On the bit about multiculturalism, lets not throw away the baby with the bathwater. The society governed by the liberal values we favour, that I would go so far as to call «sacred values» id est, basic human rights, political and personal freedoms, etc, allow people to use these freedoms in whatever way they like, in accordance with John Stuart Mill's harm principle.

What this does is automatically lead spontaneously to a multicultural society, a society where limits must drawn, again according to the harm principle. The article seems to point correctly at this - you can't preach iron revelations all day long but you can't treat women like animals etc.

I'm as opposed to the Sharia Law as the next atheist, but I seriously dislike the anti-multiculturalism screeds that are popping up more frequently. The absence of multiculturalism is monoculturalism.

Read the Canadian literature and studies into multiculturalism and it will show you loud and clear - It works, if and only if everyone is governed by the same set of laws.

p.s. My first ever post here. I have to say I love your blog. Keep up the great work.

«errata»

you can't preach iron revelations

should be read:

you can preach iron age revelations

I liked the first Stanley Fish article are "Hillary-Hating" (and even posted it in one of my comments) because a lot of criticism of Hillary (and Obama) is just really absurd. That said, the new article he wrote in response disturbs me because it renders equivocal what would count for him as a legitimate criticism. Apparently, pointing out her lies and misstatements doesn't. For instance, when one commenter he quotes cites that she really does not have the vast amount of experience in an elected office she constantly claims--even if commenter was off the mark by two years--is not this a legitimate criticism, once corrected for accuracy?

Of another comment that she's a two-term senator, Fish observes: "Why being a two term senator from a major state is a small, inconsequential thing is not explained?" Because Obama is a one term U.S. Senator to her two terms, and it is absurd for she and her supporters keep trumping her so-called "35 years of experience" over Obama, and "readiness from day one." This is a canard and since she herself keeps repeating it, I see no valid reason not to debunk it, or at least come up with an accurate report of her so-called "experience" as an elected official. If anyone wants to defend the claim that Hillary's 4 extra years in the Senate over Obama makes her superior, I'll surely listen: but that is what it is, 4 years, not 30.

On Shakesville: Here again we get the conflation between opposing a war at the outset, and voting to funding and coping with its practical realities once the commitment has already been made. But having already extensively commented on that, I'll leave that aside for the moment. Second, we are offered the flat-out and unsupported assertion, yet again, that Obama is somehow on health care is more market friendly, implying perhaps that he is in the corporate pocket, or at least more pro-business than HRC. (Actually, according to the NYT, HRC is second in the Senate to only Republican wacko Sanatorium in campaign contributions from health insurance lobbyists; see link below). For anyone who has actually read Obama's heathcare policy document (see below), this suggestion is just nonsense. What the plan does it puts private health insurance under highly strict government regulation, including setting limits to premiums and not allowing them to exclude anyone coverage, while simultaneously forcing them to compete in the open market against government sponsored health care. To the extent that government sponsored care is as good or better, that seems to me a good strategy of moving health care away from a for-profit system by forcing private companies to the play role the government plays in universal care in other countries, while at the same time undermining their ability to compete to the extent that they fail to do so.

To be fair, I'm not claiming this is a distinctive advantage of Obama's plan. So far as I can tell, that's the basic strategy behind HRC's plan as well, with the exception that she wants to use mandates, but has not been terribly clear on how these will be enforced. Both represent alternative but similarly pragmatic and tough-minded ideas for how to transition to a universal system in a country obsessed with capitalism and putatively "open" markets.

I honestly don't know whether mandates makes her plan better--perhaps so--but as experts disagree among themselves on this issue, and Hillary has been exceedingly vague on how these will be enforced, it seems to me you'd need to do a lot more explaining about what, exactly, is so superior about this, rather than just baldly appeal to it. This is not to say Obama does not suffer his own problems on this issue: most surely, he does, if it is true that his plan will cost more and cover fewer people. But again, there is disagreement whether that is true. as it stands, we keep coming back to the same sound bites.

What reason have we to suppose that mandates are ipso facto a better means of transitioning from the present system to universal care? Taking it for granted that their avowed success or superiority will greatly depend on exactly how they are going to be enforced, why is it not legitimate to demand a little more detail from HRC on exactly what mechanisms she has in mind?

