I'm really, really disappointed with Obama. The worst part is that I have to agree with Andy now about Edwards being better.

So I'm trying to understand...it's not the policy itself that's at issue, but the possible interpretation of the rhetoric around the policy?

As a former student of Lakoff's, it really saddens me that his work on framing has devolved into a third-generational manifestation of political correctness. Language over substance; posture over policy.

This is why the Left loses again and again. A sheer lack of pragmatism, a disregard for policy and its consequences, and a fetishism for fleeting PC rhetoric that won't even matter when actual legislation gets hacked out.

The bottomline is that (1) mandates haven't worked in Massachusetts, nor for car insurance for the exact reason Obama points out (however discomfiting the language), and (2) as the NYT pointed out in the past 24 hrs, the plans of all three Dem frontrunners will ultimately leave out the same number of folks in the end.

It's a shame that a smart writer like Stein gets distracted by the meaningless small shit, and ignores the substantive consequences of each policy. Are we just polishing thought bubbles and assessing the buffalo stance here, or are we talking about making health insurance work for as many Americans as possible?

the strength of obama's program is NOT forcing people to buy something that they already cannot afford. even most young, healthy people i know would buy insurance if they could afford it. we all know anyone, no matter how young or healthy, can get messed up in an accident, etc. there's nothing progressive about health care that is termed "universal" simply because everyone is forced to purchase coverage. progressive health care would at least include a mandate to make good coverage affordable, but i haven't clinton talking about mandating fair, affordable prices from insurers...

The health care issue is one issue that all the leading candidates have wrong, including Barack Obama. The only candidate who has it right is Dennis Kucinich, who is also right on a score of other issues having to do with the Constitution, Iraq, impeachment, and others.

However, when we get into the caucuses and voting booths we need to consider who can lead this country, not who can dazzle it with the best campaign promises. It is a plain fact that any meaningful health care reform in this country that actually changes anything will be fought to the death by the insurance companies who have the resources to do it.

So perhaps instead of dividing the party over who can make the best promises, we ought to be considering who can win the election and unite the country in a way that we desperately need for our own survival as a nation.

I happen to believe that person is Barack Obama. Your opinion is respected.

-Wexler

All ideas about fixing our healthcare crisis are welcome. Yes, Kucinich is the best idea but this is a huge turn around and we have to start. the president's plan no matter who it is has to go thru all the debating in congress. do you think obama would not sign into law any good improvement the dem congress would send him. obama is who america needs at this time. shame on people for not seeing the big picture. and who nit pick.

Single payer health, is going to get tagged as socialized health care, still there are some issues that deserved to be socialized, schools, medicine, and retirement. Perhaps a simple way to start is to allow existing health plans to enter the Medicare system. In my case my plan is in excess of $1200/month, 80% covered by my former employer. BC/BS administers the plan, skimming off 10 to 20 per cent of the premiums. Why not allow my employer to enter the Medicare program and allow them to manage the money? The pundits claim Medicare is much more efficient, 2% or so, the result would reduce my premiums or at least keep the costs from going up again this year. Just a thought. Mr. Kucinich is right about single payer and it is the way to go. The top contenders are all trying to be politically correct by staying away from the term single payer, and their plans usually leave someone exposed, so how can they even be called universal? It will be a hard sell. steve

Thanks Maxwell, you said it well. This really is not a big deal, it's minutia from people more interested in watching the game than getting anything done. Bah!

Uhm I looked on Clinton's page and it does not mention mandates anywhere, the pdf does not either. Why is that? Why wouldn't they have that one the web-page (so I can decide for my self).

The issue is what is the most achiveable health care plan that can actually make a difference. The Senate is evenly split and so the plan has to be voted on by Republicans and Democrats to happen at all. Senator Obama knows this and is telling the truth. The other plans won't happen if a consensus cannot be acheived. This shows real leadership by Obama. Let's get something meaningful started and when the congress has the right numbers, it can be improved. We can fight about policies but they are irrelevant if they don't get voted into law. Obama's promise to make this happen by the end of his first term is not empty and this is how he intends to do it. The authors of the other plans would have their plans fail and then blame it on the other side. This is politics as usual and we're left with the same mess. We need to get past this do-nothingness and Barack Obama is the person to lead us all beyond it, Republicans and Democrats (all Americans!).

