Obama vs. Clinton: Iraq, Healthcare, & Go Vote Tomorrow!

Super Tuesday is tomorrow. We may know by nighttime who our next president will.. I mean, our next Dem candidate will be.

On the pre-invasion Iraq votes, & future Iraq plans, in their own words:


[From Friday's debate, Hillary explaining the issue of her "judgment" on voting to allow Bush's invasion of Iraq]


[a very sleepy account, Obama tooting his own horn, (sleepily), on his foresight in voting against Bush's invasion of Iraq]

Pamela Leavey's article on "The Clinton-Obama Iraq Feud" argues that despite all the hoopla about Obama's pre-war vote, after the war began, Obama did little to "back up his call" and his voting record is as Democratic centrist as hers. Maybe (or maybe not) we're focusing too much on blamegame of the past: who has a more solid plan for the future withdrawal and stabilizing of Iraq?? You can read and decide for yourself at their campaigns' websites here,
* Hillary Clinton’s Plan to End the War in Iraq as President
* Obama’s Plan for Ending the War in Iraq

Healthcare, damnit, who'll realistically get us to better, Universal coverage?

First off, the well-respected Commonwealth Fund, in a January 15th article, "Envisioning the Future: The 2008 Presidential Candidates' Health Reform Proposals," confirmed my, and for-all-practical-purposes everyone's unanimous hunch that the Republicans (except maybe Romney, who pushed through Massachusetts's' universal health coverage) are kooks in terms of understanding how to improve healthcare, and in contrast the report concludes,

the mixed private–public group insurance with a shared responsibility for financing proposed by the leading Democratic candidates and the public insurance reform proposals put forward by Kucinich have the greatest potential to move the health care system toward high performance... [these plans] have the potential to provide everyone with comprehensive and affordable health insurance, achieve greater equity in access to care, realize efficiencies and cost savings in the provision of coverage and delivery of care, and redirect incentives to improve quality.

Since the lovable little Kucinich is out of the race, you can compare the detail differences of Hillary vs. Barack plans in this exceptional Commonwealth Fund chart.

In this sloppy article, Jacqueline Fox makes the same points that other Obama supporters have made: that Clinton's " mandate would be meaningless in practice.. [because] she’s proposed no enforcement mechanism"; that both successfully propose expanding Medicaid & S-CHIP, cost control, affordability and subsidies; that somehow, "there’s good reason to expect Obama’s plan will cover more people more quickly." (article doesn't elaborate on why Clinton's plan is inferior on this front). What I don't get is the simplifying characterization (made by many writers like Fox and even Obama himself) that Hillary's plan forces people to buy their currently unaffordable insurance--the way I understand it, it is obvious that she also couples the mandate with other measures to make healthcare more affordable. Somehow characterizing her mandate as "callous," I believe is misguided, and throws off the discussion from the real issue of Whether the mandate get us to better & universal healthcare.

In a very readable analysis that is as well-researched, organized, and articulate as any I've seen about healthcare and the Clinton v. Obama debate, Abhas Gupta concludes:

Like I said before, both candidates' plans are very similar, yet I am inclined to more strongly support Senator Obama's plan. I firmly believe that greater private competition in a public-defined playing field is what's needed to improve our health care system--the Obama plan's National Health Insurance Exchange most closely captures this sentiment. I also strongly oppose a mandate as a matter of principle, but more importantly, because we are likely facing a recession and a mandate would only serve to exacerbate our economic troubles.

Definitely read over his short article to realistically understand more about the issues facing healthcare, and the facts and figures beyond all the political mumbo-jumbo these days.

Lastly, here's an issue and viewpoint cautioning Obama's rhetoric regarding healthcare that has surfaced in the past few days. Ezra Klein points out:

Obama not only has a mandate for kids in his own health care plan -- what if the parents can't pay, one might ask? -- but he said, in last night's debate, "If people are gaming the system, there are ways we can address that. By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place." That, of course, is exactly what a mandate does. Gaming the system, in this context, means not purchasing health care. And Obama is now threatening to force them to pay back premiums. That's a harsher penalty than anything Clinton has proposed.

Also, Klein believes that while Obama's campaign has recently sent out mailings stating that "Hillary's healthcare plan forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it," Klein guesses that Obama's healthcare plan, if he's elected president, will eventually need to be reformed to include a mandate (in Gupta's article: "Obama's advisers have stated that a mandate may be a possibility later when health care costs can be controlled."), and so he's shooting himself in the foot right now with his mandate-slandering.

...he's decided to respond to the inadequacies of his own policy by fear-mongering against not only better policy, but the type of policy he's probably going to have to eventually adopt. It's very, very short-sighted.

