Frontrunners come out with new (bolder?) plans on Iraq, health care

Clinton will announce the third part of her health care plan today. Previews of her speech show that Clinton will adopt a position similar to Edwards's and Obama's: universal health coverage but not a single-payer system.. The main difference between Clinton (and Edwards's) plan and Obama's is that her plan requires all Americans to buy health insurance (an "individual mandate"). She plans to make that possible by offering federal subsidies to those who can't afford insurance, forcing insurance companies to insure everyone, including sick Americans, and requiring large businesses to provide their employees' insurance. Clinton also would expand government programs to allow much more people to opt in plans reserved for government employees.

This is a huge improvement from today's crisis, but it is also a far cry from the single payer system. The rhetoric of the Clinton campaign is revealing of how scared Democrats are of being once again depicted as proponents of (gasp!) socialized medicine. Neera Tanden, Clinton's policy adviser, emphasized the consumer's freedom to opt in, choose his plan... and his doctor: "It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs. If you like the plan you have, you keep it. If you're one of tens of millions of Americans without coverage or don't like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and you'll get tax credits to help pay for it." To be fair to Clinton, the other frontrunners are embracing similar rhetoric and similar plans.

The Politico reports that both Clinton and Edwards have explicitely stated they do believe in a single-payer system, but that they want to get there in a two-step process, with such a universal coverage plan as a transition phase. Simply put, their campaigns say, there aren't enough votes in the Senate to pass anything more bold:

Clinton was asked directly about the relative modesty of her approach in a revealing, unpublicized New York talk in April, in which a board member of the Community Service Society of New York, Jonathan Greenberg, asked her why she “continue[s] to see the solution” as private insurance, rather than a single-payer national system. “Well, I didn’t say that,” Clinton responded, to the audience’s apparent surprise. But she added that "for the short term, it’ll probably have to build on the employer-based system, but with a lot of changes in how it operates and what the insurance companies are expected to do."... Clinton isn’t the only one hinting at a two-stage conversion to a national health care system. Edwards, whose health care plan includes a public alternative competing against private plans, appears to hold out a similar hope... “If the American people start gravitating toward the government plan, then this thing could very easily become single payer and that would be perfectly fine with me.”

Of note in that April meeting is also Clinton's statement that "a far broader program known as “Medicare for All” would be something to be considered if Democrats can win at least 55 seats in the Senate." That would mean a four-seat pick-up in 2008. Such a a result is more than probable at this point, given the way the senate races are shaping up, so keep in mind the possibility of a Democratic White House moving much faster on the health care issue if they think they might have the votes in Congress. Though all three frontrunners seem much to timid to go after single-payer immediately. The worry then becomes whether Democrats would have the incentive to still talk about health care and move towards a single-payer system once they have passed this transition plan.

Obama also made news this week-end, as he finally joined Dodd in promising he would not vote for an Iraq resolution that did not include a firm timetable for withdrawal. “We are going to bring an end to this war and I will fight hard in the United States Senate to make sure we don’t pass any funding bill that does not have a deadline,” he said. And he added, in a phrasing reminiscent of Edwards's, “No timetable, no funding. It is time to bring this to an end.”

This leaves Clinton as the only major Democrat who has not made this commitment. But her campaign's main strategy has always been to leave no space between her positions on
Iraq and Obama's, so expect Clinton to quickly follow suit at this point. Though some are wondering if her very cautious statements as of late mean that she will take the huge political risk of standing alone on this issue.