Politics

Krugman, Clinton and Mandates

By Matt Cooper

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama squared off last night. Their biggest policy difference came over health care. Paul Krugman and Hillary Clinton have been highly critical of Obama's plan because it doesn't have a mandate that everyone needs to buy health insurance. They say that without a mandate it's not a truly universal plan. Obama argues that you don't need a mandate to get to universal coverage. Who's right? I don't know and I don't know if anyone else does either. The experience in Mitt Romney's Massachusetts shows that a mandate alone doesn't bring about universal coverage. They still don't have it in the commonwealth. That said, a mandate has a lot to recommend it since otherwise you could have people "gaming the system" --using emergency rooms when they acute care, avoiding insurance payments, etc. Plus it forces the young and healthy into the system and they can bring down rates for everyone since they tend to put in more than they take out. I'm agnostic on the issue leaning towards mandates. I suspect most voters threw up their hands last night and considered that issue, like the debate, a draw. By the way, as I always note, my spouse works for Clinton

Full post as published by Portfolio.com: Capital on February 22, 2008 (boomark / email).