Instead of complaining that the Obama people are preying on peoples fears, why doesn't the Clinton campaign do something to address those fears? I know they are ideologically opposed to actually helping people unless they can funnel money to their campaign contributors at the same time, but it would certainly make a lot more sense than complaining that Obama is accentuating the differences between these two plans.

I'm glad to see that Obama is playing to win.

Wow. This is some heavy bullshit from a politician and a campaign that I really like. This puts Matt's link to the lack-of-mandate defense in a slightly different light. I don't mind the policy differences so much, but given that the lack of mandate is mostly a political defense against the right (making it more acceptable to people to move toward universal coverage), it's totally unacceptable to then turn it into a political attack from the right on someone who's actually closer to universality. This is the way I would expect Romney to attack her, not Obama (or rather, it's what I'd expect if he hadn't created a mandate in Massachusetts).

Count me in as an Obama supporter who also finds that attack ad repulsive for the reasons stated by jhupp.

As per usual, John Edwards nailed it. The argument Obama is using against mandates is fundamentally the same argument Bush Co. made for the privatization of social security, and against any social safety net.

Cue the Obama apologists. I'm done with this guy. I was considering caucusing for him on Tuesday since Edwards has dropped out but I think I'll just stay home instead.

What a clown. This is so incredibly insulting to so many of us who have worked very hard on this issue

He consistently is demagoguing progressive issues from right-wing frames and we're just supposed to "trust him"?

"In the end, his plan is not universal, does not attempt to be, and is probably less generous in its affordability provisions than Clinton's."

In the end, both Obama's and Clinton's plans are little more than political props which will bear only passing resemblance to what comes out of Congress (if they somehow manage to find 60 votes for cloture in the Senate).

Grrrrrrrr....the swing-o-meter just moved a few notches back toward "Hillary next Tuesday."

The reality is that either of these plans is completely worthless in the short term, and either of them could be used as a vehicle to get what we want later.

It's not like Hillary's plans has any real enforcement mechanisms to ensure that people actually get the plan she's forcing people to pay out of pocket for. Lots of people have insurance, only to get denied for every claim they make. Until Hillary has a real way to make sure that doesn't happen, there's no reason to Pretend that her plan is actually going to cover people either. I know people like to pretend that the big problem with insurance is scheming poor people refusing to buy it, but wouldn't it make sense if the plans being offered actually addressed the primary problem with insurance to begin with?

Given Hillary's DLC-ness, and the amount of money she's accepted from the insurance industry, I think there's every reason to be scared of unaffordable mandates coming from a Clinton administration.

Unless and until proponents of mandates address fundamental questions of affordability in the context of households with little-to-no cash flow, this isn't just a scare tactic, it's a legitimate concern.

Meanwhile, here's how Clinton should have explained the problem in Obama's plan: A central tenet of his proposal is that " No insurance companies will be allowed to discriminate because of a previous bout with cancer or some other pre-existing illness." You literally cannot have that rule without some mechanism forcing everyone to buy in, as the healthy will stay out.

If we had no discrimination but no mandates, there would be no comparative adverse selection--the healthy would have no option of selecting health insurance that only covers healthy people--they have to choose between the stuff available to everyone, or no coverage at all. The adverse selection becomes system-wide rather than per insurer, and can be addressed by some sort of system-wide subsidy, like Obama's reinsurance.

In reality, as Obama's proposal comes pretty close to having mandate-ish like penalties anyway and Clinton specifies no enforcement mechanism, I wish this mandate fight would go away. But as long as Obama is attacked as "not universal", it's only reasonable to expect him to point out that it's only fails to be universal in not forcing people to buy it.

Not only that, but from a behavioral economics point of view, coming up with some sort of de facto near-mandate that you can avoid having to call a mandate seems like a good political strategy. They can't attack a requirement to pay back payments as coercive, because people in such a situation would simply be denied coverage under the status quo. If the politics are spun right, this could actually play to our favor in passing legislation. As both 1994 and 2008 show us, though, Clinton is bad at framing the issue in a way acceptable to Americans.

The thing is, every time I've just about decided that I'm going to vote for Obama, the man says something like "Dems need to stop disrespecting people of faith" or "the Republicans were the party of ideas in the last 10-15 years" or pulls a stunt like this.

This ad is guaranteed to make those of us who remember the battle of 1993-94 see red. It's almost like he wants liberals to vote for Hillary.

This is incredibly annoying. I still prefer Obama for a whole bunch of reasons, but "Harry and Louise" is a dirty word(s?) for a reason.

The fact that "neither plan will pass in their current form" is irrelevant. It's demagoguing from the right, and it's not cool.

Have none of you ever been to a provider that worked on sliding scale? That's how the affordability question gets answered. At least with Clinton's plan, as Ezra noted, the mandate is upfront. Obama's just hits you with penalties later if you opt out.

You've got to be kidding. Maybe one person in five hundred would think to connect this to a political ad that ran in 1993, which is mostly similar in that it features a man and a woman (wow, what are the odds!). If Obama were smart, he'd do more to point out that last time Clinton rolled out an ambitious health care plan, she was defeated so soundly that we got nothing for 15 years.

As much as this blog tries to focus on wonkery, this is a post about symbols.

I don't think 2008 shows that at all. I think 2008 shows us that good health care plans will be attacked. But I think she's done an excellent job framing her health care plans, and my understanding is that focus groups tended to give her the advantage in the domestic policy and hc sections.

re: attacking from the right

I know Obama has a slightly-more-to-the-right position on health care than Clinton on the issue of mandates, but he is still miles to the left of "the right" on the issue.

And, given that last night Clinton basically sanctioned the scapegoating of immigrants for economic problems and backed away from any time table for withdrawing from Iraq, I seriously question the agenda of anyone who suggests/says that Obama is the one progressives need to worry about.

neil, nobody needs to make the connection. It's the message itself that's the problem, and it's the same message. Harold and Louise was a load of crap then, and it's a load of crap now. The point of drawing the connection is to point out that this ad is pulling directly from Newt's playbook.

On a more serious note, the grammar of Obama's mailer is all over the map.

You're probably right, but I must ask--were those focus groups supposed to represent likely Democratic primary voters or general election voters?

I agree that her strategy has the edge in winning over us liberals, but I'm not so sure about the constituents of the red state senators you'll need to pressure to get anything passed into law.

Ben Smith has the whole mailer here.

I have to agree with jhupp about the grammar. And I'll add these are some pretty shoddy production values compared to most of the high quality graphic design I've seen out of the Obama campaign.

If Ben Smith has the whole mailer, it's not at that link. (There's an excerpt there.)

Grr. I'm still anti-Hillary because of Iraq, but this kind of thing really tends to kill my Obama enthusiasm.

Lets be clear about what is going to happen in 2009 - the Repubs are going to go to war to defeat universal health insurance and immigration reform. If the Dems get both through, grateful Americans will give them a massive advantage for at least a generation. Today, Obama handed the Repubs a big weapon - "Even Barak Obama thinks mandates will be bad for America.

Just wanted to chime in as another Obama supporter depressed by this.

God, you Obama apologists kill me. This ad is scurrilous and anti-progressive; it advances the cause of the right. When UHC is passed in this country, it will include mandates. And Republicans will reuse this ad to attack it. And you apologists will be hoping no one remembers how you hand-waved it away.

I would love to be on the Obamawagon. But this shit has to stop, and I don't see any evidence that it will.

Good point, Dennis_D

I guess reaching across the aisle also means bestowing gifts.

