On first pass, the idea that Barack Obama is more likely to deliver universal healthcare than Hillary Clinton seems outright wrong. She calls for a mandate that everybody be covered. He doesn't.

But an intriguing editorial by Donald J. Harris persuasively argues that Obama is more likely to deliver universal healthcare than Clinton.

Why? Harris--an emeritus professor of economics at Stanford University and a consultant to the World Bank--describes Obama's healthcare plan in more detail than I've seen to date. Harris writes [I've added bullets for clarity]:

"Obama offers a mixed package with built-in flexibility and sequencing of components:

• an up-front mandate for children but not for adults
• automatic enrollment [into an insurance plan] with an opt-out option
• a retroactive premium penalty for "free riders" [i.e., the uncovered who show up for care in an ER]
• subsidies for low income families
• heavy emphasis on prioritizing cost reductions throughout the healthcare system as a way of ensuring universal affordability as well as efficiency
• followed by mandates for any remaining uncovered population as a last resort if proved to be needed."

Harris may have some axe to grind, or he may be personally committed to Obama for reasons other than the details of his healthcare plan. I've read persuasive arguments supporting Clinton's approach to universal care.

But Harris makes the simplistic "Clinton is for universal coverage/Obama is not" argument a lot more complicated--and interesting. The point is tht Obama calls for mandates--eventually, if the other aspects of the plan don't cover everybody.

Democrat healthcare voters pondering the mandate question should give the article a look.

Like what you're reading? Get email notifications when Craig Stoltz posts, or get updates on Facebook, iGoogle, your personal blog and more!