Having just seen Sicko recently and having recently endured my own nightmares with the dysfunctional American health care system in recent years, I’ve been very interested in what the Democratic candidates intend to do to fix the problem. The differences between the two remaining candidates’ approaches pretty much comes down to Clinton wanting to mandate coverage for everyone and Obama wanting to mandate coverage of the children while greatly reducing costs for adults. Both of these approaches look terrible next to the universal socialized health care plans of most of industrialized nations and hardly even seem worth quibbling over. It seems a forgone conclusion that the great for-profit corporations responsible for limited coverage at great expense cannot and will not be dislodged by either candidates’ plan. How depressing.
Finally, however, I’ve read an analysis that makes me think there is a reason to support one of these approaches and, no surprise, it’s Obama’s. One my new favorite writers on the web is a commenter at TPM who goes by FlyOnTheWall. Fly’s point is that Obama’s plan recognizes how things get done in America- the incremental way. He notes a pattern of instances in which federal support for the most vulnerable is considered acceptable by Americans and becomes a foot in the door for the eventual expansion of such programs to cover everyone. Examples are welfare, wage and working hours, and workplace safety protections.