⚡ Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech

Monday, November 15, 2021 4:44:05 PM

Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech

Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech Amadeo has over 20 Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech of senior-level corporate computer sciences corporation in economic analysis and business strategy. Hillary Clinton: How far have women come? You are entering the Archive for the U. During this time, an Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech investigation was underway to discover who Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech responsible for the leaks, although intelligence was already pointing to Russia being behind the cyberattacks. InHillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech decided she would seek the U. Examples Of Cultural Interactions, we want our alliances to be nimble A Career In Epidemiology Investigator adaptive so they can continue to Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech results. American and European diplomats have Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech regular consultations to Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech our assessments and approaches. Rosalynn Carter was born Eleanor Rosalynn Freuds oedipus complex in This article is Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech of a series about Hillary Clinton.

Trump roasts Clinton at Al Smith charity dinner

Its goal was to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. The president delivered a major health care speech to the US Congress in September , during which he proposed an enforced mandate for employers to provide health insurance coverage to all of their employees.

Opposition to the plan was heavy from conservatives , libertarians , and the health insurance industry. The industry produced a highly effective television ad, " Harry and Louise ", in an effort to rally public support against the plan. Instead of uniting behind the original proposal, many Democrats offered a number of competing plans of their own. Hillary Clinton was drafted by the Clinton Administration to head a new Task Force and sell the plan to the American people, which ultimately backfired amid the barrage from the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries and considerably diminished her own popularity.

According to an address to Congress by then-President Bill Clinton on September 22, , the proposed bill would provide a "health care security card" to every citizen that would irrevocably entitle them to medical treatment and preventative services, including for pre-existing conditions. To achieve this, the Clinton health plan required each US citizen and permanent resident alien to become enrolled in a qualified health plan on his or her own or through programs mandated to be offered by businesses with more than 5, full-time employees.

Subsidies were to be provided to those too poor to afford coverage, including complete subsidies for those below a set income level. Users would choose plans offered by regional health alliances to be established by each state. These alliances would purchase insurance coverage for the state's residents and could set fees for doctors who charge per procedure. The plan also specified which benefits must be offered; a National Health Board to oversee the quality of health care services; enhanced physician training; the creation of model information systems; federal funding in the case of the insolvency of state programs; rural health programs; long-term care programs; coverage for abortions, with a "conscience clause" to exempt practitioners with religious objections; malpractice and antitrust reform; fraud prevention measures; and a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, among other features.

Once in office, Bill Clinton quickly set up the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, [7] headed by First Lady Hillary Clinton , to come up with a comprehensive plan to provide universal health care for all Americans, which was to be a cornerstone of the administration's first-term agenda. He delivered a major health care speech to a joint session of Congress on September 22, Millions of Americans are just a pink slip away from losing their health insurance, and one serious illness away from losing all their savings.

Millions more are locked into the jobs they have now just because they or someone in their family has once been sick and they have what is called the preexisting condition. And on any given day, over 37 million Americans—most of them working people and their little children—have no health insurance at all. And in spite of all this, our medical bills are growing at over twice the rate of inflation, and the United States spends over a third more of its income on health care than any other nation on Earth.

Her leading role in the project was unprecedented for a presidential spouse. After President Clinton announced the formation of the Task Force, media began to criticize the secrecy surrounding its deliberations, eventually leading to a public disclosure of the names of those involved. Starting on September 28, , Hillary Clinton appeared for several days of testimony before five congressional committees on health care.

The full text of the November 20 bill the Health Security Act is available online. Prominent opposition to the Clinton plan was led by William Kristol and his policy group Project for the Republican Future, which is widely credited with orchestrating the plan's defeat through a series of now legendary "policy memos" faxed to Republican leaders. The long-term political effects of a successful It will revive the reputation of. Democrats as the generous protector of middle-class interests. And it will at the same time strike a punishing blow against Republican claims to defend the middle class by restraining government. Conservatives , libertarians , and the health insurance industry proceeded to campaign against the plan, criticizing it as being overly bureaucratic and restrictive of patient choice.

The conservative Heritage Foundation argued that "the Clinton Administration is imposing a top-down, command-and-control system of global budgets and premium caps, a superintending National Health Board and a vast system of government sponsored regional alliances, along with a panoply of advisory boards, panels, and councils, interlaced with the expanded operations of the agencies of Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Labor, issuing innumerable rules, regulations, guidelines, and standards.