Harry and Louise AND the freakin Daily Iowan quote again, in the same mailer? I'm an Edwardian, trying to get behind Obama, but this isn't helping. They can't even say that this is an attempt to appeal to Iowans by using their student newspaper anymore. Sad.

I'd be delighted if John asked for the AGship AND ditching the anti-mandate BS as the price of his endorsement.

last night Clinton basically sanctioned the scapegoating of immigrants for economic problems

No, she didn't. She defended legalization as helpful to both immigrants and a fair labor market. This is about the best thing you can do to sell the idea to those unconvinced, whether the crunch is actually caused by ilegal labor or just perceived as such.
I fail to see how this is unprogressive.

"re: attacking from the right

I know Obama has a slightly-more-to-the-right position on health care than Clinton on the issue of mandates, but he is still miles to the left of "the right" on the issue. "

This misses the point. Nobody really cares that Obama's plan is "to the right" of Clinton's. What we're upset about is that he's using right-wing attacks on a plan that is probably better than his.

Harry & Louise is one of the iconic images of the unhinged 90's Republicans. To see my candidate recycle this imagery is depressing.

And it has nothing to do with whether anybody actually remembers H&L -- it's using the same dishonest attacks.

Depressing indeed. I am getting tired of the partisans saying 'well its better than what the right will give us'. While the statement is true, our victory in November is not a certainty and if our candidate is only offering stuff that seems little better than what the right is offering it just opens the door for people to vote Republican based on fear-mongering, identity politics, or some other single issue cause. We needed a candidate offering real change, not just rhetoric. I just don't see the mushy middle getting all that excited about the rather crappy policies of Clinton and Obama and the polling suggests a much closer election than what was looking to be a blowout just several months ago.

Ummm... I don't know that this mailer is an official Obama mailer.

Nowhere on the mailer does it say that it was paid for by the Barack Obama campaign.

I don't know the ins and outs of campaign ad regulations, but doesn't it have to include that?

Who'd a thunk it? Obama getting all Clintonian or Rovian on us.

If you think for a minute that Harry & Louise are not already part of the Republican playbook then you are out of your mind.

Obama wants to take the issue off the table so Harry & Louise cannot be used to derail health care reform. The minute we insist that everybody has to buy insurance they ride in with libertarian tears saying no way and they win the debate.

more thoughts... I am pretty convinced that this is NOT an Obama mailer. It may have been sent out by Obama supporters (SEIU? It has the purple and yellow) but it didn't come from the Obama campaign.

What state were these sent out in?

If Clinton gets the nomination, this will probably be one of the Republican attacks on her program. She needs to address it now. If she can't defend it in a primary, forget the general election.

The mailer is here: http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/02/krugman_hits_obama_again_this.php

"Paid for by Obama for America"

Thanks... the ad on politico did not have that part.

As an Obama supporter, I would say that while I don't like the "attack," I am more disappointed in what appears to be a pretty shoddy mailer.

Suffice to say, as a supporter of single payer, I fully support "Harry and Louise"ing ANY health care program that, insteading of guaranteeing government coverage for all Americans (and Ezra, any American will have the right to purchase their own policy if they don't like the government provided one), blames poor and working class individuals and places the onus (or as Hillary puts it, the "shared responsibility") on THEM to buy health care.

That doesn't mean I like Obama's plan-- I don't. But the fact of the matter is that if you propose bad health care plans-- as Hillary has twice, because she is too right-wing to go for single payer-- you get Harry and Louised. Fine with me.

Dilan Esper: Yeah, I definitely support using republican attacks to destroy non-perfect health care plans, so they can easily coopt them in the general election and kill health care reform for another decade.

Really, who cares about election strategy! That's where the magic health care fairies come in.

Wow, with Progressives like that who needs the right wing. Bring me back some honest to goodness old culture war liberals.

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.

Well that didn't take long...

I mean...I knew Obama would move rightward with Edwards [see below] departure...

...but...what's next..."high tech lynching" language?

Just as the 2006 election was a sad disappointment, Obama seems ready to create a new generation of cynics.

____________________________________
____________________________________
____________________________________
Edwards & Edwards supporters should wait

As soon as Edwards endorses either the campaign will swing back to the right, where both Obama & Hillary clearly feel most comfortable. Their identical voting records attest to this.

If Edwards is given the AG and publicly guaranteed that he will have the independence to investigate the scoundrels that have dragged this country down and to restore enforcement of out laws, then that is when he should hold his nose and endorse either Obama or Hillary

I and my friends gave to Edwards both time and money this year, we think this action would serve our nation's health better than any premature endorsement.

S Brennan January 31, 2008 - 1:09pm
login or register to post comments

And to think I was feeling warmer towards Obama after last night. For a campaign that wants to turn the page on the 1990s, they sure do like resurrecting attacks on the Clintons from that time.

The most appalling thing to me about this mailer is what it's trying to do - scare working class and low income voters about Clinton's universal healthcare plan. In other words, it's praying on the fears of the folks who need universal healthcare the most.

Moreover, it's completely dishonest. Forget the subsidies, etc., Obama last night admitted that if everyone didn't buy insurance under his plan, there'd have to be some sort of mechanism to reach universal coverage. He suggested possibly charging uninsured folks who go to the emergency room back premiums - that sounds awfully close to being a mandate to me.

How can you people be honest with yourselves and apologize and gyrate to justify it? Have you no decency?

Winning at any cost, the Republican Rove playbook.

Well, I guess us old people do have something, we can smell a rat.

"Meanwhile, here's how Clinton should have explained the problem in Obama's plan: A central tenet of his proposal is that " No insurance companies will be allowed to discriminate because of a previous bout with cancer or some other pre-existing illness." You literally cannot have that rule without some mechanism forcing everyone to buy in, as the healthy will stay out."

You really lost me on this. It seems to me that the Obama plan functions as follows:

The NHI system is open to everyone.
The NHI system can not reject anyone (based on pre-existing conditions or otherwise).
Joining the NHI system is not a requirement, only an option.

Thus, if you have a pre-existing condition and can't get insured outside of the NHI system, you would clearly move to the NHI system and get coverage that insurers could not deny.

Maybe I'm not seeing the picture clearly?

Aaron, I think Obama supporters need to stop bringing up Kyl-Lieberman. Obama looks much worse than Hillary on that one, and it points to his penchant to avoid being accountable for his positions.

I apparently missed the part where you had to be in favor of health care mandates to be a progressive. I think they're pretty awful, but I live in a country that actually has them, so maybe my view is jaundiced.

Aaron, I think Obama supporters need to stop bringing up Kyl-Lieberman. Obama looks much worse than Hillary on that one, and it points to his penchant to avoid being accountable for his positions.

Posted by: ChrisO | February 1, 2008 2:01 PM

Really? Worse? Because he didn't vote? Hey, maybe it doesn't evict strong images of leadership, but at least he didn't vote to give Señor Bush another stick to slap Iran with.

On the other hand, Hillary's vote either shows she's incredibly naive, a chicken, or a hawk. I fear a HRC foreign policy given what she's shown us so far. She can't even stand up to the GOP as a Senator without a fear of looking "weak". How would she do as Pres?

So much for freedom. So much for the Constitution. Mrs. Clinton's plan amounts to a tax on health. She wants to tax healthy people to pay for the sick. The federal government has no such authority. Read the Constitution when you get a chance.

John Edwards nailed it. The argument Obama is using against mandates is fundamentally the same argument Bush Co. made for the privatization of social security, and against any social safety net.

