I'm tired of Krugman, he is obviously biased, obviously a Hillary supporter, and obviously hates Obama because he is the opponent. He has lost ALL credibility with me and I think it is really pathetic of him. This is the same asshole who attacked Obama for the Reagan comment, just as disingenuously as the Clintons, trying to exploit the ignorance of the casual listener to make them think that Obama somehow praised Reagan or loves Reagan. He is a tool and he makes me sick.

And he is trying way too hard on this health care thing. It is funny that he has no problems with Hillary attacking Obama on "raising taxes" or distorting his record on abortion or with Hillary using Republican fearmongering tactics to scare voters into voting for her so they don't get attacked by terrorists. He is so one sided, so hypocritical, so transparent. He is a tool, and I've lost all respect for him.

Polls suggest the public is predisposed against mandates. Whether or not mandates are essential is a matter of dispute (see the letter from public policy professionals at Huffington Post), but politically, they may very well be fatal to any health care plan.

If political weakness dooms universal healthcare for another generation, then Clinton isn't the only one who has failed to learn from her prior experience.

I think this is just Krugman making something out of nothing. Is there anything inaccurate or misleading in the mailer? My assessment is that there is not. By the way, how is Hillary going to enforce her mandate? She didn't answer the question when asked last night in the debate.

Krugman's new hobby seems to be attacking Obama for anything and everything. It would be more honest if he joined Clinton's campaign and end the charade.

The mailer is simply despicable, but not likely to be challenged much in the "Progressive" blogosphere where gaining control of the Democratic Party is clearly the only objective.

Paul Krugman has fallen a long way. He is just a pitchman now, and not a very convincing one. Kind of reminds me of Carville.

Guest at 12:11,

Pardon me, but I always thought socialism was a LEFT-wing "ism".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

Dear Greg,

I've tried to register, and the site won't accept my username, because I already have registered, and it won't accept a new username, because my e-mail account is already on record, AND, the link that already registered users are supposed to click is dead.

Krugman is correct to "attack", if that's the word, Obama, because Obama's plans simply are more vague that Clinton's, and, because Obama has a tendency to co-opt right wing talking points. Social Security in "crisis" for instance.

And before everyone flames me for daring to criticize Obama, I'm an Obama supporter, people.

Guest--Are you sure Hillary's plan will cover you even if don't buy private insurance? I haven't seen anything to suggest that Hillary reaches universality in any way other than forcing purchase of insurance through mandates. Is there something in her plan that provides automatic coverage even for those who say "screw it, I'm not giving any money to the insurance companies"?

Just shocking. Krugman hitting Obama. What next, the sun rises in the east?

Paul Krugman has done more for liberal causes than any politician out there today. His bonafides are well established. Suggesting he's simply a Clinton (or Edwrads) hack does him a great disservice...he deserves better.

Hi -- many apologies. could you please email Andrew Golis, at andrew@talkingpointsmemo.com?

He'll resolve your problem for you...

There are certainly distinctions between the Clinton and Obama health care plan. Clinton's plan is more radical, and dare I say a bigger "change" from the status quo, because it ensures that all Americans, even poor Americans, have health insurance. Obama's plan does not cover all Americans. In addition, Obama's program will eventually crash and burn because it won't be fully funded; by allowing the rich to opt out, there will not be enough funding to sustain the Obama program. Clinton's plan involves mandates to ensure that everyone is covered and provides subsidies to those who cannot afford health insurance. It is simply a lie to say that Clinton's plan forces the poor to pay for health insurance they cannot afford - her plan provides the government funding for this, at a smaller cost than the Iraq War is costing us. Most importantly, she requires these mandates so that healthy people do not opt out leading to a free rider situation (they don't pay until they decide that they need to be covered). Folks, let's keep in mind that Social Security, the most progressive and successful government program in history has mandates - you are required to pay into the system so that you will provide a safety net both for yourself and for others. If you support Social Security, you support Clinton's plan; if you do not like Social Security and feel it is unfair to the rich, then you support Obama's health care plan. Make your choice, but if you support the Obama plan, you need to question whether you are a Democrat. The reality is that Obama's plan will make it so that (1) not everyone is covered and (2) the young and rich can opt out, which in turn will guarantee the program fails. Don't attack Krugman for being partisan when that is the antithesis of what he is doing - he is explaining the economic math.

