Krugman's support of Hillary painful for Obama's supporters

[johan helge]

Latest example - Krugman disagrees with Hillary about some commission, and whoa, this is used to lie - "Even Paul Krugman has Turned Against Hillary!" (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5270856&mesg_id=5270856).

But, you see, Krugman's reasons for backing Hillary are important, not about some commission:


Krugman: Progressive Obama supporters don't understand that he's actually undermining their cause
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4386355&mesg_id=4386355


Health care: 22 million reasons to support Hillary
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4734741

[NewHampshireDem]

1. OMG, another Democrat has a different opinion than I do ... ARGH! OW! OW!

Oh, wait ... that wasn't painful at all.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. Obama supporters' disdain for NAFTA loving hack Krugman upsets some DUers.

Pity.

[lumberjack_jeff]

7. No, your distain for Democrats upsets some DU'ers. n/t

[papau]

8. Obama's distain for ending NAFTA (speaking to Can) dismays some DUers

[AX10]

3. Yes it is. I don't agree with HRC and Krugman 100% of the time.

Still I value them.

[Tellurian]

72. Yes, and the content of the OP

My interpretation of HRC's call for Greenspan is: "He created the mess, now let him wallow in it and work to fix it."

Krugman opines satirical alternatives for the sake of brevity. I'm sure HRC knows the mess created by Greenspan would need a full compliment of economists to even hope stemming the hemorrhaging economy and a construction crew to bridge the mortgage foreclosures. Hillary is hanging the economic albatross securely around Greenspan's neck. (which he rightly deserves)

[SunsetDreams]

4. as an Obama supporter, I don't

give a flying flip if he supports her, it's not painful to me in the least bit.

Unlike Hillary's campaign, I don't trash or disown supporters of the other campaign.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Personally, I don't give a shit.

Should I? :shrug:

[Adelante]

17. Me neither

Who cares? :shrug:

[lumberjack_jeff]

6. This is the primary reason that I'm for Hillary.

Healthcare must be fixed in the next 8 years. A fix requires universal coverage. Everything short of that is failure.

The only hope is that:
a) Obama is lying and he really does want universal health care
b) Congress will put legislation on his desk which makes care universal

Any plan that is optional creates a situation in which the rational decision is to opt out and depend on the kindness of strangers.

[enid602]

11. health care now

It's time to take the plunge into universal health care. We don't need yet another 'advisory committee' (code for 'I'll think about it') like the unfruitful one they've had in Illinois for years now.

[LisaM]

12. Well, and we'll pay for those who don't participate

And, since they'll generally be mostly healthy young people, any care they need will be for something that's catastrophic, like an accident, cancer, etc.

Health care is a main reason I support her, as well as her recent statements that she would end NCLB.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. Who will pay for those young, healthy people?

You? lumberjack_jeff? Hillary?

Just how many of these young, indestructible, amazingly healthy, and flush with disposable cash people do you think number among the uninsured? See, because my understanding is that most of them are uninsured because they have shitty low paying jobs with no benefits or they have some "pre-existing" condition.

But thanks to people like you, Hillary, and Paul Krugman I've been enlightened to the fact that there are really masses of these freeloaders. And they are deadbeats, gleefully laughing as they cruise into the emergency room after their snowboarding trip, just knowing that they are going to stick you with the bill! This super-race of uninsured affluent deadbeats just needs Hillary to force them into health insurance. At which point everyone's premiums will magically be reduced to pennies.

Of course this defies all logic, not to mention Economics 101. But perhaps the worse thing to come out of this debate is the way the uninsured are now being demonized. "Deadbeats" "Freeloaders" "Gaming the system" The uninsured are quickly becoming the new Cadillac Driving Welfare Queens, and I lay some of the blame for that on Krugman.

[LisaM]

Of COURSE the solution is single payer. The voters know it, even if the candidates don't.

