Hillary has been pounding Barack on healthcare. Surprisingly quintessential Clintonista Robert Reich disputes Hillary's take.
She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.As he shows us in today's Campaign Video all of this "my plan's better than your plan" nonsense leaves John Edwards a little cold. Together, the ad Edwards is running in New Hampshire, has a simple message. If Americans want health care they are going to have to take it from the insurance and drug companies, and their lobbyists entrenched in Washington. Otherwise, no matter how well conceived a candidate's health plan might be, it will always remain a "plan" and will never become a reality.
If you encounter a video in need of wider play please email the link to proctoring.congress@gmail.com subject Campaign Video of the Day.
