Basically, any challenge on Krugman is considered a "negative personal attack" when Obama's campaign was pointing out a shift in tone and rhetoric by Krugman.

All this shrill whining makes me laugh.

Clinton obviously contacted Krugman when the need arose to falsely criticize him.  Honest journalistic pieces from the NY Times, Washington Post, and many others have all outlined how Hillary is overstating her case, and that mandates could potentially leave MORE people uninsured than Obama's plan.

Hillary's down, so she tried to rely on Krugman to back up her baseless claims that Obama's plan isn't "universal"

The liberal bloggers like Krugman & Co are so disillusion about Obama's phenomenon because they don't get it. They will like to derail the train that is on course because Obama did not kiss their A%$$.

How many people listen to these guys again? Sorry, I don’t even know who they are. The last time I checked, they are part of the establishment that are singing “hail the queen”

I'm willing to believe Krugman's intentions are honest with his pieces, but this whole blog drama seems to come down to several of the blogs that were already anti-obama suddenly rallying to Krugman over something extremely minor.

In other words, no big whoop.

Yeah, 'Ron, TX', i'm sure that's what happened.  I wonder if Obama supporters are just like Obama's campaign manager--you want to see Clinton defeated more then you want to see Obama win.....Why not at least consider Edwards if that's your rationale, at least he has some experience to fall back on.

In response to Krugman's investigation of Obama's weak health care pan that leaves 15 million behind,
Obama does not answer by defending his policy position, instead Obama personally attacks Krugman implying that there must be some "underlying" reason (race maybe) that Krugman would question his health care plan.

Typical Obama.  Go on a personal attack when legitimately questioned about his policy

Obama is very calculating and I'm just beginning to see the real man.  obama seems to have forgotten the audacity of  hope and come lets reason together thing.

He lives in a personal attack world
This is the Obama we in Illinois know

It's always funny to me how "journalist" can always dish it out so much better than they can take it.

If Hillary points out big holes in Obama's weak health care plan, she is unfairly lying about poor innocent little Obama.

If Obama attacks her character, her personally, it is wonderful fine and it is the way to "heal" us.

To heal our counrty Obama is going to have to deal with his policy weakness and be ready to stand up and say he made a mistake rather than personally attacking others.

Obama says one thing and does another.

Mandates with car insurance cover 90% of drivers.  That means that mandated health care will leave 30 million uninsured, which is far worse than 15 million uninsured.  I don't understand what is the least bit progressive about forcing people to get health insurance, particularly if it leaves less of them insured in the end.

Good job Camp Obama!!

I have said it before and I will say it again.
Mr Krugman DOES NOT OWN the "conscience" of liberals and it shouldn't be a blasphemy to disagree with him on some points and to even sometimes think out of the box and improve on some dogmatic views. After all Krugman is not God that we can't deviate from his prescriptions or can't call him out when he shows inconsistencies.

This is obvious: Krugman was nice to Obama in June because the conventional thinking was Obama would fade by the fall and Hillary would be coronated. The facts on the ground show now it ain't so the biggest obstacle to Hillary's coronation is Obama, so Krugman and others are in full force to bring down Obama.

Ron  do you realize how silly you sound.  Just like Obama and his attacks.

If a journalist says anything positive about Hillary or points out the holes in any Obama poilicy like health care, you attack the journalist.  

YOU DO NOT DEFEND OBAMA'S POLICY. Obama attacks the messenger not the messsage.