But universal participation is the first step, IMO.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

25. No! It's not "universal participation". It's a (mostly) unfunded mandate.

It's exactly the opposite direction we need to be going in from single payer. Mandates would lock us into the parasitic health insurance industry for generations to come. And then what happens when a GOP admin. comes in and cuts whatever subsidies the Dems put in place? You'll be left with a truly unfunded mandate on our citizens. This mandatory health insurance idea is the worst sort of corporate welfare and regressive taxation I think I've ever seen. And there's not going to be a competing government option, no matter what they tell you. No way in hell the industry (trust me on this - I work in a related field) is going to let that get through. It'll be mandatory private insurance, just like for you auto, and the costs won't come down at all. In fact, the opposite will happen because increased demand leads to higher prices. Always. Mandates increase demand. Don't let them fool you with the "it's the same plan Congress has!" line either. What Congress has is private insurance.

Obama's plan sucks as well, IMO, but I think he was politically savvy not to include mandates for adults. This gives the RW less to attack and it may force private health plans to actually offer competitive pricing to attract the healthy young people. With mandates they have no incentive to do that.

[LisaM]

28. Social Security is a mandate too.

I dislike the Obama meme of "Hillary's going to garnish your wages!"

[mrreowwr_kittty]

32. SS is also an entitlement. As is Medicare.

They have to fund those programs and you are guaranteed to get your benefits. They don't hand over my SS and Medicare contributions to a private corporation that immediately skims at least 25% off the top, and can then turn around and deny my claim because they consider it an "experimental treatment" or something.

[CTLawGuy]

73. its not a private market system

totally different. Who is making huge profits off of social security???

[shimmergal]

54. I think we'll have to get the

"competing government option" in by stealth. Already about 1/3 of the population is covered by some sort of govt. health plan; if the ins. cos. are set to attack a competing govt. plan, we give them a shall of one, meanwhile bringing more people into existing plans under the radar.

Of course if ONE state ever got an effective single-payer plan going, working without using the ins. cos. to involvement at all, there'd be a stampede.

[earthlover]

26. She voted FOR No Child Left Behind....

now she opposes it? Flip. Flop.

I opposed it from the start!

[LisaM]

30. Oh they all voted for that piece of crap. Don't get me started!

But at least she says now to scrap it.

[earthlover]

57. Sorta like Iraq and NAFTA....first for, then against

We need a president who gets things right the FIRST TIME!

[Kurovski]

56. No Child Left Behind was supposed to be very different from what it is.

BushCo screwed everyone over on that one. It's an unfunded mandate, for one.

Ted Kennedy worked with Bush on it, it was all very "uniter", and it was crap.

I remember reading an excellent article about the screw-over in The New Yorker years ago.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

14. The solution is single payer

With universal single payer the money comes out of our taxes, which are at least somewhat progressive.

Mandatory insurance is neither universal nor is it fair. It's basically going to be a regressive tax on young single working people to subsidize the health care of older people and families. In my state (AZ) as a single childless person I don't qualify for healthcare assistance if I make over $850 a month. A mandated premium of as little as $50 per month (along with the lovely deductible) would put a major crimp on a young hourly wage worker. There will be a lot of noncompliance, just as there is with the new system in MA. Not to mention politically stupid. I can't think of a better way to drive young single people away from our party just when we were attracting them in droves.

[johan helge]

16. But Obama is not for single payer, is he?

Hillary's plan may at least evolve into single payer over time (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why-not-single-payer/?scp=1&sq=krugman+single-payer&st=blog).

I think mandates will be a vote-winner: It's very difficult to find serious arguments against it. And it will end the common fear of losing one's health insurance.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

31. No he's not and I wish he were.

Believe it or not, even we "Obama-bots" can disagree with our messiah. His health plan sucks ass. But at least he's smart enough to not include mandates for adults. In case you hadn't noticed, Obama's "base" is people under 40. These are the people to whom mandates will be anathemic.

And please, don't even try handing me some Krugman schpiel to convince me that Hillary's plan will "evolve" into single payer. The only thing her plan will evolve into is Americans being shackled to the private health insurance industry in perpetuity. Don't believe the b.s. that you're going to be able to opt into a competing government plan. The proposal has to get through Congress and it ain't gettin' through with that part intact. The mandates will stay but the gov't plan will be for the poor (same as always) and maybe the 'uninsurable'.

