nimh wrote: - What are these individual mandates?
"Individual mandate" means that each individual has a legal obligation to acquire health insurance.
nimh wrote:- How does their absence make Obama's proposal "pretty weak"?
I'd leave that for Bradford Plumer to answer. But the standard argument for individual mandates is that without them, bad risks would drive out good.
To see the problem, imagine a universal healthcare system in which citizens are free to participate or not. The state insures everyone at the same rate, and this rate is set to cover the average policy holder's medical bills. Under this regime, some prospective policy holders -- the most healthy ones -- would figure out that they are better off uninsured at the current rate. They leave the system. Now, the average risk of the remaining policy holders is worse. The state has to rise premiums to make the premiums cover the cost of the new average risk. Some policy holders -- the most healthy ones -- figure out that they are better off uninsured at the new rate... and so on until the system has no more policy holders.
There are only two ways to escape this viscious cycle: 1) Allow insurance companies to fit their premium to the individual policy holder. This defeats the original point of providing affordable insurance to the previously uninsurable. 2) Make it mandatory for people to get health insurance.
nimh wrote:- Do I read this correctly as meaning that Obama's proposal is actually weaker than Schwarzenegger's California proposal?
If it does not include an individual mandate, it probably is, since Schwarzenegger's plan does include an individual mandate. But I wouldn't make that judgement quite yet. Mr Plumer seems to speculate wildly based on scarce information in the AP articles.