Not real impressive

"Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan." First Read reported, "No Democratic-leaning pundit, it seems, has been more passionate or serious on the need for health-care reform than the New York Times' Paul Krugman. As a result, people took notice when his column today blasted Obama's health-care plan, as well as the candidate's recent statements on it...But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate. The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not." [First Read, 11/30/07]

THE PLAN

KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Health Care Plan "Is Smart And Serious, Put Together By People Who Know What They're Doing." Paul Krugman wrote, "The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing...So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "The Fundamental Weakness Of The Obama Plan Was Apparent From The Beginning." Paul Krugman wrote, "The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

COURAGE AND TOUGHNESS VS. WEAKNESS AND CAUTION
KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Plan Passes A "Basic Test of Courage" And Gets "Points For Toughness." Paul Krugman wrote, "It also passes one basic test of courage. You can't be serious about health care without proposing an injection of federal funds to help lower-income families pay for insurance, and that means advocating some kind of tax increase. Well, Mr. Obama is now on record calling for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts. Also, in the Obama plan, insurance companies won't be allowed to deny people coverage or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history. Again, points for toughness. Best of all, the Obama plan contains the same feature that makes the Edwards plan superior to, say, the Schwarzenegger proposal in California: it lets people choose between private plans and buying into a Medicare-type plan offered by the government." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Obama's Caution...Led Him To Propose A Relatively Weak, Incomplete Health Care Plan." Paul Krugman wrote, "What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan." [New York Times, 11/30/07]


MANDATES AND ENFORCEMENT

KRUGMAN THEN: Krugman Talked To An Architect Of Obama's Plan Who Said "Obama Is Reluctant To Impose A Mandate That Might Not Be Enforceable." Paul Krugman wrote, "I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Most Troubling, Mr. Obama Accuses His Rivals Of Not Explaining How They Would Enforce Mandates" And Said He Was Implying That The Plans Would Require "Nasty, Punitive Enforcement." Paul Krugman wrote, "Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Obama Is Storing Up Trouble For Health Reformers" By Criticizing Mandates. Paul Krugman wrote, "Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that 'force every American to buy health care.'" [New York Times, 12/7/07]




ps...The former ENRON employee Paul Krugman vs himself.

Thanks mom ! hillaryclinton.com

We already have mandated health insurance in this country.  If you pay into Social Security you are paying into Medicare.  You do not get a choice. It is mandated even if you don't think that you will need it someday.  It is taken out of your check each month.
Mandated.

What would happen it you had a choice to pay or not into Medicare.  Probably most of us no anywhere near retirement and healthy would opt out of paying.  Then what would happen.

We already have mandated insurance in this country.

I'm not seeing any of your Obamaites on here defend his health care policy.

You are just attacking Hillary and Krugman personally and anyone else who questions Obama.

That's exactly what I see in Obama.  He levels personal attacks. He does not deal in issues.

Obama preaches hope and change while never telling how he would bring this about with policies.  He never gives specifics.  He just goes personaly negative on fellow candidates.

Special interest groups are the bane of the democrat party...we all know how we lost the 2000 and 04 elections. Our possible loss in 2008 is shaping up to be due to the so called bloggers or may I say "pundasts"

Obama is getting more arrogant each day.  

Obama seems to be a petulant narcissist.

Does this sound like Bee in reverse!

The left wing of the Democratic party is being conned by Obama.

They are falling for the cult of personality like immature little kids.

They revel in his lofty rhetoric and fail to examine hard facts and policy.

Hey Paul....Yawn

The reason Krugman has changed his tone? Hillary is losing.

Senator Clinton's campaign is becoming increasingly sad to watch.  After this past weeks' events, they dug up an interview of fmr. ambassador Andrew Young (done back in early Sept, 2007, that's right three months ago) where he said now was not Senator Obama's time and then tried to wrap it up for the press as breaking news.  Now there bringing up the Krugman thing as somehow being relevant to the upcoming election.  And today we hear that another Clinton "vounteer" in Iowa was sending out the vile email against Senator Obama back in early October.  It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Senator Clinton's campaign has run into a ditch and is simply slamming the gas pedal causing its wheels to spin and throw mud all over the place, but doing nothing to move itself forward.

