From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama's plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn't cover everyone.

That is a flat lie.  Mandates don't mean everyone is covered, look at Massachusetts.

Here's why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance -- then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn't turn them away, because Mr. Obama's plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.

Here Krugman explains his logic as to why he thinks mandates are better.  Sounds logical, but what is missing? facts to back it up, he has none.

First, Mr. Obama claims that his plan does much more to control costs than his rivals' plans. In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures.

Thats the best he can do, Obama's isn't better because they are all good?

Amid the Clinton-Obama dispute, Mr. Edwards, who was the first to propose a universal coverage plan, has tried to jump into the debate. He notes that he has been much more specific than Mrs. Clinton has about how he will enforce the mandate. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton has suggested some options but has not made as clear a statement about enforcement.

Under the Edwards plan, people will have to prove their have insurance when they file their taxes, and the government will seek to collect back premiums, with interest, for those who refuse to get it.

he ran cost estimates for the Clinton plan at the Clinton campaign's request, and found there should be enough money to make insurance affordable for all. He said he ran three scenarios with varying levels of subsidies -- from $100 billion a year to $120 billion a year. The campaign chose one in the middle: $110 billion.

He may have in some form advised all three candidates, but this is clearly the person whose advice Clinton took when forming her plan, shocker he thinks its a good idea.

BTW - Any tax is a depressant on purchasing because it takes money out of the marketplace and sends it to government. The question is, does the depressant do enough "good" to overcome the negative.

BTW - A National Sales tax, as I noted, can be weighted to remove essentials from taxation. This would largely shield the "poor."

It would also insure that all those now in the "gray" economy, including dope dealers, some Internet marketeers, illegal aliens and the rich who can shelter their income through tax free munis, etc., pay their share.

Presently, a family of four with children 18 or younger, pay NO FIT on income of up to approximately $38,200. That would leave the remainder of our citizens to pay for their health care.

The taxpayer of today understands that is nothing more than means tested welfare.