Bedside manner / How Clinton and Obama truly differ on health care

sfgate_get_fprefs();

Despite visual aspects to the contrary, the recent oil of vitriol between Sens. Edmund Hillary Rodham Bill Clinton and Barack Obama masks some echt differences between the Democratic candidates.

One particularly of import difference affects wellness care. The difference, however, is not so much 1 of policy. It is really a differentiation of process.

On substantial grounds, their wellness programs are very similar. Both would keep the employer-based system of private coverage while introducing a public coverage option for consumers. Both would put important new ordinances on private insurers, forbidding them from denying insurance or charging higher rates to those with "pre-existing conditions."

But there is one major distinction: Clinton's program includes a governmental authorization that every individual have wellness coverage, and Obama's doesn't.

Clinton reasons that without a mandate, healthy people will not purchase coverage and will seek wellness attention only when they acquire sick. This could raise costs for everyone else and endanger the viability of any reformed wellness attention system. Obama reasons that the job is not that people don't desire wellness coverage; it's that they cannot afford it.

Much of the rhetoric between the campaigners have muddled the issue: Is the ultimate end of wellness reform an individual authorization or expanded coverage? One is an intermediate step; the other is the policy aim itself. Indeed, Obama is not opposed to the conception of mandates; his program includes one for children, and he have repeatedly said he would see one for grownups if needed. Mandates aren't the issue - cosmopolitan insurance is.

Or is it? Some have got suggested that Obama's program would go forth more than people uninsured than Clinton's. As a result, Obama no longer depicts his program as "universal." Clinton, however, still does. This lone adds to the confusion. "Mandating" is not "providing" - just because the authorities necessitates something makes not do it so.

The lone truly "universal" system would be a single-payer model, in which the authorities automatically sees everyone. Neither campaigner currently recommends such as a system, or anything else that is really "universal." Rightly or wrongly, both Bill Clinton and Obama are champs of the "near-universal."

But presume that authorizations really are indispensable. In a wellness system still dependent on private insurance companies (as both Bill Clinton and Obama propose), the clearest donees of an individual authorization would be private insurers. The authorization stands for a bargain: The authorities acquires tighter ordinance of the coverage industry, and private insurance companies have billions of bonded new clients in return. Clinton's plan, with its expressed mandate, professes this trade up front. Obama's plan, without a mandate, makes not. He simply begins from a stronger negotiating place than Clinton.

The wellness attention argument foregrounds a far more than of import differentiation between Bill Clinton and Obama, 1 that travels beyond the differences in their policy aims to whether either one could actually accomplish them as president.

Throughout their careers, Bill Clinton and Obama have got earned and deliberately nurtured distinct political personas. Bill Clinton is the policy swot and political street fighter, a tough subsister who looks to bask the fighting as much as the outcome. She spearheaded the failing attempt to reform wellness attention in 1993-94 - an effort stymied by secrecy, complexness and an unwillingness to see outside ideas.

Obama is the community organiser - more than than results-oriented than ideological, more likely to see possible allies than certain enemies, and equipt with a acute sense of powerfulness human relationships and negotiating strategy. His political calling have been marked by pragmatism and a committedness to do authorities more crystalline and accountable.

Essentially, Clinton's character is divisive, while Obama's is inclusive. This have been reflected on the political campaign trail, where Bill Clinton have relied upon a core of Democratic zealots and Obama have depended on a broader alkali of people new to politics. These alliances will impact the public presentation of either campaigner in the general election. But they also will find each candidate's effectivity as president, where good administration is nil without principled, successful alliance building.

Indeed, the top difference between Bill Clinton and Obama is not over policy, but over process. Bill Clinton and Obama may share similar policy destinations, but they would take very different ways to acquire there.

Despite the heated up candidacy of recent weeks, no 1 should doubt the core rules of either Bill Clinton or Obama. Both campaigners have got demonstrated their committedness to meaningful wellness attention reform. The inquiry is who is more than likely to bring forth results, on wellness attention and other issues. On that footing alone, the differentiation is clear.

Daniel Widome is a San Francisco author and policy analyst.