RSI

Krugman is a anti-Obama hack.

I'm not sure where his hatred comes from.

There are certainly distinctions between the Clinton and Obama health care plan. Clinton's plan is more radical, and dare I say a bigger "change" from the status quo, because it ensures that all Americans, even poor Americans, have health insurance. Obama's plan does not cover all Americans. In addition, Obama's program will eventually crash and burn because it won't be fully funded; by allowing the rich to opt out, there will not be enough funding to sustain the Obama program. Clinton's plan involves mandates to ensure that everyone is covered and provides subsidies to those who cannot afford health insurance. It is simply a lie to say that Clinton's plan forces the poor to pay for health insurance they cannot afford - her plan provides the government funding for this, at a smaller cost than the Iraq War is costing us. Most importantly, she requires these mandates so that healthy people do not opt out leading to a free rider situation (they don't pay until they decide that they need to be covered). Folks, let's keep in mind that Social Security, the most progressive and successful government program in history has mandates - you are required to pay into the system so that you will provide a safety net both for yourself and for others. If you support Social Security, you support Clinton's plan; if you do not like Social Security and feel it is unfair to the rich, then you support Obama's health care plan. Make your choice, but if you support the Obama plan, you need to question whether you are a Democrat. The reality is that Obama's plan will make it so that (1) not everyone is covered and (2) the young and rich can opt out, which in turn will guarantee the program fails. Don't attack Krugman for being partisan when that is the antithesis of what he is doing - he is explaining the economic math.

RSI

This little Obama mailer will pale in comparison to the relentless bashing Hillary's health insurance "mandate" will get from Republicans this fall.

Unfortunately, it looks like the Clinton campaign forfeited their chance to criticize the mailer on substance once they compared it to Nazism:

"It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois," Nichols said. "I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage."

Not a wise move, especially for someone with a good argument...

Is there a reason why you are leaving out the following quote?

"I am personally outraged at the picture used in this mailing," said Len Nichols of the New America foundation, a leading supporter of mandatory insurance, who called it a "Harry and Louise evocation."

"It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois," Nichols said. "I just find it disgusting that this kind of imagery is being used to attack the only way to get to universal coverage."

Basically they are saying opposing Hillarycare is equivalent to being a Nazi???

As an Edwards supporter, I'm going Clinton. I look at Obama and his Reagan-style campaign of "charisma & feel good" instead of talking sound, populist policy, his taking plays out of right-wing playbook (like the new add, or the "Social Security is in Danger!!!11!") and even Bush's campaign (get above partisanship) and simply don't trust him at all.

That is sad, because I used to support him. But he's, more and more, looking like a Reagan-light as he's oozed fake sincerity and toughness from every pore, while capitulating at virtually every turn. All I see is another actor who is willing to sacrifice me and my kind so he can be President.

Not that I think Hillary is perfect. Far from it. But with Hillary I think I have the measure of her and can trust her to do what she says. Or at least try.

With Obama... Sorry, but anyone who's willing to kow-tow to the Republicans, or let uninsured people in need go down the crapper or not knock the damn Republicans (of which I was one at one time) back into being sensible or is more than willing to let a gay-bashing homophobic open his campaign in order to court the Christian vote isn't okay in my book.

As for the Krugman bashing - he (like Glenn Greenwald) hits it on its head, like a hammer to a nail: You're either fighting the Republicans or you're with them. They have no middle ground and thinking there is one is stupid. They will not stop until we live in the gilded age again.

Paul Krugman,

Leave Obama alone! He's a human.

For all those folks who are against universal healthcare, Obama is your man!!

Hillary's plan reduces costs by eliminating the expenses around treating folks without healthcare coverage. This will benefit everyone.

Obama's attack on Hillary on this aspect of her plan, is at best a misrepresentation and at worst a gift to the Republicans.

the Harry & Louise canard is absurd. Hundreds of HMO and traditional plans have used married-couple imagery to make their case in the past 20 years.

The misleading part I see, however, is the bit about paying a penalty if you don't buy in. Obama said just last night that his plan could end up requiring people to pay "back premiums" if they signed up after a period of trying to skate by without it. That's a penalty.

so, yay progressives= DLC candidate better?

