Clearly the term "universal" is being overused, misused, and misunderstood. The only truly universal coverage would a plan in which everyone was covered, without even signing up. If signup is required, it is not universal, because some people would refuse to sign up, regardless of fines and penalties, and those people would not be covered. Also, all laws must be constitutional, and wouldn't a mandate violate citizens' right to privacy? The question is not only, which plan covers the most people and keeps the cost lowest, but which plan we have the political power to enact. Clinton has not given a clear exlanation of what has changed since she tried to force universal coverage on American in the early 90s. What are the reasons she failed then, and what has changed and how will she do things differently to ensure a different result? That is what we need to know! She seems bent on keeping it a semantic argument over mandates.
Obama's Creative Clippings
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
We're used to seeing ads for movies that artfully clip fragments of reviews that may, in fact, pan the film in question. Candidates should know better. This might be a good time to remember an admonition we heard a few times when we were children: No running with scissors.
Sources
Fournier, Ron. "Analysis: Obama prescient on Iraq, but 'courageous leader' tag may be a stretch." Associated Press, 2 Oct. 2007.
Glover, Mike. "Taxes on wealthy would rise to pay for health care under Obama plan." Associated Press, 29 May 2007.
Whitesides, John. "Obama calls for middle-class tax relief." Reuters, 19 Sept. 2007.
Article reprinted with permission from factcheck.org.
© 2008
Discuss