Hillary keeps beating the drum that her plan will give Americans universal coverage (that's not quite true) but none of the ads also curiously tell how us how she intends do that- by mandates.

Once again, mandatory insurance plans aren't "progressive." "As I argued before, it makes little sense to bring us health care "reform" that only chains all of us into a system that is clearly not working."

It's no wonder private health insurers are amongst Hillary's biggest campaign donors.

Here are some reasons in a Kevin Drum thread today why the Candian medicare system/single payer system is so superior to mandating private insurance coverage..and Barack Obama's system will get Americans closer the Canadian Medicare system by introducing a Federal paid option for those who can't afford private insurance now likely by expanding Medicare. At the same time, this huge pool will offer insurance to anyone that wants to buy in.

Don't bother with specifics, Steve. Lee is only concerned with the candidate's plan being ideologically pure (adhering to his own special definition of progressive). Whether it will actually pass, and then work after passage, and who really benefits, are not important issues.

But I thought Barack isn't promoting a single-payer system Steve?

Squish! Trying to pin down what's real when it comes to Obama on issues is like trying to shove jello through a straw.

"Chains us to a system that isn't working?" How nebulously Barack'ish of you. What does that mean, exactly? Mandates work in Switzerland and the Netherlands, why won't they work here?

And try avoiding the mandates that you carry auto insurance. Odd, mandates do work after all, don't they?

and then there's mandatory state disability insurance that words just fine in several US states.

and let;s not forget mandated Social Security...

and mandated Medicare taxes...

Finally, this is the first time I've heard anyone (other than Michael Moore) holding up Canada as a model of health insurance wonderfulness.

and I'll trump your Kevin Drum with a Paul Krugman. Unlike Drum the Obama-hack columnist, Krugman is a real live American economist, a genius on such matters:

Look, the point of a mandate isn't to dictate how people should live their lives -- it's to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.

Here's an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn't think you'd actually need Medicare when you got older -- except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare's finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.

So how much does all this matter?

Mr. Obama's health plan is weaker than those of his Democratic rivals, but it's infinitely superior to, say, what Rudy Giuliani has been proposing. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama's rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he's making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.

I'd add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn't that serious about achieving universal care -- that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there's a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less.

Obama, without thinking it all the way through obviously, had to forge a health plan that was different than his rivals -- remember, Barack is the "new way". Unfortunately,as usual, he came up with a mish-mash hodge-podge of half-baked ideas, that he know sells like snake oil as he dodges the realities such as his flip-flopping underscored by the single-payer link in graph 1.

Bottom line, Barack is to the right of Clinton on Health Care and has a plan that isn't universal and he's just too stubborn to fix it, leaving the Drums of the world to try to defend it with bullshit like "the Canadian system is superior" - lol.

Cue the squish...

You sure do swallow those talking points whole, don't you Lee? If you can ever act like an adult and cease your constant dishonesty, discussing policy might be possible. I doubt it will happen, but here's to tilting at windmills.

Mandates
Mandates punish people who can't afford healthcare, and they can't afford the punishments either, thereby doubly screwing them. But, it's universal!
or...
You end up having to excuse those who can't afford the mandates, as Massachusetts just did (20% of the uninsured!), thus voiding the entire point of those mandates (everyone buys in).

Absence of mandates in Obamas plan is not meant to distinguish it from his opponents, it's by design. It's not a bug, it's a feature. For now. Mandates are certainly an option down the road, but it's a multi-stage process and we need to see what the initial response from the insured and uninsured is.

I'll see your Krugman and raise you a Eskow. I can do this without calling Krugman a hack like a childish Republican. I like Krugman, but he doesn't think practically on this issue, and he gets a number of details of Obama's plan wrong.

The main difference between Obama's plan and his rivals' is this: They would mandate health coverage first and fix cost problems later. Obama would do the opposite. While both approaches are problematic, there is a strong case to be made that Obama's plan is fairer - and much more politically progressive.

Indeed.

And trying avoiding the mandates that you carry auto insurance. Odd, mandates do work after all, don't they?

No, they don't. Millions of people drive without insurance. Clinton claims her mandates will provide universal coverage, but they won't. Look at Massachusetts.

The reason Obama's plan is better, and more progressive, is that it puts the horse before the cart. As Eskow states, it fixes the cost problems first, making insurance affordable in a tangible way first (where the Clinton plan promises subsidies where people can't pay the costs that many will surely be unable to afford. But how much will they actually pay; and how much will the subsidies be? They don't say.)

When costs are under control and analysis of the system can be made, then mandates can be assigned to those that can afford it (i.e. freeriders).

Anyway, read Eskow's interview with Obama's health care advisor David Cutler for more. Read the rebuttal to the Clinton talking points on the Obama site as well.

Then, if you are able to talk policy without being intentionally insulting to everyone who argues for a different position, I'll be impressed. You're probably just a windmill though.

Discussing policy with Obama-wonks is no more satisfying than the previously-mentioned shoving jello through a straw, to wit: "Mandates punish people who can't afford healthcare"

Irrelevant bullshit again, mantis. Clinton's plan provides for low-cost or subsidies (I don't remember which) for people who can't afford it. No one who can't afford to buy health insurance will be forced to do so - typical Republican spin on reality... but people who decide to not buy it until they need - as they can do under Obama's plan - game the system.

"Mandates are certainly an option down the road,"

Holy crap. So mandates are k down the road once Obama's plan blows up and the scams drive it into the ground? Madates later aren't a bad idea, but recognizing that Obama's plan is weak and requiring the mandates up front is "Republican"???

Mandates are ok later when... Obama's plan doesn't work? lol.

How ridiculously Obama'ish. Stick to the bumper sticker slogans and the constant attacks on Clinton that the Obamatrons loves so much, mantis. You guys lose major points when you try to to defend his position on the issues.

That's what I thought. What a stupid child you are. An honest discussion with you is impossible.

Ah yes, name-calling, the hallmark of someone who just lost an argument, lol....