The effort also included extensive advertising criticizing the plan, including the famous " Harry and Louise " ad, paid for by the Health Insurance Association of America, which depicted a middle-class couple despairing over the plan's complex, bureaucratic nature. In many years of studying American social policy, I have never read an official document that seemed so suffused with coercion and political naivete Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan qualified his agreement that "there is no health care crisis" by stating "there is an insurance crisis" but also indicated "anyone who thinks [the Clinton health care plan] can work in the real world as presently written isn't living in it. Meanwhile, instead of uniting behind the President's original proposal, other Democrats offered a number of competing plans of their own.

Some criticized the plan from the left, preferring a single-payer healthcare system. Court of Appeals for the D. Some constitutional experts argued to the court that such a legal theory was not supported by the text, the history, or the structure of the Constitution. Circuit ruled narrowly that the First Lady could be deemed a government official and not a mere private citizen for the purpose of not having to comply with the procedural requirements of FACA.

Also in February , the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons , along with several other groups, filed a lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and Donna Shalala over closed-door meetings related to the health care plan. The AAPS sued to gain access to the list of members of the task force. In , Judge Royce C. Mitchell introduced a compromise proposal that would have delayed requirements of employers until and exempted small businesses. A few weeks later, Mitchell announced that his compromise plan was dead and that health care reform would have to wait at least until the next Congress. The defeat was embarrassing for the administration, emboldened Republicans, and contributed to the notion that Hillary Clinton was a "big-government liberal" as decried by conservative opponents.

The mid-term election became, in the opinion of one media observer, a "referendum on big government — Hillary Clinton had launched a massive health-care reform plan that wound up strangled by its own red tape". Comprehensive health care reform in the United States was not seriously considered or enacted by Congress until Barack Obama's election in In , referring to her previous efforts at health care reform, she said, "I learned some valuable lessons about the legislative process, the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done. We were trying to do something that was very hard to do, and we made a lot of mistakes.

She received hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from doctors, hospitals, drug companies, and insurance companies for her re-election in the Senate, including several insurance companies that were members of the Health Insurance Association of America that helped defeat the Clinton Health Plan in Kahn III , a Republican who was executive vice president of the Health Insurance Association in and , refers to his previous battles with Clinton as "ancient history", and says "she is extremely knowledgeable about health care and has become a Congressional leader on the issue.

Until the Affordable Healthcare for America Act , a combination of factors kept health care off the top of the agenda. For example, politicians were not eager to confront the forces that successfully frustrated the Clinton effort, health maintenance organizations were able to limit cost increases to some extent, and a conservative Republican majority in Congress or a conservative Republican president was in power or in office.

The Clinton health care plan remains the most prominent national proposal associated with Hillary Clinton and may have influenced her prospects in the presidential election. There are some similarities between Clinton's plan and Republican Mitt Romney 's health care plan, which has been implemented in Massachusetts, [18] [37] though Romney has since distanced himself from Clinton on the issue, in particular arguing that his plan calls for more control at the state level and the private market, not from the federal government. In September , former Clinton Administration senior health policy advisor Paul Starr published an article, "The Hillarycare Mythology", [39] and he wrote that Bill, not Hillary, Clinton, was the driving force behind the plan at all stages of its origination and development; the task force headed by her quickly became useless and was not the primary force behind formulating the proposed policy; and "[n]ot only did the fiction of Hillary's personal responsibility for the health plan fail to protect the president at the time, it has also now come back to haunt her in her own quest for the presidency.

If I were advising Sen. Clinton, I would be urging her to boast that her approach to health-care reform enjoys support from conservatives like the Heritage Foundation and Gov. If I were advising Gov. Romney, I would prescribe a severe case of amnesia and a health-care agenda that actually reduces the role of government. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Proposed U. Obama administration proposals Public opinion Reform advocacy groups Rationing Insurance coverage. We welcome that. American and European diplomats have begun regular consultations to align our assessments and approaches.

An effective partnership with Europe will be vital to solving many of the challenges facing Asia, and more cooperation between the Pacific and Atlantic regions could help us all in meeting our global problems. We are proud to be part of the EAS, and we believe it should become the premier forum for dealing with regional political and security issues, from maritime security to nonproliferation to disaster response. On this last issue in particular, the United States is ready to lend our expertise to help build the capacity of the East Asia Summit and other institutions to respond swiftly and effectively when natural disasters strike.

From the tsunami to the earthquake earlier this year in Christchurch, New Zealand, the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disaster in Japan, the flooding now happening in Thailand, the United States stands ready to contribute, to deliver aid, to provide expertise and capabilities, financial resources. Other nations are now making disaster resilience a higher priority. Because even when disaster strikes just one country alone, the impact is widely felt, so this calls out for a closely coordinated regional response.