Healthcare policy doc for Obama: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/HealthCareFullPlan.pdf

On Hillary's corporate funding from healthcare lobbies: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/12/nyregion/12donate.html?_r=1&st=cse&sq=Once+an+Enemy%2C+Health+Industry+Warms+to+Clinton&scp=1&oref=slogin

To qualify my posting above, let me suggest one prima facie reason why HRC is both entitled to be vague about mandates and has a better plan than Obama.

The reason is purely political rather than technical. As she suggested in one debate, if your ultimate goal is universal coverage, you need to start with that goal explicitly. She knows any plan with mandates will never, in the current scene , make to through congress. But start with a bold plan that once stripped down looks something a lot like Obama's, and you are well on your way. But if you start with a plan like Obama's that then gets further stripped down in the process of drafting legislation, you've undermined yourself at the outset by setting your sites too low, and letting people quibble over all the ways to not eventually go to full tilt, universal coverage.

Does that sound fair? Or perhaps, at least a more even handed way of framing the issue?

I don't think it's very wise to say "let's abandon multiculturalism". I do agree however that for a modern, liberal democracy to function, it's got to be the case that allegiance to liberal, democratic principles has to come before any other allegiances.

Except...

Go back and re-read what I wrote there, and please think about it.

Did you ever read "Brave New World"? Has it ever occurred to you that, that's exactly where we're heading? Ok, they probably won't outlaw families or marriage anytime soon, but other than those two important details, dude we're already there.

We've got soma/prozac, we've got good ol' sexual promiscuity, we've got the bone tissue and other tissues of dead bodies being reused for hip replacements and such.

And if we get to the point of saying something like: Liberalism Shall Be The Dogma Of Our World, then we'll be most of the way there.

Of course at this point, "multiculturalism" has already become a dogma in itself, so I guess it doesn't really matter much. shrug

You know what?

Fine.

Root for Clinton.

Then, when she brings in 10,000 health care insurance lobbyists to implement the damn thing, I'll mock you every damn day.

Margret Thatcher.

Filipe Brás Almeida

"...anti-multiculturalism screeds that are popping up more frequently. The absence of multiculturalism is monoculturalism."

You've contradicted yourself. Anti-multiculturalism is not 'monoculturism' and in my view it should never be, it should be liberalism as you said above.

"I'm as opposed to the Sharia Law as the next atheist, but I seriously dislike the anti-multiculturalism screeds that are popping up more frequently."

I think this results from an American perspective of what multi-culturalism is. For Americans it probably means wishing people happy Kwanzaa and the like, or accepting the fact that other cultural traditions that the Anglo-Saxon one are acceptable from a social point of view. That's not what European mutliculturalism is. In Europe it means that Muslims demand the right to adjudicate family law disputes according to Sharia law. It's an alarming, disgusting possibility.

There have been Muslim protests (not letters to the editor, actual protests on the streets) in England, demanding Sharia courts. Think about that for a minute. One of the oldest and most humane legal systems in the world is being attacked from the perspective of a legal system from medieval Arabia. To them the common law is nothing more than some imperialistic Western boot on their neck. They have things horribly wrong.

The big mistake is to say that human rights and basic protections of out laws are European, Judeo-Christian principles. Let other people live by their non-European, non-Christian laws. Hogwash. No woman (or man) who is living in a liberal democracy should be subject to the slavery of Sharia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/krugman-claims-obama-suppn85999.html

Krugman is over the deep end

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

In real context of what she was saying, she was saying that MLK would not have been a good president. She later said she had chosen her words poorly, but people were right to find her comments troubling as spoken.

multi-culturalism and political liberalism are not dialectic opposites, as the paper seems to suggest. If one reads some Habermas, who writes within the tradition of John Rawls, he assumes individuals have culture, at times different from others. I guess my problem is people assuming a disjunct between the two, has the author read John Rawls?

No woman (or man) who is living in a liberal democracy should be subject to the slavery of Sharia.

ah, the truth comes out. the operative term being "liberal", of course. because a democracy unencumbered by that adjective could certainly choose any justice system, and they do, they do. point being, democracy itself, unqualified, is not necessarily superior to any other system, as it relies on the wisdom of the voters, the assumption that the mob knows best.

so lets hear it for liberalism, the dogma ("you can do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else") that tempers mob rule and makes it tolerable. am i having fun yet?

multi-culturalism and political liberalism are not dialectic [sic] opposites, as the paper seems to suggest.

