Congress: Where Laws are Written

The Hill has a disappointing (in terms of its content, the journalism is good) article about congressional Democrats being not-so-enthusiastic about the ambitious health care reform plans from Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. This is one of several reasons why I've been unable to get too worked up about the superiority of Clinton's health plan -- in my assessment what Clinton is proposing isn't ambitious enough on the merits, while Obama's less ambitious plan is still more ambitious than what's legislatively feasible.

Various legislators' concerns about cost also remind us of the dog that should be barking louder in the domestic debate -- the budget. Insofar as the next president intends to pursue a serious program of deficit reduction, it's just not going to be possible to enact a very ambitious agenda of new programmatic spending -- it won't be politically possible to raise taxes by a sufficient amount to do both. John Edwards clearly marked himself out as someone who was willing to put deficit concerns aside for his programs, but neither Clinton nor Obama have followed him down that path. But in context, a promise to reduce the deficit amounts to both candidates having their fingers crossed behind their backs when they talk about substantial new spending on health care, education, or anything else.

Comments

John Edwards was right. Enacting some method of universal health care coverage is more important than balancing the budget for the immediate future.

Posted by dry_fish | April 24, 2008 1:00 PM

...a promise to reduce the deficit amounts to both candidates having their fingers crossed behind their backs when they talk about substantial new spending on health care, education, or anything else.

Actually, you can throw McCain into that mix too. He's going to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, cut taxes even more, and balance the budget by eliminating $20 billion in earmarks ... except for the money for Israel ... or the money for veterans ... or ...

At least Obama and Clinton are willing to mention raising taxes to help pay. McCain is using Bush's "fuzzy math", the same debt increasing math that was used by Reagan and Bush I.

Posted by LFC | April 24, 2008 1:03 PM

"John Edwards clearly marked himself out as someone who was willing to put deficit concerns aside for his programs, but neither Clinton nor Obama have followed him down that path."

I hate to say it, but Edwards was clearly the best candidate in retrospect. Not only were his policy proposals better, but he could build the electoral coalition to win. Edwards would have had no problem destroying Clinton in Ohio, PA, and West Virginia.

He would have been able to expand the electoral map without shrinking it. (I.E. Obama may expand the map out west but lose key states like OH, PA, WV, TN, AR, MI.) Adding Colorado, Nevada, and North Dakota means little if you lose other key states.

I think Democrats may look back at their choice of nominee (Clinton or Obama) and realize they made a poor choice come a tight election.

Posted by jeff | April 24, 2008 1:06 PM

Just who are these "Sources"? Why are they saying these things now? Wouldn't it be better to wait until we have a Democratic President in the White house before we talk about whether we can achieve National health care reform. I am always befuddled when these kinds of stories float up. Why open your big fat mouth when it serves NO Value to Dems. Amazing

Posted by EddieB | April 24, 2008 1:06 PM

Not only were his policy proposals better, but he could build the electoral coalition to win. Edwards would have had no problem destroying Clinton in Ohio, PA, and West Virginia.

Um, win the primary or win the general? I think McCain would take 40 states in a matchup with Edwards.

Posted by right | April 24, 2008 1:12 PM

Sorry, but there is no way that Obama is going to lose PA or Michigan. I'm pretty sure that in a Democratic year, all of the states that went for Kerry in a Republican year, will remain solidly Democratic. The only exception is probably WV.

Posted by Cols714 | April 24, 2008 1:13 PM

I am always amazed at people who say Clinton's plan is better than Obama's. Just because she uses the word mandate?

There is no mandate unless you have some enforceability, which she always conveniently refuses to discuss. So her plan is actually weaker than Obama's which reduces significantly the cost of insurance and provides up front help to people who still can't afford it.

Neither plan provides universal coverage, but Obama's actually comes closer to the opportunity for universal coverage.

Single payor is the only way to go and that is totally not feasible at this time.

