Krugman blasts Obama on Healthcare

[BootinUp]

From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.

Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a “crisis” — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.

The central question is whether there should be a health insurance “mandate” — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.

Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.

more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

[Colobo]

1. I don't remember Krugman saying anything positive about any of

Obama's plans. Why would that be?

[Djinn]

2. maybe because Krugman is big on analysis and substance

and not so much on snappy soundbites and vague platitudes?

He is 100% correct, if EVERYONE is not covered it is NOT a universal plan, it becomes then a "safety net" which can be whittled away over the years with little political fallout because it's only the poor and already disenfranchised that utilise it.

This is basic policy stuff. How about US politicians accept that almost the entire rest of the world does health care better (AND cheaper) than you do and start looking at what they do - instead of pretending you're reinventing the wheel when you are simply buying into a corporate agenda.

DISCLAIMER - I'd rather chew my arm off than vote for a Clinton and though it's not an option with me not being a US citizen, I expect this will be taken as support for Shill.

The ALP in my neck of the woods is an embarrassing capitalist economic rationalist bunch of middle class clueless folk - the Democrats are even worse.

Until you guys stop the tiny interests of big business paying the piper they will ALWAYS be calling the tunes.

[ClarkUSA]

5. He supports Clinton, that's why.

I know the man through student/professorial political circles and that much is clear from his conversations with us.

[KittyWampus]

Krugman does NOT support Clinton. The only candidate he's made favorable mention of o

is Edwards.

In fact, he seems to partisan. As he was for Dean last year.

[KittyWampus]

48. Krugman does NOT support Clinton. The only candidate he's made favorable mention of o

is Edwards.

In fact, he seems to partisan. As he was for Dean last year.

[denem]

8. I'm new - I don't know him.

His summary is considerably more streamlined than Edward's description of collecting interest and collection costs. He doesn't address HRC's proposals. Selling mandatory insurance is a more difficult ask, but far from improbable.

[Hieronymus]

14. Obama's health plan sucks.

[Azathoth]

23. LOL, it's always nice to see an in-depth, well-researched critique

:rofl:

[Hieronymus]

30. Well researched like yours?

[Azathoth]

31. Yes, I'd say my critique of your critique was reasonably well-researched

:)

[ClarkUSA]

3. Krugman sure has a hate-on for Obama, doesn't he?

It's pretty clear he supports Clinton.

[BeyondGeography]

4. He oughta just declare himself and get on with it

[ClarkUSA]

16. He can't -- NYT Op-Ed rules forbid it

I've asked him about it and that's what he told me. Besides, he's more useful to the Clinton campaign this way, doncha think?

[BeyondGeography]

22. I see him aiding other partisans on the side...He probably dines with Olbermann every so often

so Keith can get periodic pro-Clinton, anti-Obama Intellectual Heft Injections.

[ClarkUSA]

24. I'm waiting for Krugman to be on Countdown soon seated next to Craig Crawford

So Keith can get his daily pro-Clinton, anti-Obama talking points down for another "fair and balanced" evening.

[Djinn]

35. mmm

why do I think if asked, Krugman would call bullshit on that particularly because there is no such rule at the NYT?

[cali]

50. LOL!

wrong. and i don't buy it that you've asked Krugman and he's told you that he supports Clinton.

[geek tragedy]

6. He's actually an Edwards fan.

[ClarkUSA]

12. He was until the public financing thingy - now he thinks Clinton has more of a chance.

His preference for both has always been clear from his writing, though.

[geek tragedy]

38. He's a dishonest putz, regardless. n/t

[rinsd]

51. On many things, he is an Edwards fan. He likes Hillary's Social Security approach (nt)

[Djinn]

9. OK he probably has a preferred candidate

he's not a robot so it's not surprising. No-one here however in the instant defence of their chosen saviour has disputed the FACTS stated by Krugman.

A half "universal" health plan is a total and utter joke. Can anyone here slating Krugman please just attempt to play the ball and not the man

[ClarkUSA]

13. Tellingly, Krugman is too busy kvetching to point out Hillary's plan lacks mandate enforcement.

Until Clinton unveils an enforcement mechanism, she's not offering a plan. Edwards did today, to his credit; Clinton's been studying this issue for 15 years, so what's the hold up?