Not really. It was a good line, but it elides a key difference. People pay into the public Social Security program proportionally to their income, along with their income taxes. The health insurance mandate, on the other hand, is not subject to this sort of direct means linkage, if I understand correctly -- it's just a requirement to buy private health insurance, which will cost the same amount whether you're unemployed or making seven figures. And then we'll throw in some subsidies to make it affordable to unemployed people. But that's still not at all the same as Social Security.

I would strongly support a health insurance plan that actually works like Social Security, where everybody pays according to their means, like Medicare. But I don't support a law requiring you to buy a private-sector insurance product. Pointing out that this law would require some people to buy insurance they can't afford is totally fair. The subsidy is no magic solution -- there's a federal subsidy for energy bills too, but thousands upon thousands of eligible people don't take advantage of it and have their utilities shut off on a daily basis.

You know, the thought has occurred to me that Obama has essentially proposed the most likely compromise version of any national health plan. Not sure if that's a good thing or not (since it's better to start with what you want and then move to what's obtainable) but at least it suggests that there really can be no comparison between the 2 plans since there's no way in Hades that the Hillary plan is going to get through a Republican filibuster intact.

If I were a politician I'd have said, "thousands of people can't afford their energy bills and are subjected to penalties for that even if they're eligible for a subsidy."

She wants to tax healthy people to pay for the sick. The federal government has no such authority. Read the Constitution when you get a chance.

OK. Can you direct me to the clause that says, "Congress shall not provide health care" or somesuch?

the thought has occurred to me that Obama has essentially proposed the most likely compromise version of any national health plan.

This is sort of an endemic flaw of Obama's - he starts with the compromise position.

Have to wonder: did Obama take any courses in negotiation while he was in law school?

Yeah, Obama is just like Kennedy...

On Obama using Kyl-Lieberman to bash Clinton when Obama skipped the vote which was his usual Modus operandi in Illinios, a Obama supporter says:

"...Hey, maybe it doesn't evict strong images of leadership..." - Nobcentral | February 1, 2008 2:05 PM

Yeah, a real profile in courage...

Yeah, a "real change"

C'mon folks, you're being had, his supporters should make it clear to Obama, they won't stand for him using RNC talking points.

ChrisO,

While Obama did miss the Kyle-Lieberman vote, it really is not the same thing as voting FOR something, which indicates actual support for a particular bill or resolution.

Also, the claim that Obama has a "penchent to avoid being accountable for his positions" is really just a sound bite or talking point from the Clinton campaign; and it is directed less towards missed US Senate votes (which all the candidates have done while campaigning for President) than on his "present" votes in the Illinois State Senate. And even here, the attacks from Sen. Clinton were disingenous and dishonest, as many of Obama's "present" votes where made as a favor to Planned Parenthood of Illinois as part of a strategy to provide political cover for other (more Conservative) Democrats (in competitive districts) to also vote present on anti-choice bills(which in the Illinois Senate is the same as voting "against").

This is sort of an endemic flaw of Obama's - he starts with the compromise position.

Have to wonder: did Obama take any courses in negotiation while he was in law school?

Posted by: Jason C. | February 1, 2008 2:16 PM

I still support Obama (strongly) but I have to agree with you to some extent. Negotiate from strength is always a good idea.

But really, I've found the entire Health Care debate to be sorta moronic by any measure. Perhaps its the victim of American Exceptionalism but I have yet to hear any comparison to other systems in other countries that are more or less effective.

For example, a while back I lived in the UK. The British system while not perfect, seems to work fairly well and it's essentially not a noticeable or complicated thing to become involved in. I mean, you just show up in the country and you've got all the doctoring you could ever need and you pay nothing except for a pittance when you need meds.

Now I live in Colombia. Their system is a bit different but essentially they have a "minimum" health insurance that everyone, by law, is required to buy into. Then, if you can afford it or your company pays for it, you can get private insurance (which is necessary if you want to receive good, timely care). It's not a perfect system by any means but at a minimum it guarantees that the poor have care when they need it and it's not terribly expensive. I have no problem paying into a system (read: subsidizing the poor) that I will never use (I have private insurance in addition to the EPS) when it benefits those who need it most.

And Colombia is a radically conservative, developing nation. It's a bit ironic that something like this is non-controversial in a very conservative, right leaning country while in the US any attempt to pass even meager aid is referred to as "socialist".

Sometimes I had my country's politics.

"No, she didn't. She defended legalization as helpful to both immigrants and a fair labor market. This is about the best thing you can do to sell the idea to those unconvinced, whether the crunch is actually caused by ilegal labor or just perceived as such.
I fail to see how this is unprogressive."

Well, she did say that illegal immigration has negatively impacted low-wage workers, such as low-wage African-American workers. Not only is there very little evidence of this - I believe "scant" is the word often used to describe it - but also it has the effect of driving a wedge between two lower-income groups. Oh, yeah, and between Latinos and African-Americans. Not very progressive.

Social and economic justice is a core premise of progressive ideals. It's not about the easy thing, being against the war. It's standing up for economic and social injustice. Yes, there is a price. It friggin costs money to have a society that is just. It's not philanthropy, it's a social obligation. It's a social contract that we make to each other as a nation. We start with the most aggressive health care options. If that is not a core belief of a progressive what is?

Yeah, a real profile in courage...

Yeah, a "real change"

C'mon folks, you're being had, his supporters should make it clear to Obama, they won't stand for him using RNC talking points.

Posted by: S Brennan | February 1, 2008 2:21 PM

By any measure absent leadership is better than BAD leadership. But yeah, you're right Obama should have taken a stronger stance on that one and voted against.

I tried to give everybody a heads up about why both Clinton and Obama are both right and both wrong on the mandated health insurance schema in a do your homework before the debate diary on Kos yesterday:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/123659/474/505/446985

Short version:
Obama is right that it will wind up as unaffordable subsidy to for profit health insurance industry. He is wrong that his plan is better, insofar as it is equally unaffordable and just insures less people as its solution to unaffordability.

Clinton is wrong insofar as it it is a forced subsidy to the private for profits. She is right, that once you have made the mistake of leaving the private for profits in place, that her plan will get more people insured and that without mandates less people get covered and the folks who are betting they are healthy and stay healthy will opt out making it more expensive for everybody else.

Which is why we need single payer, the only way to get to Universal coverage (everybody), Comprhensive coverage (covers everything needed) and Cost-control (affordable for individual and country).

Still supporting HR-676!

Yes, there is a price. It friggin costs money to have a society that is just. It's not philanthropy, it's a social obligation. It's a social contract that we make to each other as a nation. We start with the most aggressive health care options. If that is not a core belief of a progressive what is?

These words ring hollow, since Hillary's mandate plan doesn't require insurance companies to charge people based on their ability to pay. Making it illegal to be poor will not stop poverty.

I apparently missed the part where you had to be in favor of health care mandates to be a progressive.

Yes, yes, yes.

This is one progressive who flat out doesn't like mandates. Liberalism, even progressivism, is not about forcing the little man to do things. Maybe I'm a libertarian progressive, but it's about empowering people and given them the support that they *want* and *choose* to accept. Not about coercing them, even to take things in their own best interest.

I know that in real life government does that all the time, and sometimes it works out ok. But it's crazy that Obama is the one violating principles here.

"The health insurance mandate, on the other hand, is not subject to this sort of direct means linkage, if I understand correctly -- it's just a requirement to buy private health insurance, which will cost the same amount whether you're unemployed or making seven figures."

With all due respect, I think you are not understanding correctly. Please reread Ezra's post if not HRC's plan.

It will, in fact, not cost the same for a person making seven figures as for one not. That is, in fact, one of the Clinton plan's most important components. Your expenditure WILL be based on your income.