As for mandates being popular with the general public, I do think they are picking up support. And the reason for that is people like Hillary and Krugman have been successfully promoting memes that demonize the uninsured. They are "deadbeats" "young people who think they are invincible" "people who can afford insurance but refuse to buy it" The uninsured have been effectively transformed into "Cadillac driving welfare queens". The more unsympathetic people without insurance are in the eyes of the voters, the more support there will be for mandates. That doesn't mean that mandates are the answer.

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. A regressive tax on young single people to subsidize the care of their parents...

... is exactly what the medicare portion of SS is now. If care were universal, the cost of care would decrease. This singlehandedly saves medicare. Once medicare is solvent, it's possible to make it available to everyone.

Incrementally is the only way we're going to get universal single payer. I want single payer. And a pony. I'm getting neither. What I can get is universal coverage which is a step in the right direction, or I can get the same old patchwork of optional care which I currently have now and which has experienced double digit price inflation for my entire adult life.

Obama's approach is the do-nothing approach - worse, it's doing something that will fail and will be perceived as proof that public solutions do not work.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. Hillary's plan will not lead to single payer.

It is so unfortunate that people are falling for that lie. What it will do is lock this country into private insurance forever. If anything, it's a step in the opposite direction from single payer. It's a regressive, unfunded mandate on American citizens. It is not the same as Medicare, because my contributions to that are indexed to my income. You pay about 1.4% of your salary for the HI part of your OASDI. And unlike the SS part, there's no upper income limit. So it's not progressive but at least everyone is paying a percentage of their income. With mandatory health insurance, a healthy 25 year old who makes $30000 a year will pay the same premium as one who makes $100000.

Single payer nonprofit health care, paid for by taxes would be fair and progressive.

[joshcryer]

42. That is an outright lie, Hillary's plan forces people into the state (Senate) insurer.

Because she mandates that everyone be insured, everyone would, rationally, chose the national health insurer. Obama's plan doesn't require people to sign up, he does use the Senate Insurer just as Hillary does, but it would have to compete with the markets as uninsured people invariably bring rates up. In other words, a poor sod off the street who is irresponsible winds up in the hospital without insurance, the hospital, since it cannot refuse to treat the person, has costs go up, and then insurance rates in the private sector go up. The government insurer would have to compensate because costs go up.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you are continuing to perpetuate the lie that Obama's plan is better. It's not, it puts money in the pocket of for-profit insurers. This is an indisputable fact.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

50. What the hell is the "Senate Insurer"?

If you're talking about the plan that members of Congress use, let me enlighten you to something. It's private insurance. The FEHBP is a cafeteria-style plan of choices from private companies. It's a good plan, as private insurance goes, but it's not nonprofit and it's not single payer. So basically, Hillary's plan puts money in the pocket of for-profit insurers, more so than Obama's because she would force people to buy it. Now, josh, if you owned a company, how happy would you be if people were forced to buy your product? I think you'd be pretty pleased by that. That's why Hillary gets the most contributions from the insurance industry.

BTW, most uninsured are people who work in crappy low paying jobs with no benefits or they are deemed uninsurable due to a preexisting condition. They live paycheck to paycheck, terrified that they or their children might get sick. Your use of the term "irresponsible" to describe them is really shitty. Just saying.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. You're using a definition of "unfunded" that I'm unfamiliar with.

I pay for the costs of health care, and in one way or another, so do you.

We can cover everyone for less than it costs to cover some of us, with single payer, but we have to take the big first step - universal - before that's a possibility.

And no, Hillary's plan indexes premiums on ability to pay. At a minimum, tax breaks will offset costs for lower income people.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

53. Tax breaks will offset the premiums for *which* lower income people?

How is "ability to pay" determined? Am I, a single childless person, going to get the same tax breaks that someone with children gets? Probably not.

Am I going to get the same level of contribution that my Congressman gets from his employer, the Federal government, for his FEHBP insurance, which is a private cafeteria-style plan? Will taxpayers pay that portion of it, as they do for my Congressman, or will they pass some, or all, of that cost on to me? What if the amount of premium that Hillary thinks I can "afford" is more than I think I can handle? Will I be in a situation that many people in Massachusetts are finding themselves in right now, where paying the fine is cheaper than the mandated insurance?