Instead of this piece on political maneuverings, why isn't Mother Jones offering a comprehensive analysis of the three candidates' plans, and what they really mean for poor and middle class Americans? I'm with Maxwell on that point. Maybe if Jonathan Stein was focusing on substance instead of political posturing he would not have written just a couple of weeks ago that there was no difference between Obama and Edwards on the issues, including health care, when others had already pointed out the differences including Paul Krugman-if you read his earlier piece about Obama in its entirity, you'll see that the quotes Stein offers here are somewhat misleading). This is pretty thin stuff, as I have to say alot of the campaign coverage on this site has been. This is not what I need from Mother Jones as I try to figure out which one of these imperfect candidates to vote for. Which brings up another question: Why is a magazine that has both David Corn and James Ridgeway on its staff not sending THEM to cover the campaign? While at the Nation and the V Voice they wrote exactly the kind of stuff that's missing here. I don't get it.

MoJo is arguing that a problem w/ a candidate's health care plan is that it lacks a mandate that poor people and lower middle class purchase their own health insurance from private carriers? For heaven's sake. If MoJo is going to walk down the privatized mandated route and not give a damn about affordability or equity, why not honestly declare that the problem w/ Obama's plan is that it isn't like the plan Romney implemented in Mass?

But it's the premise of mandated privatized care that is problem w/ Clinton's and Edward's plans. Jamie above is correct. Kucinich alone of all the candidates has taken the responsible position on this issue.

To even bother to compare the plans among the top 3 Dem presidential contenders is to absurdly quibble about which candidate enjoins a demonstrably failed, harmful and unjust system on every US citizen as a legal obligation. That is crazy.

The Obama position I would most like to see "discovered" by the media and his opponents is Obama's support for the Coal-to-Liquid Fuel Act.

Any environmentally concerned voter about every issue from global warming to mountain top removal to water quality to the danger of lead and other heavy metals being released into our air and water should know that Obama is not recieving money from the oil companies NOT because he is strong on environmental issues related to oil as some faux shells of environmental groups are trying to say but because he's already been bought by the much more nefarious commodity in environmental terms--- BIG COAL.(not to mention the nuclear power industry of whom he's more accomodating than a number of his oppponents)

Oh, and of healthcare plans the best is Kucinich's. He supports the same universal single payer plan introduced by Rep. John Conyers in the House which currently enjoys 86 cosponsors.

Whoever gets elected President, I'd like to see the push go in that direction and don't believe that mandates to purchase private insurance of the 3 leading Democratic candidates is anything but a gift from taxpayers to the like of Bill McKibben-- the disgraced ceo from United Health having to return ill gotten millions to the company and it's stockholders.

Umm... sorry William McGuire, former CEO of United Health is who I mean.

for details on the case see the record setting $468 million dollar settlement of the SEC enforcement action at http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2007/2007-255.htm

I would like to see a National Sales Tax which went into a universal health care fund which provided insurance for every man, woman and child in America. That way everyone pays because everyone has to buy stuff. But I am opposed to 'free' health insurance for anyone. No one gives us free car insurance, or free homeowners insurance, so why do people believe we should have free health insurance? Makes no sense to me.

These people(Dems and Repubs) will say ANTHING to get elected. Once they're in, well, it's a different story isn't it? Obama is a politician. He lies. He and all the rest are just out to feather their own beds. They count not care less about the average American. All the health care plans mean nothing! They will never see the light of day. The insurance industry will see to that. They always have and they always will. Remember the golden rule: the one with the gold rules.

I currently pay $798 for family HMO health insurance and I am opposed to the idea of forcing anyone to have insurance.

In a few years we will not be able to afford health insurance, then what, how are you going to force people to pay for something they don't have the money for?

This is America, land of the free, not Europe. Obama's plan is much better than any of the other plans because it relies on people to purchase their own portable plan.

Edwards, what if you don't work for a company? Hillary, what if you work part time at different jobs? What if you can not afford to pay for insurance but do not qualify to have it given to you?

Once again this is the type of wrong thinking that puts the squeeze on the middle class and makes us suffer the most! We will end up paying the most while others will get it for free. You know, the same people who have children they can't even afford to purchase formula for.

Who is going to make sure the illegals purchase insurance? Oh, they will still get free health care, the middle class will pick-up the tab, AGAIN!!!

Edwards, go live where your offshore accounts reside you rich "person."

