 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
advwomen
Administrator
| Joined: | Fri Jul 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 155 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Wed Feb 6th, 2008 02:18 pm |
|
erald McEntee Tue Feb 5, 4:44 PM ET
There has been extensive coverage in the mainstream media and blogosphere about the health care proposals of Senators Clinton and Obama. This issue is important to me because I am a passionate advocate of health care for all and because the way the candidates deal with it points to a major reason I'm supporting Hillary Clinton for President: She'll get results.
ADVERTISEMENT
New York Times Op-Ed Columnist Paul Krugman closed his Monday column about the political and economic differences between the two Democratic candidate's health care plans by explaining that, "If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here's what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance -- nobody knows how big -- that we'll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won't happen."
Krugman makes a strong statement and it's based on two points: the first is that Clinton's plan provides universal coverage (through an individual mandate), and Obama's plan does not cover everyone and does not include an individual mandate (except he does have one for children, which suggests he understands its usefulness). On this the experts agree -- Obama's plan leaves 15 million people uninsured while Clinton's plan leaves no patients behind.
Krugman's second point is that Obama uses campaign rhetoric -- straight from the pages of the right-wing, anti-government playbook -- that demonizes mandates to the point where he would have a difficult time as president accepting a proposal that has one.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080205/cm_huffpost/085144
|
Current time is 07:17 pm | |
|
|
|
|