Also, as Ezra stated, Obama's mandate is there, just after the fact in penalties for those who choose not to opt in.

To send out a flier like this is to attempt to torpedo the health insurance discussion, again with fear, as evidenced by your belief that the charges would be the same per person, regardless of income.

This flier, IS, in fact, an actual smear campaign (as opposed to what was alleged last week against Clinton), and definitely a misstep on Obama's "high road."

I was wrong about what I said above -- Hillary's plan does put an income-based cap on premiums. It's still a far cry from what I'd call a progressive, "to each according to their needs" solution.

"If Clinton gets the nomination, this will probably be one of the Republican attacks on her program."

There's a Republican attack on a plan without mandates too: "its welfare." They already used it on the SCHIP expansion. Scene at the racetrack: "'Fast Eddy' smokes and drinks, he overeats, he never pays to see a doctor. He's gambling he won't get sick. When he loses that bet, you get to cover Fast Eddy's losses."

Obama's 'back premiums' solution to gaming doesn't get the prevention benefit.

Resistance to any change, let alone incentives and penalties to comply with a new program, is going to be a problem. For the moment, Obama is happy for that to be Clinton's problem.

But let's not pretend that this is Willie Horton all over again, m 'kay? Clinton pulled one of her clipped quote stunts on this issue, and this is how Obama is hitting back.

In the meantime, Obama's own sense of what's going to happen with healthcare is not as naively uniform as the hypotheticals being discussed here and elsewhere:

But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside.'"
.

Dilan Esper: Yeah, I definitely support using republican attacks to destroy non-perfect health care plans, so they can easily coopt them in the general election and kill health care reform for another decade.

Really, who cares about election strategy!

You are missing something. I think that Hillary's plan will make things even worse, by punishing the poor for not purchasing crappy coverage from insurance companies which will deny them care at every opportunity.

So, no, I don't mind attacks on plans that will make the health care system worse.

Can someone please explain (or link to an explanation of) what precisely is false or misleading about the following sentence:
"Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it."

It's not just a rhetorical question; I genuinely want to know. (Sorry if I've missed an explanation somewhere above.) Explaining why mandates are a good, progressive idea, or simply asserting that the mailing is a right-wing smear, don't help me to understand what exactly is false or misleading about the mailing. I'm open to being convinced. Thanks.

While Obama did miss the Kyle-Lieberman vote, it really is not the same thing as voting FOR something, which indicates actual support for a particular bill or resolution.

Actually, Obama co-sponsored different legislation that didn't cave to the Iran-hawks, so I think his position here is clear. That didn't stop the Clinton campaign from claiming that his bill was just like Kyl-lieberman, though.

The notions that there's a set of tactics that are objectively "GOP" and that only one campaign is drawing on this mythical evil is just plain stupid.
.

Unless you think that the next president can get universal health care by mandate, then the argument is purely academic. Both plans are merely starting points for trying to put together a workable majority to get it done. Neither plan will emerge from the give and take as they are now structured, for many, many reasons. The insistence on having detailed plans to start may give you some insight on how a candidate (and his/her advisors) thinks, but once the process starts, it will bear little resemblance to reality.

I appreciate the outlining of this issue, but in practical fact, the federal healthcare plan that everybody touts (to which I belong) does not mandate coverage. You can opt out. The plan works because of volume and affordability, not because of mandates.

I'm open to being convinced. Thanks.

Well, I think Klein, Drum, Krugman, et al. are being silly and obscure about this, so perhaps I'm not the person to explain it to you. That said, they seem to have two exceptions. First, while there are mandates in Clinton's plan, Obama's mailer is not tell you how she'll compensate for their impact, i.e., Obama isn't helping Clinton sell the more obscure parts of her plan. Second, since mandates are always going to be a problem, Klein et al. are saying that Obama is poisoning a well we want to drink from later.

My perception is that both candidates know that health care is going to be a battle, they just have different approaches to it right now. Clinton had a chance to explain at the debate last night. She didn't, and I don't think she wants to.
.

I am amazed how Obama supporters will justify anything he does or says as well as his surrogates, but jump on every little utterance from Hillary Clinton or her surrogates. This ad is repugnant to anybody who lived through the Harry and Louise period and all the rest of the 90's republican garbage used against democrates and the Clintons specifically. I am a progressive and have been for 40 years and find Obama to be nothing more than a politician saying one thing and doing another. By going after health care like this he is conceding too much too soon. Why can't Obama supporters see through the messianic persona and realize they are being had?

I have no idea why I just typed "exceptions" for "objections."
.

I am amazed how Obama supporters will justify anything he does or says as well as his surrogates, but jump on every little utterance from Hillary Clinton or her surrogates.

False analogy. I have not seen the Obama campaign use short, clipped quotes to lie about Clinton's positions, the way her campaign, for instance, has done on the AUMF (Clinton did that one personally), Kyl-Lieberman, and whether or not Obama wants single-payer.

Between Hillary's assumption that the common people are stupid and that they are just here to be manipulated, and having Penn and McCauliffe around, I think she is fundamentally hostile to progressive values and the grass roots in general. That means a hell of a lot more to me than message parsing right now.

Just in case you think I'm hostile to Clinton personally, let me tell you that she and I seem to be temperamentally similar in many respects. I identify with her and cringe when her intellectual nature is held up to scorn (just because she's a woman). But I'm old enough not to just pick someone because they confirm my prejudices.

Obama's personnel selections and the structure of his organization make him congruent with progressive values, even if some of you don't understand why he would hitch a ride on GOP memes or he doesn't seem hell bent on pursuing an ideologically pure agenda.
.

'Can someone please explain (or link to an explanation of) what precisely is false or misleading about the following sentence:
"Hillary's health care plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it."'

All three plans allow people who can't afford insurance to opt-in to Medicare.

There is no 'punishment', which is why Obama is in the wrong with this mailer.

It's simply false.

'Actually, Obama co-sponsored different legislation that didn't cave to the Iran-hawks, so I think his position here is clear. That didn't stop the Clinton campaign from claiming that his bill was just like Kyl-lieberman, though.'

Um...

does S.970 not in fact designate the IRG as a terrorist group?

Along with sanctions against the Iranian government?

How exactly is that bill less caustic that the kyl-lieberman amendment in the context of the last NIE?

'Obama's personnel selections and the structure of his organization make him congruent with progressive values'

You mean those ex-Clinton officials?

That's 'rich'.

Imagine a future in which families are mandated to buy a health plan with a $10,000 deductible (the cheapest legal option?) -- okay, they obeyed the law -- but now they end in the emergency room MORE OFTEN because they have even LESS money left over for family doctor visits.

Again and again: Medicare for all ought to be the easiest program in the world to sell: Medicare is the plan most folks happily look forward to relying on when they are older and perhaps much more in need of even critical care -- why in the world should they hesitate to rely on it now while they are young and usually healthy?

I can't figure out why everyone thinks this is so unbelievably offensive?

Was there a similar outcry when Hillary sent out her mailer blasting Obama for voting 'present' even though the pro-choice organizations requested he do so?

And how is this argument any different in tone than Hillary's accusation that Obama's plan would leave 15m uninsured?

This attack doesn't just undermines Obama's case for universal health care, it undermines the entire liberal/progressive case for government involvement in social welfare issues. Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security? They can all be knocked down using the exact same language Obama is using here.

Its the hypocracy I can't stand. Don't tell me you are going to be a different type of politician and then turn around and do the same things everyone else does. As Obama said he knows how to play Chicago politics. Clinton for all her faults isn't trying to be Joan of Arc. Just look at Obama's front page - looks like something on the front of a church's Sunday program. Please. And Teddy there surrounded by stars.

