Via Ezra Klein, the Urban Institute concludes that whether o not a health care plan includes an individual mandate does make a big difference.
« Rankings | Main | Churrascariamani »
On The Other Hand
01 Feb 2008 12:47 pm
Comments (44)
Nodding.
Both of these plans are so much better than anything the US has had before, and both of these plans will be much changed by the time the legislative process is through with them. I tend to agree with Hillary's plan more on the merits, but this isn't swaying my vote at all.
I see Kevin Drum and Krugman are all over Obama's Harry-and-Louise-the-sequel mailer too.
As I said over at Ezra's, whenever I get close to thinking I'm going to vote for him, Obama pulls something like this. I'm beginning to question his vaunted political skills since he seems not to know he should pander to us liberals in the primary...
This whole discussion seems to boil down to whether or not healthy, lower-middle income people in their early 20s should be subsidizing healthcare for old sick people. The only difference between a mandate and a tax increase to pay for insurance for old sick people is that the mandate allows some undeserving politician to claim that she single-handedly insured 15% of Americans.
I maybe wouldn't mind the mandate so much if I got a vote in how old sick people live their lives. Seems like if I'm paying the bills, I should get some say in the decision-making process.
"90 years old? No, you can't have a heart transplant. And you can't have a cheeseburger either."
The Obama mailer is the final insult. Lying about Clinton's policy is abysmal but what is worse is that Obama is showing that he cares nothing about gaining universal health care and will not do so if president.
Mike, you're some kind of crazy person. You're not paying their bills. You're not even remotely paying their bills. You ARE getting "a vote in how old sick people live" by VOTING FOR POLITICIANS who have stances on Medicare.
That's WAY more direct than any kind of tax policy.
You're sick in the head for focusing on it in the reverse way. You only focus on tax policy to absolve your greedy misanthropy.
Rot in neoliberal hell with the Clintons.
Every time this debate comes up, Hillary makes a big deal of how universal health care is a ‘core conviction’ for her, and how she’ll fight harder than any one else for it. But when the campaign started, her platform called only for an incremental expansion of health care coverage, along with a vague promise to achieve universal coverage by the end of her second term. Basically, she was putting universal coverage on the back burner.
Then, after Edwards came out with a specific universal health care plan and it received an enthusiastic response, Hillary came out with basically the same plan as Edwards.
It was political calculation that caused Hillary to emphasize universal health care, and her talk about ‘core conviction’ is transparently phony.
Matt, look closer. The comments in Ezra's comment section rip this study to shreds. Germany has no mandate and gets very high coverage - over 99% - just by having a competent public option. Furthermore, a mandate really hurts this plan politically. And frankly, I don't even like mandates - pure personal discomfort with forcing people to purchase this stuff - and I'm a passionate liberal.
I posted this comment on Ezra's site, but looking at both gustav's and Jennifer's comments above, I'd like to repost it here.
I think people (and particularly those who supported Edwards) who are saying that they will support Sen. Clinton because of (or in large part due to) this mailer, need to step back and think for moment.
I understand peoples' disappointment with this ad. But I don't think I'm being an "Obama apologist" by noting that when you look at each candidate as a whole, Obama has engaged in much less triangulation around progressive issues, and has been much less likely in the past to support policies or demagogue issues for political gain (whereas Clinton has done so on immigration, on the war in Iraq, with the Kyle-Lieberman resolution and Iran, on banning flag burning, and her refusal to support making more just sentencing for possessing crack cocaine retroactive, to name a few).
Obama is not perfect. He has made mistakes and will in the future do things with which we do not always agree- as is the case with any candidate.
To throw the baby out with the bath water, when Obama (I believe) clearly represents our best opportunity to take this country in a new direction, and bring new voters (including a new generation of voters) into the Democratic Party, I think would be a really big mistake.
I'd also add that while I understand peoples' disspointment with the tone of this mailer, I'm not sure I see what exactly about it is dishonest? (Or, what part of this mailer involves "lying about Clinton's policy?") I do not think the problem with the mailer is that it is dishonest; rather, the potential problem is that Obama may have to adopt similar strategies in the future (i.e. penalyzing people who do not initially purchase insurance). (Though he may be able to characterize it as something that is "different" than "mandates" or frame it in a different manner.)
Germany has no mandate and gets very high coverage - over 99% - just by having a competent public option.
Germany most certainly does have mandates, along with opt-outs for people over a certain income level.