[geek tragedy]

18. Krugman doesn't think you should talk about enforcing mandates.

You're a traitor if you do.

[ClarkUSA]

21. Well, that's an easily manufactured out for Hillary, isn't it?

Krugman is so full of himself in person AND in print.

[YoungDUer]

53. I think he supports Edwards actually

[geek tragedy]

7. S-H-R-I-L-L

"Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform."

Krugman is a leftwing McCarthyite.

[Djinn]

11. well I guess the level of debate at DU

has regressed, at least during the last primaries people would (sometimes) give REASONS for their objections/support instead of acting like there's some HUGE differences between Obama and Shill that makes one a vile choice and the other a brilliant pollie?

Apart from Obama's original Iraq war vote I have yet to have ONE person enunciate their differences. That is their REAL differences not the puzzling meme that has emerged that Obama is the "anti-war" candidate.

Shill's health plan sucks SO DOES OBAMA'S. Neither of them have seemingly yet grasped the concept of what a national health service should/can do. Utterly amazing.

[geek tragedy]

17. Huh? I'm pointing out that Krugman is using Bushian

language.

[ClarkUSA]

19. He's also using Hillary's language from the Las Vegas debate

Remember when she not so subtly accused Edwards of "echoing Republican talking points" at one point?

[Djinn]

25. sigh

that does not alter in any way the FACTS regarding Obama and Shill's plans. the fact that you are all so bloody worried about the tone of the language and not the issues is helping to blandify politics and lessen accountability.

Bush and Krugman both speak the same language, that they would use similar phrasing is hardly a glaring example of Krugman's FACTUAL ERRORS

[ClarkUSA]

26. Krugman's short op-ed is more opinion than fact.

And thus would be difficult to refute because he is entitled to his opinions even if they're biased like hell towards Hillary.

[Djinn]

34. Yeah?

I havn't even read the article but apparently he makes claims about Obama's plan - are those claims correct or not?

He doesn't write news articles it doesn't need to be all fact for you to challenge the substance. OK so he doesn't go into the shiteness of Hill's plan - presumably he also doesn't critique EVERY health plan ever put forward but any pollie ever because this article was about OBAMA'S PLAN. He critiqued it on FACT. You have yet to mention any issue you have with the FACTS. It's all about language and bias (perceived or real) THIS IS THE PROBLEM WITH WESTERN POLITICS.

Bush can be perceived as a moral Christian because he faffs on about God all the time - the religious right are fine with that and seemingly don't give a shit about what he's actually DOING. Left(ish) politicians can faff on about justice and peace and lefties seem to think that's OK and ignore the lets bomb Iran sabre rattling.

Look at the CONTENT.

[sandnsea]

10. Affordability First

Mandates after it's been proven we can make health care affordable.

[Djinn]

15. the rest of the world manages

but for the richest nation on earth to treat it's citizens...yeah there's a doubt about "affordability"

You already spend more on healthcare (taxpayerfunds this is NOT your own personal expenditure above and beyond that) than people in nations with universal care.

You can't afford NOT to move to a decent publically funded non profit system, continuing to make health insurance and other health companies rich is going to bankrupt you.

[sandnsea]

28. If they're going to mandate expensive insurance

and not make any substantive changes or provide real subsidies, then it's way too early to be talking about mandates.

[Djinn]

36. you already have expensive insurance

n/t

[sandnsea]

41. I have subsidized insurance

So I can afford it. If it were mandated without an adequate subsidy, I'd have to choose between a home and health coverage.

[hfojvt]

32. yeah, but something like 50% of households

don't pay income taxes. So for the government to step in and say to a person making $15,000 that "you have to buy health insurance" and the cheapest health insurance available for him is $400 a month. Then, yeah, lots of people are gonna have a problem with that.

Of course the plan will cover children, even of middle income families like SCHIP now :eyes: and will cover poor people, but it seems likely that there will be a large group in the lower income working class who will make too much money to get the subsidy, but not enough money to make it affordable. Unless affordability is taken care of.

Currently my healthcare costs $515.43 a month, which would not be affordable for me if my employer was not paying half of it.