Y'all want some irony?
"But there's an important difference between the rigor of his work as a professional economist and the looser, sometimes questionable logic of his pronouncements as a public intellectual."
(Krugman, referring to Milton Friedman)

I echo the comment at 12:20 (including the technical issue...). I've recently come off the fence to support Obama, but stuff like this keeps me uneasy.

I do believe he's progressive; but this mailer (aside from any Harry-and-Louise suggestion) is basically the right wing's oblique argument against universal health care. There's a legitimate political debate that can be had about mandates, but this sure isn't it. Obama doesn't seem to realize that by using this kind of language he's severely limiting President Obama's options, by in effect accepting the implications in various right-wing talking points rather than using his considerable rhetorical skills to blow them open.

I decided to support Obama because I really do believe that this is a moment with "trajectory-changing" potential, and that he's the one who can fulfill that potential. But this kind of thing suggests all that potential could go for naught if he actually wins; and then where will we be? I wish his campaign would get this already; he doesn't have to seem "angry", or even change the message, really, just recognize the point being made here. Clearly they still don't. They could start, in fact, by seeing Krugman's arguments not as criticism but as advice.

rj

I don't get it either...what is wrong with this ad? I am a Hillary supporter but I just don't see where any thing is false or inflamatory. It doesn't seem to be much different from the 15Million without insurance point, certainly isn't Nazi propaganda.

Every time I'm just about to finally decide that I'm ready to support Obama, something disturbing like this comes along. So far in the Ohio primary (March) I still plan on voting for Edwards, campaign or no campaign.

Although let's be honest- both Hillary's and Obama's health care plans are crap. I've never thought that it would pay to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic- better to patiently prepare public opinion for the day when the decrepitude of the present "system" becomes so obvious that it opens the way for a single payer plan, because nothing that leaves the current insurance industry intact has a prayer of working.

Krugman the spinner.

Greg: cover this as well! 80 medical professionals disagree with Krugman on importance of individual mandates!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-pollack/universal-coverage-and-t_b_84386.html

I and more than 80 other physicians, public health and medical practitioners, and social policy experts have signed the below letter. It notes the importance of health reform, and it notes why the issue of "individual mandates" has taken on undue importance in the health policy and presidential debate.

I am very proud to be in this group. I think the letter speaks for itself.

The leading Democratic and Republican candidates for president have proposed major changes to our health care system. These proposals are worthy of serious consideration. Rising medical costs threaten our country's long-term fiscal stability. And our failure to provide health insurance to 47 million Americans is cause for shame.

As this year's competitive primary election season builds to a climax, arguments within each party are bound to become heated. As candidates seek a competitive edge, it is natural to magnify small differences. But if the political debate over health reform is to inform Americans about the choices we face, it should be grounded on facts.

The remarkably similar health plans proposed by Senators Clinton and Obama have the potential to reduce the number of uninsured Americans (citizens, permanent residents, and others lawfully present in the U.S.) to two percent or less of the population. Achieving this goal would require full implementation of these plans' subsidies and insurance market reforms, plus robust outreach efforts to get everyone to sign up for coverage.

The necessary outreach will not be easy, and it will be fruitless unless health insurance is made affordable and accessible to all. Some believe that an individual mandate to buy health insurance should be part of this effort; others hold that a mandate would be paternalistic or too onerous for families at the margins of affordability. Regardless of our feelings on this issue, what is clear from the evidence is that mandates alone, without strong incentives to comply and harsh punishments for violation, will have little impact on the number of uninsured Americans.1 Indeed, as the Massachusetts experience illustrates, non-compliance with mandates is a large problem, absent harsh sanctions. There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that an individual mandate, by itself, would result in coverage for 15 million more Americans than would robust efforts to make health care more affordable and accessible.

The inaccurate claim that an individual mandate alone would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 15 million draws attention away from the challenges we must surmount to make good medical care available to all. These challenges include adequate public subsidies, insurance market reform, outreach to people at the margins of American life, and long-term control of medical costs. Individual mandates may have a role in health care reform, but there is risk of a specious "Mission Accomplished" moment. It is a time for rolling up our sleeves and addressing the hard work required to get everyone care. The central challenge is to make health insurance affordable and accessible, and to reach out to all Americans to help them obtain coverage. Voters should insist that candidates for president address these very real issues.

