I woke up last night around 2:30am, feeling awful, sluggish yet at the same time wanting to puke. Being in the Peace Corps, you recognize the signs of food poisoning pretty quickly. Since I didn’t want to lie in my vomit, I dragged myself to the bathroom and got sick there. Really fun.
The reason I am telling this story is so that I can awkwardly segue into talking about health care. Here in Ecuador, I receive amazing, free health care courtesy of the United States Peace Corps. I get a complete medical and dental checkup once a year, I don’t pay for any medications, and if I ever get sick, I can call up my Peace Corps Medical Officer at any hour, and ask her what to do. Living in developing countries, we volunteers get all sorts of exotic ailments, and PC really takes care of us. In the US, however, I’m a public health grad student and I pay large premiums for pretty crappy health insurance.
I’ve read through both candidates policy positions on health care, and feel that Senator Obama’s is stronger. For example, he would establish a National Health Insurance Exchange that would function as a “watchdog” for private insurance companies, ensuring compliance with new standards (currently the private insurance market is virtually unregulated) and making sure that every American is eligible to purchase health care insurance, regardless of health status. A SEC for the insurance companies, if you will.
Clinton routinely, and falsely, claims that Obama’s plan would “leave out 15 million Americans.” This is based on biased estimates from her advisers, while her “mandate,” would force everyone in the country to buy health care insurance whether or not they could afford it. It would also fine those who could not afford to pay. Quick, let’s calculate how many millions of people her plan would leave out? Besides, this type of “universal” health care mandate has not worked out very well in Massachusetts, and what former Governor turned unsuccessful Republican presidential candidate does the Bay State have to thank for that? None other than Mitt Romney.
The Obama plan, on the other hand, would do a great deal to combat rising insurance costs by regulating private insurers; it makes coverage of children mandatory, and would create a new national health plan for all those who cannot currently afford insurance (i.e. small businesses, self-employed individuals, people with pre-existing conditions rejected by private insurers). The Senator’s plan is, of course, much more detailed and nuanced than I’ve outlined, and is available online at his website: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare
Now, this is the point where Clinton supporters cry out “Experience! Experience! Experience!” as if this mantra were Hillary’s ruby slippers that could magically transport her to the White House. Sure, she has experience trying to reform national health care. But the last time I checked, in oh, 1994, Hillary’s universal health care reform FAILED. Miserably. In part due to a Republican-controlled Congress, but also thanks to her own obstinacy and unwillingness to compromise on, well…everything. I think it’s time to try a plan like Senator Obama’s, a universal health care plan that is practical and realistic. Plus, with Obama as President, we might actually garner bi-partisan support and get this important legislation passed. Did I mention that Republicans hate Hillary and that her candidacy would probably serve as a rallying point for the currently fractured Republican party? Just checking. I don’t know about everyone else but I want to WIN in November and all of the national polls currently show Obama beating McCain by significantly more than Clinton.