It doesn't. It suggests liberalism as the cure to the multi-cultural mono-cultural dichotomy.

Who gets to decide what is harmful to other people? Physical harm is easy, but what about emotional harm? Economic harm?

"If one reads some Habermas, who writes within the tradition of John Rawls,"

As a student of German political philosophy I take a bit of exception to that. Habermas and Rawls are close on some issues, but Habermas is in the German tradition, and not a student of Rawls. Habermas is a bit younger than the late Rawls, but not by much.

"he assumes individuals have culture, at times different from others. I guess my problem is people assuming a disjunct between the two, has the author read John Rawls?"

The better author on the subject is Charles Taylor, who tries to reconcile the demands of mutli-culturalism with liberalism. I'm largely fine with that, because it admits that people's freedom is connected to indentities and institutions, not just negative freedom from coercion. But that's not what "multiculturalism" means in real-world Europe. In real world Europe the question is whether Muslim immigrants are going to be able to judge other Muslims in separate legal institutions. I don't like anti-Muslim hysteria but in Europe, countries are coming shockingly close to adopting this sort of thing. It's the type of reactionary idea that if proposed by Christian conservatives would rightly be laughed out of the room.

This commentary explains pretty clearly what's at stake: http://www.slate.com/id/2184186/

"liberalism, the dogma ("you can do what you want as long as you don't hurt anyone else")"

That's a pretty gross simplification of liberalism, and it excludes many liberal views. Besides is excludes the way that individuals are treated by the state in liberal systems of law. The government keeps out of your private life; but it also treats you the same with reference to property, life and basic rights, whether you're a man, woman, black, white, Muslim, Christian, atheist, what-have-you. That's quite the opposite of Sharia law.

thank you Norm, some excellent articles. I am glad to finally see the healthcare DIFFERENCES coming into focus

Adam - you make some balanced points on both plans and make some good comments on both. I do take issue with the fact that you would criticize clinton's plan because of the use of mandates and its need for reinforcement yet give obama a pass on his plan to force 'back payments' for those who choose to be uninsured yet make use of the ER. This would seem to be at least as big, and in my opinion, a bigger problem, because while avoiding the word 'mandate' (and a mandate can be a good thing - more later), he is doing essentially the same thing, except, now we are faced with individuals selected on the basis of a more resistant phenotype - i.e. those that choose to go to the ER and then are forced to payback - already have decided that it is not in their best interest to pay for healthcare in the first place. Furthermore, and unfortunately many proponents of obama's plan overlook this, ER care is going to be far and away more expensive (not to mention bad for your health) than preventive care. So it is inevitable that obama's plan will lead to more individuals choosing not to pay for insurance because they choose to use the ER as a doctor's office - or when they are really sick, in which case, it will become a greater burden to the healthcare system to treat them and lead to a cascade of additional medical problems (take untreated diabetes for example which leads to heart, kidney, neurologic problems and which can all be avoided by preventive care - i.e. close monitoring through a doctor's office). And of course all this leads back to the spiraling costs of healthcare which will be essentially unmitigated by obama's plan.

About the mandates - psychologically, and you can argue reasonably against what I state as well - it would seem to me that when you are compelled to pay for healthcare to the government, as we are all compelled to do when we pay sales tax, property taxes, etc - as long as we know that everyone else is doing it, it is not as big a deal (especially when we believe we are being subsidized fairly). If we know, as in obama's plan, that those earning more than $70K a year still decide to go without insurance (this is worth a fact check - but it has been quoted many times in the MSM and nonpartisan news outlets), then, more people, especially those who think they are young and healthy individuals are very easily going to convince themselves, that they, too do not need to pay for healthcare.

