I'm a physician, I understand the health care industry first hand. The system is broke and the only real solution is a true single payer national system.
The plans by Edwards, Obama, and Clinton are all nearly identical sisters and none really provide the type of true universal health converage we need. Sure there are different terms for things which makes the programs "sound different" but when the rubber meets the road the practical aspects of the plans are identical. The only real difference is that Edwards and Clinton had the "mandate" and Obama did not. Well, Clinton has made political hay over this for her "15 million left out" ploy, although ultimately their plans are the same sans the mandate.
However, Obama's wisdom is knowing that a "mandate" will be a hard pill to swallow and not really afford any real gain in terms of the effectiveness of the plan. It's hard to sell something to someone (the public) when you are going to force them to buy it.
Hillary got caught by her own petard when she stated she might have to "go after wages". Not only is that detestable on libertarian grounds, it's just a really, really bad way to phrase something politically.
In the Democratic nomination process, this is a minor gaffe.
However, in the GE this will be a huge political gaffe and is an instant RW talking point.
Her first large scale executive effort (her 1993 health care plan) was a huge debacle and even her main advisor on it, a sociologist by the name of Paul Starr, was skeptical of its implementation at the time (their are internal critiques that you can read to show this). Couple that with its formuation in secret and it was doomed from the start. It got deep-sixed by the right and the lobbied interests but Hillary handed them the shovel. It probably also helped usher in the "angry white man" Gingrich revolution and Republicanization of congress in 1994.
And lo, when it comes to mistakes around the health care issue, she manages to do it again by raising the "going after wages" spectre that will likely prove an unkind friend to her.
To be fair, Obama has said he would "fine" parents that didn't participate in an insurance plan of some kind (he offers a governmental plan so I would assume that would be the minimal standard) and even this is a bit of a talking point to run against him in the GE. However, we all understand that parents have special responsibilities for their children and mandates like having their kid receive an education, safety measures, and the like are far easier to accept, even for libertarian minded folks. Nonetheless, his plan is still sellable. Hence his savvy.
Clinton put her foot in her mouth and to me shows, like her 1993 performance, her hubrus may undermine what she aims to achieve.
I wonder if Obama is going to "go after" this point but he'd be wise to let the press play it out.
And in case you don't believe me the health care plans are essentially the same, check this (it's a no spin unbiases side by side comparison):
http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=11&c=16