Paul Krugman has written an excellent fact-based analysis of the rival Clinton-Obama health plans. He concludes that Obama will not be able to achieve universal health care if he is elected. Hillary, on the other hand, might just be able to pull it off if she is elected.

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

Krugman is right. Hillary's plan is better, much better. In fact, it's not
only much better, it also has the potential of paving the way to an American
version of "single-payer plus". "Single payer plus" is what I call plans that
offer a means-based subsidized single payer plan to everyone, along with the
option for anyone (usually the very rich) to purchase other plans if they wish.
That's the current direction and/or fact of health insurance plans in many other
countries.

Obama's plan does not have the same potential. That's because it explicitly
provides means-based subsidies to anyone purchasing ANY health insurance. On
the surface, that may sound good to some. However, it primarily serves to
perpetuate the current crazy health insurance system. In addition, by spreading
new enrollees amongst over 1500 insurance companies, it will greatly reduce the
economies possible in a large (at least 47 million to begin with in Hillary's
plan) single-payer risk-pool. Perhaps that's part of the reason it will cost more, as Krugman points out

Yesterday I sent a letter to the editor of the Boulder Daily Camera concerning this
difference. It was too late for publication today, but the editorial page editor has
assured me that he is trying to get it into the queue to be posted online at
http://www.dailycamera.com/blogs/letters-editor-blog/ later today. Hopefully,
it will be posted there before the caucuses tonight. I think it demonstrates
that Obama supporters need to better scrutinize what he is proposing before they
conclude that he is ready for the Presidency.

Obama's supporters repeatedly point to his one early speech against the war in
Iraq as evidence of his good judgment. Fair enough, so long as they realize
that he did not continue to oppose the war so vigorously after he was elected to
the Senate. And to be really fair, they should also concede that he has made a
very bad judgment with his non-universal health-care proposal which plays
directly into the hands of the existing health insurance companies. In that regard, it's something of a cousin of the dreadful Bush Medicare prescription drug benefit which plays into the hands of the drug companies.

For more on how I think Obama got himself into this "fine mess" (as Oliver Hardy used to say), see

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14482

UPDATE: And now it seems that Obama has resorted to the use of incorrect analogies to attack Hillary's universal health care plan: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id=5749
This only confirms my suspicions regarding who is advising him on health care. It's a very common conservative tactic, and the Chicago groups I think to be advising him have long been amongst the most conservative in the industry. Their individual members, and some of their leaders may or may not be particularly conservative, but the majority of their leadership typically has been. I hope that has changed, but I won't believe it unless and until I see it.

UPDATE 2: MY LETTER TO THE BOULDER DAILY CAMERA was finally published on Thursday, Feb. 7.