Clinton II, go live in China with your biggest supporters.

The middle class is broke, go pick someone else's pocket.

I was getting more interested in Obama until Oprah Winfrey stepped into the picture! She ruined it for me! Oprah is a political paun, a posturist and opportunist - she is a hypocrate...meaning she has her name on a school in Africa - but doesn't do shit for the poor black community in Chicago, NY, L.A. etc...and what the hell is she doing for Katrina victims???
Oprah is an example of just how much the very rich people run our gov't with their political agendas...She doesn't represent the people -she represents the very few powerful wealthy folks...
Oprah you are a F..K'n JOKE!

Stop fooling around on health care. Use federal support to give each state a health plan like Hawaii has had since 1976!

I agree that Kucinich's plan is the only one that makes any sense. If we all give up and refuse to use our own power against corporate greed then we all lose. The point is that the three top contenders are all in the pockets of huge corporate interests. Kucinich is not and if he gets all of our votes, then we are a force to reckon with. Congress will have to pay attention as will the corporate giants because of the weight of the electorate against them. You can't sell something when no one wants to buy it.

His lack of mandate is exactly why i'm supporting him. Forcing people to have insurance doesn't solve anything. How about we stop spending so much money on other stuff and put it toward our health care system?

William Wexler is right! The only plan that makes sense is Dennis Kucinich's - he is the only one who can actually speak strongly and make sense! Perhaps because his chances of ever being president are nil he doesn't have to play the political game! Too bad!

I just read the "blog" that compared Obama's health plan to that of Edwards. I wasn't aware that each candidate's program had to measure up to the next, if his program is viable for the people it serves it doesn't metter the difference between it and former senator Edwards!

I completely disagree with the author of this article, and agree with Deborah. Who ever said a good universal health care plan has o be mandated? That's far from "universal". Universal means affordable, not forced. America need only look around the world for good examples - most other countries are far ahead on this issue. He's sticking by his guns. And I respect him for it. For once a candidate who doesn't change what he says (and believes) just to gain some votes or approval.

All media consistently harp on the top 3 candidates' health plans -- all of them incomplete & defective in one way or another. The only truly effective & humane health plan has been put forth by the one candidate who should be getting a hell of a lot more positive press than he has heretofor rec'd, & that is Dennis Kucinich. He is the only truly honest, forthright candidate running for president in 2008 & the only one worthy of the office.

Obamans, what are you thinking when you slash Paul Krugman???? He's not our enemy, he's our potential advocate! Make Peace; the guy has a big microphone and has an unexcelled record as an advocate of sound health policy. Krugman can be accommodated with few minor fixes to the basic Obama plan. Christ, attack Bill O, not a thoughtful friend.

We have to remember that conservatives put Bush into office the last two Presidential elections. The Republicans just think they can say "socialized medicine" and everyone will vote against a Democrat. Obama's plan may not be perfect, but he is bridging a gap between far left and far right views. I still think he can win the whole enchilada. It's clear to me that moving to the extreme left will doom any Democrat's campaign.

The real problem in the U.S. is the exorbitant cost of health care. Only if that cost is lowered can any kind of universal health insurance plan work.

thing is Obama's plan might get passed where the others havent that much of a chance -- remember Hilary's attempt in 93?
you gotta listen to pepole so you can help them
93 seemed a good example of not listening
and even now --

This whole string is enough to make me want to just scream. Look, I know the majority of us just want a government that is responsive to our needs, but as long as we keep bogging ourselves down in the rhetoric, we're never going to get there. Health care is just one of many issues we face as a society and it's probably the easiest one to solve. We already spend more than enough money to pay for universal health care. We are, collectively, just unwilling to demand that the money be spent appropriately.
Politicians in our system are caught between their constituencies and their patrons. The patrons provide them with the money to convince the constituency (us) that they really are looking out for our interests, and we, collectively, seem to be stupid enough to believe them. Insurance companies are but one, albeit one of the more egregious, of the leeches that feed on the social body. We, us citizens, need to take back our country,but none of the current crop of candidates is likely to take us very far in that direction. Face it Kucinich is not a (viable) candidate.
I don't know how to get there or I would share it. As long as we are willing to have our attention diverted from our own well being by the smoke issues such as race baiting, immigration, abortion, price of gas, etc. we don't stand a chance. I have always voted Democratic, but I am currently wishing for another party. Unfortunately, no one wants to represent me; I do not have a $1,000 for a rubber chicken dinner. Thanks for letting me vent. Rip it up, commiserate, offer me hope, whatever. If you read all this you deserve to have your say.

