tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post8081275685436706991..comments2023-10-01T09:22:37.695-07:00Comments on Economists for Obama: Would a Health Care Mandate Mean Universal Coverage?Don Pedrohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15438565798505041042noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-30963589363503363832008-02-07T07:13:00.000-08:002008-02-07T07:13:00.000-08:00Yes, I think that's right. The mandates issue is r...Yes, I think that's right. The mandates issue is really secondary.<BR/><BR/>I think Krugman has been attacking Obama on this not because he really thinks the difference between the programs is so great but rather because he believes Clinton is more committed than Obama to health care reform. It's even possible he's right--when their rhetoric on the topic is nearly identical, I don't think it's knowable who's really more likely to carry the ball on the issue.Don Pedrohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15438565798505041042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069354713843321730.post-52803028469312535202008-02-06T22:02:00.000-08:002008-02-06T22:02:00.000-08:00There was a good post about mandates at Crooked Ti...There was a good post about mandates at <A HREF="http://crookedtimber.org/2008/02/02/health-insurance-mandates/" REL="nofollow">Crooked Timber</A><BR/><BR/>My own view is that the differences between the proposed plans are relatively small in the big picture. The reality of what will be implemented will be very different. The dustup over mandates pales in comparison to what I think the big difference is between the candidates. Obama has the potential to convince a much broader section of the public that health care can be reformed. The power to convince the public through the bully pulpit should not be underestimated.lerxsthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09391140928726585093noreply@blogger.com