yesterday, i happened upon this post at hillbuzz, a site formed in support of hillary clinton's presidential campaign. after she lost, it morphed into a PUMA site and then just another generic rightwing nuthouse, but still under the banner of a waving clinton.
anyway, i left the following comment:
if you have any question whether my comment was correct, here's a news report from september 2007, when clinton unveiled her health plan that notes the centrality of the individual mandate in her plan, here's a paul krugman column from february 2008 comparing the two plans noting that "the big difference [between the two plans] is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t."
in any case, it's a testament to the weakness of kevindujan01's convictions that he would be too afraid to let a non-insulting substantive comment like mine to get through. anyone who isn't banned from that site is still free to drop in and leave a comment to that post (or any other). if you feel like doing it, be polite.
anyway, i left the following comment:
i find it really odd that this site would take this attitude towards the individual mandate. one of the few actual policy differences between candidate clinton and candidate obama was that clinton’s health plan had an individual mandate and the obama health plan did not. that’s why during the primaries clinton supporters slammed obama for not having a health care plan that was truly universal. clinton’s plan was universal because of the individual mandate.
after obama took office, he ended up incorporating hillary’s individual mandate into his plan. it just makes me wonder whether you would still be calling it “unconstitutional and reckless” if the primary battle had gone the other way.when i hit the "post" button i was told the comment was in the moderation queue, pending review. a few hours later i checked back and it was no longer in the queue, but it wasn't posted either. it was simply censored. i tried to leave a nice comment thanking them for protecting their readers from any comment that contained information they didn't like and found that i was banned from commenting on the site as well.
if you have any question whether my comment was correct, here's a news report from september 2007, when clinton unveiled her health plan that notes the centrality of the individual mandate in her plan, here's a paul krugman column from february 2008 comparing the two plans noting that "the big difference [between the two plans] is mandates: the Clinton plan requires that everyone have insurance; the Obama plan doesn’t."
in any case, it's a testament to the weakness of kevindujan01's convictions that he would be too afraid to let a non-insulting substantive comment like mine to get through. anyone who isn't banned from that site is still free to drop in and leave a comment to that post (or any other). if you feel like doing it, be polite.