Posted by john m | April 24, 2008 1:16 PM

Insofar as the next president intends to pursue a serious program of deficit reduction,

Heh, serious. Except for staying in Iraq, Obama's surest way to only one term is to waste his presidency on deficit reduction.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 24, 2008 1:18 PM

I am always amazed at people who say Clinton's plan is better than Obama's. Just because she uses the word mandate?

There is no mandate unless you have some enforceability, which she always conveniently refuses to discuss. So her plan is actually weaker than Obama's which reduces significantly the cost of insurance and provides up front help to people who still can't afford it.

Neither plan provides universal coverage, but Obama's actually comes closer to the opportunity for universal coverage.

Single payor is the only way to go and that is totally not feasible at this time.

Posted by john m | April 24, 2008 1:19 PM

I hate to say it, but Edwards was clearly the best candidate in retrospect. Not only were his policy proposals better, but he could build the electoral coalition to win.

Yeah, he builds such great coalitions that nobody ever finds the need to, you know, actually vote for him.

Posted by mark f | April 24, 2008 1:20 PM

Superdelegate Update: Y'day, April 23, 3 more supers for Obama and one for Clinton. She needs that ratio to be completely swapped if she wants any chance in hell. Drip, drip, drip.

Posted by LFC | April 24, 2008 1:22 PM

The article just reinforces what has long been clear: There will probably never be single-payer health care in the United States, and even "universal" health care is unlikely in the foreseeable future. The most the next administration is likely to be able to achieve is a bit more regulation of private insurers and a bit of expansion in coverage.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 1:24 PM

jeff, Edwards had his chance. People in many states had the chance to vote for him, and they chose Hillary or Obama. For all of the talk about Edwards' alleged political gifts, he doesn't seem very good at actually convincing people to vote for him.

Ah, I see mark f said the same thing. I think I'll post this anyway.

Posted by too many steves | April 24, 2008 1:29 PM

I am always amazed at people who say Clinton's plan is better than Obama's. Just because she uses the word mandate?

There is no mandate unless you have some enforceability, which she always conveniently refuses to discuss. So her plan is actually weaker than Obama's which reduces significantly the cost of insurance and provides up front help to people who still can't afford it.

Neither plan provides universal coverage, but Obama's actually comes closer to the opportunity for universal coverage.

Single payor is the only way to go and that is totally not feasible at this time.

Posted by john m | April 24, 2008 1:40 PM

Yeah, money is going to be tight. But the sooner we stop spending $120B+/year futzing about in Iraq looking for a pony, the sooner we'll have some flexibility in the budget. The rest of the military budget has also been grossly inflated under Bush. But since HRC is hawkish, and is surrounded by hawkish advisers, I doubt that she would move quickly to remedy this: another reason why I think Obama is preferable.

In the long run, the "deficit reduction" issue has been a huge scam over the last 25 years: when Dems are in power, it is used as an argument to stop them funding social programs (which increase human capital) or infrastructure improvements; when Republicans are in power, they don't give a damn, they just blow the money on taxcuts for their wealthy contributors and pointless military spending. We need to change our accounting to distinguish between productive investments in human and physical capital - which will enhance future GDP - and money poured down the drain
(e.g. Iraq).

Edwards was on the right track. And I'm hoping that Obama - who by all accounts is a smart guy and has surrounded himself with very smart policy advisers - will also figure out a way to win this game.

Posted by Richard Cownie | April 24, 2008 1:43 PM

Yeah, money is going to be tight. But the sooner we stop spending $120B+/year futzing about in Iraq looking for a pony, the sooner we'll have some flexibility in the budget. The rest of the military budget has also been grossly inflated under Bush. But since HRC is hawkish, and is surrounded by hawkish advisers, I doubt that she would move quickly to remedy this: another reason why I think Obama is preferable.

Er, both Clinton and Obama want to increase the size of the military. Obama wants to add 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 to the Marines. He also wants to give them "new equipment, armor, training, and skills."

Democrats and Republicans agree that the military is too small and needs to be grown.

