Mueller Lake Park Outdoor Amphitheater
Obama Should Not Be Reluctant to Defend His Proposal
RECEIVED Mon., Feb. 18, 2008
Dear Editor,
In his article "Political Notes of a Relic" [“Letters @ 3AM, “Feb. 15], Michael Ventura suggests that Barack Obama has been reluctant to participate in debates because (among other reasons) he would not be able to defend his proposed health-care plan. More specifically, Mr. Ventura refers to a New York Times commentary by Paul Krugman that "cites a recent MIT study … that 'finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of [the 45 million] currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion a year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates" (like Hillary Clinton's) "would cover 45 million of the uninsured … at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion.'" Mr. Ventura (and Hillary Clinton in her current TV ad) focus on the fact that the Obama plan would thus appear to cover only about one-half of the uninsured at nearly 80% of the cost.
Obama has apparently concluded that a plan that allows coverage to all currently uninsured who wish to avail themselves of it is better than a plan with a mandate (and its required enforcement mechanism) that may be unacceptable to the Congress (and hence not cover any). While a bolder proposal (such as the Clinton plan) may also be politically feasible (though possibly at the expense of other policy initiatives), surely Obama need not be reluctant to defend his proposal.
In his article "Political Notes of a Relic" [“Letters @ 3AM, “Feb. 15], Michael Ventura suggests that Barack Obama has been reluctant to participate in debates because (among other reasons) he would not be able to defend his proposed health-care plan. More specifically, Mr. Ventura refers to a New York Times commentary by Paul Krugman that "cites a recent MIT study … that 'finds that a plan without mandates, broadly resembling the Obama plan, would cover 23 million of [the 45 million] currently uninsured, at a taxpayer cost of $102 billion a year. An otherwise identical plan with mandates" (like Hillary Clinton's) "would cover 45 million of the uninsured … at a taxpayer cost of $124 billion.'" Mr. Ventura (and Hillary Clinton in her current TV ad) focus on the fact that the Obama plan would thus appear to cover only about one-half of the uninsured at nearly 80% of the cost.
Obama has apparently concluded that a plan that allows coverage to all currently uninsured who wish to avail themselves of it is better than a plan with a mandate (and its required enforcement mechanism) that may be unacceptable to the Congress (and hence not cover any). While a bolder proposal (such as the Clinton plan) may also be politically feasible (though possibly at the expense of other policy initiatives), surely Obama need not be reluctant to defend his proposal.
Lowell Dworin
