Simply huge news on health care reform, from Ezra Klein:
[T]he Obama administration will provide most of the money -- though not all -- and the governing objectives and Congress will be asked to hammer out the details.
One of those details is universal health care coverage. ....The budget -- and I was cautioned that the wording "is changing hourly" -- will direct Congress to "aim for universality."...
Administration officials have been very clear on what the inclusion of "universality" is meant to communicate to Congress.
During the campaign I worked for the Obama Campaign from the beginning. And I read the Health Care Plan back in August of 2007 when they were finalizing its details (for example, I found a typo in the copy they gave me). I was never really sold on the idea that you didn't need mandates to make the system work and incentivize it for insurers. And the campaign pretty regularly attacked the Clinton Campaign's health care plan.
More after the jump...
Remember this?
In the end, the plan will probably look like a hybrid between what the White House presents, and both the Senator Max Baucus and Hillary Clinton Campaign health care plans.
This has been picked up by Talking Points Memo, Ezra Klein and Politico, and looks to point the direction the Administration is seeking to take the health care debate. I think it's an effective tactic in opening up the process and simply being honest about the costs and have the deliberations be public. An individual mandate is in the interest of the all the major players--insurees, insurers and the government, plus every pet interest group out there.
Ezra Klein also points out an important piece of the unfolding negotiations:
There is much in this plan that is crucially, purposefully, vague. What is "affordable" insurance? I asked members of Baucus's policy staff, and they said that had been left up to Congress and the Health Coverage Council. Same with the definition of "coverage." Another big question is whether the Health Insurance Exchange is meant to become an alternative health structure in its own right, which would require a provision for large and midsize employers to buy into it, or just a mop-up operation for small businesses and individuals. Again, the policy staff said that was to be left up to Congress. Who gets caught in the employer mandate? Again, left vague.
What is affordable insurance anyway? And when will that take effect? Surely that will be part of the deliberations between the important voting members of the Senate. Also, I personally feel that framing this debate in terms of being a boost for the economy, especially small businesses, will help build a coalition of blue-dogs and Republicans necessary to achieve passage.
Which makes me wonder if the Obama Campaign knew the entire time that they were going to eventually have to go with mandates, but wanted to move themselves further to the center on health care reform. With the news today that Obama may finally come to a decision on the 19 month deadline for Iraq (GREAT NEWS!) it will be important to not cloud out either story.
In addition, how do you think the Blue Dogs will react to this news? Try to hold the House hostage?
We shall see. But it's great news to see that President Obama is mulling much more comprehensive, and meaningful health care reform in this year's budget.