Posted by Mixner | April 24, 2008 1:52 PM

The Hill has a disappointing (in terms of its content, the journalism is good) article about congressional Democrats being not-so-enthusiastic about the ambitious health care reform plans

No, that's not what the article says. It says they are enthusiastic but aren't confident about getting enough votes. It's a president's job to build popular support for his plans. I think it's 50-50 whether Obama can pass his plan. But I'm close to positive that he will pass something better than what we have now that will in turn lead to further improvements.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 24, 2008 1:54 PM

I hate to say it, but Edwards was clearly the best candidate in retrospect. Not only were his policy proposals better, but he could build the electoral coalition to win.

Except... he didn't. Yeah, he got outspent early. Yeah, maybe if money didn't count so much his message and appeal would have caught on.

I'd have voted for him if he'd still been in the race when my state got around to voting. But let's not inflate his greatness as a general-election candidate. He was a one-termer like Obama, a youstabee-hawk like Hillary, and as yet another Southern white guy, devoid of the demographic novelty which has generated so many new Democratic registrations this year. Plus the press disliked him for reasons I've never quite fathomed. My main beef with him was that he basically started running for President the moment he arrived in Washington, played the cautious centrist game for a long time, even bailed on his Senate seat -- one which party sorely needed -- to concentrate on his presidential ambitions, and as a consequence managed not to accomplish a whole heck of a lot. I do hope he manages to find a way to hold public office or at least shape public policy in some fashion in the future, though, because his ideas are good and his passion rare.

Posted by Ryan | April 24, 2008 1:56 PM

But in context, a promise to reduce the deficit amounts to both candidates having their fingers crossed behind their backs when they talk about substantial new spending on health care, education, or anything else.

Why can't they have their fingers crossed behind their backs about deficit reduction? That seems like a more plausible scenario.

Unless the implication is that Congress, namely the Blue Dogs, will hold them to a deficit promise whereas there's no counterweight to hold them to a promise to enact national health care program.

Posted by seedox | April 24, 2008 1:57 PM

look 70 million civilian deaths may be a large number, but Hillary has to show she is tough and Obama weak. oh wait, isn't that the politics of our Republican oligarchs?

Posted by della Rovere | April 24, 2008 1:57 PM

But in context, a promise to reduce the deficit amounts to both candidates having their fingers crossed behind their backs when they talk about substantial new spending on health care, education, or anything else.

Why can't they have their fingers crossed behind their backs about deficit reduction? That seems like a more plausible scenario.

Unless the implication is that Congress, namely the Blue Dogs, will hold them to a deficit promise whereas there's no counterweight to hold them to a promise to enact national health care program.

Posted by seedox | April 24, 2008 1:57 PM

Re: Obama's surest way to only one term is to waste his presidency on deficit reduction.

Why? Bill Clinton's deficit reduction in 1993 was not exactly a ticket to electoral defeat in 96.

Re: There will probably never be single-payer health care in the United States, and even "universal" health care is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

I agree about single-payor. However, with people losing their jobs and their coverage, and with many employers growing devoutly sick of ever-rising health insurance bills, we may be fast approaching the point when the irrestible force of public (and corporate) demand meet the immovable object of insurance industry intransigence. My guess is the insurers will finally move, if only to preserve what they can of their business.

Posted by JonF | April 24, 2008 2:28 PM

I have little time to dispel all the Edwards naysayers (it is a tad too late to have this conversation, I guess). But be aware, he was consistently running better against McCain, especially in So. states like Kentucky, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Never mind that he was pulling the so called "conservative" and working class democrats that Obama cannot get in the primary, leave alone the general.

Let me leave you with this:

Which of the big three has ever one a candidacy in a southern state? Hint not Obama or Hillary.

Winning in New York and Illinois is quite easy. Other places, not so much.

As far as the argument that he did not win the primary--that is marginal. The democrats have for some time nominated people that are not the best general election candidates (See: Kerry, John or Dukakis, Michael). In short, his inability to win the Democratic primary was exactly my point. Primary popularity is very different than general electability. We tend to shoot ourselves int he foot in that department.

