Read my whole post. The penalty is either high enough to serve as a deterrrent or it isnt. If the latter, it IS substantively different. If the former, its just as unaffordable. And some folks wont buy insurance anyway, and will face this huge cost right when they are sick, not the best time. The Clinton-Edwards solution is preferable. Its NOT a coincidence that its the choice of BOTH Clinton, and Edwards, and generally of people favoring universal care. Whereas Obamas seems to be the brainchild of his odd ball economic advisors from UC (not that Im agin UC, but on this one I think theyre wrong)
In the Edwards solution (I don't think Clinton has spelled out the enforcement mechanism), you don't specifically target the fundamental problem in an unmandated system - the free riders. You penalize everyone who doesn't get health insurance. Obama specifically tries to deter free riders. There's an added bonus, again, of getting the subsidy level worked out before you start imposing penalties. And it might be easier to pass.
Again, I honestly don't really care about it one way or the other. I'd be happy with something resembling any of the three plans getting through Congress.
Running in the general, where you got maybe 5 months to cover 50 states (or at least dozen swing states, to look at differently) isnt quite the same as the Iowa caucuses. Im not sure about Obama, but Edwards has been working Iowa hard since 2004 or so (after spending months there in 2003) and has been practically living there the last year.
IA is generally considered a swing state. This is a moot issue anyways given that Clinton has been a national figure for the past 16 years. And yes, IA is part of this nation.
Comment