The error of the pro-mandate faction of the Democratic Party (no Republican candidates are in favor of universal anything in the health sector, except universally disappointing experiences, even for the rich) is this: they see the future and know exactly what regulations must be passed, how they will affect behavior, and what outcomes will result.
"[British Foreign Secretary David]Miliband argued that the EU could never rival the economic or military clout of the U.S., China or India in the decades ahead because the club "is never going to have the fleetness of foot or the fiscal base to dominate."
"In fact economically and demographically Europe will be less important in the world of 2050 than it was in the world of 1950," Miliband said.
*****
These quotes from the recently minted British Foreign Secretary reminded me of a dinner I attended with David Miliband in about 2003. I was then in despair over his leader, Blair, and found myself the odd man out in a discussion about the Britain's relationship with the United States and with Europe. I couldn't see the merit of London's ties to Washington, nor did it make sense to me that Brussels was any better as a senior partner.
Miliband kept his mouth shut about Iraq, and I suppose is Foreign Minister now for just that reason. His new leader Brown has been,however, timid enough on Iraq and Iran to put his own position at risk, but Labor at least can say it's stayed in power.
The debate about health care mandates importantly divides Obama from Clinton and Edwards. Paul Krugman blasted Obama on this, which alarms even Obama's supporters. But perhaps Homer has nodded just this once and Obama is on the more solid ground.
Here’s the key point, in my view: either Americans should get insurance from their employers or, if they lack an employer, they should have ways to enroll very easily in a comprehensive health insurance plan through a variety of different techniques. But this approach is quite a bit different than a mandate.