1 S.A. Glied, J. Hartz, and G. Giorgi, "Consider It Done? The Likely Efficacy Of Mandates For Health Insurance," Health Affairs 26 (2007): 1612-1621.

"It is as outrageous as having Nazis march through Skokie, Illinois," Nichols said.

Wow, talk about your loss of perspective.

Here are the 3 key paragraphs:

The remarkably similar health plans proposed by Senators Clinton and Obama have the potential to reduce the number of uninsured Americans (citizens, permanent residents, and others lawfully present in the U.S.) to two percent or less of the population. Achieving this goal would require full implementation of these plans' subsidies and insurance market reforms, plus robust outreach efforts to get everyone to sign up for coverage.

The necessary outreach will not be easy, and it will be fruitless unless health insurance is made affordable and accessible to all. Some believe that an individual mandate to buy health insurance should be part of this effort; others hold that a mandate would be paternalistic or too onerous for families at the margins of affordability. Regardless of our feelings on this issue, what is clear from the evidence is that mandates alone, without strong incentives to comply and harsh punishments for violation, will have little impact on the number of uninsured Americans.1 Indeed, as the Massachusetts experience illustrates, non-compliance with mandates is a large problem, absent harsh sanctions. There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that an individual mandate, by itself, would result in coverage for 15 million more Americans than would robust efforts to make health care more affordable and accessible.

The inaccurate claim that an individual mandate alone would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 15 million draws attention away from the challenges we must surmount to make good medical care available to all. These challenges include adequate public subsidies, insurance market reform, outreach to people at the margins of American life, and long-term control of medical costs. Individual mandates may have a role in health care reform, but there is risk of a specious "Mission Accomplished" moment. It is a time for rolling up our sleeves and addressing the hard work required to get everyone care. The central challenge is to make health insurance affordable and accessible, and to reach out to all Americans to help them obtain coverage. Voters should insist that candidates for president address these very real issues.

Well, if you're going to discuss it, at least get the facts correct. From Hillary's site:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

1. If you have a plan you like, you keep it. If you want to change plans or aren't currently covered, you can choose from dozens of the same plans available to members of Congress, or you can opt into a public plan option like Medicare. And working families will get tax credits to help pay their premiums.

2. Small businesses are the engine of new job growth in the U.S. economy but face bigger challenges when it comes to providing health care for their employees. Hillary would give tax credits to small businesses that provide health care to their workers to help defray their coverage costs. This will make small businesses more competitive and help create good jobs with health benefits that will stay here in the US.

3. Insurance companies won't be able to deny you coverage or drop you because their computer model says you're not worth it. They will have to offer and renew coverage to anyone who applies and pays their premium. And like other things that you buy, they will have to compete for your business based on quality and price. Families will have the security of knowing that if they become ill or lose their jobs, they won't lose their coverage.

I LIKE this approach, personally. The 'mandate' is to ensure that everyone HAS healthcare. I see nothing wrong with that. And if you can't afford one of many plans, you will be allowed to participate in Medicare temporarily (or permanently, as the case may be). Clearly, Obama's ad is false and shamefully misleading, and Hillary's plan is far more extensive. Oh, but all you Obama "progressives" out there won't see that, will you.

This is what gets the Clintons upset? This mailer is very mild and very reasonable. I was formerly a fan of Bill and Hillary. But their shrill Chicken Little screeching about anyone who disagrees with them has worn thin. I don't want to listen to this type of nonsense for the next 4 years. It's time for the Clintons to take their Fleetwood Mac albums and retire to a nice condo in Boca Raton, where they can run for the homeowner's committee.
2040Worldview
http://2040worldview.blogspot.com/

This ad makes an important point, which is that the Republicans will never allow Hillary's health care bill to become law. In the first place, it's probably illegal. You can't, as a requirement for living in America, force private citizens to pay money to private, for-profit insurance corporations. The Republicans will block this in Congress, they will challenge it in the courts and we'll still be arguing about it 20 years from now.

Barack Obama is leaving out the mandate because he knows that for a universal health care bill to become law, it's going to require broad bipartisan support. No bill that mandates cover will EVER be supported by a single Republican.

