Came home to an e-mail by Jeanne Lambrew tonight, who's an informal adviser to the Clinton campaign and a senior fellow at The Center for American Progress. Lambrew, evidently pissed off about the surfacing of Obama's Harry and Louise mailers in Ohio, got a bunch of highly respected health policy types to sign onto a letter condemning the visual. The letter is signed by folks ranging from Princeton's Uwe Reinhardt to the National Academy for State Health Policy's Alan Weil to Edwards' former health policy adviser Peter Harbage. All in all, an impressive group. My rule, in general, is to post this stuff when it comes my way, with an open invitation to the other campaign to respond on the blog. I will say, in preamble, that I agree with the letter's main thrust, but it overstates its case. It says, for instance, that "Senator Clinton’s plan clearly recognizes that universal coverage cannot be achieved unless health coverage is affordable, and her plan provides subsidies to ensure it is affordable." It's true that Clinton's plan recognizes the need for affordability, but the subsidy levels are left vague, as are the out-of-pocket spending caps. Whether they would prove sufficient is, as of yet, unknowable. That said, the letter does get at the basic difference between Obama and Clinton's policy visions, even if it goes a bit far in emphasizing the distance between their policies. "The main difference between their plans is that Senator Clinton would make health security a right and responsibility for all Americans, while Senator Obama would do so only for children and thereby cover fewer Americans." Clinton's plan doesn't quite make health coverage a right, but it does enshrine universality in policy. It creates a combination of right and responsibility that, the campaign hopes, will get us to full coverage. Obama's campaign simply makes it easier to get coverage. That's a worthy goal in and of itself, but it's less than he should be offering, and in any case, it's really time he cut it out with these damn mailers. Even though I'm tired of talking about them, they remain reprehensible, they remain misleading, and Obama's not in bad enough shape to need this sort of help. Anyway, the letter follows. If the Obama campaign wants to respond, they're welcome to do so.