I have government health insurance and realize how lucky I am, but it is not good for anything that isn't "convential". I pay plenty for things that the US medical community doesn't recognize because they don't know how to treat it (big pharma hasn't found a pill yet) but the Europeans have been treating for years. I'll take my chances that Clinton will be more responsive to people like me than Obama.

Well, that's one way to make Edwards wary of a pre-Tuesday endorsement.

Ugh. Depressing. Don't buy into the GOP (and Big Healthcare) frame, for fuck's sake.

Like Chris says, Obama's pissing on the idea that 'we're all in this together', which is the foundation of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

does S.970 not in fact designate the IRG as a terrorist group?

Along with sanctions against the Iranian government?

That wasn't even Clinton's point, so go google. In the meantime, you'll notice that Iranian sanctions have significant support around the globe. Not exactly Bush-ville.

How exactly is that bill less caustic that the kyl-lieberman amendment in the context of the last NIE?

Not being AUMF redux might be a good place to start.

You mean those ex-Clinton officials?

Yes. Did I say the Clinton's were radioactive? I think there's a reason why they left. I wouldn't want to work with Penn and McCauliffe, either. And just why in the hell was Carville saying that Ford should replace Dean?

Those people are on the wrong side of success. Judging by the endorsements of late, it would seem that I'm stating the obvious.

conventional - sorry

This attack doesn't just undermines Obama's case for universal health care, it undermines the entire liberal/progressive case for government involvement in social welfare issues. Medicare. Medicaid. Social Security? They can all be knocked down using the exact same language Obama is using here.

I'm sure the opponents of those programs were bereft, wandering in a wilderness of doubt and uncertainty about how to proceed, until they heard Obama's words and realized that he had the solution they had been looking for for so long.
.

If anyone else wants to see the difference between the bill Obama co-sponsored and the amendment Hillary voted for, I see someone has long since put it all in one place for you.

In particular, I was referring to item #8.
.

Dude, his ad mailer is correct. The Clinton camp knows this is actually a weakness with her plan- when you mandate and people don't get it, are you to fine them? In Massachusettes, there are fines of up to $1000 per year (next year) for not enrolling. Obama is right - work on affordability. Clinton didn't persuade me last night.

Considering Hillary is the likely nominee, she will in her words "face much worse in the general election."

Today one of her advisers responded by likening the mailer to "Nazis marching through Skokie, Illinois."

I don't think that will quite work, and neither will Paul Krugman whining like an eight-year old. Sure that works with liberal dittoheads but not so much with swing voters.

'That wasn't even Clinton's point, so go google.'

It's my point.

S.970 does more than what is outlined in kyl-lieberman.

Shorter:worse after the NIE revelations.

Nevermind that the Iranian government is free to do exactly what they're doing under the non-proliferation agreement. Another topic for another day.

'Not being AUMF redux might be a good place to start.'

Where in Kyl-Lieberman does it give Bush the authorization to use force against Iran?

'I think there's a reason why they left.'

And those would be...

mere supposition on your part.

'In particular, I was referring to item #8.'

I'll let the source speak for itself.

'In Massachusettes, there are fines of up to $1000 per year (next year) for not enrolling.'

There are no 'penalties' in the Clinton plan.

Where are you getting that from? You are missing the entire point.

There are no 'penalties' as outlined in the plan.

The reality is that if you set the penalties for signing up only once you get sick high enough, people will choose to have health insurance under Barack's plan just as they would under Hillary's plan. Yes, even healthy people. Because healthy people need to pay for care when they get sick unless they qualify for Medicaid- i.e. unless they are poor. So there is no way to game the system currently, and that doesn't change with this. The difference is that under Hillary's plan, some poor people are going to get whacked twice, and under Obama's plan a fewer number of people (those who get sick) are going to get whacked even harder. In both cases, you're probably looking at getting blood out of stone.

The fear mongering on this debate is going on on both sides. Neither plan is very much differnt from the other, and where you come out seems to come down to political expediency. Speaking of which, I just came here from Paul Krugman's blog.

It's my point.

Have fun with that.

Nevermind that the Iranian government is free to do exactly what they're doing under the non-proliferation agreement. Another topic for another day.

Yes, they are. And the US isn't the only country that is alarmed. All caught up now?

'Not being AUMF redux might be a good place to start.'

Where in Kyl-Lieberman does it give Bush the authorization to use force against Iran?

You've got it backwards. That's why I pointed you to item #8, but you cheesed out (below). If you don't like the source, you're doomed to remain stupid, asking stupid questions like this one. Not my fault.

'I think there's a reason why they left.'

And those would be...

mere supposition on your part.

Yep.

I'll let the source speak for itself.

... which means you've said nothing.

I consider that an improvement.
.

All this crap about "forcing the healthy to pay for the sick".
How does Obama plan to provide subsidy for those who want to buy healthcare? By taxing only the sick?
Sign me up for that healthcare plan!!

Clinton should just come up with a better plan. So should Obama. Mandated plans are not the best way to fix the health care system anyways.

But complaining about the picture? Can't they figure out something better than that?

BREAKING NEWS: Obama wears shoes... JUST LIKE JOHN MCCAIN! Are they too similar? They both have laces, and the soles are barely different. SCANDALOUS! Get Drudge on it - sirens and all!

I was going to support OIbama, since Edwards dropped out. However, I consider this behavior disgraceful, especially from someone who babbles incessantly about his "new" politics.

This isn't new politics. This is more of the timehonored Republican tactic of lies and distortion.

I hope he reaps the whirlwind.

The Clinton campaign is compaining that Obama is using NAZI tactics with this???

Come on.

Obama should put up an ad with Clinton campaigns very own Bill Clinton proclaiming that the federal government should slow economic growth in order to fix global warming.

Everyone sitting home without a job..great ad for Hillary - elect me and I'll put you out of a job!!

I was thinking Ezra could do a great service to the country by coming up with a Newspaper and Magazine Care Plan based on a government run system.

We have just so many different news sources and the costs are getting ridiculous. Many people can't afford all the different progressive newspapers and magazines.

Not to mention, there is no program to cover all poor people with progressive magazine coverage.

Clearly we need a government takeover of this industry, it is so wasteful and costly for them to all be running in different directions, not sharing costs etc.

Its ludicrous, and costs skyrocket for the average consumer.

The government should step in a mandate a single newspaper/magazine for all progressive news coverage. It will be a single magazine, from one printing press with a single website providing content from all.

That way the government can significantly reduce coasts by cutting out the waste and duplication - Hillary would be great for that job.

Why should I have to buy Slate, MotherJones, The American Prospect, The International Socialist eview, etc. when I can get a single payer system, say 2 dollars per month and you get the entire content of all.

Of course we won't need all those reporters, editors, etc., but they can stay home, reduce the economic growth and save our global environment...everyone wins!!

There are no 'penalties' in the Clinton plan.

Where are you getting that from? You are missing the entire point.

There are no 'penalties' as outlined in the plan.

Okay. Then how are the mandates going to be enforced for those who don't sign up?

Off topic, but I couldn't let this slip. GMT writes, "Where in Kyl-Lieberman does it give Bush the authorization to use force against Iran?". I just have to ask, did you miss the part about declaring a branch of that countries military as a terrorist organization, or the fact that we're engaged in a 'Global War on Terror'? That resolution was astoundingly stupid, though perhaps not quite as bad as the one that got us into Iraq. That however, is setting the bar a tad low I'd say.