If Hillary gets the nomination, this will be the wedge issue the Republicans use to defeat her. They'll tell their base: "If Hillary is elected, you'll be forced to pay thousands of dollars to big insurance companies. And if you refuse, they'll fine you or garnish your wages." By the time the Republicans are finished with it, every Republican in the country will be calling Hillary's plan "Forced Socialized Medicine".

Obama does us all a favor by pre-screening the problems with Hillary's bill. Democrats love it. But that isn't going to be nearly enough support to make it into law.

Um, if I had a dollar for every campaign tv ad or mailer where a couple was sitting at a table going over bills while talking about a policy I would have enough money to fund a Al Gore candidacy to victory this November... Sorry guys, your reaching...

I have tried again and again to post a comment on this thread, and I just cannot seemingly do it. I guess we will see whether this one goes up or not. Two points:

1) I do not think that "the mandate may be an issue to bargain with." This idea begins from the presumption that negotiations in committee will work something like a buyer and seller haggling in a bazaar. That is a misbegotten assumption. The Rresident is not "selling" anything to the Congress and the Congress is not "buying" anything from the President. Rather, both the Congress and the President are trying to "sell" something to the electorate, and each must finally settle on the plan which the electorate will reward most or punish least. If Obama is able to communicate effectively with the voters in a Republican congressman's district then he will win that congressman's vote, quite regardless of whether Obama's proposals are farther from or nearer to something that the Congressman himself prefers. As such, unless you mean to say that Clinton can propose a mandate at first, and then win over a bunch of voters by taking it away, it really has no power as a bargaining chip. For what it is worth, I find that idea thoroughly unconvincing - Clinton will be regarded quite skeptically by the voting public on this issue because of her previous failure, so any sign of weakness on her part (such as giving up the mandate) will be seized on in the media narrative as evidence of her "inability" to accomplish anything on this issue.

2) There is no "well" to "poison" here, at least none that has not already been poisoned. Obama is not ceding anything to the right that they do not already have in hand here, so it is fatuous to complain that he is setting the cause back.

"Obama has not worked out the kinks in his plan and he is misrepresenting Hillary's plan. Obama's plan is fantasy and he is at it again...."

Where do people come up with these ideas? It is fair to challenge differences in the plan but to just blow off some "talking point" without any fact supported data is really questionable.

The question asked of Senator Clinton last night, and never answered, is what do you do with those not participating in your mandated program? If you have no plan as to how you deal with the non-participants it is not unlike going to Iraq with no exit strategy!

Definition of mandate:
Main Entry: 1man·date
Pronunciation: \ˈman-ˌdāt\
Function: noun

1: an authoritative command; especially : a formal order from a superior court or official to an inferior one

What in the Sam Hill is wrong with you people? I'm a HRC supporter and see nothing wrong with this ad.

Stop the unnecessary drama PLEASE!!!

Enough of the histrionics. Both plans will be DOA in congress once the lobbyists and special interests start playing. That's at least one thing Hillary's celebrated experience has taught. Rallying the grass roots and co-opting the opposition are the only way to get any plan through. Now who has a better chance of doing that?

As an aside to the experience question, how does over a decade as a corporate attorney qualify as government experience? And first lady? By that line of thinking we should be lining up to vote for Laura Bush.

Hillcare2.0: Healthy people have a moral responsibility to provide tens of millions of dollars to healthcare CEOs, even if they never get sick!

Poor people without health problems have a moral responsibility to subsidize obese millionaires (like Mark Penn) with clogged arteries and gout by decreasing the average risk, and thus lowering premiums.

Because the only tax better then a regressive tax is one that lets corporate CEOs skim 30% off the top.

Obama's plan will give health care coverage to those who need and want it. Hillary's plan will force people who don't need it to subsidize everyone else, despite the fact they may earn less money then most people on average.

I'm all for single pay universal healthcare, but this mandate stuff is just ridiculous.

and Krugman is off his meds.

Apparently all white people look like Harry and Louise to mandate fetishts. I see a stock photo of people showing concern over their finances. Since polls show that people oppose health care mandates (I assume for the reasons Obama highlights in the mailer) I'm not sure how this is a cynical attack so much as Clinton supporter paranoia.

