The problem with Bill Richardson's campaign is that his resume is better than his professed vision, and, more concretely, his ads are better than his health care plan. And that, I think, is why few folks are getting behind the guy. Here you have a long-shot campaign being waged solely on the basis of Richardson "git 'er done" executive authority and aura of increased competence, yet his actual proposal is a series of half-measures and tax credits.
So here's my question for the Richardson camp: If you're willing to take the interesting step of opening Medicare to everyone over 55 (it's currently 65), why not just open it up to...everyone? Starting at age 65 came because that was the retirement age. And it's not as if society has moved towards younger retirement in the ensuing decades. So all Richardson is doing is opening Medicare to a new and expensive -- 55-year-olds have health costs, after all -- population. Why not open it to across the board? That, at least, would have some cost control benefits, which I'm not seeing in his current plan.
In any case, this seems pretty indicative of the Richardson campaign so far. It's a technically sound and fairly workable half-measure coming from a candidate with no apparent rationale for such instinctive caution. Worse, the half-measures involved are neither substantially better half-measures than other, likelier, candidates else have offered, and nor are they part of a larger and more interesting vision than others have outlined. So you tell me, Richardson fans: Why should this make me support his candidacy?