What exactly is it that Germany mandates? It can't be a mandate for universal coverage if people are allowed to opt out. I'd prefer a link to a reputable source rather than just your unsupported assertion.
"I don't think I'm being an "Obama apologist" by noting that when you look at each candidate as a whole, Obama has engaged in much less triangulation around progressive issues"
And up is also down.
-----
If you're a progressive voting solely on issues, you quite obviously go to Clinton. The arguments for Obama reside in non-issue considerations.
If you're a progressive voting solely on issues, you quite obviously go to Clinton.
Aren't you missing the word "domestic" here, Petey?
Isn't Obama's no-mandates a generational pander to "the young immortals" who run up the cost of heath care for everybody with their car crashes, motorcycle collisions, and gun shot wounds? So, if you want start knocking the cheeseburgers out of my hand, kiddo, you might want consider your own health habits. Just because you can still see your feet doesn't mean that you're not going end up using a bedpan in the ICU soon.
Oh yeah, Obama says you can stay on Mommy and Daddy's health plan (which sucks by the way, and costs more every year), until you're 25. Who pays for that? I know you need that money for tattoos and piercings and cigarettes.
Jeebus, in a lot of states, you have to have auto insurance on your car. Why not health insurance?.
If you're a progressive voting solely on issues, you quite obviously go to Clinton. The arguments for Obama reside in non-issue considerations.
Oh, do tell Petey, list them for me. Give me an issue by issue break down, but please start with Iraq.
"Aren't you missing the word "domestic" here, Petey?"
A fair point.
It's interesting that when the Clintons attack Obama for bullshit (like things he never said about Ronald Reagan) people are all like "well, it's good people attack him now, because he'll get it when we get the general election anyway, better now than later." But here, Obama is making an attack on Clinton's health care plan that it's not just possible that the Republicans will use in the GE, but they have used it before to devastating effect. Essentially, this ad points out that Hillary's new health care plan is susceptible to the exact same attack that destroyed Hillarycare in the 90's, and there's every reason to believe it would work again. As opposed to the spurious crap the Clintons hurled at Obama, isn't this the sort of thing that you would want exposed prior to the GE? But here, everyone is crying FOUL, FOUL, FOUL. What exactly is the game here?
"Oh, do tell Petey, list them for me. Give me an issue by issue break down, but please start with Iraq."
I haven't heard anything to indicate that Obama is to the left of Clinton on Iraq. Best I can tell, they're trying to take identical positions, much as they have been since Obama entered the Senate.
On domestic policy, Clinton is somewhat to the left of Obama on pretty much everything, with Social Security and healthcare obviously being the most important issues to the Democratic coalition.
I'm vaguely leaning towards voting for Obama because I don't think the dynastic elements of a Clinton nomination would be healthy for the Party or the nation, but I'll have to hold my nose on issues to be able to do so.
And if I do end up changing my mind at the last minute and voting for Clinton, it'll be almost entirely over healthcare. Obama's position close to ensures we won't be able to get a healthcare bill through Congress in 2009 if he's elected.
Obama has mandates for children because children are cheap to insure, period.
A mandate in which the healthiest segment of the population helps subsidize the rest of the population overlooks certain realities...
1) Young people aren't making a great deal of money. The only reason they're getting by at all is the lower risk of health disasters. Clinton's plan would probably have to subsidise away much of the advantage of forcing young people to have insurance. Or exempt them, as what happened in Mass.
2) I think there is a general understating of just how valuable health insurance is to most people, including the young. If *I* could afford health insurance, I *would* buy it. Going around being mad at those irresponsible young 'uns who simply "refuse" to do their duty is an unproductive activity. The biggest advantage of both plan is simply making a non-malicious insurance plan available. Don't understate the eagerness that many people would have in getting *reliable* insurance at non-outrageous premiums.
3) Both plans are a poke into the central dam of reality that there isn't enough hospital beds and doctors in relation to the population. Any health care plan will almost certainly has to have a big fight with the AMA, and would also incur serious financial burdens on health care companies by forcing health care to be present in very poor rural areas.
J.B.:
1) In the case of attacks against Obama, I for one wanted to see him take some punches and hit back so I could have some assurance he was tough enough. I've seen Hillary take shit from all corners for 16 years, so I've no doubts about her toughness.
2) Obama's attack is bad because it hands the insurance companies an extra line for their attack as scripts: "Even Barack Obama, the #1 most liberal senator, opposes mandates."
