I just got done reading this article by Dana Millbank on the Clinton Campain (thanks to Andrew Sullivan for pointing it out).

Go me thinking...  Are Bagdad Bob and Monty Python's Black Knight the remaining spokespersons for the HRC Campain?

There seems to be an odd debate going on here about whose plan is more "Universal" than others.  In my opionion, neither Obama's plan nor Clinon's plan reaches the Nirvana of Universal Healthcare.  To me, that can only be reached if we are willing to go to a taxpayer-financed, single-payer solution.  While I believe that this is the best solution, my sense of where we are is that there is a snowball's chance in hell of this getting enacted - no matter who is elected president.

Accordingly, what is wrong with Universal Access to Healthcare?  I think that it is much more attainable in the end to say that we will make healthcare more affordable by attacking the administrative overhead that continues to drive up healthcare costs while adding no value to the process.  Additionally, we can toughen insurance industry regulations to mandate that they cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing condtions.  Finally, we can open up the federal insurance to make it available to everyone.

Again, I know it's not the ideal solution, but it sure seems to be to be a step in the right direction.

I appreciate (in advance) your feedback and analysis on this topic.