The NY Times has an interview up (video at the link) with Hillary Clinton about her health care plan:
In an extensive interview on health policy, Mrs. Clinton said she would like to cap health insurance premiums at 5 percent to 10 percent of income.
The average cost of a family policy bought by an individual in 2006 and 2007 was $5,799, or 10 percent of the median family income of $58,526, according to America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group. Some policies cost up to $9,201, or 16 percent of median income.
More after the jump.
That's definitely a good sign. When she released her health care plan, I was uneasy about the mandate in it; while a mandate is definitely necessary to deal with the health care crisis and to keep costs down, it can make the system much worse if it isn't coupled with effective cost-cutting measures.
She still hasn't discussed any specifics (or the Times didn't report them) on the enforcement mechanism for her mandate. I know, I know, it's all going to be washed away in dealings with Congress, but it would be good to get more of a sense of where she's coming from on health care. Edwards's government mandate, which he tried to use to gain traction against Hillary on health care, was about as close as any mainstream candidate got to talking about single-payer, and it would help move the discussion in that direction if another candidate picked up that ball.
But she did put this out there:
Mrs. Clinton presented a confident defense of her call for universal coverage, saying it reflected not only a moral imperative, but also the best chance to reduce costs and improve quality.
"I know that there are a lot of experts who may disagree about how to get to universal health care," she said. "But they agree with me that in the absence of universal health care it's very difficult to control costs, and it's extremely hard to incentivize quality improvements at the level you need to really see results."