latest health care flier so misleading
The latest flier left in my mailbox by a candidate just galls me. It is "from" AFSCME, the union that supports Hillary Clinton. This misleading flier says Obama's health care plan will leave millions uninsured. Most experts have found little difference between the plans of the top tier candidates EXCEPT that Barack Obama does not mandate that people purchase health insurance like Hillary and John Edwards' plans do. Obama seeks to lower costs before making it mandatory, which I find much more responsible and reasonable. I also read that AFSCME does not support mandates! In reading about this flier and the response it has gotten in Iowa, it is made to look like fliers from the Edwards campaign, and is seen as an underhanded Clinton dirty trick. What is obvious is that as her lead has shrunk, Hillary Clinton is getting more negative than ever and this flier represents a new low in her campaign. Where HRC changes her message to be softer or harder depending on the latest poll, Obama stays on message, stays positive and doesn't resort to personal attacks.
Obama's Health Care Plan is Not UniversalSubmitted by gilmang on Fri, 12/28/2007 - 16:27.
I agree that Clinton has been going negative, and that is unfortunate. However, the charge against Obama's health care proposal contained in AFSCME's recent flier happens to be true.
In a recent OP ED piece in the New York Times, "Mandates and Mudslinging," Paul Krugman points out that Obama's plan simply is not universal. The problem with it is that it does not mandate coverage. As Krugman correctly points out, "healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone. As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care." Krugman goes on to point out that Obama is relying upon right wing-style arguments when he claims that people shouldn't be "forced" to participate and "penalized" when they do not.
Obama's claim that mandates can't be enforced without penalties is false. John Edwards, for example, has proposed that individuals show proof of insurance when paying taxes or getting healthcare, and if they don't have it, they are automatically enrolled. No penalty -- just a universal system in which everyone participates for the betterment of everyone in society.
It should also be noted that the plans offered by Obama, Edwards and Clinton all contain detailed and impressive cost control measures, despite Obama's assertions to the contrary. His claim that he seeks to control costs before creating a universal plan completely misses the boat -- cost controls are only one key component to a universal health care policy that works. Universal participation is another key component.
The one key difference is that Obama's plan is not universal. Nevertheless, Obama and his supporters keep saying that Obama's plan is essentially the same as Edwards', when it isn't. You cannot have a universal health care proposal that allows healthy people to opt out, thereby raising the price for everyone else. Not only will it not work, because the prohibitive costs will discourage participation, but it likely wouldn't even get enacted at all due to the costs. This is an important and legitimate distinction for voters to be aware of when they are selecting a candidate.
You can read Krugman's piece here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin