Speaking in Council Bluffs, Iowa, Obama declared,
Health care insurance should not become a government mandate.
He claimed both the Clinton and Edwards universal health care plans just wouldn't work, comparing them to the auto insurance plans that are required by law in many states, but suffer from non-compliance by about 15% who are scofflaws.
Obama has made a move to clearly differentiate himself from the other top-tier Dems as the Iowa caucus approaches. He's taken a gamble. Will it pay off or penalize him?
Obama has been criticized for his health care plan
by those who assert that it is not truly a universal plan because it mandates coverage only for children.
Now he has opened himself up to further criticism for being inconsistent.
Earlier in the week
in Fort Dodge, for example, Obama told a crowd that his plan was, essentially, the same as Clinton and Edwards’s.
His statements in Council Bluffs appear to be a self-rebuttal.
Sensing blood in the political waters, Mark Daley, a Clinton spokesman was quick to respond.
"Senator Obama said this week that his plan leaves only a handful of Americans uninsured. Unfortunately that number is actually 15 million. That is unacceptable and Senator Obama should explain to Iowans why he chose to leave so many people uninsured," Daley said. "Senator Clinton's plan is just as aggressive, if not more, in cutting costs."
Obama's plan goes after corporate health care, limiting profits and prosecuting insurance monopolizers.
The result, he says, would mean health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans and an average premium reduction of $2,500 a year for families that already have coverage.
Sounds like substantial benefits to the already insured. What about addressing the plight of the uninsured?
"If we see there are people who are still not covered when we make it affordable then we will figure out how to make sure that everybody’s got coverage. Period. You can count on that," Obama said. "But what I’m not going to do is pretend that by making everybody buy insurance that somehow they can afford it."
Obama did not make clear how he would accomplish that.
------------------------------------------------------
Also making news in Iowa this week, although indirectly, is John Edwards.
Under the heading of "Pundits and their Predictions," Des Moines Register politico, David Yepsen
sees Bill Richardson as the candidate with momentum while John Edwards risks a complete collapse.
Yepsen elaborated in hisFox News interview last Wednesday,
"I think if you're John Edwards, you're thankful this is going to be over with on January third. John Edwards has not been doing well lately, he's slipping a little in these numbers. That's not a good trend line for him. He's got to get this thing over with fast."
Yepsen said he fears Edwards could fall so far that New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, currently running fourth, could slip into third place. . .
"I think one of the things that could happen is that Edwards could collapse, sag, fall apart, not do well. . .And that leaves Richardson in real striking distance of third place. Richardson has run a good campaign. He’s got some support here. If I were Edwards I’d be worried about sagging so far it could enable Richardson to take third place."
Yepsen noticed and reported on Kerry’s momentum during the final days before the 2004 Iowa caucus before Kerry pulled his upset victory. He doesn’t see Clinton falling. "I see Clinton as flat."