[featherman]

19. That somebody as damaged and with as little political capital

as this mythical "President Clinton" governing with either a narrow majority or a minority in Congress could actually "fix health care" is likely the most delusional concept Mr. Krugman and friends could have.

Let's get a grip on political reality. This country needs to move to single payer. You know it, I know it, Clinton knows it, Obama knows it, Krugman knows it, Dodd knows it, Kennedy knows it... and on and on. But like Social Security, "socialized medicine" as it has been demonized by the AMA, GOP, HMO's,and big Pharma is a still third rail in modern America culture.

How we eventually get to single payer will be a long, long fight for the deeply propagandized hearts and minds of the American public. And will require an energetic, articulate and charismatic leader in the tradition of Roosevelt and Kennedy to begin moving us down that path. Nothing could be clearer to me than this.

[johan helge]

21. Obama is not for single payer.

Krugman about this (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why-not-sin... ):

But there are very good political reasons for going with the Demoplan {i.e. Hillary's plan}: basically, it looks like something that could actually happen early in the next administration, while enacting a single-payer plan like the Conyers plan or the PNHP plan, excellent though those plans are, might take a very long time.

The public-private competition in the Demoplan is crucial, by the way, because it means that the Demoplan isn’t locked into the inefficiency of the private insurance system – it could evolve into single-payer over time.

Of course, the insurance industry will understand this, and fight the plan tooth and nail; the political logic of the Demoplan does not rest on the idea that AHIP will be fooled. Instead, there are two crucial advantages.

First, because most health insurance costs will continue to be paid out of premiums, the Demoplan doesn’t require a big tax increase – in fact, it can be financed simply by letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire. I know, I know, the taxes that would support single-payer aren’t a true cost, because they would simply replace premiums and in most cases be lower than those premiums. But we’re talking about legislation, not reality.

Second, the Demoplans offer choice – so that people won’t feel that they’re being forced into a government plan. Over time, I suspect, many people will choose the government plan or plans – but they’ll have the option of staying with those wonderful people from the private insurance industry.

In an ideal world, I’d be a single-payer guy. But I see the chance of getting universal care, imperfect but fixable, just a couple of years from now. And I want to grab that chance.

[lumberjack_jeff]

37. It requires an energetic articulate and charismatic leader...

... who wants us to go down that path. He and his Friedmanite economic adviser Austan Goolsbee will not abandon the failed corporate=good public=bad paradigm.

[earthlover]

23. In my view, the mandatory part of Hillary's plan would never stand a chance of passing thru congress

It's just one of those campaign promises that everyone except the naive and gullible know are just that. Sorta like a chicken in every pot. In this case, mandated chicken dinners!

I have full faith in hillary....if she got the nomination, the mandatory part of her program might just poof! disappear in the face of debate....

Ultimately, here's what the mandatory part of the program does. I start with the premise that everyone wants health insurance, only some cannot afford it. What Hillary's plan would do is take some folks who cannot afford health insurance and make them criminals. That is why, when the chips are down, it will never become law.

[johan helge]

27. Krugman about Congress

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.htm ... ):

Now, some might argue that none of this matters, because the legislation presidents actually manage to get enacted often bears little resemblance to their campaign proposals. And there is, indeed, no guarantee that Mrs. Clinton would, if elected, be able to pass anything like her current health care plan.

But while it’s easy to see how the Clinton plan could end up being eviscerated, it’s hard to see how the hole in the Obama plan can be repaired. Why? Because Mr. Obama’s campaigning on the health care issue has sabotaged his own prospects.

You see, the Obama campaign has demonized the idea of mandates — most recently in a scare-tactics mailer sent to voters that bears a striking resemblance to the “Harry and Louise” ads run by the insurance lobby in 1993, ads that helped undermine our last chance at getting universal health care.

If Mr. Obama gets to the White House and tries to achieve universal coverage, he’ll find that it can’t be done without mandates — but if he tries to institute mandates, the enemies of reform will use his own words against him.

If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.

[johan helge]

29. Contrary to Obama, Hillary has specified that health insurance should

not cost more than a specified percentage of income (according to Krugman some place on his blog). In other words, mandates is just another name for taxes (for health care).

