No to Obama
So we've got Hillary Clinton, who is center-right at best. And now we've got Barack Obama spouting right-wing anti-government rhetoric to defend his non-universal health care plan.What can one say but, "Go Edwards!"
If you're following the politics of the Iowa Democratic caucus contest, you're familiar with the dust-up surrounding Barack Obama's health care plan, AFSCME's critique of it, his labeling of union's [sic] as "special interests" (as I read in a recent Paul Krugman column), the anti-government rhetoric the Senator has used to defend the absence of a mandate from his health insurance plan and the fact that it does not cover 15 million Americans.
Let's start with Obama's health insurance plan: it is the only "universal" health insurance proposal on the presidential trail that does not cover every American. The simple fact is that it leaves 15 million Americans without the medical care they need. Hillary Clinton and John Edwards' plans do not leave anyone behind. This is the difference that the AFSCME political action committee has pointed out in the direct mail piece that the Obama campaign has been complaining about in the media.
What's more, as Krugman has pointed out, Obama has used anti-government rhetoric to defend his position on health care and Social Security. In so doing, he makes the right-wing's argument about public services and unions. This is unacceptable, especially at a time when it is so important to promote a vibrant trade movement.
People can debate the details of the candidate's plans but the biggest difference that matters is that Barack Obama's plan does not cover 15 million people. There are clearly different policy ways to achieve the goals of controlling costs and providing quality health care for all. But you can't cover everyone if your plan does not even intend to do so.