Posted by jeff | April 24, 2008 2:30 PM

Folks, deficit reduction is a lot more important than you seem to think. The Clinton economic boom was fueled by deficit reduction. We have a huge national debt, with a good percentage of it held by China. Interest on the debt is almost as big a budget item as entitlements or defense spending. Deficit spending crowds out investment and raises interest rates.

This is reverse Reaganism. The fantasy that you can have liberal programs and not pay for them is just as pernicious as the fantasy that you can have conservative tax cuts and defense spending and not pay for them. Eventually, someone's taxes have to go up and/or we have to slash social spending.

The correct response is to propose new taxes. Yes, I know they are not popular. But if we want to sell liberal programs on their merits, make them last, and responsibly manage the economy, that's the only way to do it. Just as Social Security was funded with a payroll tax.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 24, 2008 2:34 PM

Ryan:

"My main beef with him was that he basically started running for President the moment he arrived in Washington, played the cautious centrist game for a long time..."

You know that you are talking about Obama as well, right?

Posted by jeff | April 24, 2008 2:36 PM

Which of the big three has ever one a candidacy in a southern state?

If I thought that ability to win in southern states was the most important, I might care. However, I'm more interested in a candidate that can win the midwest and rocky mountain states. if McCain were not the opposition candidate, the southwest would be a region to focus on, as well.

The south? That's really the sort of captive thinking of the past that is basically killing hillary's campaign. You can't re-run whatever campaign you thought might have worked in the 90s.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 2:40 PM

Regarding Edwards' losses in primary states, people need to read Matt's post from earlier today about how that really doesn't tell you much about his ability to win those states in a general election.

Edwards may not have been Barbara Boxer, but he wasn't Bob Casey either. He racked up a 100% NARAL rating and voted against the Flag Burning amendment. It was a much better performance that you'd expect from a Southern Democrat.

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | April 24, 2008 2:48 PM

"People in many states had the chance to vote for [Edwards], and they chose Hillary or Obama." - too many steves

More precisely, people in four relatively small states had the chance to vote for Edwards. The rest of us did not.

Posted by Kenneth Almquist | April 24, 2008 2:54 PM

Regarding Edwards' losses in primary states, people need to read Matt's post from earlier today about how that really doesn't tell you much about his ability to win those states in a general election.

This is true, of course, but it's contingent upon him actually getting the nomination. And the path to the nomination is to get people to vote for you. His supposed strengths as a candidate was the notion that he would appeal to independents and maybe some moderate-to-liberal Republicans. Yet the actual candidate with a demonstrated ability to reach those voters, outside of his home state, is Obama. And it seems reasonable to me to take the votes garnered from non-Democrats in a Democratic primary to be at least somewhat of a decent indication towards how a candidate will perform in a general election.

Posted by mark f | April 24, 2008 3:13 PM

Tyro:

Thank you for the rendition of the "captive" mindset of democrats focusing too much on the South and other backwater places instead of harnessing the electoral coalition of the creative class.

But seriously.

1) My point was not about the south, despite your reductive read. It was about winning "elections" in places that Democrats dont normally compete.

2)What on earth tells you that Obama is more competitive in the midwest then John Edwards? Seriously. Edwards was a better candidate in Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Iowa (the general, not the primary) then Obama. All of those states are battlegrounds and some might come up in the L column for both Hillary and especially Obama.

Posted by jeff | April 24, 2008 3:16 PM

jeff, but that's not the argument you made. You were making an explicitly southern electoral argument. I wasn't making any "creative class" argument at all: simply pointing out that the future of the party's electoral strength is elsewhere.

