In case anyone wants to know what is being referenced here:
Yes, caught it. It was high road and at the same time making it clear that her campaign is coming to its end of the line.
It put her in a very difficult spot, tactically. By not rejecting that implication she again appears to be accepting that such is the verdict of the electorate. Yet he said it so positively that she couldn’t use the question to go negative on him.
Hehe, mea culpa.
Exactly, I was impressed. Again.
I got home late, so I missed most of the debate, but I did catch this part at the end and it was a very smart move on Obama’s part. He completely took the high ground, making any negative comments that Clinton might want to make look petty.
Interestingly, the very next question asked was something like: “What does your opponent have left to prove to the electorate to prove they are worthy of the presidency?” Basically, the question translated as: “say something bad about your opponent.” Obama went first, did not take the bait and very explicitly praised Clinton, saying she had nothing to prove and she was a worthy candidate. When it came time for her, there was no way she could go negative on Obama without looking like a putz. But she didn’t want to praise him, either, so she went on and on about herself and being a woman, etc., not answering the question at all. He came out of that looking much better, IMO.
The problem with not having a mandate is not cherrypicking, it is self selection.
Here is a problem with not having a universal mandate:
Lets say you have 300 million people in a society and they all have health insurance. The premiums can be priced on the actuarial data for an entire population. Once you don’t make it mandatory, those at the healthiest end of the spectrum are the likeliest to drop out. This raises the average per capita cost of coverage, which might lead the next level of insureds to drop out, etc.
There is also the problem of what to do with the uninsured when they need health care.
I support Obama but I think Hillary’s system is slightly better from a policy perspective but still falls far short of a single payer systm.
My question on the Clinton health care system is simple:
Clinton says that covering everyone is non-negotiable. After all, it’s “universal”. She also says that a mandate is non-negotiable, pointing to things such as Social Security. Ok, so that’s fair.
What is Clinton’s plan to get a universal mandate system past the Senate as long as there 41+ Republicans filling chairs? She makes it very obvious that she sees this as an all-or-nothing proposition with no room for compromise on universalness nor the mandate. So what is her plan to assure us of the “all” so we don’t wind up with “nothing”?
All the passion in the world won’t be worth a damn if the Republicans filibuster it in the Senate which they most certainly will. Blocking HillaryCare a second time would be a big gold star on their report cards as far as they’re concerned. Obama’s “opt-in” voluntary plan, for better or worse, seems to be designed partially to be more palatable to the Republicans and get enough cross-over to at least break the 60 vote barrier. Clinton’s sounds about as likely as Bush’s Social Security reform did and will almost certainly result in the exact same thing: nothing. For as much as Clinton derides Obama talking about hope and dreams, her getting her plan passed might as well be accompanied by fairies riding unicorns.
But if the grand planner and master of getting things done has a strategy for this, I’m willing to hear it. As you can probably tell, I’m more than slightly skeptical.
Jophiel is exactly right. Can you imagine any Republican voting to inflict mandated health care on their constituents and keeping their job in the next election? HA!
Mitt Romney probably knew better than to seek re-election after the debacle he created in Massachusetts (which he, of course, now blames on the Democrats who took it over after he left it in their lap to pay for).
And that’s not to mention that the way Hillary’s plan is set up is destined for exactly the same kind of failure. It simply doesn’t work. No, that’s too mild. It’s an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen.
Piling on… I absolutely agree that a plan with a mandate is much better, but as is often said around these boards, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good”, or perhaps it is better put with a different aphorism, “politics is the art of the possible”. I’d rather have progress than no progress. If she can get her plan past Congress then I am sure that a President Obama would sign it. But a Democratic candidate running on it would give a rallying point against him/her and such a plan is unlikely to pass through Congress in the first round.
I agree that mandated care is a poor option but I am looking forward to a situation where I can get good coverage without being declined for a pre-existing condition.
I left the US 6 years ago because of health care and the idea of being able to come home is very nice indeed.
Obama represents progress not perfection. And that will be a welcome change. Let Clinton champion healthcare if she can do it from the Senate. I sure she can get it done with help from the Obama Administration. We’ll see.
:eek: Did I say that? 
BTW Shayna, I hardly think of the Massacusetts program as “a debacle” … honestly it is too early to tell if it will be a success or a failure. My impression is that it is doing more good than harm, for the little that is worth. But he would have been a fool to run as a conservative promoting a federally mandated healthcare plan even if it had been an amazing success.
Agreed - I’m in MA and the plan just went into full effect in January. As in, last month. Maybe we ought to see how it actually works for a year or so before declaring it a debacle. (And for the record, I hate Romney with the heat of a thousand suns, so this has nothing to do with that - the plan will stand or fall on its effectiveness alone).
Exactly. I’m confused why Hillary didn’t come out and say this in clear, simple way. She did a better job of explaining this at a previous debate, but this time it seemed as if she framed the problem in terms of all the scary things the evil industry will do if coverage isn’t mandatory. “Cherry-picking” has a nonspecific, fear-mongering aspect to it, and ascribing that the industry seems like a tactic to obscure the true issue.
I guess it’s not politically easy to say that mandatory insurance is needed to make sure that people are paying more into the system than they are taking out. So Hillary is in a tight spot with that one. But it makes her position vulnerable, and I think Obama highlighted that well when he implied that mandatory coverage is more pro-industry than it is pro-the people.