Economically, what obama's plan will lead to is more and more people opting out. The fewer that participate, the greater the cost. It will just continue to escalate and I am convinced that the initial 15million estimate will expand to much larger numbers. Again, this is not just my conjecture, but that of others, and health economists or armchair economists can weigh in on this, but it seems logical to me.

in my mind, based on the above arguments, it is not correct to call obama's healthcare plan 'universal' - and unfortunately he has been disingenuous about this - first not objecting to clinton and edwards claim during the debates that obama's plan is not universal, and then later, obama claiming in interviews (I think with Brian Williams ) that his plan is in fact 'universal'. A universal healthcare plan does not leave 15 million uninsured. A mandate is a way of 'taxing' people for their healthcare like the government taxes people for any other right - and to be clear - health care is a right - not a privilege like a driver's license - much like taxing people to provide essential public services and an infrastru

Krugman's argument is what is "bizarre". He admits that both candidates are liked by most Demcoratic voters. Then he takes Obama's supposed misinterpretation of Clinton's comments as proof of a bitter struggle. Odd thing is that neither candidate, nor Bill Clinton, think it's that bitter.

Look at the GOP contest, for a nice contrast. McCain visibly hates Romney. Huckabee and Romney never broke 50% in favorability among Republicans. There's no way that McCain or anyone else would be able to say with a straight face that the GOP contest has been relatively friendly.

This is a nomination campaign that has been drawn out for quite some time, and the attacks have been relatively mild considering that fact. Some liberal blogs may be filled with acrimony, but we need to put this in perspective. There's very little hate, much less Nixonian politics going on in the Democratic party.

zdzp: Thank you for your in-depth engagement with my questions: this was exactly the kind of discussion I wanted, and appreciate. Let me address some of the things you said, and add a couple of questions. As I see it, everything comes down to how you understand mandates to be "compelling."

First, you worry about 'back pay.' In the interest of clarification, perhaps I missed something in Obama's plan, but where did you get the idea he would create 'back pay' provisions?

Now, of more direct bearing on your worries, an explicit premise of Obama's plan is that people are without healthcare because they can't afford it, not because they wouldn't buy into if they could. It seems to me there are two prima facie difficulties about how one might sort out either this assertion or your objecting to this.

(A.) Depending on how mandates are enforced, and how strictly and effectively, why would there not be a near equal motivation for opting out of a mandate-enforced plan as non-mandate enforced plans, if mandates are not especially strict and enforcable? This is why it matters that HRC has been vague on this issue: if the mandates are not strict or very enforcable, there will be no motivation not to opt-out; or, at least, little more than in a non-mandate plan. If, on the other hand, they're too strict in terms of fines, they potentially punish those who can't afford insurance by charging them fines, putting them further from healthcare rather than closer to it. So: Suppose you are right about opting-out. How does that make HRC's plan any better, with regard to healthcare cost, given these worries?

(B.) I don't think the argument from psychological speculation about people being likely to opt out because trying to take advantage of the system is much more compelling than Obama's own that they won't because they'll want care. Having never tried the system before, and being at a loss for analogies, I frankly don't know how to adjudicate fairly that issue, but I'm open to suggestions.

(As an aside, these kinds of issue arises for both Obama and HRC because they want to have private (industry) and government care at the same time. In a country where government was solely responsible for health care, "mandates" would be taken out in taxes, and so you couldn't just 'opt out').

"ER care is going to be far and away more expensive (not to mention bad for your health) than preventive care."

Like Hillary's plan, Obama's makes extensive provisions (pretty much the same ones) for shifting the focus toward preventative care and lowering cost--granted, for Obama, for those that have insurance, but...

"it is not correct to call obama's healthcare plan 'universal' - and unfortunately he has been disingenuous about this"

Every child is covered in his plan by mandates, and it purports to offer the economic means for--but does not demand that--adults too have care. Moreover, he has been very explicit about how to enforce the mandates for children--when a child signs up for school, day-care, anything, parents will need to present proof that the child has healthcare, just like they presently need to confirm the child has had the appropriate vaccinations (and children who don't have it will be sign up, or be covered under their parents plan).

How is it disingenuious to call that "universal"? Perhaps not as "universal" as I myself or others might want, but I underscore, again, both HRC and Obama are sensitive to the fact that we need to create pragmatic plans to transition to that, we can't just leap to full government control of everything. (As HRC tried in the '90s; see the NYT article above on her corporate funding from the healthcare lobby).