It's a campaign--I don't care how much Obama slimes Hillary (what the press does is a different story), but he shouldn't be stabbing his own party in the back on such an important issue.
Obama calling Hillary a liar, a crook or a race-baiter - OK
Obama sabotaging the future of health care reform - NOT OK
"I'd also add that while I understand peoples' disspointment with the tone of this mailer, I'm not sure I see what exactly about it is dishonest?"
The mailer is a blatant lie, like, in "lying lie." Obama is lying, and I am tired of the excuses. Obama has either no understanding of what health care insurance needs to be or does not care. I think does not care covers it.
Petey -
"Obama's position close to ensures we won't be able to get a healthcare bill through Congress in 2009 if he's elected."
Which is why I will not vote for Obama. Health care and social security and more troops are all reasons, but health care is the decider. I hear the Obama ads about working on health care with Republicans and then I read the mailer and I know with Obama there will be no decent health care plan.
"Obama calling Hillary a liar, a crook or a race-baiter - OK Obama sabotaging the future of health care reform - NOT OK"
Bingo.
"Obama's attack is bad because it hands the insurance companies an extra line for their attack as scripts: "Even Barack Obama, the #1 most liberal senator, opposes mandates.""
That will indeed be bad if Clinton puts forward a comprehensive healthcare bill in 2009.
But even worse, if Obama is President in 2009 and tries to bring forward a comprehensive healthcare bill, that bill is obviously going to have to have mandates.
And that situation would have some pretty dire political ramifications, which means we'll likely get no comprehensive healthcare bill at all if Obama is elected.
"2) I think there is a general understating of just how valuable health insurance is to most people, including the young. If *I* could afford health insurance, I *would* buy it."
But that's just the point. Right now the private
insurers are offering you a premium which allows
them to make a profit. There isn't any magic wand
that the federal government can wave that's going
to make those companies offer you better insurance
for less dollars. And you're not buying it,
because it seems too expensive to you - I don't
know your circumstances, do you own a car ? live
in your own apartment ? eat out sometimes ? pay
$30/month for a cellphone and $100/month for cable ?
Anyhow, whatever money you have you've decided
that the private insurance isn't a good bargain
for you. Well, none of the plans on offer are
going to make it any better for you.
Now, if you cut out the insurers and go to
single-payer, then you don't need a profit
margin, you don't need a capital reserve, you
can set about investing in electronic medical
records and lifetime preventive care, and then
there's a possibility that it all gets cheaper.
Another interesting way to slice this problem
is to ask: what percentage of total healthcare
expenses is incurred by the highest-risk 10%
of the population ? I'd bet the answer is way
over 50% ... so who pays that bill is really the
big question.
Obama's attack is bad because it hands the insurance companies an extra line for their attack as scripts: "Even Barack Obama, the #1 most liberal senator, opposes mandates."
Are you assuming they weren't aware that Obama opposed mandates before this? Did they miss the three dozen columns where Paul Krugman hyperventilated about it? It's not exactly like Obama is presenting a new line of attack. And that, really, is the point, isn't it? That Hillary is setting her health care up to fail again this time by failing to respond to the attack that killed it last time.
Germany does has a health care mandate. John Edwards was the candidate I wanted, but I will back Clinton by a lot on domestic and foreign policy.
You've been a Clinton troll since the minute you showed up here, Jennifer. You don't particularly like the truth, do you?
What do you do to people who don't buy insurance, throw them in jail? Mandates seem to simply be criminalizing conduct that can make sense (not buying insurance you cannot afford).
Even Obama's plan is an order of magnitude better than the current system. It seems to me, that people who want to focus on the minutiae of Clinton vs. Obama on healthcare are grasping for straws in the bigger Obama or Clinton question. You cannot put up this small difference, that will not even survive the legislative process, against the chasm that is judgement about when to attack other countries.
Read the post about Lincoln Chaffee's memoir Matt put up. One of those scared, saluting Democrats, was Hillary. Zero political courage. When push comes to shove, how can you think she will do anything that takes political courage?
Obama might not have the best white paper positions, but his positions will survive past 1/20/09.
"It seems to me, that people who want to focus on the minutiae of Clinton vs. Obama on healthcare are grasping for straws "
It seems that way to you because you're an idiot about the particulars of healthcare reform.
