The Democrats’ healthcare plan food fight: enough already

A pox on all their houses, especially the Krugman/myDD (blog) obsessives over the absence of a universal “mandate” in Obama’s plan. It’s why you wonder if they couldn’t have avoided falling into the trap of coming out with a “plan” – as opposed to a strong statement of policy with a set of clear objectives and general principles.

I don’t expect my President to be a healthcare policy expert. Obama’s experts think you can get virtually universal coverage by lowering the cost of insurance, offering a public insurance alternative, mandating coverage for children, and providing subsidies to help the less affluent get policies. Clinton’s experts think it is necessary to require everyone to buy insurance – the “mandate” that Krugman attacks Obama for not including in his plan. She, too, has a government insurance alternative available and subsidies. Both have at the core of their plans the important principle that with social insurance, we must all share the risk equally – there can be no more denial of coverage or pricing discrimination based on pre-existing conditions.

This fight is ridiculous. Both candidates believe universal health insurance is the objective, but have some different ideas for getting there. Both have conceded for practical reasons that it’s more feasible to build on the current system if we are going to actually get a program in place. They are probably right about that. Both have experts of impeccable credentials who believe in the same objectives, but in good faith have different ways of getting there.

That’s good enough for me to call it a draw on that issue. It’s time for Krugman et al to call off the stupid circular firing squad that is merely providing fodder for Republican attacks on the nominee next Fall. You guys think you're saving the world from the other candidate's misguided experts, but it's obvious to most of us fed up with this debate that now is not the time.