We need to be able to muster collective action when it is called for, reinforce a system of rules and responsibilities, reward constructive behavior with legitimacy and respect, and hold accountable those who undermine peace, stability, and prosperity. The institutions of the Asia Pacific have become more capable in recent years, and the United States is committed to helping them grow in effectiveness and reach. We are answering the calls to us from the region in playing an active role in helping to set agendas. Our ability to build a successful regional architecture will turn on our ability to work effectively with the emerging powers, countries like Indonesia, or India, Singapore, New Zealand, Malaysia, Mongolia, Vietnam, Brunei, and the Pacific Island countries.

India and Indonesia in particular are two of the most dynamic and significant democratic powers in the world, and the United States is committed to broader, deeper, more purposeful relations with each. Our most complex and consequential relationships with an emerging power is, of course, with China. In fact, we believe a thriving China is good for China, and a thriving China in — is good for America. President Obama and I have made very clear that the United States is fundamentally committed to developing a positive and cooperative relationship with China. Expanding our areas of common interest is essential. These are the most intensive and expansive talks ever conducted between our governments, and we look forward to traveling to Beijing this spring for the fourth round.

Now, we are looking to China to intensify dialogue between civilian and military officials through the Strategic Security Dialogue so we can have an open and frank discussions on the most sensitive issues in our relationship, including maritime security and cyber security. On the economic front, the United States and China have to work together — there is no choice — to ensure strong, sustained, balanced future global growth.

Chinese firms want to buy more high-tech products from us, make more investments in our country, and be accorded the same terms of access that market economies enjoy. We can work together on these objectives, but China needs to take steps to reform. In particular, we are working with China to end unfair discrimination against U. China must allow its currency to appreciate more rapidly and end the measures that disadvantage or pirate foreign intellectual property.

We believe making these changes would provide a stronger foundation for stability and growth, both for China and for everyone else. And we make a similar case when it comes to political reform. When we see reports of lawyers, artists, and others who are detained or disappeared, the United States speaks up both publicly and privately. We are alarmed by recent incidents in Tibet of young people lighting themselves on fire in desperate acts of protest, as well as the continued house arrest of the Chinese lawyer Chen Guangcheng. We continue to call on China to embrace a different path. And we remain committed to the One-China policy and the preservation of peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

We have a strong relationship with Taiwan, an important security and economic partner, and we applaud the progress that we have seen in cross-Strait relations between China and Taiwan during the past three years and we look forward to continued improvement so there can be peaceful resolution of their differences. To those in Asia who wonder whether the United States is really here to stay, if we can make and keep credible strategic and economic commitments and back them up with action, the answer is: Yes, we can, and yes, we will.

First, because we must. Our own long-term security and prosperity depend on it. Second, because making significant investments in strengthening partnerships and institutions help us establish a system and habits of cooperation that, over time, will require less effort to sustain. It took years of patient, persistent efforts to build an effective regional architecture across the Atlantic. But there is no question it was worth every political dialogue, every economic summit, every joint military exercise. For hundreds of millions of people in Europe, the United States and the transatlantic community has meant more secure and prosperous lives.

If we follow that path in Asia, building on all that we have already done together, we can lift lives in even greater numbers. And this region can become an even stronger force for global progress. Now, that was at a time when many people were convinced that it would not last. But the process of partnership would grow stronger as nations and people devoted themselves to common tasks. We have come too far, we have sacrificed too much, to disdain the future now. Well, today, on the opposite side of the world, we have faced a similar juncture.

This Pacific generation has and will face difficulties. But our region is more secure and prosperous than it has ever been, and that is directly linked to the cooperation that has blossomed among us. Our work may have began long ago, but we are called today with new urgency to carry it forward. And in this, the United States is fully committed. We are ready to engage and to lead, on behalf of our citizens, our neighbors and partners, and the future generations whose lives will be shaped by the work we do today together. MORRISON: I think that speech was breathtaking in its comprehensiveness, and it was also inspirational and it was visionary, and I think all of us here are proud to be part of the team.

Thank you. And the Secretary, as she did when she stood here before, has agreed to take three student questions, and I think the first student question is ready. I feel much appreciate for the policy that the U. Government have for the rest of the world, especially for Asian countries. I am Pattama from Bangkok, Thailand, land of smiles, I can say. And unfortunately, our first female prime minister cannot come to participate APEC meeting this time, so — but I believe that U. Government will give a lot of support in terms of financial support to Thailand.

