Man, are you gonna be pissed when her plan comes out.

That "one serious argument" is a catch-all for a lot of different policy positions that spell, to me, a return to a stale and corrupt governing style where laws and loopholes are available to the highest bidder. Medicare-for-all doesn't quite soothe my concern.

Is it too naive of me to expect that either Edwards or Obama are more likely to deliver a governing style that is more populist and less aristocratic?

the one serious argument against her campaign

Oh come on. The argument? How about "Her foreign policy judgment is terrible"? AKA "Michael O'Hanlon endorses her"?

It's "fun to watch" a politician belittling someone and insulting their intelligence?

Hey KipE.- If you think that "questioner" was intelligent, you need a new dictionary. His collection of misstatements and empty assertions was so obviously intended to try to embarrass Ms. C, and she demonstrated that she knew a lot more about the subject than he did. By the by: correcting one of his misstatements - the overwhelming majority of people in the UK and Canada (as in those other 'advanced' countries named) would never give up their universal coverage medical systems.

It may be uninformed to yammer on and on about socialized medicine, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised if "healthcare reform" doesn't end up being all about businesses shedding their current role of paying for their employees, no real fundamental change in the involvement of private for-profit insurance companies, and middle class taxpayers picking up the tab. And, we'll get to hear about how we asked for it.

Not to ruin Christmas, but I tend to agree. :) If Clinton does release specifics of her plan, given her knowledge and experience on the aspects of healthcare, I doubt her plan will be "Medicare for All." I suspect what she will propose will have many facets of the better aspects of M for A, but avoid what will likely be hard questions about Medicare's system that hardcore M for A supporters tend not to like (such as Medicare's inability to control medical costs, the fee for service model it uses, etc). Democrats can agree on a generalized sense that more opportunity for healthcare access for all is necessary, and agree that we're comfortable with a plan which heavily involves government. Medicare for All may not be all that. Is all I'm sayin'.

You know, I was in a green room with a really prominent Democratic consultant recently, and he said . . .

Ezra . . . Ezra . . . Ezra

This is the clip where she says "I have never supported socialized medicine"? That's supposed to auger well for universal healthcare?

All the talk about universal coverage is really talk about access to care. What seems to get lost in the current health care debate is the fact that while American spends far more per capita on health care than any other developed nation we rank far below most other developed nations in important measures of health status, e.g. 23rd in life expectancy, behind Demark (22nd) and Portugal (21st).

If a candidate wants to get attention why not talk about what's making us sick and asking us to think about how we might change those conditions. There's compelling research being down in the fields of social and workplace epidemiology demonstrating that the manmade environments of our communities and jobsites are the primary determinants of our health.

Focusing on access to and financing of care (to the exclusion of a focus on the cause of our national/cultural pathology) seems like making the passengers comfortable while the ship goes down.

This is the clip where she says "I have never supported socialized medicine"? That's supposed to auger well for universal healthcare?

It's true, she never has supported socialized medicine (i.e., single-payer or Medicare-for-all). Clintoncare was a giant HMO scheme. I don't expect Clintoncare II to be much better. And no, this doesn't augur well for healthcare, as long as either of the Clintons are in charge of this party.

In addition to what Matt Weiner said, isn't "She's the weakest in the general election" also a serious argument against her candidacy? You actually made some of that argument on your blog today, I think.

"If a candidate wants to get attention why not talk about what's making us sick and asking us to think about how we might change those conditions. There's compelling research being down in the fields of social and workplace epidemiology demonstrating that the manmade environments of our communities and jobsites are the primary determinants of our health."

I agree: it's over work and poverty.