Here are some stock photos of couples discussing their finances....

http://www.comstock.com/web/search/loupe.asp?Image=PR78604.jpg&Type=PR&CatID=&LightboxID=&NoPopUP=T

http://www.comstock.com/web/search/loupe.asp?Image=C0013313.jpg&Type=TS&CatID=&LightboxID=&NoPopUP=T

http://www.comstock.com/web/search/loupe.asp?Image=C0016430.jpg&Type=TS&CatID=&LightboxID=&NoPopUP=T

http://www.comstock.com/web/search/loupe.asp?Image=PR96166.jpg&Type=PR&CatID=&LightboxID=&NoPopUP=T

http://www.comstock.com/web/search/loupe.asp?Image=PR26611.jpg&Type=PR&CatID=&LightboxID=&NoPopUP=T

...or if you're paranoid, "OMFG!!!! A white couple!!! It's a Harry & Louise reference!!!! Seeing a plaid shirt on a white guy is a dead giveaway!!! Obama's waving the bloody plaid!!! Right wing framing!!!! ARrrrRGGGgHHH!!!"

I've long ince concluded that Barack Obama's entire campaign is based upon a cynical premise that voters can't or won't discern the difference between inspiring oratory and blatant demagoguery.

This "Harry and Louise" complaint is ridiculous. When the GOP brought out that campaign in the 90's, it seriously misrepresented the truth about Hillary's health care plan.

Obama's ad, on the other hand, is dead-on accurate. Whether you're for it or against it, there's no question that a mandate forces people to get insurance, and is useless without enforcement and penalties.

Pointing that out is neither outrageous nor misleading, and if having a man, a woman, and a kitchen table on the front of a mailer is now verboten, we're all in real trouble.

And just as a side point... aren't some of those who are claiming this to be a right-wing tactic the same ones that were defending Bill Clinton's misrepresentation of Obama's record, saying "the Republicans will do it, so he'd better get used to it"?

For those of you saying that it is just a picture of a man and a woman, not intended to be similar to "Harry and Louise," take a look at Ezra Klein's blog where he has a picture of both up side by side, or watch the original ad on YouTube. Here are just some of the similarities:

man is on the left, woman on the right
they are in a kitchen at a table
kitchen table looks the same
what you can see of the chairs looks the same
the men are both wearing plaid button up shirts
the women have the same color hair
the women are wearing the same earrings
they are leafing through papers, mostly white papers with some yellow papers thrown in.
the women have the same tight-lipped "how will we balance the checkbook now" expression

I like Obama. I want him to be the Democratic nominee because I think Clinton is generally more centrist(I voted for Edwards in Iowa). But to me this is a completely obvious attempt to mimic "Harry and Louise" which in a Democratic primary is flabbergasting. I cannot fathom what the point of this is. Surely you can argue against Clinton's plan without recycling Harry and Louise and without using right-wing talking points that will just reinforce the Republican view of all health care plans.

So why is "Harry and Louise" such a dirty attack? It is -the- symbol of the absolutely massive campaign that health insurance used to defeat the Clinton's health care plan. The campaign was designed to misinform the public, making people think that the evil government was going to take away their health care and make the country go bankrupt at the same time.

Here are some of the lines from the original ad:

"this was covered under our old plan!"
"things are changing and not all for the better. the government may force us to pick from a few health care plans designed by government bureaucrats"
"having choices we don't like is no choice at all"
"they choose, we lose"
"if we let the government choose, we lose"

When was the last time you saw a *Democrat* try to evoke an ad crying about "government bureaucrats" who are going to "force us" to do things we don't like?

I've long since concluded that Barack Obama's entire campaign is based upon a cynical premise that voters can't or won't discern the difference between inspiring oratory and blatant demagoguery

Yup. A game of "smoke and mirrors" that has the press eating out of Obama's palm...

He thinks that everyone is "dope-head" who cannot discern the difference between "hot air" and substance, and considering how many have fallen for it, he might be right. "Audacity of Dope"...

subtly playing on "Harry and Louise" imagery

There is nothing subtle about it. Look here:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=health_care_debate_mandates_as

It is disgusting. He is directly emulating the insurance industry that sank the last effort to join the rest of the industrialized world. The truth can only be that Obama doesn't care if you get health care. He only wants to win and will do anything. Yuck.