But here, Obama is making an attack on Clinton's health care plan that it's not just possible that the Republicans will use in the GE, but they have used it before to devastating effect. Essentially, this ad points out that Hillary's new health care plan is susceptible to the exact same attack that destroyed Hillarycare in the 90's, and there's every reason to believe it would work again.
This is indeed the point of the ad. Clinton has been skating on the issue of just what she will do to enforce the adult mandate. She is able to skate on that issue now because other Democrats - who are all pro-universal care in one form or another - don't care all that much about pressing her on it. But she will not be able to skate on this question in the general election. And once she does start talking about enforcement, all of the heavy shelling will start to rain down on her about Big Brother, the Heavy Hand of Washington bureaucracy, a return to the era of Big Government, etc.
In addition, the mandate proposal is going to be tied to Massachusetts, and the mess they are having with their own mandate program. Now I lived in Massachusetts for ten years, and I liked it there quite a bit. But I recognize that nationwide it is not exactly the most popular state in the union. It is widely associated with a messy combination of wasteful and incompetently managed boondoggles, exorbitant taxes, ultra-liberal social experimentation, ivory tower head-up-the-ass impracticality, and Eastern city corruption and palm-greasing. And Hillarycare II is going to be known as the Massachusetts Plan.
Another thing that is starting to make an impression on me, which I used to think wasn't very substantial, is this whole question about the notion of broadcasting national deliberations on health care, and promoting broad public ownership of the national health care debate. This is the sort of thing Obama keeps talking about as an instance of the broader theme of getting people involved and creating change form the bottom up.
Clinton seemed to me openly disdainful of this approach. And that suggests to me that for all her talk about the "lessons" she learned in the 90's, she still doesn't get it when it comes to the political logistics of moving this kind of ambitious legislation to passage through the political and corporate minefield. Clinton still thinks the way to get a health plan done is to get all the parties together in a room, make some trades, bang some heads together, twist some arms, break some balls, hammer out a package, and then deliver the goods through the sheer force of presidential oomph. The only difference between now and the nineties is the nature of the plan - but not the approach.
Well that's what we did last time, and it failed spectacularly. You think you have agreement behind closed doors, and then your negotiating partners march right out in public and start ripping the agreement down, directly or through proxies, piece by piece. Since your negotiations were private, you can't come out and argue that your partners are breaking their bargains, because not enough people were there to say what the deal actually was; and anyway it is embarrassing to talk publicly about what particular horses you traded when people weren't watching. And since most members of the public have just been bystanders to the process, rather than participants, they are less well-informed and easily victimized by demagoguery.
What you need to do is get the big players to make their arguments in public, and to face public questioning from both elected representatives and their antagonists on the issues. If corporate insurance poobahs, for example, make commitments to their interlocutors, those commitments should be made on the record and in public. If on the other hand, they want to argue the more selfish case for private gain and profit, force them to play the Scrooge role with the cameras rolling. This Obama proposal isn't just about feel-good theatrics; it's about winning tactics.
Once again I worry Democrats are deluding themselves about the uphill nature of the fight to come, just because they are in a primary campaign where they are mainly only talking to other Democrats - people who already by and large agree with them. Being willing to fight on this issue is crucial, of course. But fighting doesn't just mean strident speechifying or aggressive insider arm-twisting - or talking about how "passionate" you are and how "personal" the issue is for you. It means being smart about the shape of the whole campaign you are plotting out.
I think it is time for people to recognize that Obama really gets it about politics, and long campaigns. In his Presidential campaign, he has proven himself better at reading the public mood than anyone else running in either party. The campaign has been deftly and skillfully managed. It has been highly organized and efficient, and has mobilized its ground soldiers very effectively all over the country. It has avoided major bungles and setbacks. Obama has been gaining ground consistently while Clinton, the early clear front runner prohibitive favorite, has been losing it. This is the same organizational brilliance we need on a campaign to move health care reform forward.
Petey writes:
"It seems to me, that people who want to focus on the minutiae of Clinton vs. Obama on healthcare are grasping for straws "
It seems that way to you because you're an idiot about the particulars of healthcare reform.
If you think the particulars of health care reform will be decided in the race for the Democratic nomination, then perhaps you might reconsider how strong your own grasp of the political process is.
Scaling down the rhetoric just a bit, it seems to me that a mandate would be very, very hard to defend in the GE. I don't understand why anyone would think otherwise. The argument that Obama's mailer is misleading because it only discusses the mandate and not all the other parts of Clinton's mandate-based plan only serves to confirm the problem.