Count me as another former Edwards supporter who's very disappointed in Obama's mailer. What a complete betrayal of universal health care! I was wary of him after the 'social security is in crisis' thing, but he almost had me convinced he was on our side. Now this disgusting tactic-- attacking from the right before the Repugs even get started. I'll be supporting Hillary on Tuesday, and I'm starting to think John should endorse her too.

WHY DO PEOPLE JUST WRITE THIS OFF??

Look, I can understand that a lot of people just like Barack Obama better than Hillary. In a likeability contest he would out charm her easily. But this is a vote for the presidency...for a helping hand to millions of Americans.

At the end of the day, good health is the foundation for human life. Ask any rich CEO dying of cancer, every sick child or hell...ask John and Elizabeth Edwards. They would trade all their money and power and fame just for good health.

We have people dying every day in this country because of our health care system. 18,000 people a year die because they lack coverage. That's like six 9/11 every year. I'm not trying to pull a Giuliani, I'm just trying to give some perspective.

While many people say "oh I dislike Clinton because she voted for Iraq or I dislike Clinton because she had some ties to the DLC, fixing our health care system affects more people and more directly than any issue.

I'm an Obama supporter and I don't like that he's doing this. Not at all. At the same time, I'm glad he is playing to win because I think he will be the most progressive force for change we have. And at least his style of "playing to win" is based on objective fact, unlike the Clintons. I also think that, after his health care plan came out, he was forced into this argument because of the attacks from Clinton and Edwards. His only other choices would have been to change his mind, and look weak, or not fight back. Since those two were undoable, he was left with the third option. And thus we have what is before us.

If Hillary can't sell it to Democrats in a primary, she is going to have real trouble selling it to the country.

I know you are a wonk Ezra, but politics is also about sales...isn't this just good practice?

"And Obama is now threatening to force them to pay back premiums. That's a harsher penalty than anything Clinton has proposed."

THAT'S BECAUSE SHE HASN'T ANSWERED HOW SHE WOULD ENFORCE!!!

If you think the republicans will let her get through the general without explaining mandates you are naive.

True, but the majority of Americans are now in favor of UHC, or at least were, until they saw that mailer.

You wouldn't have been selling it to the same audience you were in 93.

Obama just made it harder to sell his own plan in the end. How is that smart?

I'd just like to comment on how this shouldn't change anybody's vote, and I don't think it will.

There are two types of Obama supporters, IMO. I'm voting for him because I agree with him on nearly every issue, not because I think he's the one politician who tells the truth. I think he's much more honest than his opponent and her spouse, but I'm not naive enough to believe that any of them are above smears. So seeing "politics as usual" isn't going to convince me to switch, because I know Clinton definitely isn't above it.

The other kind thinks he can do no wrong, and they'll never vote Hillary because "she's evil."

The biggest thing this will do is piss off people who were already supporting Hillary, but most of them should already be pissed off if they're paying attention to the polls.

Yeah good call tony.. I cant see anything in this that is patently offensive. Course I dont remember these thelma an louise ads. (j.k. w/ the name)

He doesnt like mandates.. great, neither do I! Hes playing one of the few differences that people agree exist between the proposals.

"Having a just society costs.." This isnt going to end up with a just society.. just a different one. You think you're going to get ALL the magic care you want out of either of these? certainly not!

Your seeing the creation of the next superbad insurance companies. New entities that get to decide what health procedures you have a right to, based on your common share. Its not MRI on demand, or Mayo clinic care for all..

If you claim something different, then you're lying plain and simple. If you continue to involve private insurance companies as the major pillar of a healthcare plan all you've done is adress the payment side of things. Costs continue to rise.. 'R&D' funded by your $12 hospital tylenol goes to ake the next must have overprescribed antidepressant thats no different from its predecessor. We continue to pay through government mandate ever spiraling costs until it burdens our entire economy.

Why is that we look at Soc. Sec, and Medicare half the time and see that its sucking the lifeblood from our economy, and then want to emulate it with yet another system at the same time? The first 2 already need to be fixed before we hand our entire economy to the chinese, we dont need to add a third based on the same model.

His plans states right there that he addresses costs as a major pillar of his plan. That I can get behind. I havent heard hillary say this 1x. Shes just all about getting everybody's money together so she can concoct her grand plan.

..and btw. this is a completely disingenuous conversatino to be having about presidential candidates anyway. The president doesnt get to decide little details like the agreessivenes of the sliding scale, or if theres back dues. ..they can veto against them certainly, but that has a whole new set of political worries associated with it.

The fact that they are both for a version of UHC is essentially as good as it really gets. The details will be rung out by congress.. You should rake your state representatives over the coals about this, not presidential candidates. The nitty gritty details on this are not their domain of power.

Foreign policy.. that they have a direct hand in. he president can sign treaties, make executive orders, move troops, and all that independantly. These are the things we really need to worry about in the executive office.

I read the coments first then went on to see the entire mailer. Wow. was I underwhelmed. I certainly expected a lot worse then "is this the best we can do?"

Obama does not support universal healthcare and will spend zero political capital to pass it.

We have know most of this since the Goolsbee plan came out. Obama then confirmed it by attacking universal healthcare in New Hampshire and now he is doing it again.

This is the first site where I have heard intelligent people debating actual issues. Thank you.

(1) As a decade-long supporter of single payer (including during the dog days when it was derided as wildly unrealistic), I continue to believe that this is the best policy approach.

(2) Regarding the instant debate, I tend to think the pro-mandates people have the better of the argument on the merits.

(3) That said, comparisons to "opting out" of Social Security elide the central criticism of mandates - that those who cannot *afford* insurance will be forced to pay for it. No one cannot "afford" Social Security, you buy in through payroll taxes.

(4) The fact that John Edwards has attained status as some kind of progressive demigod is entertaining to anyone who does not suffer from amnesia. Still, his realization that he could carve out a political niche as a fiery populist/progressive rather than a DLC disciple has led to some bold policy proposals that have had a positive impact on the primary debate.

(5) I may have missed this, but what is the mandate enforcement mechanism in Clinton's plan?

(6) The mailer bears an unfortunate resemblance to Harry and Louise and obscures the fact that Clinton's plan includes various provisions designed to ensure affordability - including, in a broad sense, the mandates themselves. Thumbs down.

(7) Clinton has clearly engaged in more spurious attacks in this primary campaign.

(8) Obama is clearly the better of the two candidates for people who are interested in pursuing and accomplishing progressive policy goals.

(9) This constant getting bent out of shape about conservative "frames" that I see in the liberal blogosphere is really inane. Obama proposes a progressive social security plan and all Paul Krugman and an army of so-called liberals can do is moan endlessly about how he ONCE uttered the word "crisis," which is - gasp! - buying into a conservative frame. Your progressive credentials are not defined by the distance between the language you use and the language that conservatives *might* use. The only thing that seems to unite the Democratic Party's centrists and liberals is an addiction to defining their politics by reference to how Republicans talk - either through craven co-option or kneejerk opposition.

Please keep working to get your article out to all the major media outlets in the country. This is one of the major needs in this country and is now being threatened by giving an advantage to the Republican Party and a disadvantage to the Millions that cannot afford Health Care.

Ezra, has your Hillary-mania completely obscured your objectivity? Those are CLEARLY different hairstyles.

Any plan other than single payer, universal care is nothing but a scheme to leave the leeches on the patient.

Those are entirely different hair cuts. Forcing people to pay the insurance companies stinks to high-heaven.

If it's not single-payer funded by tax dollars then it's not Universal Health Care. Mandatory health insurance is no more universal health care than mandatory auto insurance is universal driver care.