Obama's plan will address and bring pressure upon the profitmaking health care corporate interests who have and are still running up the cost of health care, as a step toward affordable care for all citizens.
Hillary's plan will address and bring pressure upon the uninsured to force them to pay premiums in the existing system, while 'working on' those high costs generated by profit motivated health care interests.
Question: How much extra power and windfall profit will the insurance agencies and profiteering medical service companies be looking to wield in the interim period of Hillary's plan before she can bring costs down, if ever?
I ask this question as someone who simply distrusts Hillary Clinton to not triangulate this issue in order to please profiteers while promising the moon to the uninsured.
The devil IS in the details.......why won't she answer to what penalties will be placed on those who fall through the cracks, say persons who eke out a living, but have incomes so low as to not pay taxes, and therefore cannot benefit from tax credits? With other government assistance, sometimes one cannot get help without first using up their own assets, like a modest home they paid for over a lifetime....

Tried to register, didn't work.

What you young people may not realize is that Obama is using the same arguments that the republicans have always used to oppose every democratic advance, Social Security, Medicare, etc. "But you're are makeing it mandatory. Give the people a choice." BS like that. No government run program will work unless it is universal. Imagine voluntary taxes.

Great, first Obama picks Republican ideas and Reagan over his own party and Clinton's successful two-term presidency. Then, he uses Republican-inspired propaganda to argue that Clinton is unelectable and devisive. Now, to add insult to the Democratic party he retrieves Republican propaganda about health care to bolster his candidacy. This is pathetic and an embarrassment that we have a candidate so devoid of ideas and experience that he must rely upon Republicans for what little substance he has. On top of this, it appears that many commenters are too young to realize that all Obama is doing is simply parroting Republican propaganda.

didn't hillary send mailers in New Hampshire that Obama wasn't pro choice?

MoveOn.org also supported Howard Dean....see where that got him.

I am a long time Edwards supporter that was going to vote for Obama on Tuesday until I saw this. It is an outright lie..."even if you can't afford it"...is not true. All the plans have means to help those of limited means get coverage. The mandate is largely designed to prevent largely healthy, largely young people from not paying into the pool.

This just plays into the hands of the insurance companies. He is trying to create the wrong impression of what will be the most significant government reform since Social Security. Universal Health Care.

HD is chairman as the DNC and they will retake the whole damn country real soon now.. thats pretty damn good...thats where it 'got him'.

Hilary never read the NIE and this flyer is nothing compared to the lie that Barck Obama is not pro choice

Hillary Care has zero chance of passing. Tell me where you get the 60 votes in the Senate to pass it.
Truth is I doubt they can get even 40 Democrats to support Hillary Care. No Red State or Blue dog Democrat will want to be seen voting for Hillary care

Ohfercryinoutloud.

ACTUAL similarities: There's a man and a woman. The guy is on the left. The woman is on the right. End of similarities.

Hair color, dress and hairstyles are NOT the same, the table is NOT similar, the piles of paper are NOT similar, new woman has a calculator, old woman did not, lighting and color balance are totally different.

Issues: Edwards', Clinton's and Obama's plan were all developed by the SAME GUY, with minor tailoring to suit the campaignts.

Main diff is mandates vs no mandates. Otherwise, no one who wants treatement/coverage under ANY of them will go without.

Theory aside, history tells us mandates always raise costs. Always. THEORETICALLY, risk-sharing reduces costs. In actuality, the ins co's use the gun which it held to buyers' heads to take unfair advantage. Competition only exists in the absence of a mandate. You wanna see costs driven by competition? Lose the mandate.

MAN. People are dense.

It's interesting that when the Clintons attack Obama for bullshit (like things he never said about Ronald Reagan) people are all like "well, it's good people attack him now, because he'll get it when we get the general election anyway, better now than later." But here, Obama is making an attack on Clinton's health care plan that it's not just possible that the Republicans will use in the GE, but they have used it before to devastating effect. Essentially, this ad points out that Hillary's new health care plan is susceptible to the exact same attack that destroyed Hillarycare in the 90's, and there's every reason to believe it would work again. As opposed to the spurious crap the Clintons hurled at Obama, isn't this the sort of thing that you would want exposed prior to the GE? But here, everyone is crying FOUL, FOUL, FOUL. What exactly is the game here?