It seems that way to you because you're an idiot about the particulars of healthcare reform.
- from Petey
Your insult proves my point and is always the last resort of the intellectually vacant. You also didn't explain how Clinton is going to enforce the mandate. A non-enforced mandate is nothing. To throw out such an unsubstantiated insult must mean you are an expert on all the particulars and thus can illuminate me as to how she enforces the mandate.
The chasm between Obama and McCain on healthcare is so vast, that the incremental step between Obama and Clinton is meaningless. To focus on this incremental step (a much easier step to mandates from Obama-care than what we have now), can only be an attempt to put up a smokescreen to protect whatever lead you think Hillary has going into Tuesday.
Dan Kervick,
For the same reason that the bottom-up approach is more politically feasible, it is also more vulnerable to compromise and constraint. If you're really committed to universal coverage as a non-negotiable component of reform, bottom-up probably isn't going to get you there. As Clinton said in the debate last night, if you don't go into the fight with an absolute commitment to universal coverage, you'll get "nibbled to death." And Obama doesn't have that commitment.
This is a matter of basic liberty.
Regardless of other factors, the government should not have the right to FORCE people to get health insurance if they dont want it. I will pay more to allow people, even irresponsible people, to have the freedom to opt out.
What are you going to do to people who still don't want it? Are you going to sick the cops on them to kick down their door in the middle of the night with guns drawn screaming "FREEZE ASSHOLE!! Get some insurance or we will shoot!!"?? Are you going to fine people who are already poor? Will you form your own "progressive minutemen" who patrol their neighborhoods looking for people without insurance so you can report them to the authorities? Hell, lets be really progressive and set up a phone line where people can anonymously snitch on their family, friends, and neighbors.
No, thanks, I will allow people to opt out - because my money is not worth someone elses liberty and, frankly, you money is sure as hell not worth mine!
As Clinton said in the debate last night, if you don't go into the fight with an absolute commitment to universal coverage, you'll get "nibbled to death."
And how exactly will going into the fight with that commitment prevent it from being nibbled to death? Commitment isn't a magic suit of armor. The Giants and the Patriots are each going to go into a game tomorrow night with an absolute commitment to winning. And yet, one of them is going to lose. The game is about skill, smarts and the overall game plan as much as commitment.
I'm not looking for a candidate to impress me with how how personally committed they are to certain ideal goals we would all like to achieve, or for a DLC Dem to con me into believing they are "on my side" as they go down to failure once again, just because they have the best lefty-wonk approved plan. I want someone to paint me a clear, politically realistic picture of how we actually get from point A to point B. We can't afford to go down fighting with another glorious failure. What exactly has Hillary Clinton actually delivered in the past?
There is going to be compromise and constraint either way. One question is whether the compromises get made behind closed doors, or out in public. And there is also a question of which compromises are made, given that it is easier for a politician to sell us out when they do it in private and no one is watching. And doing things in secret is the Clinton M.O.
It seems to me the real action in this debate will be over how aggressively we move on cutting costs, and what kinds of rules and requirement are placed on insurers and insurance practices. There are enormous inefficiencies to be removed from the system. But removing each one requires cutting out someone who is currently taking a cut out of the health care pie and profiting from those inefficiencies. It won't help much if a President Clinton enacts a health care mandate, allowing us to pat ourselves on the back about universality, but undermines the whole thing with a hundred little giveaways to her corporate buddies along the way.
Anyway, for all of Ms. DLC's alleged up front commitment to universality, I would be willing to bet right now that if she is elected, a genuine mandate will never get through Congress. Even if what we get is called a mandate, it will be larded with so many opt-outs and exceptions that it will just be a mandate in name only. And nobody will have the political will to pass the enforcement mechanisms that would make the mandate a hard reality rather than a fiction. Clinton doesn't even have the political will now to say what those mechanisms will be - and this during a campaign. What do you think she is going to do when it actually comes down to passing legislation?
The Giants and the Patriots are each going to go into a game tomorrow night ...
Er ... I mean on Sunday.
Dan Kervick,
There are no magic suits of armor. But you're more likely to get universal coverage, or something close to it, if you go into the fight with a strong commitment to that outcome as a non-negotiable principle than if you put it on the table to be negotiated away by your opponents.
I don't think universal coverage is a particularly important goal for health care reform, and I don't think mandates on individuals are likely to be an effective way of achieving it. But for people who do think universal coverage is vitally important, your approach is a loser.
