I'm watching this debate with the democratic candidates and they're on the subject of health care. I must confess that I don't really understand. Because Clinton and Edwards were talking about their plans and representing them as "universal health care" plans. They vaunt their position with nice phrases like "leaving no one out" and "Everybody will be covered." But the way they were talking about it, when they mentioned the specifics, it sounded to me like it wasn't so much universal health care as universal health insurance. Meaning: everybody will be covered, because heatlh insurance will be mandatory. Obviously, this would require making said insurance affordable. I guess I'm just confused, but that seems to me like it's a little more friendly with the insurance companies, and I don't like the long-term implications. It seems like muddling together government policy and insurance could be scary, and could have even worse consequence than those we're facing already in leiu of the incredible monetary power the insurance and drug companies already hold in Washington. Obama, made a little more sense about it, but his opponents jumped down his throat about his plan not being "universal."
Maybe I'm just clueless about policy issues like this, and maybe I'm especially clueless about how people really get things done in Washington, if such a thing is actually possible. Making real changes: it's something every candidate claims he/she will do, but I don't trust a one of them. Everyone bragging about their record and then picking apart that of their opponents: it all just gets tiring. It's uncomfortable watching the candidates rip each other apart for little details that they think exemplify the entire character of their opponents or theirselves.