Simple guest at 7:16, the game is vote for the clintons to put them back in the white house. Do whatever it takes. Ignore the facts and smear any opposition. It really is simple. Don't you understand? You better get with the program.

An addendum to my above post (Ann Malone)

Getting to Improved Medicare For All is an optimal approach for nat'l health system reform that I, as an Obama supporter, will be urging him to lead us toward after he becomes President.

It wouldn't be "gov't forcing..." there could be an option for the people (all 2 or 3 of them) who still want to keep their private insurance coverage. Coverage that diverts anywhere from 10-25% of every premium dollar AWAY FROM CARE, to pay for the claims adjusters and benefits managers, and acctuarials, all the people whose jobs are designed to deny care.

Here in Mass. there is tremendous public support for a state level bill similar to Medicare For All Senate bill 755, details at
http://www.mass.gov/legis/bills/senate/st00/st00755.htm
and any time the bill gets traction in the lesislative process the "health care industry" crushes the political support for it. That's partly why we got the crappy fake reform law Chapter 58 with the individual mandate, b/c grassroots reform efforts were gaining serious momentum.

There's so much more to the health reform story in Massachusetts and maybe the Obama-Clinton health care plan battle will help expose the truth.

I wasn't thinking of this earlier, but the "Harry and Louise" TV ads were played in .... 1994! That's 14 years ago!!! My children are in their early 30's and I promise you they have no lingering memory of that series of ads that ran when they were 18 and 21. ..... Hmmmm, do you suppose the Obama campaign possibly assigned some 30 year olds to do the layout work on this mailer?? And they just used a 'logical' picture for the subject matter? Sometimes the most simple explanation is the correct one.

But, of course, anything the Obama folks say or do is immediately put under the microscope of some apparently quite paranoid people over in the Clinton campaign. Could that campaign -- you know, the folks that put out those really **dirty**, distorting mailers in IA, NH, and NV (about which there was no whining or complaints to the press that I heard of) ... do they really think this is an example of a hard-hitting, unfair, dirty low blow that warrants a conference call with the press? Of course they don't!

Sigh. I guess it's just the best they can come up with to squeal about today so that the voters (whom they obviously consider sheep) will think Hillary is being ill-used. I believe yesterday it was the supposed 'snub' ("I held out my hand in friendship and unity and it's still extended....." Gag!) Wonder what it will be tomorrow?

Good!

People should be reminded of the debacle that was Hillary care, and how healthcare reform was killed and buried for 16 years.

Hillary is doing it again, by mandating from the beginning for "universal care" before she's successfully built out a program and popularized it, and before she's demonstrated she can lower costs. Which is exactly how people were scared off HC refom in 1992.

Obama's plan is far smarter: start lowing HC costs and mandate only for children from the beginning. Allow adults to opt into Medicare/Medicaid, by their own choice so they have nothing to fear, and force private insurers to compete with those programs on efficiency. That's the smart way to do it, and it won't scare moderates off from "big government" the way Hillary's plan did in 1992 and still do.

Glad somebody learned from the Clinton's mistakes in the 90's. Too bad they didn't.

As someone who has been inspired by the Obama candidacy and obsessed with this election cycle, I have one observation.

We the people do think, do make our own decisions, and the blog has saved the screen of numerous TV sets. Whereas in the past I might have hurled a cup at the TV set, or possibly written a letter to the editor at the NYT, I can now disagree with Krugman on the record and there is at least a chance someone else will know it.

For me it has come down to trust. I trust Obama. I don't trust Hillary and Bill and the democratic old guard. I want a transparent, wide-ranging discussion of what we can do to provide health care. Hillary Clinton's closed door preparation of the health care plan during the Clinton presidency is too reminiscent of Cheney and the Bush energy policy. That is the old establishment approach.

A new health care program will not come easy and will not come cheap. Let's all be in on the decision process step-by-step so that a super-majority will be in favor of the program and we can make it happen.

You're right. American husbands and wives never sit around...what is that thing called?...a kitchen table I think it was...and talk about financial issues. Those damn Republicans and their talking points! How low can we go?