As for tomorrow...

Go vote! I missed all but the last 5 minutes of the SuperBowl, so maybe I'll get some buffalo wings as I watch tomorrow's anticipated results come in...

Edwards vs. Obama/Clinton: Why the Hell Is Single-Payer Healthcare Taboo? Stupid, It Ain't!

Possibly because John Edwards is hastily (and reluctantly) falling off the map of realistic presidential contenders, his interview with NYTimes (1/25/08)--in which he revealed stark leftist contrast to Obama/Clinton--has unfortunately been little-noted by the press & the public.

Although similar in healthcare plan as his Democratic opponents, in this interview he boldly blurted out the political explitives that Obama/Clinton have been avoiding like the plague:

Regarding his health plan ("Medicare-plus") which would allow all Americans to choose between private insurance options and new government insurance packages modeled on Medicare,

"American health consumers will decide which works best. It could continue to be divided. But it could go in one direction or the other and one of the directions is obviously government or single payer. And I'm not opposed to that."

Booyakashah! It warms the populist heart & the "Simplify health coverage!" mind like mine.

In Kevin Sack's coverage of Edwards' interview, he pointed out:

Republican candidates and policy strategists have raised the specter of “socialized medicine” and depicted the Democratic plans as a back-door route to a so-called single-payer government system.

Mr. Edwards brushed off that critique. “There is nothing back-door about it,” he said. “It’s right through the front door. We’re going to let America decide what health care system works for them.”

Yes, it's all about liguistical framing. While Republicans have continued to

1. champion the array of "choices" amongst our dozens of dense healthcare plans as a God-given American right (as always, free market competition will naturally and justly lead to healthy citizenry), and
   
2. demonize the god-forsaken "Socialized Medicine" that these Communists are stealthily seeking to ram up the arse,

Instead, for once a Democrat has framed the proposal right: the true "choice" sets up the single-payer (government) system as a market competitor. What the hell is there to be ashamed of, thou meek Democrats! (See The Frog's 1/25 post discussing David Moberg's article "Democratic candidates for president say they'll break sharply with Bush-era and Reagan-era policies, but avoid talking about expanding the role of the federal government") Maybe Moberg's article isn't as much of a whimper as I had called it; maybe Edwards actually took Moberg's advice..

As for the running topic question on Frog(the)Bulletin!: What are the differences between Democrat front-runners Obama vs. Clinton? Forget it, vote Edwards!!!!!!!!!!!(?)

Healthcare: NPR panel that "actually involved (gasp) doctors"

Reader "YOUknow" posted a comment below (& on fancy new sidebar) regarding her vote for Hillary and graciously also shared this link to NPR discussion on healthcare, though I haven't actually gone to listen to it, but will sometime in the future. YOUknow says it's "awesome," so I give it its own post here, for visibility. And anyways, glad always for anything to help keep NPR alive, especially after 7 yrs of Republican neglect. Another reason 2008 to get a Donkey in.

Obama vs. Clinton: Single-payer healthcare viability

1. "Jaba would never fit out the front door"

Over in California Steven Maviglio talks about a certain "Nunez/Perata health care bill" being debated--which the rest of the country has never heard of and has no reason to ever have--and lays out why federal healthcare is a politically unviable tease (article's title: "Single Payer Dreamland"). Independent from the right-wing's militaristic defense of the private (a.k.a. vulture) insurance companies against the Socialist Michael Moores of our great nation, Maviglio (he seems like a liberal realist) advocates indeed for a middle-road healthcare built on top, and incusive of, the current broken-system. Why? Inertia. Inertia of a big country, with big Insurance, Inc. that had come when you needed coverage to stay over on your couch, then ate your food, played your TV, and got fat and is now a staple in your living room like a big Jaba bully collecting protection money, stealthily locking out undesirables in the cold (residents of their own home) who can't/won't feed it properly or who request it to exert costly effort, and Jaba has no intention of ever leaving. Of course, there are always the many who befriend a bully, or else the rest have rooms comfortably tucked far enough away from the bully to enjoy the status quo, or at least not to give a mind:

The trouble with [single-payer-or-nothing] logic is that 2/3 of Californians get their insurance through their employer. They are largely immune from that implosion. And then there's the court of public opinion: single payer polls in either single digits or low double-digits...

A single-payer health care bill would have to pass the legislature. That's been done before, only to get vetoed by the Governor. So that means there's no shot of single payer health care being signed in California by 2011 at the earliest, since Gov. Schwarzenegger will be in office until then. ...