I think MJ is getting a little picky-une. 15,000 million is a lot better than 47 million. What I want to know is: does this include illegals????? Now there's a hot topic. I'm not voting for anyone who encourages amnesty. And I'm pretty certain, Obama and the rest are going to tread lightly, very lightly.

Obama would be far better served by demonstrating his obvious learning alacrity than his capacity for beligerence, especially as the world is already wracked with a monstrous hangover of such neocon offensiveness.

He's necessarily focused on exemplifying intelligence, strength and resolve—a spine hosting an exceptionally effective nervous system. This issue offers him a perfect stage to publicly perform with the shrewdness of a quick learner. In the strength of wisdom rather than the weakness of rigidity he would be well advised to readily adapt his plan to address any deficits that may be exposed in it. After all, there's no final answer to such complex issues as the provision of health care. What's important is that he carefully formulates his ideas, persuasively delivers them to a large audience, and then follows through with appropriate adaptations.

Showing spine by opposing something you wish you'd come up with first is just shooting yourself in your best foot during an inappropriate draw.

America, "Land of the Free?" hahahah!!! Now that is funny. Maybe back in 1912 it was, but not anymore. Our 4th amendment is pretty much gone. I don't know, but I'd say the gov't recording every conversation we have, never mind the means, is unreasonable searching. It also seriously injures the 1st amendment, because people will not generally speak completely truthfully when they know big brother is listening. Also, no one is going to be able to afford anything, because our un-backed, fiat currency is going to collapse...And what about the North American Union? Think it's a myth? You are wrong. Visit the John Birch Society's site for more info. And yes, they all lie, lie, lie. What Americans should be doing is paying attention to what's going on behind the scenes, and arming themselves. Henry (I refuse to give him the title of Dr.)Kissinger said: "With the NAU we will have finally achieved a New World Order. I used to think all that was conspiracy talk, too..till I started doing some real research.

Universal health care is a tough one - we all agree something is needed - devil is in the details, thus none of the proposals are perfect. I also like seeing his campaign make a mistake, endears me to him.

Why do Americans get so scared when someone mentions socialist health care. All European countries have some variation on this system. All women have access to good antenatal care, all children receive routine screening and antenatal checks and no-one is denied necessary medical care. I live in the UK and have been both the recipient of health care and have worked for the NHS (National Health Service) for much of my career, The only fair health care system is one based on free care at the the point of need and everyone pays for it. Any health care system which encourages greed at the expense of health is basically inequitable. Of course we have private medicine too. Any health practitioner can set up a private practice and General Practitioners (Family doctors) have always been in dependent, contracting their services into the NHS.I see the issue as fundamentally one of greed versus one of caring for those who may be in the unfortunate but common position of being unable to pay health care costs.

That should have read 'all children have access to screening and health care checks.' Their mothers are the one who receive antenatal check ups!

This universal healthcare sounds great at first, but the reality of it will be much different than the dream. I am a liberal guy, but I have also practiced medicine for over 25 years, and I've seen the problems with "everything's covered" with little or no co-pay policies. Free or near free healthcare for all will lead to serious over-use, major budget overruns, then rationing - in one or more of many forms: increasingly impossible authorizations, criteria designed to exclude, long waits, significant co-pays (putting these in at the start will reduce over-use) and an entitlement mentality that won't engage people in responsibility for their own care. Instead of guaranteed or universal health care, we need affordable healthcare; we need a spectrum of solutions with high deductable plans for those with assets that covers real calamities, co-pays for most people, and real charity for those with little or no resources. But everyone should pay something, even if it is a little bit ($1), otherwise there will be overuse and, well, I said it before. We need to offer services for cash paying patients at levels near the discounted prices the big insurers get. Then a lot more people could pay or help pay for their own health care. Remember, just because someone doesn't have health insurance doesn't mean they don't have money for food, shelter, clothes, entertainment, travel, gambling, gas guzzling cars, trucks, SUV's, consumer electronics, fashion, gifts, and millions of other things that make up our economy. Just make it affordable, with choices, so some people can go to Target and others to Macy's. Post the prices, and let people know the cost on the way in.