Krugman should realise that just because he thinks mandates are a good idea, does not mean the public will think so or will buy the idea. If it's a hard sell and our opponents and the M$M will beat us to death by squawking "mandate, mandate, mandate" then it is better to find out how effective that is in primary season.

If 20 million people are not covered by Obama's plan because they do not wish to be covered, or they feel they cannot afford coverage then it seems to me that they oughta have that freedom in America.

Single payer, OTOH, would presumably be covered by progressive taxes and so people would only be paying what they could afford. That's a hard sell too though, because people are still afraid of 'socialised' medicine even though they have gotten used to socialised schools, roads, police and fire departments.

[Djinn]

37. Thanks hfojvt

First person to respond to the substance of the article instead of mindlessly jumping to the defence of our Lord Obama

[eridani]

44. Universal health care is the ONLY affordable system

It's what gives other industrialized countries the means to take care of all their citizens at half the cost of what we send. Eliminate insurance companies, and you've eliminated the major reason for our huge expenses.

[CTLawGuy]

46. Mandates? That's Romney-care

Mitt Romney passed that kind of a plan in MA. All mandates will do is punish people who can't get health insurance. It's not like there are huge numbers of people out there who are choosing NOT to buy health insurance. The ones who don't have it either (1) can't get it, or (2) can't afford it.

So is Hillary going to fine the woman with breast cancer whose insurance company refused to pay for her treatments? Who else is going to insure her "preexisting condition?"

[snowbear]

20. DU Blasts Krugman on Obama

There --- nicer headline.

I feel for the DU'ers who go in search of "anti" anyone threads day after day... Pahleese.

[TeamJordan23]

27. The Clintonian Krugman. nm

[killbotfactory]

29. The biggest problem with his plan is that it's not single payer

But, beyond that, mandating private health insurance does not sound like a good idea to me, until significant reforms are put in place to keep prices under control.

[denem]

39. It's a bridge to single payer.

Not for profit public insurance similar to the Congressional scheme will be offered at subsidized rates. Yes, people can choose private health insurance if they want to. No they don't have to. If the public scheme is run well there will be an exodus from the private funds.

If anyone goes gung ho single payer and a ban of private insurance in the general election (Kucinich's position, Canada does not go that far), you will be up against a good proportion of $15 billion the Insurance Industry and it's supplicants have marked for public "education". Forget advertising for drugs, think one in five hit ads:. Patients losing limbs and lives because they are 'waiting' in line; Critical drugs refused or unavailable; and every feared medical condition under the sun blamed on taking private health insurance away. It does not matter how arch the falsehood, it is suicide. It's pure suicide.

[eridani]

45. Not if the private insurers undercut prices with cherrypicking and refusal to pay claims

You can offer really cheap premiums to healthy people that aren't allowed to use their insurance if they need it.

[madrchsod]

33. krugman

wow what a waste of ink or bandwidth. he actually gets paid for writing such dribble does`t he? i guess the new york times can not find a decent writer

[incapsulated]

40. rofl! Krugman is now a two-bit hack?

The award winning, beloved of the left, Krugman?

You know, people just make themselves look pathetic when they pull this "I don't care if he is Jesus off the Cross, he dissed my candidate so he is a shit."

Uh, no. You may disagree with him but Paul Krugman doesn't need your approval.

[Cameron27]

42. I know incap,

it sure is getting pathetic. Who's next on the shit list?

[incapsulated]

43. I've seen it all, already

Every hero of the left who doesn't give their personal seal of approval to a candidate has been dissed. And the insults are laughable and sad.

Sometimes it's better to just say nothing, ya know?

:silly:

[paulk]

47. it's kind of fascinating

I think Krugman makes some fair points -

but the response here - rather than addressing those points - has been to attack him personally.

that's very telling....

[Karmadillo]

49. Wrong! He's a dishonest putz. I know because

I read it just a few posts above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3773837&mesg_id=3774058

[AtomicKitten]

52. And Clinton's last go at healthcare was a resounding success.

:sarcasm:

People seem so anxious to give others that have a track record of screwing up another shot to do it again. That is relevant here, and never more so than with her votes for IWR and Kyl-Lieberman.

Sorry, but I learn the first time the dog bites me.