A Washington Times editorial outlines concerns regarding Senator Clinton's health care proposals.  The Times argues that Americans shouldn't be forced to buy a service they may not want and might not be able to afford.  Clinton's plan relies heavily on mandates and penalties to achieve her goal of universal coverage.

Yet despite her reassuring rhetoric, the specifics of her proposal are less consoling. Mrs. Clinton's plan still uses the heavy hand of government to mandate that individuals have health insurance. Her near-religious zeal to force universal coverage strikes some as odd. Even her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, opposes the idea. His concerns center primarily on the costs. He argues that even with subsidies, many will not have the means to purchase insurance. (Mr. Obama's plan only mandates insurance coverage for children.)

Why compel someone to buy something he or she can't afford? Undeterred, however, the New York senator rarely gives a speech without promising to make sure every man, woman and child in America has insurance — whether they want it or not. ...

...Improving American health care is a salient bread-and-butter election issue this year. Many polls show it ranking as the first or second most important domestic-policy concern. But health care improvements can come in many forms, including reducing spiraling costs, improving quality and convenience, emphasizing the importance of preventative care and continuing the development of life-saving medicines. Compelling everyone to buy a product, whether he wants it or not — and slapping financial penalties on those who don't — sounds more like a mandate for defeat than a promise of political success.

Even The New York Times has acknowledged the progress made this week by the Iraqi parliament.  The praise, albeit tepid (but the best we can expect from The Times), is due to the parliament passing three laws yesterday considered essential to the political reconciliation of the country.

We are, of course, cheered by the news that representatives from Iraq’s three main ethnic groups — Shiite, Sunni and Kurd — finally saw some benefit in compromise.

The Kurds’ largely autonomous regional government got what it wanted — a 17 percent share of the 2008 budget. The Sunnis will be the main beneficiaries of the amnesty law since 80 percent of the detainees in Iraqi jails are Sunnis.

The third law will transfer more power to Iraq’s ethnically dominated provincial governments — something all groups say they want. There are already questions about whether the provincial governments will be ready to hold elections in October. The United States and its allies will have to move quickly to provide both funding and technical help.

Arnold Kling in the Wall Street Journal writes an op-ed regarding what could change in a liberal presidency, and how that change could come about.  Kling argues that the revenue situation will essentially remain static, so the only way to truly make change will be through mandates, rules, and regulations on the free market.

At the other end of the spectrum, we can expect to see a raft of new requirements placed on businesses requiring them to offer employees subsidized day care, longer vacations, higher minimum wages, and so forth. This will lead to significant increases in unemployment, with poverty and inequality rising rather than falling. This will in turn lead to further regulation and stronger attempts by government to control compensation in the private sector.

Many Americans will welcome the regulatory state. Many others will accommodate it. Only a minority of us will oppose it. Somewhere down the road, as people see the indignity of the many intrusions and the adversity of the consequences, I hope that there will be a backlash. Otherwise, if the era of mandates emerges as I fear it will, then the engine of capitalism in America may run out of the fuel of competition.

America was founded on the principle of a free-market economy and consumer choice, and our most prosperous economic eras have been with this capitalist spirit was allowed to flourish.  Any change in Washington should be focused at giving American consumers more economic freedom - not less.