West on Bradley's Gravitas

[Michael Hoover]

> On Sun, 16 Jan 2000, Nathan Newman wrote:
> > [Bradley] is promoting universal coverage of health reform (however
> > moderate his proposal) which Gore refuses even to do at this point.
> 
> You're much better on policy details than I am Nathan, so can I ask you to
> go further on this point?  My impression was that there is nothing
> universal about Bradley's coverage except the name.  If I understand
> correctly, he's for abolishing Medicaid -- the only actually existing
> universal coverage we have -- and replacing it with tax credits that would
> theoretically make it easier for poor people to buy coverage.  That seems
> like the dead opposite of universal coverage.
> Michael

Isn't much of Bradley proposal recycling of 1991 Prez Bush that would 
have ostensibly increased percentage of those covered although Bush plan 
would have supposedly left 4% without coverage, Bradley plan is less
'generous' apparently leaving 5% without coverage...Bush proposal - made 
during recession and time of several hundred billion dollar federal
budget deficits - was criticized at time by Dems as unacceptable
because of its failure to provide universal coverage (in US socialized
for-profit corporate health care system that Dems support)...Now, one
of Bore's criticisms of Bradley proposal is that it is too expensive,
correct?  

Of course, were Bradley to get Dem nomination, Texas Gov Bush could wage 
campaign against what is essentially his daddy's proposal, all the while
calling it 'socialistic'...  Michael Hoover