[lumberjack_jeff]

36. The compromise solution is medicare for those who don't buy private insurance

Those who don't buy insurance get basic public coverage, but pay for it at tax time. If the price is competitive, it becomes single payer through the back door.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

41. And you think the insurance industry is going to let this happen?

The same industry that is working with both Clinton and Obama from the ground floor? You think they are going to obligingly participate in their own demise? Like they're not going to notice that "back door" and make sure it's closed?

Please.

[lumberjack_jeff]

46. So you think big insurance companies are going to allow single payer? I'm naive?

What's your magic wand scenario that gets us single payer in one big bite?

You raised questions about the mechanics of getting coverage to those who truly can't afford it, or just really don't care. I answered them.

I'm convinced that there are some people who only want that which is unattainable, because misery is a hobby.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. Not claiming there's a magic wand.

Single payer won't happen until either the American people demand it so loudly the politicians have to listen to them, or our economy hits rock bottom and drastic measures must be taken, a la the 1930s.

"You raised questions about the mechanics of getting coverage to those who truly can't afford it, or just really don't care. I answered them."

Really? So what is the mechanism for enforcing the mandate? How much will it cost? What if we successfully forced those millions of young, rich, healthy, irresponsible deadbeats that you and Hillary and Krugman are so convinced exist into insurance and healthcare costs don't miraculously go down?

As for your assertion that Obama wants to do "nothing", I don't think you've read his plan. What do you think of the fact that he wants the negotiations to be broadcast in public while Clinton wants them to be secret? Isn't this what she did back in '93? Why doesn't she want there to be openness?

[earthlover]

58. Would Hillary support this?

[lumberjack_jeff]

60. There is little doubt in my mind that she'd sign a bill which had the following features

1) premiums indexed to income
2) portable
3) universal
4) employers encouraged to participate
5) private insurance can't be taken away except for nonpayment

Universal private insurance is problematic. Universal public insurance is not - we already have a system of public insurance. The system needn't be exclusively public to be beneficial (although that would be my preference if for no other reason than it may be suboptimal to have the government be the insurer of last resort).

[earthlover]

61. Yes, univeral private insurance is problematic....that is Hillary's program!

Obama's does virtually the same thing as Hillary's except it is not mandatory.

I personally don't think EITHER approach is best. I don't think the thing should be centered on health insurance for-profit companies.

I would go along with a compulsory thing if it were like Social Security...ie...a public, non-profit program with payroll deductions shared by employee and employer equally.

Niether Obama nor Hillary have come up with anything approaching that.

So, it is back to your comment that univeral pubic insurance is problematic.

[lumberjack_jeff]

62. If it's not universal, it does nothing.

The point of the conversation was how to get universality, and the reality that the legislative process will come up with something that is not exactly what she had in mind.

[earthlover]

63. Congress will never mandate that those who cannot afford health insurance will be sent to jail or

otherwise punished...which is what mandatory means. Get over it. It is just an election year promise that everyone knows will not happen

[lumberjack_jeff]

66. So do you know anyone who's in jail for refusing to participate in Social Security?

Then this must mean it's optional.

It could (in fact should) be set up such that those who don't buy private insurance will get the public insurance package - with the premiums tacked onto their taxes.

Everyone does not know that having 20 million uninsured is a good thing. The echo chamber is convincing itself of a phenomenon which does not exist.

[earthlover]

68. Apples to oranges....or, maybe apples to gorillas....

Social Security is taken right out of our paychecks and is matched by employers.

Nothing in Hillary's plan says that employers pay half!

Also, nothing in Hillary's plan says we have a payroll deduction into a social security like fund!

In fact, Hillary has not even bothered to tell us what the enforcement details are!

I assumed that this would be a hefty fine on those who cannot afford health insurance (that'll sure help them afford it!) or a jail sentence (they will at least be taken care of in jail) or something...er....punitive!

That's what mandatory means.

Your Social Security analogy is bogus since Hillary's plan has no mechanism similar to SS deductions. Neither is Hillary's plan a government plan. It is simply a mechanism to FORCE people to buy PRiVATE FOR PROFIT INSURANCE...something, by the way, you said was probematical....]

I think Obama is right. Make the premiums affordable and more people will sign up. No need to throw the law at them....