I did think that Edwards would have been a good, competitive candidate, but the proof was in the pudding: he couldn't compete with Hillary for the votes fo blue-collar Dems, and he wasn't able to turn out new voters in Iowa. He got crushed by two people: one with massive establishment support and another who is a political force of nature. There's no reason to assume that he could possibly be competitive against either of those in a primary. Heck, it's difficult for me to figure out how he'd be competitive in any primary since 1976. And even had he been nominated, he'd be financially hobbled due to his acceptance of matching funds. And if he really thought, as you did, that winning the south was the key to winning the election, he would have cost himself the election.

Obama makes a much better case for being a candidate who can win in "places that Democrats don't normally compete."

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 3:30 PM

Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Iowa

Posted by Jeff | April 24, 2008 3:37 PM

Jeff,

"My main beef with him was that he basically started running for President the moment he arrived in Washington, played the cautious centrist game for a long time..."

You know that you are talking about Obama as well, right?

More or less, though he didn't back the war, unlike Edwards. That was not cautious centrism.

Which of the big three has ever one [sic; "won", I assume you mean] a candidacy in a southern state? Hint not Obama or Hillary.

Uh, they're not FROM Southern states so why would they seek candidacies there? Then again, neither of them has ever *given up* a Southern seat that they held, either. And Edwards couldn't carry his home state as the VP candidate.

I don't mean to trash Edwards. I liked the guy, would have voted for him over the other two. But you've clearly guzzled the whole jug of Edwards Kool-Aid, Jeff.

Posted by Ryan | April 24, 2008 3:51 PM

Jeff: Democrats have always competed in Michigan, Ohio, and Iowa. WV got lost in 2000. It might come back, it might not (I vote for no). Kentucky? Well, it would be nice if a Democrat could compete there in the General, but I'd trade a Colorado or a Missouri for a Kentucky, any day.

The proof is in the pudding: hypothetical Edwards might have done quite well. Actual implementation of Edwards clearly did not, and Obama changes the game and the landscape in a way that Edwards doesn't. Simply repeating a mantra of states doesn't change that. You're trying to do a "do over" of the 80s and 90s. So is Clinton. That's why she's losing.

Posted by Tyro | April 24, 2008 3:55 PM

I'm going to let go one of the central points of my argument, that winning a primary does not reflect your general election bona fides, since no one much cares to reflect on that.

To Ryan:

I hate to break it to you, but while I admire Obama's rather soft opposition to the war, As a Chicagoan, I will let you know that Obama could not have supported the war and won his Senate election. His state seat may have been in trouble as well; Hyde Park and the state democratic establishment was vehemently against the war. From our vantage point (i.e. we don't know what goes on in the man's head) it was as much a political calculation as it was a bold moment of principle.

And as far as Edwards' support of the war, I agree he was spineless. If you listen to the people who were around him at the time, he--nor Elizabeth--thought much of the war, but basically cowed to political considerations. While people may savage me for saying this, it is a bit more difficult to oppose the war in 2003 in North Carolina then in Hyde Park. Doesn't make up for the vote, however.

To Tyro:

Please stop insisting silly things like I am trying to do over the 80s and 90s. All of this new age political transcendentalism is bullshit. If the democrats want to be a majoritarian party, they have to appeal to people along their shared economic concerns. That means also reaching people of all races, not building coalitions of college educated people, african americans, and boisterous young voters. The youth have a track record of not "rocking" the vote as hard as they may say.

And I hate to break it to you, but Ohio, Iowa, Michigan and the "western states" are not gimmes.

Also, you are mistaking me for someone who believes in fighting battle lines for states, a la Clinton. Nary. I am simply stating that I do not think that Obama is as competitive in the rust belt states I have mentioned, where people have real concerns about economics that Obama must address.

PS I support Obama

Posted by jeff | April 24, 2008 4:50 PM

OK fair enough Jeff, didn't know that about Hyde Park antiwar sentiment, but it confirms the tepidness of my Obama enthusiasm. I like him a bit better than Clinton now, and liked him a bit less than Edwards when this primary season started, but I'm basically a 'glass is half empty' guy looking at this year's crop of candidates. My two favorite national Dems (Dean and Gore -- favorite along different metrics) didn't run.

