Harry and Louise add.  Shame on them.

Well, it's true. More true than the "trillion dollar tax increase on working families" mailer from Clinton, to be sure.

Of course there's going to be a pushback against the false charges of Obama not seeking UHC and leaving out 15 million.  There is a letter on Huffington Post today signed by more than 80 physicians, public health and medical practitioners, and social policy experts discussing the two health care plans which says:

Some believe that an individual mandate to buy health insurance should be part of this effort; others hold that a mandate would be paternalistic or too onerous for families at the margins of affordability. Regardless of our feelings on this issue, what is clear from the evidence is that mandates alone, without strong incentives to comply and harsh punishments for violation, will have little impact on the number of uninsured Americans.1 Indeed, as the Massachusetts experience illustrates, non-compliance with mandates is a large problem, absent harsh sanctions. There is simply no factual basis for the assertion that an individual mandate, by itself, would result in coverage for 15 million more Americans than would robust efforts to make health care more affordable and accessible.

The inaccurate claim that an individual mandate alone would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 15 million draws attention away from the challenges we must surmount to make good medical care available to all. These challenges include adequate public subsidies, insurance market reform, outreach to people at the margins of American life, and long-term control of medical costs. Individual mandates may have a role in health care reform, but there is risk of a specious "Mission Accomplished" moment. It is a time for rolling up our sleeves and addressing the hard work required to get everyone care. The central challenge is to make health insurance affordable and accessible, and to reach out to all Americans to help them obtain coverage. Voters should insist that candidates for president address these very real issues.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-pol lack/universal-coverage-and-t_b_84386.ht ml

I see your link also contains this false charge that the Obama's plan "leaves 15 million people out, which drives up costs because everyone else ends up subsidizing their emergency care."  And since I know you as a fair person despite your use of HillaryHub as a reference I'm surprised you didn't mention Hillary leaves out 12 million illegal immigrants, a group who avoid medical care until they end up in emergency rooms.  

Obama sounding like a Republican again. Not surprised on that account.

His plan will never get through because of stuff like this. He's legitimizing the stances of Republicans and if he wins the presidency, the GOP will have lots of ammunition to defeat his plan handed to them by his own campaign.

Thanks for posting this SteveM. I've felt all along that the "mandate" issue is a red herring; Obama clearly adopted his opposition to mandates to be able to claim to be more electable.

A mandate is helpful in broadening the risk pool and making insurance more affordable, but the mandate in and of itself is not going to do much to solve our problems.

The much bigger issue to me is whether there is a public component of the health care insurance policy that is being proposed. Here's where to me Obama's plan comes up very short. I had a conversation about  this with a very knowledgeable health care activist who is supporting Obama who told me flat out it was the worst of the three plans but that he would be the most likely to get elected (ie, not Edwards) and get a good plan passed (ie, not Clinton).

I don't buy that argument at all. I'm still hoping Obama is our nominee but I do think his health care proposal is not where the Democratic party should be this fall or next year once in office.