Mandates are less than progressive.

"Winning at any cost the Republican Rove playbook"

I agree with stellaa. Rove adviced him in a open letter and it seems he's following his advice. The problem to me is that Obama is a dem. Isn't he?
It seems that Obama likes more Republicans than Democrats that he´s 'giving bullets' to the rep and that he's harder with dem than with rep.
Like Obama said Republican people tell him in a whisper, I'm Republican but I'm going to vote for you. Well, now is possible to understand many things, at least to me.

Perhaps he´s a dem but he wants to win at any cost, exactly like whatever Republican. Rove can be very proud.

zack (2/1 3:56PM), read your own post again. Perfect example of what so many find disturbing about Obama's campaign and his militant supporters: you are complaining about 'tone'. Superficialities, as usual. The issue here is CONTENT.
Excellent analysis, Ezra.

You might want to check this article just posted on NYT online for more of the same. Truly damning, and very disturbing. This is just Bush-lite all over again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html
Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

umm.. Rick.. try linking to a non-subscription site.

Rovian? Any means Necessary? Please. Not even close. This may be less then flattering, which it is supposed to be. But it in no way insulting, and doesn't blatantly lie about anything.

This isn't like the swiftboat/kerry incident where people just outright lied.

Get a grip and criticize where its deserved, but therse no reason to just make things up and exaggerate just to create hype.

Yeah, this is like the Kerry swifboat attack. It's the same kind of dishonest attacks. Republican attacks. And he thinks like a Republican for all he has said and (now)done. Sorry but is the truth

I'm glad Obama did the mailer. It's certainly not Harry and Louise redoux because this one's accurate and tells the truth. I guess it is like H and L in that it's strategic and effective, but that's good, I think.

I'm glad for it b/c the mailer generated a platform for arguments to smack down the concept of an individual mandate and to discuss who the real enemy is (corporate profit driven healthcare and its Masters).

Many readers here have recently been told with gusto that "The Urban Institute has done a study and run the numbers" that prove mandates are a must, so we're now supposed to reject reason and be convinced by this unidimensional argument for the mandate? Running some numbers to justify using an individual mandate is absurd. Real life is a lot more complex than that.

Here are a few more points on why "The Mailer" was right to send out.

Observation 1: Years of settling for piecemeal incremental reform bills passed on both the state and national levels have perpetuated the country's health care crisis by leaving our hugely dysfunctional wasteful greed-infested non-system in place and unreformed.

Observation 2: Commercial insurance products = need for profits = care denied.
Market-driven provider services = provision of unnecessary care that wastes resources and carries avoidable risk and drives down quality. These are the hallmarks of U.S. healthcare and it's disgusting, immoral and a disgrace.

Observation 3: Incremental reforms have their place but only if they are part of a broader vision of fundamental system reform that is clearly articulated, on track, and actively worked toward.

Observation 4: Incremental reforms make sense and are often widely supported (here in MA, CA, Federal level such as SCHIP) if they help position further reform instead of heading us in the opposite direction.

Observation 5: Piecemeal changes should be stopped if they will actively harm many in need and will make it harder to achieve the other reforms required to address and remedy the causes of our badly broken system. Cases in point:

- An individual mandate law that forces people of modest means to purchase expensive crappy insurance with high deductibles and co-pays. (see the Mass. Plan for more details)

-- A health law with a funding mechanism that willfully chooses to not address the pervasive waste and profiteering in the health care industry. This worsens the high costs that are already breaking the budgets of countless individuals, families, small and large businesses, and public budgets at all levels of government. (see Mass. Plan for more details)

Observation 6: As you all know, health system reform is a life and death issue for many. Life, and prevention of seriously disabling illness, should trump political expediency and political payoff.

Observation 7: Principles matter. Right and wrong matter when it affects whether thousands each year will live well or will suffer and die. It is not a matter of "the perfect being the enemy of the good". That's cowardly and defeatist. Not everything should be open to "compromise". Compromise is wrong if it enables the cause of such enormous and preventable suffering, if it enables what is bankrupting our families, our businesses, our public budgets, and if it enables the cause of what is immoral.

My activism on this issue began 25 years ago when my sister developed schizophrenia. She became horribly ill and needed to be hospitalized. On the day her private insurance coverage ran out McLean Hospital discharged her, still actively psychotic, undergoing medication adjustments, and in need of their services and care. That event was just the beginning of her "troubles with the system" and our family's long fight to get her needed care and medication.

Our mother depleted every cent of her savings to try and pay for care that was needed but that "the system" denied. This same kind of thing happens every day to countless patients and families. I see it all the time in my work as a nurse and an activist for the past 15 years. I cannot fathom why there's not been a massive national uprising over this economic rip-off and moral disgrace.

Individuals mandates won't help and in fact they would make prospects for real reform a lot worse. Let's put our collective focus and energy where it will make a major impact. Let's empower Obama - or whomever is the Democratic Nominee - to fight for Improved Medicare For All.

Tony: "...There are two types of Obama supporters, IMO. I'm voting for him because I agree with him on nearly every issue, not because I think he's the one politician who tells the truth. I think he's much more honest than his opponent and her spouse, but I'm not naive enough to believe that any of them are above smears. So seeing "politics as usual" isn't going to convince me to switch, because I know Clinton definitely isn't above it.

The other kind thinks he can do no wrong, and they'll never vote Hillary because "she's evil."

The biggest thing this will do is piss off people who were already supporting Hillary, but most of them should already be pissed off if they're paying attention to the polls."

I agree with everything you wrote, Tony. The bottom line is that we will get about the same sort of candidate regardless of who prevails in the end. I happen to think that Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton is just a little too much of the same 2 dynasties.

And it's a bit of stretch to conclude that the 2 couples depicted in the ads above look alike-?

Ann Malone IRN are you really glad for this mail? Are you reaaly glad to use dirty attacks against a democrat?

Ok, try this link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/us/politics/03exelon.html?ex=1202706000&en=9b90278942ace89a&ei=5070&emc=eta1

I add some excerpts below. It gets worse and worse. I'm pretty cynical, but even I'm taken aback reading this. My point is that his watered-down health care plan (already a 'compromise', as someone upthread noted) could follow exactly the same kind of quisling route as this nuclear legislation. This is the kind of thing we sceptics have feared from his over-eager rhetoric about 'compromise' and 'unity'. So here we have some concrete evidence that it has already happened, with radioactive material, no less.

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate
"When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state’s freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.
Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was “the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.”
“I just did that last year,” he said, to murmurs of approval.
A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks..."
"Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers..."
"In addition, Mr. Obama’s chief political strategist, David Axelrod, has worked as a consultant to Exelon..."
And on and on for 1700 words with the details...

Uh, this is regulating radioactive leaks at nuclear plants, not fixing potholes. I know that passing legislation requires negotiation and compromise, but he *completely* sold out on this. The he turned around and claimed it, in his campaign pitches, as a proud (phony) senatorial achievement.

If the link doesn't work - NYTimes is not subscription, it's free. You just need to register.

One other question: Isn't his wife a "hospital executive" somewhere? What kind of executive is she? Any chance she might have had a part in creating his healthcare plan if she's a healthcare professional? I want to know whose side she's on. Has her role come up in any discussions of his plan so far?

For everybody who said that this mail is correct please then don't talk about new politics and politics of hope. It's very inconsistent.

Apparently the Obama campaign is hitting this issue hard, as I just read they sent out alerts to this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-7278812,00.html

Now I am upset, this is not the way to approach this issue within the Democratic Party and all it does in my mind is further assert Hillary's view that if he begin with a compromise we will end up with much, much less. This is why many of us question what Obama plans to do to bring the Republicans to their feet to applaud for him.