Posted by Ryan | April 24, 2008 5:11 PM

What Richard Cowerie said. Dilan Esper call for fiscally responsible liberalism sounds swell and honest and it is a one way ticket to nowhere for liberalism.

We can't let the Republicans keep running the economy into a ditch with deficit spending and then forcing the Democrats to make the unpopular decision to raise taxes to clean up their mess. Obama and HRC are both talking about tax increases on those who make over $200K, and I think that is a wise approach. Though an arguable wiser one would be to just argue for taxpayer fairness and focus on weird loopholes like low taxes on capital gains and hedge fund manager pay, deficits be damned.

Yes, deficits do matter in the long run. But why should the Dems always be the responsible ones and get pegged again with the label of tax-and-spend liberals?

dry_fish is correct to say that right now universal health care is more important than the deficit. Once the entitlement is fully established, it will never go away. Adjustments to balance the budget can always be made later.

And to EddieB, those floating the theory that universal healthcare won't pass obviously don't agree that doing so has no value. There are forces that want universal healthcare to fail, and setting the expectation that it will fail goes a long way towards making it fail. But intelligent people (ahem) should realize that saying universal healthcare won't pass today says nothing whatsoever about whether it will pass under a new administration.

If Obama (or HRC, for that matter) is elected on a platform where universal healthcare is a major plank, then that will put a huge amount of momentum behind the idea. Plus, the new congress is certain to be more Democratic and, more importantly, more liberal. There is every reason to think that the new president stands a very strong chance of getting a plan through. Remember, Clinton actually came very, very close back in '92.

Posted by Rob Mac | April 24, 2008 5:45 PM

Yes, deficits do matter in the long run. But why should the Dems always be the responsible ones and get pegged again with the label of tax-and-spend liberals?

We have to win that fight on the merits. Because otherwise, we will pass our unfunded social programs, the deficits will shoot up, Republicans will get in power, and they will force through slashes of social programs to pay for it (because we have made taxes untouchable and because defense already was untouchable).

But more broadly, I have to say, deficits are REALLY bad. They aren't simply an inconvenience that we can attempt to fob off on Republicans because they do it to us. They ruin the economy over the long term, put us in debt to dictatorships, make new social programs impossible, and make it impossible to generate the revenues to pay for government.

This can't be treated as a mere political problem. It is a policy problem, and thus, we have to be responsible and pay for our programs.

Posted by Dilan Esper | April 24, 2008 8:25 PM

Re: All of those states are battlegrounds and some might come up in the L column for both Hillary and especially Obama.

I don't see Michigan being lost. The place has been solidly blue in presidential elections for several cycles now, and it's trending blue in the other races as well (Democratic governor,two Democratic senators, Democratic gains in the legislature). Plus the Michigan economy is truly awful, and never did show even a ghost of a recovery. Jesus Christ would have trouble winning a statewide election in Michigan as a Republican.

Posted by JonF | April 24, 2008 9:56 PM

"...a promise to reduce the deficit amounts to both candidates having their fingers crossed behind their backs when they talk about substantial new spending on health care, education, or anything else."

In the real world that would be called lying to get elected? And I see from several commentors, Democratic voters are just fine with that...calling for Dem candidate to keep their mouths shut until elected. How very illustrative?

Of course, as we both know, if the leftover marxist\socialist who now call themselves Democrats ever actually set forth their true agenda to the American people, they would be hounded not only out of power but out of the country.

With the nomination of the anti-American marxist Obama, it is the closest the Democrats have ever come to having a candidate who closely represents their desires but even he can't be honest.

Why can't you people actually just state your plan and find out if it is really what America wants? Let them know that you want to import the "free" British healthcare system to American and the 17% to 21% addition in payroll withholdings and wait times for treatment that they are experiencing.

Posted by LogicalSC | April 24, 2008 10:06 PM

They aren't simply an inconvenience that we can attempt to fob off on Republicans because they do it to us.