Finally: I am shocked that no one seems to care that HRC is second to only Rick Sanatorum in getting funding from healthcare lobbies. You article I cited above makes rather explicit why they've done so: they want a seat at the bargaining table and be in a position to negotiate what privileges they'll get (One lobbyist quoted in the article explicitly says this). Under Obama's plan, which he has vowed to be fully transparent and televised, there will be no backdoor deals with the healthcare lobby.

Adam, I would like to keep the momentum of this discussion going so I will respond, unfortunately in some cases not to all the points (but hope to later), and perhaps with not as much thought as I should. but a few things.

I will disagree with you (or agree to disagree) on the definition of universal healthcare. unless it is mandated or taxed, it cannot be considered universal and I think obama realized this in the debates (?perhaps because Edwards sided with Clinton in claiming universality and he didn't want to argue against both, especially Edwards plan, I don't know). but I do still stand by claim that it was disingenuous or at the least misleading, because he reversed his position with Brian Williams by claiming universality once Edwards was out of the race (again I am not stating this was his motive, but the muddying of the term 'universal' by obama and I guess, I would say by your post as well, is troublesome - some might say a slippery slope. ) Yes, I agree it is a good plan to ensure all children, or as many as possible are enrolled in the plan. But that is not universal - I just don't see how that term can be applied in this case, especially in relation to clinton's plan.

now if we step back a bit and compare clinton's plan with edwards or the canadian this is the analogy I would use. a touchdown in the patriots endzone is universal third party single payer gov't sponsored healthcare. the UK is in the patriots endzone, the canadians are at the 5 yard line , edwards is at the 10 yard line, clinton is at the 20 yard line and obama sits at the 50 yard line. right now we are all sitting at the 30 yard line of the giants endzone and the patriots are going for a field goal.

I will look up that reference to the 'backpay' obligation of obama's plan but anyone else feel free to chime in.

Maybe I'm a cynic but based on the statistic (again I will need to check on this) that a large proportion of individual s making $70 K plus right now do not carry insurance because they would rather spend the money elsewhere, I believe that individuals will opt out if they think they are young and healthy and can go to the ER instead because most of them don't know what is is like to be hospitalized and really sick.

sorry , more later - back to work.

I am an artist and all of my income comes from private contracts. I don't pay any taxes because I don't make enough to pay taxes. So how am I going to be forced to pay for insurance that I can't afford?

I knew I wasn't imagining this - here is part of a transcript from a recent debate: BLITZER: Senator Obama, let me just fine-tune the question, because I know you want to respond. On this issue of mandates, those who don't, whether it's 10 million or 15 million, those who could afford it but don't wind up buying health insurance for one reason or another, they wind up getting sick, they go to an emergency room, all of us wind up paying for their health care. That's the biggest criticism that's been leveled at your plan. OBAMA: If people are gaming the system, there are ways we can address that. By, for example, making them pay some of the back premiums for not having gotten it in the first place.

(btw, gaming is what people are doing now)

Clinton couldn't be bothered to vote to remove Amnesty for the teleco's illegal wiretapping.

Obama voted to remove amnesty for the telecos, but he might have just voted because he's stumpin in D.C. Either way, welcome the new president

Infragard

I am an artist and all of my income comes from private contracts. I don't pay any taxes because I don't make enough to pay taxes. So how am I going to be forced to pay for insurance that I can't afford?

Universal Health Care by way of Fair Tax! Huckabama strikes again!

Excuse my interruption, but...

Happy Darwin Day y'all!

and this one too

Universal Health Care by way of Fair Tax! Huckabama strikes again!

Ah, now you know why I don't support Hucky's and Syngas's "fair tax" proposal.. lol

Clinton couldn't be bothered to vote to remove Amnesty for the teleco's illegal wiretapping.

Obama voted to remove amnesty for the telecos, but he might have just voted because he's stumpin in D.C. Either way, welcome the new president

Really? I watched Dodd's impassioned speech last night and I was wondering how our tow candidates stood on this issue.

I would have been a supporter of Dodd had he had any support at all amongst Democrats, which he didn't

welcome the new president

Oh shit, I love the way that that sounds. HIllary or Bararck... Welcome!... Goodbye GWB!!!