John Jay,

Nobody is defending Obama's healthcare policy because it doesn't need defending. Health insurance mandates don't work and punish the people they are supposed to be helping. Obama's plan does not include them. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

I'm not seeing any of your Obamaites on here defend his health care policy.
john Jay

Perhaps you should read Robert Reich's (that's right President Clinton's Labor Secretary and college friend) blog which sets forth in great details why Senator Obama's health plan is better than Senator Clinton's plan.  Or for that matter read the NY Times editorial from two weeks ago (that's right the paper Krugman writes op-eds for) wherein they note that the problem with lack of coverage in this country is cost (people seeking specialist when no real need and for extra lab tests (CT scans & MRIs) when they also do not really affect health outcome).  This is what Senator Obama has been saying all along  --- its high costs not people's lack of desire for insurance --- that is the source of the health care problem in this country.

Who the heck is Krugman???

Typical Republican talking points.

If anyone points out discrepencies in your plan just dig up some old old statement to twist it to say

The other guys are , Oh, my GOD, doing the worse thing ever   Flip Flopping.

Flip flopping according to Rep talking points is worse than murder, rape.

So in training to be a good little Republican repeat after me
   1.  Attack the opponent PERSONALLY
   2.  Accuse the Dems of FLIP FLOPPING  (then-now)
It's a winner every time.  Just ask Karl.

Obama and his supporters have just taken a play right straight out of the Rep playbook

Case closed.

Obama is not the man everyone things he is.

>> Obama is not the man everyone thin[k]s he is. <<

Neither is Hillary.

Obama response to Krugman is a valid question.  He asks Krugman " Please provide specific points and issues that makes u do a 180 degree turn from praising this plan highly to all of sudden crucifing the plan?"

How is that personal and how is that negative?

The liberal bloggers and Clinton supporters are calling a false foul.  You cannot call something negative if the only type of question is How and Why.  

All Obama's camp did is quote what was said first to what is being said now.  Obama did not change his plan HOWEVER Krugman did change his response.

To each of you who defend Obama's ill advised health care plan and to those of you who blindly follow Obama with seriously studying his policies and previous voting behavior,  I just hope you do not get a serious illiness during the Obama Presidency.

We will never have health care.  The Republicans who have never wanted help or health care for us much less our children, will use Obama's weak health care plan that leaves out millions and his attacks with your support on mandates.  

you guys are going to make this a cake walk for the Rep because you are using their ideas against health care NOW.  The Rep will LOVE throwing your attacks on mandates right back in your faces.

If Obama is elected he will be a very weak president.

john Jay,

Please cut the talking point and read this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/us/politics/05truth.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/O/Obama,%20Barack

You are right, Aidyn NY.  Obama is not the hope filled man he presents to us.

As the days go by,he shows a bit more of his arrogance and weakness.

He will not be there when you need him.

By the way John, the key to health care coverage is "Affordability" not "Mandate"

Enough of Paul Krugman's crap; is it not the same guy that told us that social security is not broken? I wonder how much he is getting paid by Clinton's machine.

Individual mandates are a conservative idea, here is what Hillary said about them:

"The individual mandates create some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system."

As an Independent leaning towards Democratic Party, I dislike the idea of mandate. Mandate without lowering the cost is going to make peoples live miserable. I think you guys forgot that this is United States of America.

Obama is calculating with his negative attacks on his opponents and anyone who dares to disagree or question him.

Obama shows a lot of sizzle but very little steak.

MK from LA wrote, "the problem with lack of coverage in this country is cost (people seeking specialist when no real need and for extra lab tests (CT scans & MRIs) when they also do not really affect health outcome)."

They are only unnecessary until you need them MK. What about all that unnecessary insurance paperwork?

Edwards has the best healthcare plan.  Edwards has the most experience dealing with the healthcare industry as an advocate for ordinary people (and yes I know he made lots of money that way but tell me which of the candidates hasn't managed to make piles of money) against the for profit insurers.  

Obama, not so much and Hillary Clinton is getting tons of money in contributions from the health insurance corporations who aren't in the habit of supporting people they can't count on to serve their interests.  