The problem with *experts* is that they are looking at the situation on paper only.
Mandates make perfect sense on paper. They placate the insurance industry because healthier people even out the risk pool of less healthy people.
The problem is no one has shown any way to enforce mandates making them moot.
Proponents point to car insurance.
We still have uninsured drivers, otherwise there would be no uninsured/underinsured attachments to our policies. The second problem is the monthly cost difference in the two products. Health insurance cost, by any standard, is FAR more expensive, cuts much farther into a monthly budget than car insurance. The third problem is levels of insurance. Mandatory car insurance is something like 10,000 in most states...costs little and covers less. That level of coverage wouldn't get you in the door of a hospital these days.
Mandates are unenforceable and therefore moot.
But you're more likely to get universal coverage, or something close to it, if you go into the fight with a strong commitment to that outcome as a non-negotiable principle than if you put it on the table to be negotiated away by your opponents.
A problem with this is that no one actually holds as a principle that there ought to be at least some people without health insurance. At the end of the day, all this principle could mean in practice is that given a choice, you'd rather there be no health care reform at all then a reform that gets many more people insured but doesn't get everyone insured immediately. That decision would be really hard to pull the trigger on for anyone, regardless of what that person says now about a commitment to universal coverage.
Not at all. You're saying that the level of commitment one has to a particular goal makes no difference to one's chances of achieving that goal. That's obviously not true. The possible outcomes are not limited to either "no health reform at all" and "increased coverage, but not universal coverage." If you truly believe that universal coverage is simply not attainable, then you should say that clearly. I don't see Obama saying it. Probably because he knows it would seriously damage his primary campaign.
You're saying that the level of commitment one has to a particular goal makes no difference to one's chances of achieving that goal. That's obviously not true.
Presumably the commitment to the goal means that you'll make particular choices that other people won't, not just that you really wish the goal happens. What does commitment to universal coverage mean if not a signal that you'll reject an incremental increase in coverage that doesn't get to universal coverage? (As previously stated, I suspect that in fact Clinton wouldn't reject that deal if it were offered (nor should she), which is why I think the argument about "commitment to universal coverage" is a red herring.)
If you truly believe that universal coverage is simply not attainable, then you should say that clearly.
Clearly it is attainable; other countries do it. But I don't necessarily agree that universal coverage is achievable by running on a mandate-type program in a general election. That's a judgment about politics and strategy, not a judgment about the desirability of universal coverage. (Similarly, even though it's obviously true that if single-payer were implemented that would provide universal coverage, I take it that Clinton -- like Obama -- doesn't believe universal coverage is attainable by running on a single-payer platform in a general election.)
"Your insult proves my point and is always the last resort of the intellectually vacant."
No. My insult proves that I'm lazy about explaining the politics and policy of healthcare for the seventy seventh time. I'm not even going to vote for Clinton, so why should I waste many paragraphs explaining to the nescient why Obama's position is going to turn into a big disaster if he wins and a little disaster if he loses?
"To throw out such an unsubstantiated insult must mean you are an expert on all the particulars and thus can illuminate me as to how she enforces the mandate."
Yes, I can illuminate you, but as stated, I'm too lazy to do so. There was a lengthy "automatic enrollment" debate that occurred about late November to early December that dealt with mandate enforcement in detail. Google skills are useful here, if you're actually interested here.
If Edwards were still in the race, I'd be willing to walk you through it.
"A problem with this is that no one actually holds as a principle that there ought to be at least some people without health insurance."
So what do the insurance company executives think
about high-risk people with expected (or even
inevitable) healthcare costs exceeding their
total income ?
Obama hired an economic team that does not support UHC. His chief health care policy adviser believes controlling costs is more important than universality. The driving forces behind his campaign (under 30 and over $200K)do not support UHC. If he wins the nomination, it will be in part because of his opposition to, not support for UHC. The idea that Obama will win the presidency and then fight to pass UHC is laughable.
Comments closed February 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Right. What this shows is that there is no consensus on this matter among the relevant experts, and that those of us who are not experts should not be so quick to condemn Obama's plan when there is a great deal of dissent from the pro-mandate crowd, as evidenced by the link you posted earlier. Let's face it, they're both strong plans. The details can be adjusted and touched up once there is more of a consensus on how these things should work.
Posted by R. Vangala | February 1, 2008 1:08 PM