended. I merely pointed out, more than once, that the questions you were asking, and comments you were making, were easily answered/refuted by simply reading the daily newspaper.</p>
<p>I read the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal daily. What else would you suggest?</p>
<p>I’m not going to continue to get into this with you, but really, what kind of comment is that? You don’t see that making a post that implies I’m too stupid to read what’s obvious in a daily newspaper, or that I lack the ability to navigate Google might come across as a little insulting?</p>
<p>I would point out that you have yet to offer a link to any internet site that objectively documents Hillary Clinton’s contributions.</p>
<p>SCHIP has been and will be featured prominently in the news as the program is set to expire on Sept 30th. Clinton, and a dozen other senators, have introduced various bills re-enabling SCHIP and expanding its coverage.</p>
<p>Under the current program, children of families up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line are eligible, although some states have expanded beyond that. Most of the current legislative proposals, including Clinton’s, expand that to 400 percent of the poverty line.</p>
<p>The estimates for expanding the program are $50 billion in new federal money over five years. The estimates for maintaining the current programs are $13 billion over five years. Bush requested $5 billion over five years in new money in his 2008 budget sent to Congress.</p>
<p>SJMOM:</p>
<p>Search for Clinton and “SCHIP”. You will find thousands of articles, mostly related to the re-enabling legislation introduced by Sen. Clinton.</p>
<p>The original legislation was passed in 1997, so much of the contemporaneous news coverage is not available on the web, which is why I recommended good books about the Clinton admin.</p>
<p>There are some links from the right-wing Heritage Foundation that mention Hillary’s role, including this one from 2000:</p>