>So, I asked myself this morning, what the fuck am I going to do
tonight after work? The posting yesterday by Krugman on the
differences between Hilary and Ob was seriously convincing. I
understand exactly the difference between mandated and optional.
Really? I found Krugman's article muddy and mysterious. Why is he wimping out now when he could be arguing forcefully for standing up to the insurance companies?
How is forcing people to pay for private insurance that may or may not cover you and improvement over not doing so? I mean, it's great for the insurance companies, but what about for the average citizen? Are they going to insist I can afford coverage because I have savings? (Like Medicaid basically requires you to have no assets?) And what about this assertion: "After all, we already have programs that make health insurance free or very cheap to many low-income Americans, without requiring that they sign up. And many of those eligible fail, for whatever reason, to enroll." If they don't have to sign up, how could they fail to enroll? What programs is he referring to? I found this impenetrable.
In general, both Clinton and Obama's plans are fatally flawed because they don't attack insurance company power. They'll be vulnerable to McCain saying it's government reaching into your pocket, forcing to you purchase insurance (in Clinton's case everyone, in Obama's case parents only).
What did you find convincing about it?
Jenny Brown in Florida, voted pointlessly for Edwards before he dropped out