Paul Starr, bona fide health care expert, gives his review of Hillary Clinton's health care plan. Paul's extremely positive though his view, like that of most everyone who's looked at it, is that the Democrats' plans are all pretty similar. Dare I point out that some of this similarity comes from the fact that their plans are all a bit vague? After all, the difference between more and less generous subsidies could, in this context, be hugely important. I understand (and even to some extent embrace) why the candidates don't want to get hyper-specific on these points, but the upshot is that all the emphasis on "plans" of various sorts hasn't actually rendered things as clear as you might think.