• Her steadfastness in supporting a requirement that all Americans buy health insurance is instructive. Clinton is right that universal coverage will require a mandate of some sort. Obama’s political attacks on the mandate are not only wrong; they may set back the future prospects of health care reform by feeding ammunition to its opponents.

Like so many folks, EJ here fails to see beyond the surface, to consider the consequences of such a mandate, calling Hillary’s requirement that all Americans buy health insurance…instructive. Why should universal coverage require a MANDATE TO BUY, and what (has she considered) might be the REAL CONSEQUENCES for anyone who CANNOT BUY health coverage, no matter what the price? How is she going to MANDATE the PURCHASE of health insurance by those who probably need it most, and who don’t have jobs or other income that would allow them to purchase it?

More importantly, (if she’s thought this out so carefully) WHO does she suggest (or maybe REQUIRE that this health care insurance be purchased FROM?) Now, if she’s suggesting that people be ‘required’ to purchase it from the government, for health care that will be provided by the government, maybe that’s something to consider. But, I didn’t see that in her plan. Her plan would seem to MANDATE that ALL Americans ‘purchase’ this from one of a pre-selected group of corporate insurance companies.

A really excellent example of how well this DOESN’T work, is the requirement for part B coverage for recipients of medicare. (those who have paid into the system, and eventually qualify for Social Security retirement benefits). Now the ‘benefit’ part of that is next to no benefit. The part B portion of it is not ‘mandated’, but it also isn’t ‘free’. (The premiums amount to about $1,000.00 per person, annually). And, without that Part B, (which covers the really debilitating parts of illness expenses) the ‘free part’ is pretty worthless. (it pays a few bucks toward certain doctor visits, and even fewer bucks on necessary procedures).

The same has occurred with the much touted ‘prescription drug benefit”. In reality, it’s NOT a ‘benefit’, unless one opts to PAY THE PREMIUMS, and the ‘plan’ that one selects, and the cost of the ‘premium’ that one pays, is directly related to the ‘benefit’ involved.

In other words, I opted for the ‘cheapest’ plan, meaning the least expensive premiums. And I discovered that old adage certainly applies. Ya get what we pay for. In my case..NOTHING. It brings down the cost of what are already overpriced drugs (because big Pharma has to get their big profits) by anywhere between 10% and 20%. That’s not all that helpful when ONE drug (and most seniors take more than one) costs $213.00 for a 30 day supply. So, that means that I’ve been paying an insurance premium for a ‘benefit’ that I’ve never used, because it really isn’t a ‘benefit’ at all. To someone with a limited income, a savings of even $30.00 on a medication that starts out at $213.00 is non-existent and irrelevant.

And, what about young people…say those from 18-32? How often do they need health care? Would their MANDATED premiums be the same as those who are ages 50-92? Does one see how that might not be quite fair or equitable? Certainly all should have access to health care, but should we really MANDATE health insurance for the person who might see a doctor once or twice a year, and the cost doesn’t amount to what they would have paid in premiums for that same year?

Hillary doesn’t answer any of that. Now, if she was talking about MANDATING the providers of this health coverage, to provide it based on the basis of one’s income and need, that might be worth looking at. She doesn’t. So, the real issue is that it forces people to purchase insurance that may cost them more than the actual cost of the health care that they require. Because, that’s how the insurance oligarchy has exploited us for decades.

Expat said: “The next president will walk into an office with unprecedented powers.  We’ll know very quickly if we have elected a benevolent despot or a real leader by how they deal with these powers.  Will they peel them back to pre-Bush levels or run the schpeel?”

Actually, neither Hillary nor Obama has addressed this.  Yes, they have both talked about civil rights and civil liberties, but it has largely been pap.  On this issue I agree with you: how they deal with the increasingly centralized power of the executive branch will be VERY instructive.

Expat also said: “Is it possible we are looking outside of ourselves for a savior, a knight in shining armor, somebody to make it all better?  If that is the case we are in deep doo doo.  Because; it means we think we don’t have to act; just wait for the “One” who will save us.  If this is the mindset of America, then we really are screwed.”

Unfortunately, I DO believe this is the “mindset” of (much of) America right now.  And this is one of the points I have been trying to make since I first started posting on these boards (and getting called an “Obama-basher” for my attempts).

In fact, cwhipps said: “The body politic isn’t yearning for change as much as it’s trying to barf up the status quo. (just getting rid of that queezy feeling would be enough of a change to get my vote).”

I think this hits the nail on the head.  Consider.  Let’s say Bush was a 5 out of 10 when he was elected, and he is now a 1 or 2.  Given the extreme “yearning for change,” Obama comes off as an 8 or 9, while Hillary comes off as a 6 or 7.

Setting aside for a moment the fact that Obama only SEEMS to be an 8 or 9, if he were not running, HILLARY would seem like a 7 or 8, or even possibly 9.

Thus, the entire thing is relative.  If Obama were not running, Hillary would very likely be seen as “major” (if not exactly “extreme") change from Bush.  But because Obama’s RHETORIC is so powerful, he makes Hillary seem like far LESS change than he is.  And it is the rhetoric that people are “buying into” - the admittedly inspiring “revivalist” talk of a charismatic person.  Yet as waxman, expat, even JS suggest, once the intoxicating fumes of rhetoric are gone, once people realize that a president - ANY president - can only really effect just so much change, the letdown will be all that more hurtful, since many (but certainly not all) of Obama’s supporters DO see him as a sort of “savior.”

Despite my fierce support of Hillary, I will certainly support Obama if he is the nominee.  But I can’t help thinking that, even if he survives the GOP “investigate and smear” machine, once he gets in office he will simply not be ABLE to accomplish all (or perhaps even many of) the things he spoke so powerfully of.

Peace.

I think that the 20,000 strong rally in Boise, Idaho is telling.  Howard Dean upset the establishment of the Democratic Party a few years ago and used it to usurp some of the inside power of the DNC.  He spent time and money, against the wishes of the beltway insiders, to build a 50 state movement.  He, and a few others, realized that the Democratic Party would never win if it kept retreating further and further into the coastal areas and the industrial MidWest.  I read one commenter somewhere else who was at that rally and quipped, “I didn’t think there were that many Democrats in Idaho.”

Sen. Obama happens to be the galvanizing, inspiring man surfing what appears to be a tidal wave.  But as i remind my partner - who happens to be one of those younger, enthusiastic Obama supporters - at least several times a day: the movement she believes in must extend far beyond a presidential candidate.  It will only matter if these people decide to take the government of this nation into their own hands at every level, not just a presidential vote.  If, and it is a very large if, these good folks take his advice and follow his lead, it may well change America.  If, on the other hand, they vote for a mystical savior things will actually become worse...which is hard to believe, but its true.

You’re right to point out that Obama’s candidacy is approaching something closer to a spiritual movement than a presidential campaign, but, I’m not sure that discredits it in any way. (Perhaps that was not your intent.)

It’s just… anything revolutionary is undefineable. And anything less than a total revolution is pointless after two decades of Bush and Clinton mismanagement and scandal.

The body politic isn’t yearning for change as much as it’s trying to barf up the status quo. (just getting rid of that queezy feeling would be enough of a change to get my vote)

Obama has convinced me that his plans are achievable. He seems like the best hope for a Democratic White House, as well as more seats in congress.

^ the next president will walk into an office with unprecedented powers.  We’ll know very quickly if we have elected a benevolent despot or a real leader by how they deal with these powers.  Will they peel them back to pre-Bush levels or run the schpeel; we have to look at this very carefully so we don’t compromise national security.  I am forever the skeptic and healthy cynic.  Fool me once…only!  I don’t trust any of them.