This whole issue of health care for everyone is complicated and involved. We need to put together people far smarter than most of us, myself included. So why don't we get our best and brights representatives to work together in congress and in the senate to come up with something both democrats and republicans can proudly put together that will work for all of us. Make them keep hammering it out until there is something to be brought to the American people that we can vote on in a national election. Let the people decide. If they can't work together to find common ground for all involved then let them lose the great Free health issuance they so freely receive. until we learn to stop the pickering and fighting that is to common a practice these last few decades. None of any of these so call social issues will ever be more than smoke and mirrors to keep us fighting while we're getting out pockets picked and our freedom washed away.

The only health car eplan that will really work is HR 676 single payer without the insurance companies that can deny claims or procedures, or refuse coverage or payment due pre-existing conditions -thus since this may not be obtainable now, start with reducing medicare to age 62 for 2008, 60 for 2012 and so forth - yes taxes would have to go up but a lot cheaper than high premiums, deductibles, co pays, and cheaper for businesses too -in addition pass legislation for health insurance similar to assigned risk for suto insurance that requires coverage be available to all, and finally that care decisions be left to ones physician

Edwards’ healthcare plan is a transitional one — moving us from private insurance-based health care to a government-funded one since one of the options is for everyone to join an improved and expanded Medicare plan. If enough people choose that plan it will freeze out the private insurers and leave standing the socialized plan.

Yeah, Obama's big in the primaries campaign. But doesn't anyone notice that about forty-two-and-a-half billion people (I exaggerate slightly have written that Kucinich would make a great candidate, but he doesn't have a chance? Now --if those forty-two-and-a-half billi -- oh, hell, the large number who claim to support him though they say he doesn't have a chance would just vote for him as their hearts apparently long to, well than -- Kucinich would be a winner. No -- THE winner. Send your brains into your voting-tip fingers, folks, and come through for yourselves. Besides, if Oprah can campaign for Obama, then shouldn't we all remember that MONTHS ago,
David Letterman, after interviewing Kucinich, said, "Well you've got MY vote!" (Myself -- I think either of the two of them endorsing without showing any deep understanding of issues puts the sillies-glare on them.)

The only "universal" healthcare is single payer health care run by the government like Medicare is.
The overhead on Medicare is one and a half percent vs 20 to 30 percent overhead commercial insurance has (to pay outrageous profits and huge salaries for their executives). Medicare and whatever the single payer plan universal health care comes to be called (why not just Medicare?) must be able to negotiate or regulate the prices paid for prescription drugs which will address the final gouge that exists.

Both Kuchinich's and Clinton's plans provide a single payer government option, and if we are to be serious about providing healthcare to all citizens theat is the only way to go.

By the way, if Congress had not kept raiding the Medicare General Fund (as well as the Social Security General Fund, these necessary plans would have no financial problems, current or future. Let the government pay back what they "borrowed" and Social Security would be fully funded forever.

Man, all this discussion, all across the spectrum of political parties and allegiances...

Why couldn't America argue for a decade or so the necessity of going to war.

Before we went?

From the first enunciation of his Health Plan composition my friends and I of a political bent have been discussing this mayor issue of his platform. The onus of a basic human right still remains as a "to be obtained" one. People in this country need a provision that all are covered, and not through ome active 'opting in" as the seniors on health car have to do each year to prevent the donut form occurring to their finances, although there are now no plans that cover the 'donut hole' thus lies the problem; if insurance companies are allowed to make money of sickness then they will and some ailments will not be covered and some people will not be opting in because the hoops are in place that allow for discrimination.
He would be better off studying the Dutch model if Insurance Inc. is to have a hand in it!

Maxwell and William have said it all! The last thing we want is a government health plan. Talk about price-fixing and gouging... As far as a candidate who can bring America back to a respectful position in the world, Barrack has the character, heart and backbone!

Good healthcare starts with no smoke(ing) in the white house.

Pffffttt.....Obama is splitting the party. And, may win the nomination but will never beat McCain because the rest of us who support Edwards & Clinton will be too disgusted at the 'kid-gloves' treatment he has received by the media, his "fans," and the ignorant masses. How soon you all forget that George W. Bush was put in office because he was "likeable, someone new to Washington, and someone folks wanted to have a beer with." Another ex-cokehead in the WH? I think not.