Edwards plan lets people keep private insurance but makes an extended medicare option so attractive for average Americans, it basically creates single payer for those for whom that's the best deal which includes most of us, who have no portability even if we like our present employer based plans.  

Hillary Clinton wants a cosmetic tweak or two to business as usual.  Obama's isn't as coherent but he would probably be a better bet to move in the right direction than Clinton. Of all the candidates, none is more invested in business as usual than Clinton on the war, healthcare and trade agreements.  

For all those who like things the way they are but would appreciate a little more competence, she's your girl.  for those who want fundamental change, a fresh approach AND competence, not so much. Go Edwards.  

The average American voter is common sense and centrist, and if they weren't currently too busy working to afford day care and bills and Xmas gifts and health care they might be reading this blogger and saying "Whose Paul Krugman ?"  What matters to most people is education, health care, jobs, and safety for our kids. The Progressives are as out of touch with the average voter as the far right. The Progressive bloggers are AFRAID to support any candidate because they were disappointed last time with Howard Dean.  Move on and get over it.   We have problems that need to be solved and Obama has the common sense, the judgement and the vision to help us solve them.

Obama is calculating with his negative attacks on his opponents and anyone who dares to disagree or question him.

Obama shows a lot of sizzle but very little steak.


John Jay
----------------------------------------------
You are not a regular on this blog, thus, i won't take your comment about Obama seriously.

Did you read the Nytimes article I posted above? The answer to your question is inside that article. I'll take "Hope" to "Nixonian" attitude.

Perhaps, I should ask you this question, got hope?

Bee,
  I'll help out John Jay.  I had read your stated article last week in the NY TImes.
  I got a good laugh out of Ms. Seelye's statement that American Enterprise Institute is a non partisan group.  Got a good laugh out of that one.  Check that group out Bee.
  The other quoted source about Mr. Obama's health plan was from Austin Goolsbee who is a senior economic advisor for the Obama campaign, hardly a non partisan person.
  I'm not sure I understand what your point is.  Are you using these sources to prove that Obama's ill advised health care plan is strong?
   If so, please "convince" us with better sources than Obama's inside men.

"They are only unnecessary until you need them MK"
Peter

Peter please read the NY Times editorial from two weeks ago.  It explains, perhaps better than I can, that use of CAT scans and MRIs do not result in net health benefit outcomes than other procedures (and no I'm not saying that they are always unnecessary).  Our system, however, is geared toward people seeking what they want rather than perhaps what they need (I will confess that I myself would choose to take an MRI over some other less costly diagnostic tool that would serve the same purpose).  Basically the point of the editorial is that you cannot have your cake (allowing use of sophisticated, costly procedures in situations when they will provide little net health outcome benefit) and eat it too (low cost health care).

Sorry it took so long, Bee, I was reading your "source" in the NY Times.  I sent back a comment but do not know if it got through.  If not I'll resend it.

Since I'm not a regular on this post you will not take me seriously.  Is this your own little personal playground and decenting opinions are not welcomed?

Very democratic of you Bee (Obama supporter)

Anytime someone questions Obama's potions, Obama takes a Bush-like approach.  Obama acts as if he is above criticism and reprimands the person for daring to question is holiness.

In case my comment did not get posted.

Bee,
  I read your article in the NY TIMES back on December 5.  
   First of all I have read articles by Seelye.  No one could ever accuse her of being non partisan.
   Second, she quotes Joseph Antos of AMERICAN ENTERPRISE GROUP...A NON PARTISIN GROUP.  Bee, have you actually checked out this group.  Non Partisan my foot.
   Third, Austin Goolsbee is as stated in the article, A SENIOR ADVISOR FOR ECONOMICS FOR THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN.  Hardly non partisan
   When I saw your sources, I discounted any real truthfulness in their comments. If this is your biggie source for showing that Obama's health care plan is not weak, you got to do better than that, Bee.
   
