I have never understood the benefits of the Clinton-Edwards-Krugman mandate, which seems to be the main point separating their health care proposals from Obama's. Why force people on the margins to buy (crappy, overpriced, doesn't cover you if you actually get sick) insurance from a for-profit corporation?

Universal single-payer is the only sensible way forward, but big money is in the way. The bigger money of all the nation's employers ought to speak up; it's to their benefit to go single payer.

And Krugman's been a conspicuous Clinton supporter since before I opted for Obama.

"... Today he’s suggesting that Obama needs the votes Clinton’s loss will deny him, so what he should do is stop demonizing her. I suppose he would also suggest that Barack stop beating Michelle."

Common Chuck! I think he did not mean Obama personally. I'm sure you know who Axelrod is.

I found Paul Krugman very reasonable. Even though he seems to be favor Clinton, but he never demonizes, vilifies Obama or even Mccain. He critized Obama's healthcare plan fairly. You'd have to agree Clinton's health plan is much better, wouldn't you?

If I believed anything Hillary (or her husband) said, I'd agree that her health plan is way better than Obama's. In fact, I'd agree that much of she claims to be for is more congenial than Obama's policies. I don't believe her, however, so the question is moot.

One of the most amazing feats Obama has accomplished is garnering support of many who think of themselves as the left wing of the Democratic party while running well to the right of Clinton politically. But Democrats can compromise with anyone on anything. There are no standards other than winning.

But Krugman wasn't talking about health care, he was talking about fairness. He said, for example,

The only reason I can see for Obama supporters to oppose seating Florida is that it might let Mrs. Clinton claim that she received a majority of the popular vote. But which is more important — denying Mrs. Clinton bragging rights, or possibly forfeiting the general election?

It's typical of a poorly thought out argument to present such false choices. As Krugman well knows, letting either Clinton claim any sort of majority of anything anywhere will be destructive to Obama's chances, and thus to the party itself.

Krugman has taken a stand for the Clintons and against the Democrats.

It seems to me that even if Krugman was claiming that Michelle was being beaten by David Axelrod, the campaign manager, rather than the candidate himself, it was equally disingenuous.

"It seems to me that even if Krugman was claiming that Michelle was being beaten by David Axelrod, the campaign manager, rather than the candidate himself, it was equally disingenuous."

That's hilarious! you got me laughing (with you):-). I'm sure you know much more about Paul Krugman than I do. I only know his point of view and the way he present it from his op-eds since around 2003.

I found all the fighting and mudslinging between the Obama camp and the Clinton camp very stupid. The real issue is whether you'd want McCain to appoint our next SC Justice, to stay in Iraq another 100 years, to continue the imperial presidency, to disregard civil rights and human rights.

Myth, why is Clinton's health plan much better?

I'm not myth (though I may be mythical), but to me it seems obvious why Clinton's plan is better, again assuming you trust her. Her plan, largely copied from Edwards, at least attempts to cover everyone.

The alternative to covering everyone is higher costs and worse care. Every economist that I've read seems to agree on this. To me it's not a question of why universal care is better; the question is how Obama and his campaign can claim to be in favor of universal health care but not actually propose it.

And thanks, anonymous commentor, for laughing with me.

I'm not seeing why we can't just have open access Medicare for all.

Chuck, "attempts to cover everyone" means AFAIK force everyone to buy a health insurance policy from a for-profit corporation.

Michael, I'm with you on this. A couple of months ago, when popped this question, Howard Dean said lower Medicare to 55 and raise to 30 the age children can be covered under their parents' policy.

Others have said the federal employees' plans should be open to everyone.

For myself, I'd like Dick Cheney's medical plan. It might seem cumbersome at first, but I'm sure I'd get used to a fully equipped and staffed ambulance following me everywhere I go.

Joyful,

There are a few downsides to Cheney's medical plan. The first is the team will cyborg you at the first sign of ill health. The second is the machinery they install is supplied by Kellogg Brown and Root, whose only true loyalty is to the Necrocratic Overlord, Dick Cheney himself. Some people think the extended lifespan offered on the plan is worth the constant, radical surgery and the uncertainty that comes with KBR's unique perspective on parts sourcing. That brings us to the third downside: eternity spent in the clutches of Satan. That works well for the vice president, who can expect collegial courtesy and the happy badinage that comes with shared interests, but you would not like it.

Chuck, it was me laughing with you! sorry, blogging late at night will do that!

Joyful, like Chuck said, I think the only way you'd get Universal Health Care is to apply the policy (i.e mandate) to everybody. It has to be the nation's policy, no op-out. We'll figure out the efficiency later. Look at Taiwan, Switzerland, and others.

Myth

It's one thing, Myth, for the government to apply the mandate of providing health care for the population to itself, and I approve, but it's another thing for the government to mandate in the sense of making each and every one of us buy an expensive product and produce more profit for a corporate behemoth (and likely campaign contributor), and I object.

So if someone is mandated to buy insurance and it costs $400 a month and he makes $800 a month and he can't afford to eat, tough nut buddy, he's going to pay for the insurance first. Then he'll get taken care of if his dog food diet makes him sick. Mandate that the government provide, not that the consumer buy. Mandating that they buy it sounds like a plan to keep people working. \

And what are we going to have? Putting people in jail for not paying their health insurance like we do for those who owe child support? Doesn't sound like a good solution to me.

From the Clinton website (italics added):

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.

She copied her plan largely intact from Edwards, so she's not, repeat NOT, mandating that people buy insurance.

The thing about Hillarycare, Obamacare, Romneycare et al is they're all based on the cynical Nixoncare package. There's no provision for cost containment and plenty of incentive for medical pros to opt out of the public system to the greatest extent they can. Medical insurance has to be socialized, as proposed in the Conyers plan, HR 676.

Practically speaking, plans with a single-payer component can't thrive and deliver a broad national benefit unless the paying risk pool includes the wealthiest classes and the influential elite.

Here are the good guys: http://www.pnhp.org/

From the very general and unspecific Clinton website:
"Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance"
That's the mandate.

The website says in a couple of places the cost will be limited to a "percentage of family income," but it never says what percentage, not even something general like "modest."

Frankly, I'm surprised. I thought the website would be a lot more detailed and specific than it is. I'm going to look around it for Medicare Part D proposals.