ANd my point continues...no way Congress is going to pass this as part of a health care initiative. This is just a campaign promise. Anyone taking it seriously is stupid. Anyone thinking McCain would not use this as a club against Hillary is probaly brain dead.

[lumberjack_jeff]

69. Everyone who is 22 knows that they'll live forever and never need med ins.

They're ignorant.

Fortunately, congresspeople are not 22.

[earthlover]

71. It's more than 22 year olds who don't have health insurance....many can't afford it

MOney is very tight for lots of people who aren't lucky enough to have benefits with their job. Whether it is a wise decision or not, many opt out. I think a substantial number of them would join if the premiums were lower, and they would be subsidized by both Obama's and Clinton's plans.

Clinton's plan won't get passed, in my view. Because of the mandates. So we may be faced with more of the same, no change.

What we need is universal health care, not universal for-profit health insurance. There is a huge difference. I think both plans are going about the problem in the wrong way.

But, realistically, a plan without mandates has a better chance of being passed than one with mandates. That is reality. No matter what Hillary campaigns on, the final product....if we actually get one at all....may not be her political talking points.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

39. I think the mandatory part would pass Congress.

It's the part where there will be a competing, and cheaper government plan that won't. Think about it, what would make any industry happier than people being forced to buy your product?

[earthlover]

65. right....better invest in health insurance stock if hillary wins.....

it should surprise noone that hillary has received more contributions from the health industry than anyone else, including McCain....

[dorktv]

44. After I reviewed the health care plans I really could not see Senator Obama's plan

doing what is so desperately needed.

Senator Clinton's is not much better but slightly more then it was before.

[tabasco]

9. I love Paul Krugman!

He just picked the wrong candidate.

No pain at all. He has a right to his opinion.

[mucifer]

10. Agreed. And guess what Krugman has stated that both are better than

mccain. I just wish everyone at DU would say that both are better than mccain. It's not that hard, really.

[myrna minx]

13. That's how I feel, as well. n/t

[Cassandra]

18. Actually, Krugman was an Edwards supporter.

I think he's been criticizing Obama's health care positions to get him to change them, not because he secretly prefers Hillary (although it's possible he does).

[johan helge]

20. Hillary's health care plan is very similar to Edwards' plan

- that's why Krugman switched to Hillary when Edwards dropped out.

[Cassandra]

22. Both of them leave the insurance companies in...

when they need to be out.

[johan helge]

24. Hillary's plan is the only possible way of getting them out

Krugman about this (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why-not-sin ... ):

But there are very good political reasons for going with the Demoplan {i.e. Hillary's plan}: basically, it looks like something that could actually happen early in the next administration, while enacting a single-payer plan like the Conyers plan or the PNHP plan, excellent though those plans are, might take a very long time.

The public-private competition in the Demoplan is crucial, by the way, because it means that the Demoplan isn’t locked into the inefficiency of the private insurance system – it could evolve into single-payer over time.

Of course, the insurance industry will understand this, and fight the plan tooth and nail; the political logic of the Demoplan does not rest on the idea that AHIP will be fooled. Instead, there are two crucial advantages.

First, because most health insurance costs will continue to be paid out of premiums, the Demoplan doesn’t require a big tax increase – in fact, it can be financed simply by letting the high-end Bush tax cuts expire. I know, I know, the taxes that would support single-payer aren’t a true cost, because they would simply replace premiums and in most cases be lower than those premiums. But we’re talking about legislation, not reality.

Second, the Demoplans offer choice – so that people won’t feel that they’re being forced into a government plan. Over time, I suspect, many people will choose the government plan or plans – but they’ll have the option of staying with those wonderful people from the private insurance industry.

In an ideal world, I’d be a single-payer guy. But I see the chance of getting universal care, imperfect but fixable, just a couple of years from now. And I want to grab that chance.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

47. No it doesn't!

Krugman is being so disingenuous here it's stunning. A true single payer plan financed through federal income taxes is progressive. A mandatory insurance premium is regressive. Working class people would continue to be taxed to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and other programs but would added taxes in the form of a mandatory premium, unless there were a dollar for dollar tax credit for everyone. There is no such credit in existence now, with the exception of the $5 Federal Election Fund thingie.