   

Oh, goodness me, not the bloggers!

Considering they've never elected anyone (Dean, Hackett, Lamont, anyone?  And spare me on Tester - he won because Burns was nuts), Obama shouldn't care a lick.

Obama better play nice with Krugman.  Obama base - the limo libs, Ivy League grads, and the Camry crowd on campus - love Krugman.  

Hillary Clinton Said That An Individual Mandate For Health Insurance Coverage Would "Create Additional Problems," Lead to Arbitrary Cut-Offs for Eligibility, And Require the IRS to Oversee Our Health Care System. In a speech to the Group Health Association of America, Clinton said that "The individual mandate...create[s] some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system." [Speech to the Group Health Association of America, 2/15/94]

It's okay, Bee - John Jay's other comments indicate he's here to attack Obama, not to have a real discussion.  People like John Jay and Paul Krugman do not want to acknowledge that there are no "quick fixes" to anything because that would require their actual, long-term participation in our democracy.

Apparently (and quite sadly), even after 8 years of Bush lies, they'd rather accept sugar-coated promises from folks like Hillary who have not explained how their mandates actually could be enforced 100% (because they can't be).  I'd rather have a plan like Obama's that can continue to be tailored to eventually fit 100% of people, rather than a plan that will never ever fit 100% of people.

Let's be realistic - no plan will provide a simple "fix" to health care.  That would require that we recognize that most problems in America are interdependent on one another, requiring us to have a multi-faceted approach to problem-solving.  This is why Obama is the only one who can claim the term "universal" because his approach is indeed "universal" in the sense that he recognizes this interdependency of issues and that progress on education or employment rights or immigration also will have an effect on our ability to "fix" health care.  Moreover, his plans actively take into account this interdependency, and do not simply give lip-service to them.

The worst part of this is that Paul Krugman, as others here have said, thinks he has a monopoly on progressive thought.  But, in fact, I don't think Paul realizes what it actually means to be a progressive: to create common sense policies that can be carried out practically to serve MOST people. Or, rather, to see that change is necessary to get something DONE.  

According to Krugman, Obama's honest acknowledgement that there is no "quick fix" to a problem and thus his refusal to appease people with plans that won't actually work makes Obama a "right winger."  There are so many problems with that statement that it's probably not worth addressing.  

But, Krugman's ease with such accusations says something about the sad state of what America in general considers leadership.  People like Krugman have argued since Bush got elected that all they want is someone with some integrity, and then when they get him, they don't know how not to nit-pick and make a mess of someone who overall is a great candidate.  If we elect another self-serving, superficial liar, then we have no one to blame but ourselves, and those among us like Krugman who use their infotainment status to project lies onto others and ruin the integrity of our entire political discourse.

John Jay,

Since you are too lazy to do your own due diligence, I guess I’ll have to do it for you. Pay attention to Hillary's record since 1993 and the tone she is taking now.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Individual Mandate Hillary Clinton Opposed in 1993 Is the Same Individual Mandate She Supports Now. "Hillary Clinton has now introduced Health Care 2.0, and - lo and behold! - it is a direct descendant of the plan she chose not to support in 1993...[In an interview] Clinton said the models for her current proposal were the 1993 Republican plan and the individual-mandate plan passed in Massachusetts by former Governor Mitt Romney. She said one of her top health care advisers, Laurie Rubiner, worked on both the Chafee and Massachusetts plans." The article noted that supporting an individual mandate is "a big change for the Clintonistas," since in 1993, Clinton "railed" against individual mandates. [Time, 9/20/07]

FLASHBACK: 1993
Hillary Clinton Said That An Individual Mandate For Health Insurance Coverage Would "Create Additional Problems," Lead to Arbitrary Cut-Offs for Eligibility, And Require the IRS to Oversee Our Health Care System. In a speech to the Group Health Association of America, Clinton said that "The individual mandate...create[s] some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system." [Speech to the Group Health Association of America, 2/15/94]

