As pollingreport.com indicates here, surveys consistently have shown health care to be either the second or third most important political issue to Americans. One of the critical issues faced by presidential aspirants in formulating their health care policies is whether to include mandates, requiring Americans of all ages to carry health insurance. As New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted of the candidates, "without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it."

Clearly, the health care plan of every Democrat running for the top office is superior to that of any Republican. (No, we do not have the finest health care system in the world and, yes, there is a proper, increased, role for government.) Still, on which side of the mandate question does each Democrat, according to his or her website, fall?

First, we'll dispose of Dennis Kucinich- favorably, because he is the only candidate publicly supporting a single payer system, which obviously would provide health care for all. And now, an excerpt from each website (excepting that of Mike Gravel, whom I can't bring myself to care about):

Joe Biden: "While insuring all children must be our top priority, it is also important to offer uninsured adults access to health care." Verdict: no (Beware the euphemism "access.")

Hillary Clinton: "Individuals: will be required to get and keep insurance in a system where insurance is affordable and accessible." Verdict: yes.

Chris Dodd: "Universal coverage will be achieved through a shared mandate on individuals and businesses: universal coverage through universal responsibility." Verdict: yes.

John Edwards: "Once these steps have been taken, requiring all American residents to get insurance." Verdict: yes.

Bill Richardson: " Like auto insurance, all Americans will have to have health coverage and employers will pay their fair share of employee health care costs." Verdict: yes. (Krugman: "....while the enforcement of car insurance mandates isn’t perfect, it does greatly increase the number of insured drivers.")

And most critically-

Barack Obama: "Obama will expand the number of options for young adults to get coverage...." Verdict: no.

Reflections on the Debate (Las Vegas)- no. 2

The hot issue at the last (Philadelphia) Democratic debate and, not coincidentally, at this debate on November 15, was whether an illegal immigrant should be eligible for a driver's license. It should have occurred to me when John Edwards said that the license ought to be available, but only as part of "comprehensive immigration reform." Finally it occurred to me when Dennis Kucinich ultimately responded "you give people a path to legalization, and then they can be legal and have their driver's license. That's the way to work it. That's the way to work it."

Now why wouldn't a supporter of illegal immigration ("I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren't any illegal human beings;that's number one. Number two, they're undocumented") unequivocally support giving a driver's license to an illegal immigrant? Because it's a state, not federal, prerogative. That is the only context in which Senator Clinton's response (supporting Governor Spitzer, who until he reversed his decision had proposed the policy) at the Philadelphia debate made any sense. (Of course, that wasn't her thinking or reasoning.) Perhaps Barack Obama or Bill Richardson could have figured that out instead of supporting a misguided, unpopular idea. Or if any of the candidates had told Wolf Blitzer that he instead could have asked about illegal immigration in a more relevant matter- say in terms of a border fence, employer sanctions, or the work of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

There would have been another benefit to asking a new, rather than recylced, question about illegal immigration: Hillary Clinton wouldn't have been prepared with her insincere, yet effective, response: "no."

Sanctuary Cities And The Rule Of Law

During last night's Democratic Presidential debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire, New Mexico's Bill Richardson, in response to a question late in the debate, declared "I will also be a President who will bring back habeas corpus and the rule of law."

Richardson was right to remind us that not all Presidents must be contemptuous of the right to privacy, separation of powers, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, Governor, you- and most of your colleagues- want to uphold the rule of law only when it is a law you approve of.

Fairly early in the debate, Alison King of http://www.hearstcorp.com/entertainment/property/ent_cable_newengland.html asked the candidates a long, but revealing, question about sanctuary cities, which ended "would you allow these cities to ignore the federal law regarding the reporting of illegal immigrants and in fact provide sanctuary to these immigrants?" Host Tim Russert followed up on the question to elicit a specific answer from each candidate (though for whatever reason John Edwards was not directly queried and did not volunteer his opinion). The verdict- Richardson- yes; Dodd- yes; Kucinich- yes; Gravel- yes; Obama- yes; Clinton- yes. In response to the question, there was criticism of the "federal government," though we do know our current President is fond of the concept of amnesty (see Libby, I. Lewis).

The only candidate to respond, after a little prodding, "no" was Delaware's Senator Biden, who deserves considerable credit. But Representative Kucinich honestly, and dangerously, put it: "The federal law- there is a moral law, and the moral law here says the immigrants are being abused and mistreated." So, as President Bush apparently believes, we enforce the laws we agree with and not those we disagree with. And when we hear our Democratic candidates criticize this failed President, including his discomfort with the United States Constitution, remember this: for six Democratic candidates, the concept of the rule of law remains a concept.

Debate at Howard University

Some musings about the substance of the Democratic debate (one of the "All-American Presidential Forums" sponsored by PBS) at Howard University on Thursday evening, 6/28/07:

1) It doesn't seem like asking too much for a Democratic candidate to say directly that he/she is opposed to outsourcing, in response to a question specifically about the topic. Yet, Kucinich (who emphasized unfair trade), Biden, Clinton, and Gravel (who seemed unopposed to the practice) didn't find it within themselves to state unequivocally that it is harmful.

2) Asked about income inequality, Edwards and Biden- only- stated definitively that the portion of the Bush tax cuts decreasing income taxes on the wealthy should be ended now. The reticence of the frontrunners, Clinton and Obama, may not have been accidental.

3) Queried about crime and punishment, we heard all the usual explanations for the disproportionately high rate of incarceration among blacks: greater penalties for possession of crack cocaine than powdered cocaine; racial injustice in the criminal justice system; mandatory minimums; incarceration for non-violent offenses; emphasis on incarceration rather than rehabilitation; an incompetent Attorney General. How about this? The absence of a Public Defender system in many states. In Texas, for instance, a private attorney (at public expense) is selected for indigent defendants by an elected judge- who often repays (or punishes) attorneys with assignments in response to their need for campaign funds or votes. Poor defendants, disproportionately minority, often end up with disinterested, overworked, and/or incompetent counsel. And Texas is notorious for its proclivity to impose the death penalty.

4) Over at TPM Cafe, Eric Kleefeld and T.W. Farnum lament the lengthy (and, I found, self-serving) introduction, allowing the audience to applaud (always a mistake), and the limit imposed upon each candidate for answering a question in the second half of the debate. They note also Chris Dodd's remark "I was going to say, Tavis, I'll take global warming for $600" and Tavis Smiley's response "and I was going to say, if you were Paris Hilton, I'd give you an hour. But you're not." Could there be anything more superficial than Smiley's rejoinder? Perhaps Hillary Clinton's smiling response, "That was good. That was good, Tavis."

5) Senator Clinton stated "Let me just put this in perspective. If HIV/AIDS were the leading cause of death of white women between the ages of 25 and 34, there would be an outraged outcry in this country."
Let me put this into perspective, Senator Clinton. Acording to the Foundation for AIDS Research Public Policy, Congress in fiscal 2005 appropriated $2.9 billion, a 2.1% increase over fiscal year 2004, for AIDS research. AVERT.org (apparently an international AIDS charity), cites 17,011 deaths in the U.S.A. from AIDS in 2005. That computes to an average of $170,477.92 per AIDS death. According to FORBES.com, the comparable figures for various diseases are: breast cancer, $20,650; Alzheimer's disease, $10,214; lung cancer, $1,905; pancreatic cancer, $1,724; chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, $458.
Pandering is one thing, Senator Clinton. Deliberate, exorbitant distortion of the truth is something I'd rather ascribe to politicians (usually Republican) dedicated to the wealth and power of corporate interests. But I guess I have.