As for his insistence that there will be private/public competition, I think he is relying on the misperception people have that Federal employees (such as the members of Congress frequently invoked in the discussion) have a government insurance plan. They don't. They choose from a cafeteria plan of private or quasi-nonprofit offerings. It's the same old Humana or Blue Cross that the rest of us have to choose from. I'll grant you, they have excellent plans, as private insurance goes, but they're not government plans. The only people on government insurance are people on Medicare or Medicaid.

"Of course, the insurance industry will understand this, and fight the plan tooth and nail; the political logic of the Demoplan does not rest on the idea that AHIP will be fooled. Instead, there are two crucial advantages."

Okay Paul, but you failed to explain how those "two crucial advantages" will overcome the powerful insurance lobby. The proposal has to get through Congress. You know, where they have all those legislators, Dem and Repub, who get buttloads of money from that industry.

[maximusveritas]

40. Agreed, he's never really liked Hillary

He was always just attacking Obama in order to help Edwards. But when Edwards dropped out, he had to keep up the charade, no matter how ridiculous it sounded. He's just stubborn that way.

[Catherina]

33. There's nothing painful about it.

Krugman has a different opinion that's all. He's not being an asshole so why would this cause pain?

[economico]

35. You will not see super-biased Dowd and Rich ever agree with Clinton in anything

That's the difference between the great Krugman, who actually has something to talk abou other than his favorite candidate, and the twins Dowd and Rich.

[Crunchy Frog]

43. Not for this Obama supporter.

I can respect someone even if I disagree with them. I still respect Wes Clark even though I disagree with him about Hillary. :shrug:

[MadBadger]

45. Not as painful as KO's Criticisms of Hillary is for her supporters.

[McCamy Taylor]

51. Nobody here believes this, but KO could be setting himself up for a fall.

Remember how MSNBC got rid of their highest rated anchor Donahue, because they were afraid that he would not get all rah rah with the Iraq War? The networks supported the war because in exchange Michael POwell gave them a decree that relaxed federal media ownership laws. MSNBC was not going to jeopardize that.

GE/NBC wants McCain, because in exchange for promoting him, the Pentagon will give GE lots of military contracts. If Olbermann is himself this GE, he will rant and rave about McCain, calling him out on all his mistakes and all the dirty tricks his surrogates play on Olbermann.

As much as MSNBC likes Olbermann, GE likes its military contracts better.

So, when KO lets himself get sloppy, citing questionable sources, he puts himself at risk that one day MSNBC will arbitrarily bring the hammer down on him. And knowing how mad he gets, he will quit if they do.

And that will be that.

[MadBadger]

52. Personally I think you are Wrong

I think things are different at MSNBC these days. They arent as scared of being against the war. I mean would a network try to hire Rosie O'Donnell for a prime time show if they werent trying to appeal to LW viewers?

[eridani]

55. Being forced to subsidize insurance companies?

Thanks, but no thanks.

[bread_and_roses]

59. I admire Krugman. I think he's wrong on this. And Obama's plan is lousy too...

...though I support Obama, he's wrong on this. Hillary is worse. Mandates that support the insurance industry - right, that's what we need (not). Where Hillary thinks people are going to get the money to pay for her "mandated" health care is beyond me. And it's working so well in Mass, isn't it?

That said, as a long-time advocate of single-payer, I think these "plans" are not worth parsing over or basing a vote on. Better to spend our time trying to mobilize people for what they DO want - universal single-payer - than to waste our time pouring over two worthless band-aids inspired by political timidity and lobbyist donations.

[OzarkDem]

64. Very true

Obama is selling his supporters a slick line, but his history and policies reflect a conservatism that will ship more jobs overseas, kill universal health care and continue to cater to the corporations who are funding him.

I feel genuine pity for the people who have been bamboozled by his dog and pony show. They are the ones who will be hurt the most.

[neverforget]

67. I'm an Obama supporter AND a Krugman reader! Are the 2 mutually

exclusive?

[hulka38]

70. Your avatar supports Obama for Pete's sake.

Does that bother you?

[JoFerret]

74. Once again - Clinton takes the bold courageous

and progressive step.
Obama - not so much - trails along in her wake.
Same with health care, the economy and etc.