This is the biggest issue for me this election.... Healthcare, I know many of you are enjoying indulging your personal emotions this primary, but I can not read another story about a kid who died because he could not get an $80 tooth extraction. We are a better nation than this, and to see Obama play on the fears and partisan pettiness of this issue, to place this issue in the context of what lessens this country, just pains me.

Rick,
"I add some excerpts below. It gets worse and worse. I'm pretty cynical, but even I'm taken aback reading this. My point is that his watered-down health care plan (already a 'compromise', as someone upthread noted) could follow exactly the same kind of quisling route as this nuclear legislation. This is the kind of thing we sceptics have feared from his over-eager rhetoric about 'compromise' and 'unity'. So here we have some concrete evidence that it has already happened, with radioactive material, no less."

Clearly, you don't like Obama and that's fair enough. But this article is far from damning and I think your reaction reflects more on your biases than on the legislation process. It's not a simple issue (I used to do consulting in the nuclear industry, though I'm generally not a supporter of nuclear energy). Furthermore, I think all legislation tends to go through similar processes of rewriting. Obama is on record saying that the US senate is troubling in that it almost is designed to force senators into bad votes.

Obama's not perfect, but he's also been a junior senator without lots of weight to throw around in the senate. (Speaking of which, Hillary has been pretty quiet in the senate with considerably more weight in recent years... e.g., the war). Optimistically, his goal is to assemble a popular grassroots coalition that gives him that weight as president. Maybe that's a naive approach, but picking on isolated actions as a senator doesn't give a fair picture.

In reply to

"Ann Malone RN are you really glad for this mail? Are you reaaly glad to use dirty attacks against a democrat?"
and
..."This is the biggest issue for me this election.... Healthcare, I know many of you are enjoying indulging your personal emotions this primary, but I can not read another story about a kid who died because he could not get an $80 tooth extraction. We are a better nation than this, and to see Obama play on the fears and partisan pettiness of this issue, to place this issue in the context of what lessens this country, just pains me."

I have this to say: No, I'm not "glad" that my state passed a totally f-cked up law to "ENFORCE THE MANDATE TO PURCHASE CRAPPY EXPENSIVE PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE which came from the dork J Grubber's "Running the numbers" on "mandates and no mandates" from hi s MIT Ivory Tower that then led to Clinton stupidly including an individual mandate in her plan which led to the Clinton campaign attacks against Obama for not having an individual mandate in his plan.

And to the 2nd comment, I believe that you and me and Obama are in the same space re having moral OUTRAGE over our totally inhumane non-system for healthcare in the country.

Obama knows the extent of the health reform battle to come and the need to smack down the flawed individual mandate concept before it gets even more traction springboarding from our disgraceful law here in Massachusetts.

His mailer wasn't partisan, it was attacking a concept that's being pushed enthusiastically by the insurance industry and that Clinton includes in her health plan.

"The thing is, every time I've just about decided that I'm going to vote for Obama, the man says something like "Dems need to stop disrespecting people of faith" or "the Republicans were the party of ideas in the last 10-15 years" or pulls a stunt like this.

This ad is guaranteed to make those of us who remember the battle of 1993-94 see red. It's almost like he wants liberals to vote for Hillary."

Well, then, so be it. I'm increasingly convinced that, thought their hearts bleed in (at least a few of the) right places, way, way too many liberals are dumb as dog shit.

Liberals *should,* indeed legally they may have to, stop disrespecting "people of faith" *for* their faith. You can feel free to disagree with their policy prescriptions but, unfortunately, it almost never stops there. This casual knee-jerk prejudice is something I'm finding increasingly unappealing.

Republicans *have been* the party of ideas, or at least the only party effectively getting their ideas across. Obama stated that he didn't agree with those ideas. Perhaps history will disprove that, but it is at yet untested.

And, finally, he's right on the "mandate" as well. HRC is effectively lying to a "too busy to pay attention" public who thinks that "universal coverage" means a public plan that is funded through progressive taxation, because we all know that apart from kids in their 20s who haven't landed a full-benefits bearing job yet, the majority of people lacking health insurance are underemployed and don't have the money to pay market rate health care mandates in order to fund what will most likely turn out to be other peoples' care, not being able to afford the high deductible either. So, obviously, the public is being jerked around and "HRC is going to force you to buy health insurance you can't afford" is indeed news to them.

Perhaps you were planning on buying the healthcare stocks currently being touted on CNBC. Sorry if I don't think the underemployed should be giving you and Chelsea their rent money, and Obama may successfully spoil that.

Look for the next bubble elsewhere. China needs steel, I hear. Commodity stocks already too high, you say? Well, wait a few weeks, then.

I increasinly HOPE he kicks your dumb dog shit asses to the curb.

"are you really glad for this mail? Are you reaaly glad to use dirty attacks against a democrat?"

Yeah, I don't give a fuck about your party. You sure as hell are not the point.

15 Million Uninsured!

Mandated Participation!

Pot. Kettle. Black.

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge.

SHAME ON BARACK OBAMA

http://www.2buytramadol.com

http://www.pharmacy2buy.com

http://www.tramadolprescriptions.net

http://www.us-edrugstore.com

.
The anti-national HC people in the USA call it 'single-payer HC' but they shouldn't. Government Controlled Health Care should more accurately be called 'Single-Provider HC', not 'Single-Payer'. Single-payer HC is fine and does exist, it should be expanded.

There should be less mandates, and more competition in HC, not less. Let people choose HC plans from other states, like they do with car insurance and everything else.

Single-provider is what you get with Gov’t HC, that has never worked well. Cuba, Canada, the UK and other countries have destroyed HC quality with Gov’t single-provider HC.

Visit: http://freemarketcure.com
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe loves
single-provider healthcare

provided by government
which has NO competition

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
destroy your healthcare system

Cuba’s filthy hospitals
are something to aspire to

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don’t pay healthcare premiums

for the uninsured
just destroy system for all

.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe wants
single-provider healthcare

which has NO competition
to cut costs they ration care

.
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech there can be no real freedom.
.

Good review, thanks. http://www.genericdrugs-rx.com/

This is like the Kerry swifboat attack. It's the same kind of dishonest attacks. Republican attacks. And he thinks like a Republican for all he has said and (now)done. Sorry but is the truth.

Wholesale jewelry, http://www.aypearl.com supply vast kinds of styles handmade jewelry,mainly engage in wholesale handmade jewelry such as wholesale crystal ,wholesale pearl ,wholesale gemstone,wholesale costume jewelry,also wholesale fashion jewelry like wholesale swarovski crystal,wholesale beads,wholesale turquoise,wholesale coral,costume jewelry,shell jewelry and discount jewelry, jewelry wholesale, just on AYpearl jewelry store.Unlimited selection of jewelry at Great prices!

http://www.fantastic-replica.net

When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge. http://www.crazypurchase.com

great article!

i agree!

Replica Louis vuitton handbags

[url=http://www.fantastic-replica.net/]fake Louis vuitton[/url]

Thanks for you post,It's useful to me

I agree that her strategy has the edge in winning over us liberals, but I'm not so sure about the constituents of the red state senators you'll need to pressure to get anything passed into law.

Laptop Batteries
Laptop Batteries discount laptop battery

Perhaps you were planning on buying the healthcare stocks currently being touted on CNBC. Sorry if I don't think the underemployed should be giving you and Chelsea their rent money, and Obama may successfully spoil that.