Magnolia, I just noticed your "Huckabama" comment. Does Obama support the so-called "fair tax"?!

I do hope that this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/12/terrorism.usa

will mean the last pro-Clinton argument on this supposedly liberal or progressive board. Clinton abstained. She can't even show up and vote on this. Why? Because she can't vote the only decent vote, as Obama did, because her corporate masters would not put up with that. Read and do your own research. This is disgusting, and Clinton deserves no support from anyone who is remotely progressive at all, full stop. I've had it.

Despite a boost from Barack Obama — but not the absent Hillary Clinton — Democratic senators today failed to stop the Bush administration from winning legal immunity for telecom companies that helped the government eavesdrop on Americans.

Obama voted with 30 fellow Democrats to allow the telecom companies to face lawsuits, which civil liberties groups consider a crucial chance to unearth information on the administration's programme of wiretapping without a court warrant.

Well, amorphousblob, I'm sure that the Hillarybots will figure out a way to rationalize this, or they will not even respond to this charge, just as they have not responded to any of the responses made here in any of the other threads. They're like the energizer bunny... they just keep cranking out post after post without bothering to answer to any of the well-thought-out responses as though they're a part of some... uh... cult... or something...

The HillaryBots seem to be more cultist and messianic than the Obamabats.

The Öbamabats respond to every charge. The Hillarybots keep complaining about cults and shit but they don't respond to many of the anti-Obama posts... Why is that?

Sure, there's an occasional retort here and there, but for the most part they are silent...

cue in here sound of crickets

but they don't respond to many of the anti-Obama posts... Why is that?

What I meant to say is that they don't respond to many of the responses to the anti-Obama posts..

JoAnn: I haven't heard your voice on here in a couple of days; delighted to hear it again! You've asked great questions.

amorphousblob: Thanks for the link; this is part of a pattern. If you haven't look at it yet, see my link above on health care lobbies.

zdzp: Agreed. Let's try and keep up momentum because this issue matters to me very much. (Although, speaking of work, this is probably my last comment for this evening).

Now, you said: "I will disagree with you (or agree to disagree) on the definition of universal healthcare."

Yes, let's disagree, but I don't think we yet fully agree on what it is we're even disagreeing on. (But: thank you for the 'back pay' Blitzer post; that was very helpful and gave me s/t to think seriously about).

(1.) Different senses of "universal": The U.S. and Beyond. I personally don't think it's fair to say that I myself muddied the waters on the definition of "universal"--although Obama may have. I tried to distinguish two senses of "universal coverage," and criticized no one. On the one hand, Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are not and have never presented anything like "universal" care in (let's call it)the strong sense for which France would be a model: insurance automatically provided to all, every bit of which is provided by the government and financed almost entirely through taxes. On the other hand, all of them have presented strategies for breaking the monopoly of the private healthcare industry and forcing it to compete with government financed insurance, in addition to proposals to regulate cost and coverage on all players: let's call this the weak sense because there is not one insurance provider (a government) protecting all, but a number of providers offering different options and competing for different consumers in the open market under stricter government regulations that currently operate. And so the question is not: "does it provide mandates" because the issue of mandates has been severed from simply taxing to enforce it (about which more in a moment). The issue is: not: How do you cover the most people in an competitive market system? (Do I like the competitive market system, personally? No, but that is the reality we have do deal with right now, in the U.S. See below).

(2.) The point of this distinction. I do not see the value, at all, of discussing "mandates" without acknowledging this distinction, because it is a worthwhile question how they will operate and be enforcable in an open market system. As I remarked, the answer to this question is obvious when there is only one insurance provider and basically one means of financing: the government and taxes. Taxes just are "the mandate" in other countries with "universal" care in the strong sense, but this will not be the case in the "universal" open market system that all of the democratic candidates are proposing. It is thus misleading to say that care is "universal" if and only if "it is mandated or taxed" because the question is: how do you enforce a mandate in an open market system where not all health care financing is provided through taxation and government?

(3.) More Generally, the Conversation. I do not think the left will have a serious discussion on this issue until we acknowledge that difference. To be fair, ZDZP, you did try to do so implicitly with your "touchdown" analogy. But my point is precisely that Edwards, Clinton, and Obama have plans that are fundamentally much more similar to each other--because they are free market solutions to the same problem--than any commonalities any particular plan bears toward France, England, or Canada.

