By Carter Bundy
John Edwards and Barack Obama would, in my humble opinion, each make a fine president. Their ideas are progressive (with one notable exception discussed below), their hearts are in the right place and each has some good experience inside and outside
What I don’t like are their absurd attacks, mostly on Hillary Clinton but also on Governor Richardson, that somehow having been part of a previous administration precludes one from being an agent of change. If anything, in this case, the opposite is true.
Edwards’ big line to differentiate himself from Clinton and Richardson is “there are two candidates of change left now,” as though Hillary and Big Bill are totems of the Bush Republican status quo. That’s a cynical, farcical and patently untrue statement.
Changing health care
Hillary was the major public figure in
Hillary put herself on the line, personally and politically, for something that no one else had been willing to do since President Truman floated the idea in the late 40’s.
Even though conservative, corporate forces shot her down, the legacy of her work stands today: SCHIP. That program has provided health insurance to literally millions of poor kids. You want to talk about change? She’s done it, in a massive and powerful way.
I don’t recall seeing Edwards lend any of his time, money or private-sector fame to the effort. Nor do I recall his leading a national charge for universal coverage as a senator, even though he was in office all the way through early 2005.
Barack, through no fault of his own, was too young to have done much to support Hillary’s universal care. To his credit, he is pushing to expand health coverage, which puts him way ahead of any Republican. But his plan does not even attempt to be universal.
I had the privilege of serving on Governor Richardson’s Health Coverage Task Force. Everyone even remotely familiar with health industry economics will tell you that to have true universal coverage, one of two things must happen to make sure people are actually covered.
The first option is the best one, and it’s where Kucinich is spot on: simply make coverage automatic. That’s somehow deemed “socialist” by most American voters, even though our military and Congress have it, so none of the Dem final four are proposing it.
The second option is to mandate coverage. We mandate car insurance all over
Obama’s comparison of the other Dem’s mandates to Romney’s is flawed. Romney’s mandate doesn’t address affordability for the poor and middle class, something
Here’s the economic reality of unmandated “universal” coverage: One of the goals of all the plans is to eliminate pre-existing conditions as a barrier to affordable coverage. That means, particularly if you’re young and healthy, you have no incentive to pay for health insurance.
Heck, even if the worst happens – HIV/AIDS, cancer, diabetes – you can sign up later. Why pay now? It’s called adverse selection. It’s predictable, it’s natural and it happens all the time.
As a result, the pool for everyone else becomes riskier and less affordable. That in turn causes some of the people who do need care right now to drop out.
By leaving millions out because of his objection to mandates, Obama’s health plan offers the least change of the final four. Clinton and Richardson, with their histories of trying to implement real change, have an edge over Edwards.
Change isn’t just about being young or different, it’s about doing things, and on health care, Clinton and Richardson have done and are doing things.
Changing energy
Likewise, Governor Richardson has worked his tail off to move
He even gave up the traditional gubernatorial entitlement of gas-guzzling SUVs. For a guy who likes to, ummm, explore the boundaries of vehicular aerodynamics, that wasn’t nothing!
As secretary of energy, he was out front on these issues before they were popular. Having a Republican House and Senate limited his ability to move those issues, but he was an agent of change.
Meanwhile Barack voted for fossil-fuel subsidies in
Change + experience = results
All four Dems offer change ideas, but only two have put them into action. The fact that Clinton and Richardson have been through those battles is, to me, a plus.
Acting as though experience and change are mutually exclusive is not only factually incorrect, it counters the reality of what it takes to achieve change.
While I like and respect Edwards and Obama, if either one wants my vote in November, they’ll have to lose the dismissive, false attacks on Clinton and Richardson, who have been fighting for and achieving change for decades.
Bundy is the political and legislative director for AFSCME in