Play chicken with it. In my lifetime the basic purpose of the Democratic party seems to be playing cleanup after a massage smash and grab republican robbery. Someone has to do it, maybe if they really did just empty the treasury and actually give real people something at least when the right came back they would get the shit job.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 24, 2008 10:11 PM

Let them know that you want to import the "free" British healthcare system to American and the 17% to 21% addition in payroll withholdings and wait times for treatment that they are experiencing.

I dunno if your stats are worth anything but that's pretty close to what I'm paying now and that's not counting deductibles which don't exist in such a system.

Great rant on Marx though. I have to imagine that has a massive rhetorical impact in 2008. You people are so pathetic in your fear but my God. It's like conservative politics is an endless parade of characters out of the anxiety closet from Bloom County and that one would be a red monster with a hammer and sickle on it's chest but it's so old it's using a walker.

Posted by Ed Marshall | April 24, 2008 10:20 PM

It isn't anxiety.

Experience tells anyone willing to look that national healthcare has been a disaster in Europe, so why are you socialist so determined to lead the America down a already proven failed road? "Universal" healthcare increases cost and cuts services everywhere it has been tried but still Democrats are ga-ga because it is "free", except it isn't is it? Buried in the fine-print is the fact everyone's payroll will be hit for 17% every year, whether that person uses it or not and if you don't enroll you will be fined. The nasty little secret is that the national healthcare has to have a pool who do not use the service to pay for those use it. And since competition is reduced, cost rise so government has to control cost somehow and that is always by limiting service. First by waiting lists for procedures and then later by excluding some users from services all together, such as no smokers for cancer treatments.

Liberals want the national government to control healthcare when it has been a disaster in every other area it tries to control. Obama says that government is broken, so what does he purpose? Larger government! Great idea.

Posted by LogicalSC | April 24, 2008 11:06 PM

Re: Why can't you people actually just state your plan and find out if it is really what America wants? Let them know that you want to import the "free" British healthcare system to American and the 17% to 21% addition in payroll withholdings and wait times for treatment that they are experiencing.

Because no one is proposing that they want to copy the British healthcare system. And as far as I can tell no one wants anything like that system. There are people who want single payer-- but that's the Canadian healthcare system, not the British. Do some research and then retire your strawman back to Oz.

Posted by JonF | April 25, 2008 7:16 AM

"Never mind that he was pulling the so called "conservative" and working class democrats that Obama cannot get in the primary, leave alone the general."

Actually, Obama IIRC got a plurality of union-member's votes in Iowa, where Edwards had staked his entire campaign. Three big things a candidate needs to win are organization, getting the media to parrot your narrative as truth and fundraising ability. Edwards was never able to do any of those three despite his charm. He looked great on paper and I really liked a lot about his policies and the issues he was bringing to the forefront, but he caught more on fire with the bloggers around Ezra Klein than with actual working-class voters. He also had a tendency to depress the hell out of everybody, while politicians need to inspire to be successful, especially in times of trouble. (think of how important it was that FDR inspired Americans during WWII). He knew how the game was going to be played (states that vote early like NH and Iowa are more important to establishing yourself against an establishment candidate), yet he completely failed. Nothing was preventing him from winning the early states.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 10:19 AM

If either Obama or Clinton win, Iraq will soak up too much of their time to push anything really ambitious through Congress at this point. In addition, while Americans are in favor of universal healthcare in the abstract, Americans are in favor of pretty much every possible new social program in the abstract. Once we start having this conversation for real, the insurance companies will muddy the waters and deficit concerns will be raised, which will be legitimate because of the size of our deficit, which is unsustainable and bad for national security because we have borrowed so much from China to fund our deficit. Assuming we are out of Iraq in 2012 and the Democratic incumbent wins re-election with a mandate, then we can expect seeing some good action happen on healthcare. At best, for the next four years the best we can hope for is Congress pushing through targeted help along the lines of S-CHIP.

Posted by Reality Man | April 25, 2008 10:36 AM