BUT I WILL NOT VOTE for De Gette and will even vote a Republican in if someone runs. We need a change.

Remember Canada in the late 8-'s all the doctors came to America because they only could make $50,000 and the government would not by new equipment across the country. Most major surgery now comes to the US.As for major surgery in Japan they go to Bangkok.

Yea, we really want Clintons plan. Amazing…

I agree with the posting above , it's time for a change.

It's time to remove Degette from office and put anyone in that has some business sense. We just need a candidate. She has deserted Denver and it's time for a change as Obama says very clearly Get her out of office in 2008.The Congress has a worse rating than Bush and the worse in our history. Wake up Denver ..

Now on to the matter of the day: mandates or no mandates.

The principle difference between the Clinton and Obama health care plans is whether to require coverage. Both include subsidies to assist people to buy coverage.

To Clinton's point, nonpartisan and non-campaign affiliated health care policy analysts argue that cost containmment and risk pool expansion cannot be achieved without mandating coverage.

Sen. Clinton's statement today that her plan mandating coverage may employ wage garnishment or automatic enrollment in a plan could be argued a couple of different ways: Was it a verbal miscue that will doom her political fortunes? Was it a rare and honest description of what universal health care demands of the American public? I guess it depends on whose camp one is sitting in.

There's also the issue of what kind of care are we mandating here — full-blown comprehensive, keep-you-out-of-financial-ruin basic coverage, or a hybrid?

Then, there are the arguments about whether any universal plan should be propping up an already sick health care system of private insurers whose very profits are threatened by paying claims and an inflexible access system that rations care — yes, we do ration care in the US.

Who are the estimated 45 million Americans without coverage: people who can't afford coverage, those without employer-subsidized care, young invincibles who don't think they need coverage, or the uninsurable with pre-existing conditions? Are the mandates reciprocal to the insurance industry and how does the American public feel about the government telling business what to do? The health care sector represents 16% of the nation's GDP. You know there's a quid pro quo in the mandate schemes for a very powerful industry that goes well beyond expanding the risk pool and garnering more premiums from members?

The 800-lb gorilla in the room that neither candidate has addressed: What's the effect of expanding coverage — mandated or not — on improving access to quality medical care? As Colorado Confidential and others have reported there is a serious shortage of providers in some areas of the state, especially in rural communities.

We haven't even touched on single payer yet, which many Americans prefer over the Obama or Clinton proposals.

I'm just now reading a health economist's study on the effect of mandates versus subsidies on people's decisions to get coverage or pay the penalty. It's interesting stuff from a sociological perspective that rarely gets mentioned in this debate.

The long and short of it is that there are both practical and political pitfalls with each of the candidates' health care proposals which I hope to explore later this week now that Colorado's 208 Commission has released its long-awaited report that also advocates mandated coverage.

I am very embarrassed about that and stand corrected.

However, as I said, Senator Clinton so much as agreed with Senator Obama this morning on This Week. That's the point. This mailer is stating the truth.

WASHINGTON – Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

Link: Yahoo News  Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

- A friend in Longmont received the health care lit piece in his mailbox and passed it to me on Friday morning. Mark Mehringer (commenter above) also received it.

- This item was posted following a press call arranged by the Clinton camp. It is their perogative on the timing and the supporters they make available to the press. Rep. DeGette is a long-time suppporter of Clinton's candidacy and  a health care policy adviser for the campaign — all of which were fully disclosed in the story.

- The local Obama campaign declined to comment on the record after being given ample opportunity. Again, their perogative, but the outreach was made and noted in this story.

- Cara had nothing to do with this story. Please note the byline.

- Colorado Confidential covers stories on politics and public policy as they relate to our state. As much as we are working to expand our state network, covering stories in other states without the benefit of our own reporting staff is very unlikely to result in coverage here. As I recall, there was considerable national reporting on the controversial NH abortion mailer which, again, falls outside the purview of this news organization's scope.

Thus, insinuating bias in the reporting of this story has no merit.

Also, I do wonder why this is an issue on CoCo when the mailer has not gone to Colorado voters as far as I know? CoCo didn't report on the mailer sent in NH that lied about Sen. Obama being against abortion. Rep. DeGette didn't make hay about that now did she? Cara, your bias is being questioned here for good reason.