Clinton Said An Individual Mandate Might Not Work; Pointed to Example of Mandatory Auto Insurance. In her speech to the Group Health Association of America, Clinton pointed to mandatory auto insurance requirements as a reason why the individual mandate might not work. She said, "[T]he only examples we have of individual mandates are those like auto insurance requirements in many states where, in spite of the fact that the state has access to all drivers through the licensing process, literally thousands and even hundreds of thousands of drivers remain uninsured in states with such an individual mandate." [Speech to the Group Health Association of America, 2/15/94]



Hillary Clinton Said She Opposed an Individual Mandate Because It Would Disrupt Employment Patterns. Clinton said, "We concluded that amongst the alternatives that are available, which include either a very large tax that would replace private sector investment, or an individual mandate which would put the entire responsibility on the individual, and we are concerned disrupt employment patterns now, particularly those that provide insurance, that therefore the best way is to take what we know, what Americans are familiar with, and make it better, make it fairer and make everyone within it responsible." [CNN, 9/29/93]

Hillary Clinton Said She Opposed an Individual Mandate Because Employers Would Stop Insuring, Knowing That People Would Fall Into the Subsidy Pool. Clinton said, "Although we very much applaud the Senate Republican approach of making sure we reach universal coverage and choosing an individual mandate as the route to get there, we have several worries that we will be working with the Senate Republicans on to make sure we fully understand their approach over the next several weeks. Among those worries are that if we have a legislatively required individual mandate, we worry that the numbers of people who currently are insured through their employment will decrease, because there will no longer be any reason for many employers who have struggled to ensure their workers, particularly those whose incomes are not significant, to feel that responsibility, because by failing to insure, the individuals will be mandated to have insurance, and individuals below a certain level of income will become the government's responsibility. They will fall into the subsidy pool. It's very to predict how many or at what rate that would possibly increase the number of uninsured, but we worry that that would be one of the unintended consequences." [Hearing Of The Senate Finance Committee, 9/30/93]

Hillary Clinton Said She Opposed an Individual Mandate Because It would be Difficult to Administer the Bureaucratic System. Clinton said, "Unlike the existing employer-employee system, we have great concerns about how the administrative structure to track the individual contribution, to collect it, and to then connect it with health insurance would be set up. In our efforts to try to work with Treasury, and OMB and others to create that individual subsidy system, it struck us as extremely complicated and bureaucratic, and also maybe more intrusive, because instead of the employer-employee transaction, with the money coming in, individuals would have to perhaps show their income tax returns, they'd have to have their income tracked because they would either be up or below the subsidy level at certain periods or certain years. So we believe it would be much more difficult to administer the individual mandate system." [Hearing Of The Senate Finance Committee, 9/30/93]

NPR: Clinton White House Opposed Individual Mandate Because of "Overwhelming Public Distaste." Mara Liasson reported, "The White House is betting that if universal coverage can be established as non-negotiable by all parties, then the debate becomes which mandate- individual or employer, can best achieve it. Then the White House figures the overwhelming public distaste for an individual mandate will help it win the argument. To that end, the first lady has declared another plan, the one proposed by conservative Democrat Jim Cooper, unacceptable. As Cooper explains, his plan doesn't require individuals or employers to buy health care and it sees universal coverage as something that will have to wait." [NPR, 11/20/93]


Bottom line, I trust Obama on healthcare coverage compare to Hillary Clinton.

I'm not sure I understand what your point is.  Are you using these sources to prove that Obama's ill advised health care plan is strong?
  If so, please "convince" us with better sources than Obama's inside men

----------------------------------------------------

I don't need to convince you any further because folks like you and John Jay think you own the monopoly of ideas. Another loosing proposition from the democrats; I wonder when they’re going to learn.

I hope real democrats are not thinking this way; our way or no other way.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):