Reply #9: The "Edwards can't win" meme and Obama's health plan [View All]

That meme died in this thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3343178

It is unfortunate to see a former Kerry support argue that everyone aside from the top two in national polls should be written off. :(

As to his health care plan: ==But there are some differences between what Obama and Edwards have proposed. And by far the biggest, most important one is the fact that Edwards has a "mandate" in his plan: He would require every single American to get insurance. That means his plan is truly "universal." Obama says he, too, is committed to covering everybody by 2012. And he has a mandate that all children get insurance. But there is no similar mandate on adults. There is, in other words, no requirement that every adult American have health insurance. And that means his plan is not universal--at least not in the same sense that Edwards and his advisers mean it.

Why does this matter? Obama's advisers, for what it's worth, think it doesn't. Not much, anyway. They believe that their initiative will help cover most Americans within two or three years. After that, they say, they can come back to the problem and, following through on Obama's promise, cover that relatively small portion of the population that still doesn't have coverage. If that requires passing some sort of mandate then, so be it. They're prepared to do so.

I think they mean it. But can they do it? The best studies out there--by Urban Institute researchers, the RAND Corporation, and MIT economist Jonathan Gruber--suggest that, without a mandate, improving affordability will cover roughly one-third of the people who don't have coverage. Mandating that kids (but not adults) have coverage bumps that up to about a half. Obama's advisers think that, by really loading up on the subsidies--and making enrollment a lot easier by, for example, having an automatic enrollment with voluntary opt-out at your place of work--they can goose that up to two-thirds. But that's getting optimistic--and, even then, you still have around 15 million people who are uninsured.==

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w070528&s=cohn053107

If Obama truly will come back at a later date and then propose universal health care--which recognizes that his plan is a half measure--why doesn't he fill in the gaps now? 15, 17, or 20 million people can't wait without health insurance for two or three years while hearing flashy rhetoric about "hope" and "turning the page." They need health insurance now, not tomorrow. Obama offered a Third Way half a loaf measure, hardly the mark of a "change" candidate. We cannot vote for him based on a faith-based initiative that at a later date he will fill in the gaps he left in his current plan.

There are many children eligible to be covered by the CHIP program but remain uninsured. Why? Many people simply are unaware of the program and the fact that their kids are eligible for health insurance under it. This is an example of what a mandate is vital to achieve universal coverage.

==Edwards can't win. Every time you bash Obama, you support Hillary, who isn't going to do squat for any of us.==

I am reserving judgment on her position on health care until she proposes her plan. Her team has, though, vowed that it would be universal. If so, why support Obama over her if health care is a priority for you? I will not vote based on "faith" in Obama and a negative "faith" that says HRC is a fraud and will cave in after electing if she is offering a superior plan.