Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« I'm So Excited I'm So Excited ... | The Judgment »

Thursday, October 4, 2007

Clinton’s New Ad, Set in Part at Ground Zero

posted by on October 4 at 9:55 AM

A lot of people thought Giuliani would be a first to air an ad like this, but instead it’s Clinton who beats the rest in offering an ad that shows her at Ground Zero—but in a somewhat subtle way. The Ground Zero shots are wrapped inside an ad about health care that the Clinton campaign is calling “Stand by Us.”

RSS icon Comments


Doesn't her health care plan just mandate that everyone have private insurance, a la Massachusetts? So now people who can't afford it - even with whatever "assistance" the plan offers - will be criminals as well as unhealthy and vulnerable? And the rest of us will still be subject to the whims of giant, faceless insurance companies (and their shareholders)? Awesome.

Posted by Levislade | October 4, 2007 10:04 AM

9/11 sells. Her next ad should have something to do with an ancient code.

Posted by Mr. Poe | October 4, 2007 10:12 AM


It seems like all the mainstream Dem candidates have some variation of that plan. It would be nice if the government could guarantee coverage for catastrophic illness, but I guess they're just not interested.

Posted by keshmeshi | October 4, 2007 10:15 AM

i'm so excited to vote for hillary clinton i could fall asleep.

Posted by maxsolomon | October 4, 2007 10:16 AM

Sounds like the piano line from "Trapped In The Closet" in the background.

Posted by mongo like slog | October 4, 2007 11:08 AM

I think it's an effective ad. She doesn't talk about being the "president of 9/11" like others are wont to do, but the point is subtle, within the context, and helps remind the viewer that she was indeed, in the Senate representing New York in 2001, and fought for her constituents' health care needs.

Posted by brappy | October 4, 2007 11:12 AM

Obama's plan lets people opt out of coverage, but I actually think that's a negative. The mandate in both the Hillary and Edwards plans is that employers have to provide insurance or pay a tax to support the government alternative, that all of these insurance pools will be grouped regionally to increase the insurance pool so that the risk is spread over a larger pool of insurees and costs are lower.

Poor individuals will still have access to Medicaid, and the elderly will still have access to Medicare. The mandate for everyone else is to pay the premiums offered by their employer or pay premiums to a regional pool (which will be much cheaper than individual insurance is now). The enforcement mechanism is unclear, but non-compliance is not a crime. The penalty is likely to be something like a tax penalty or fee.

The bottom line is that some people won't be able to insure themselves, but lots of people who can't get insurance because individual insurance is too expensive or they have a pre-existing condition will now have a menu of affordable options for care. Healthy people who can afford insurance but who opt out on a gamble that they'll stay healthy will pay premiums, lowering the risk and increasing the insurance pool and lowering overall costs and costs per patient. This will make a difference.

And if the private insurance plans run regionally fail, people can always choose the government option, which is a backdoor path to single-payer health care. That's where we need to end up, IMO, and this gets us most of the way there.

I wish single-payer were politically viable, but right now Kucinich is the only candidate that's backing it, which tells you how likely it is. Absent real single-payer healthcare, these proposals are the best we're going to get.

Posted by Cascadian | October 4, 2007 1:42 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).