But I'll play along and say, okay, we'll have a Democratic governor willing to sign a single payer bill. Fine. Then guess what: that law will be put up for a referendum by a massive coalition of groups against it. And mark my words that every special interest group in creation will chip in heavily to make sure it never sees the light of day. Remember the prescription drug initiatives in 2005 that went down hard? Picture that times 25. The drug companies. The doctors. The insurance companies. Whether we like it or not, they kick ass when it comes to initiatives.

But wait, single-payer shoppers, there's more! Single payer will need billions of dollars to be implemented, billions of taxpayer dollars. And that means a 2/3 vote of the Legislature. Chances of that happening? Zero. Particularly when the state is bleeding red ink.

Maviglio's article goes on to conclude: Hey, despite the logical and near-unanimous understanding that Private Insurance sucks (our lives, our health, our medical practices, our wallets), Obama, Clinton, and even Edwards are right to abandon unpopular revolution--Instead, go for treatise! Let the beast stay fattening on our couch! At the end, Maviglio even graciously shows the inevitable pitfalls of ever reimagining our healthcare system, with the case in point of a YouTube link to Obama's own moderating evolution on the issue, courtesy of Clinton & Co.

2. Striaghtforward Health-care-for-all, language, & employing the obvious

David Moberg's article yesterday in the Valley Advocate is not so insightful and ends in a whimper, but it does single out the Republican stench--I mean, the elephant--in the room, that the Democrats have yet to flat-out say the 3 words, expansion of government, despite that

a strong majority sees an accumulation of problems—from uncaring healthcare to gross economic inequality, from global warming to globalization—that require profound government response. And in the aftermath of a botched war in Iraq and a bungled response to Hurricane Katrina, they want a government that is effective, honest and open.

Further along, this article has been the most helpful in terms of laying out a particular way to gain momentum on a better health system, not because of David Moberg but because of David Moberg's paraphrasing of brilliant political linguist George Lakoff, Lakoff's paraphrased ideas, which I, in bulleted form, will quote here:

• "[Despite our innate distrusts of government,] Americans want government that will both protect and empower them, says George Lakoff... He says that a democratic government is based on empathy and caring for each other."
• "Lakoff says progressives should argue that protecting people against the inevitable threats to their health is as important as protecting them against national security threats."
• "Lakoff says that Democrats will fare better on health issues if they talk about guaranteeing care—not insurance or coverage. Lakoff, who argues that care should not be determined by the marketplace or private insurance companies, says that a government single-payer plan is conceptually correct but linguistically flawed. Instead he describes the progressive alternative as run by doctors and patients, who can choose what care they get and from whom, in order to cut through right wing fear-mongering about “socialized medicine” (the tag that Republicans will try to stick on any progressive reform, however modest)."
• "Democrats, like Obama, often say that the best healthcare plan would be a single-payer plan, where everyone is guaranteed care and can decide with their doctors the care they need. But none of the leading candidates, including Obama, advocates it.
  
  " “Why do so many leaders surrender in advance?” Lakoff asks. “It has to do with neoliberal thought. They’re not talking about the moral issues of care and empathy, but interests.” Democrats too often talk about the needs of children, veterans, the poor, or the middle class, not about a failure of the market or the moral mandate for government as a protector of the entire national community."
  

I hope the next President--of course, I go with assumption it will be a woman or a mixed black man--hires Lakoff as a key advisor and squeezes Jaba out the door already. Or just throw him off the balcony.

Obama vs. Clinton: Email sent today, just now

Gotta vote soon! Any thoughts anyone?

good article on healthcare (at least according to my own opinion of where healthcare should go: government-single-payer, scrap the insurance companies); though article barely favors one over the other

http://www.slate.com/id/2178896/

anti-Obama for his bold-less-ness on healthcare, but article is from 11/30

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?pid=255635

agreeing on Clinton's attack about Obama's flip-flopping on once supporting single-payer universal healthcare. It's meant to say Obama has retracted from his once-universal view; but the way I see this is if he once was straightforward for federal healthcare, then he's more likely than Clinton to eventually get there

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/by_frank_james_theres_this.html

a lean towards Clinton for her confrontational partisan style getting more things done

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/22/politics/animal/main3738624.shtml

Glowing on Obama character, goodness-for-our-country, over Clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/18/opinion/18brooks.html

Clinton the political machinist, Obama the community organizer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012101108.html

a lean towards Obama on foreign policy diplomacy

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/27/politics/animal/main3104884.shtml

a not so glowing rant on both candidates, favoring Clinton. not so insightful, but entertaining.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/10/obama-vs-clinto.html