The big health policy difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is, naturally, the question of the individual mandate. We here at New America do support the idea of requiring everyone to be insured (with adequate subsidies for low-income people). But we are glad that the dispute is increasingly being seen as a disagreement about means, not a war about ends, that can be resolved reasonably amicably when Congress takes up health reform next year. And we suspect that outside the health care cognoscenti, most people would agree with the New York Times piece this weekend that called it a fight about "the narrowest of bands in a broad policy spectrum." We also liked these two recent Op-Eds in the Los Angeles Times on mandates. Jacob Hacker rightly reminds his fellow mandate supporters that the focus needs to be on coverage itself, not mandates. And Ezra Klein explains why we'll all still be complaining about the intrinsic flaws of health insurance if we don't get everybody in the pool. We also note that we've seen several good "big picture" pieces about the rationale for health reform, including this recent one on NBC featuring New America's own Len Nichols.