But my question is, in order to see my country to be developed in sustainable way, I would like to know: Is there any plan from the U. Government to encourage or increase the trade in Thailand after the flooding is relieved? This has been a terrible flood and has covered a great portion of Thai countryside, and now, as you said, in Bangkok, it is slow, unfortunately, to recede.

So the numbers of people that are without homes may be as high as 2 million, and we are deeply concerned by what is happening right now and what the consequences of this flooding will be. Because your prime minister could not come to APEC — and I think she made exactly the right decision; she must stay and help to lead the efforts to protect the people and take other necessary actions — I will be going to Thailand and I will be bringing with me a strong message of support and solidarity and specific measures of assistance.

We are very willing to help the Thai Government and the Thai people, but we want to be sure that we are responding to the help requested. It is not for us to make a judgment about what you need. It is for us to sit with your government and for your officials to tell us what you require and then for us to respond. I talked with Secretary of Defense Panetta before I left. So I will be coming with a list of ways we are prepared to help, but also to hear what will be most necessary. And I like the way you said this, that we should look at what we need to do immediately, but then once we get through this terrible period, what more can we do to help Thailand embark on a path of sustainable development.

I have a couple of questions, but — however, for the inaudible I might be asking just two questions based on the U. My first question would be on the human right — violence in West Papua. What is the United States stand on the issue of violation of human rights in West Papua in Indonesia? The other question that I might like, also, to inaudible is the economic leverage that China is getting into the region as well. What is the view of the United States on that influence? We do not believe there is any basis for that. There needs to be continuing dialogue and political reforms in order to meet the legitimate needs of the Papua people, and we will be raising that again directly and encouraging that kind of approach. With respect to Chinese investment, the United States does not object to investment from anywhere, particularly in our Pacific Island friends, because we want to see sustainable growth.

We want to see opportunities for Pacific Islanders. But as I said in my speech, we want also to see investment carried out by the United States, by China, by anyone, according to certain rules that will truly benefit the countries in which the investment occurs. We also strongly believe that the interests of the countries need to be protected. So that if there is development of natural resources, which we are finding are quite prevalent in the Pacific Island nations, we want the people of those nations to benefit, not just the companies and the countries that do the extraction.

So we want a rules-based, fair, free, transparent, level playing field for investment and doing business. But perhaps even more importantly, we want to see the countries benefit. So we want to be sure that everybody is signed up to a system of investment and business that will truly benefit the countries where it occurs. A couple of countries have done it very well. A country like Norway, which struck oil, put a very large percentage of the oil revenues into a trust fund for the future benefit of Norwegians. Since you talk a lot about making new rules, I would like to ask you a question about the future rule-makers still in school right now. He said, like, some are the children of under — undocumented workers, others come here from abroad, study in our colleges and universities, but as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, they send — we send them back home to compete against us.

Government want to make or are thinking of making right now in terms of staying ahead in this competition of global talents? And also, what do you expect international education exchange programs to do, and what kind of role do you expect them to play in this process? And my colleague from the State Department, with whom I work closely on these issues, Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and I, really zeroed in on the importance of greater student exchanges. We want to increase the number of students coming to the United States from Japan and South Korea, which historically have been large pools of students now that needs to be reinvigorated.

We also have a very exciting program that will — that President Obama will be announcing to work with the East-West Center to teach more students in the region English, so that they could perhaps pursue educational opportunities in the United States. Senator Inouye has been a staunch supporter of student exchanges, because he knows how important they are. So we fully agree with you that we want to put more emphasis on this. And so we have worked hard to clear away some of the necessary security issues to get more students. And we want more American students to go and study as well.

Search Input. Jump to In This Section. You are entering the Archive for the U. Department of State.

At this very moment, as we sit here, Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech around the world are giving birth, raising children, cooking meals, washing clothes, cleaning houses, planting crops, working on assembly lines, running companies, and running countries. It will revive the reputation of. Hillary married Bill on October 11,at their home in Fayetteville. And if you The Importance Of Government Censorship did you think about the the Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech and cons? She cited the leaked Access Hollywood tape in which the former reality TV star bragged Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech groping and kissing women without their consent. Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech, I would Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech urging her to boast that her approach to health-care reform enjoys support from conservatives like the Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech Foundation and Gov. In South Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech, we will show once again how Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech alliance has gone global, through our work Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech in Hillary Clinton: The Most Successful Speech G and the Nuclear Security Summit, and now a major forum South Korea is hosting on development aid.

Web hosting by Somee.com