Look, do I personally wish the U.S. had "universal coverage" in what I have called the "strong sense"? Yes, of course I do, as do, I suspect, many of the commenters on this blog; in fact, I would go so far as to say I find it morally repugnant that anything like heathcare should be in an open competitive market. But there are serious practical barriers to getting there in the U.S., and as HRC learned quite painfully in the '90s, you cannot just leap to the European model. The sheer genius of the Edwards, Clinton, and Obama plans is to provide a clever transitional strategy to get us there. That is the question. I have used this comment not yet to shill for any particular plan but to clarify that issue because I belief it to be simply a fantasy to ignore the practical realities of the U.S. context. Given that clarification, and what I have pointed out as the potential dangers of mandates in a free market system--that they appear to promise "universality" but are, potentially, not enforceable or punitive--what is your response?

OK, OK, a minor shill: I emphasize, again: is no one concerned that Hillary is the number 2 recipient of health industry lobbying funding, second to Republican lunatic Rick Santorium (see NYT link above).

"Finally: I am shocked that no one seems to care that HRC is second to only Rick Sanatorum in getting funding from healthcare lobbies."

Trust me, a lot of people do care. It's partly why Obama just won his 7th primary in a row since Super Tuesday. I'm sure Edwards cares, too, which is why it is quite impossible that he'll endorse HRC. David Corn is trying to make it an absolute certainty:

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/02/7191thejohn_edward.html

Adam, I am so pissed - I had a nice congratulatory statement and shoutout to you about your very clear and balanced post and then when I hit the post button, it disappeared. Norm if you know anything about correcting this problem in safari for mac users, please let me know.

anyway that was the gist of it - I absolutely agree with your definition of universal coverage and concede that you do not muddy the term at all, but that obama and many others, including the MSM have done a good job of muddying it for everyone.

canada and others with true universal coverage had it right all along by granting healthcare as a right of all citiziens.

unfortunately the only pragmatic solution is a transitional strategy that obsequiesces to the decades of political complacency and cowardice

i still believe however that , if enforceable, and I know that is a big if and I do not have an answer for this (and this is something clinton should answer for in addition to the significant lobbyist support she has received - well, that's the best i can do to address your minor shill - because while we zap posts back and forth, we are only guessing how clinton or obama would respond which leads me to the debate question - see later...) as I was saying, if enforceable, i believe that mandates will provide greater coverage at lower cost because I believe that human nature does not compel us to give when we don't have to when there is no immediacy to do so and the option not to do so only lowers the threshold of complacency so much more.

ok about the debates - in an alternate reality, obama and clinton would debate not only more often, but debate on only a single topic at a time for at least an hour or two - in this case healthcare, starting out with your definition of universal heatlhcare so that these skirmishes can be played out with an understanding of the greater reality that exists in - gasp - other civilized countries.

more on the football analogy- "now if we step back a bit and compare clinton's plan with edwards or the canadian this is the analogy I would use. a touchdown in the patriots endzone is universal third party single payer gov't sponsored healthcare. the UK is in the patriots endzone, the canadians are at the 5 yard line , edwards is at the 10 yard line, clinton is at the 20 yard line and obama sits at the 50 yard line. right now we are all sitting at the 30 yard line of the giants endzone and the patriots are going for a field goal."

Kucinich is in the stands throwing a Hail Mary to the patriots endzone with his wife cheerleading him on.

Gravel is out in the parking lot looking for parking

McCain and Huckabee have left the field and are in the sidelines talking to the sponsors and making copies of the playbook for the other team

Meanwhile, most of the audience is drinking beer, watching the commercials and halftime show and not paying attention to the game.

Oh one guy just keeled over and had a heart attack but it had nothing to do wtih the lifetime supply of hotdog, fries, beer, salty pretzels, onion rings or that he spent his life sitting in the stands.

There's a vendor outside selling fruits and vegetables but he can't get inside.

obsequiesces ?!

couldn't think of the word got it crossed between acquiesce and obsequious

sort of giving in " with servile compliance" you know what i mean -