There are good reasons for health insurance mandates. Clinton should argue instead of misleading

[Orangepeel]

Both Clinton's and Obama's plans offer universal availability of health insurance. Neither plan offers universal health care.

If given a choice, some people will refuse to purchase insurance. If given a mandate, some people will refuse to comply. Not making people purchase insurance is not the same thing as denying them insurance.

Instead of misleading people about the availability of coverage, Clinton should argue the merits of mandates, such as the potential to lower premiums by increasing the size of the pool.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. You'd Figure, No?

But it seems as if being honest makes the Duplicitous Duo break out in hives or something - even when being honest would help their cause.

[cbayer]

2. Absolutely right.

The fantasy that the american public shares is that everyone will have health care and it will cost them nothing. They also think that they should be able to get everything they want, whether it is needed, justified or been shown to be effective. Once you start talking about individuals paying for it and, god forbid, being forced to pay for it, everyone gets nuts. And once we start talking about how we will ration the resources we have for health care, watch out.

It is a travesty that our candidates can not be honest with the people without suffering political harm.

[AnOhioan]

3. Mandated insurance is great...if you can afford it.

What about the hundreds of thousands who can not afford it? I guess they don't count, huh?