I suppose Paul Krugman's the latest sellout

[backscatter712]

:sarcasm:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/16/illusions-and-bitterness/

There’s enormous disappointment among progressives about the emerging health care bill — and rightly so. That said, even as it stands it would take a big step toward greater security for Americans and greater social justice; it would also save many lives over the decade ahead. That’s why progressive health policy wonks — the people who have campaigned for health reform for years — are almost all in favor of voting for the thing.

The argument about the evil of the individual mandate is,as Jon Cohn says, all wrong. It was wrong during the primaries, when Obama unfortunately used it to demagogue his rivals — helping set the stage for problems now. And it’s still wrong.

...

Now, in a hostage situation there are times when you have to just say no — when giving in, by encouraging future hostage-takers, would be worse than letting the hostages perish. So the question has to be, is this one of those times? I don’t think so, given the history: as Kevin Drum points out, health reform has come back weaker after each defeat. I’d also point out that highly imperfect insurance reforms, like Social Security and Medicare in their initial incarnations, have gotten more comprehensive over time. This suggests that the priority is to get something passed.

...

By all means denounce Obama for his failed bipartisan gestures. By all means criticize the administration. But don’t take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes, but will be out of luck — and, in some cases, dead — if it doesn’t.

By all means, disagree with Paul Krugman, (and Nate Silver and Ezra Klein and most of the progressives in the Senate...) but can I ask you one thing?

Having a different opinion doesn't mean you're a sellout. There's a lot of progressives, smart, dedicated progressives, who do believe that as much as the bill now sucks rocks, it's still necessary to pass it. You don't have to agree with them, but disagree in a respectful way. When this shitstorm is done, we'll have to come back together and fight the next Republican clusterfuckery.

[underpants]

1. HE ISN'T "ON MESSAGE"!!!!

because that is all it takes apparently

just make up complete sh*t and just repeat it and never ever EVER let anyone bring up what you said in the past

EVER

[readmoreoften]

2. Yup.

I'm perfectly okay with that assessment.

[librechik]

3. It's not like we have a vote in the discussion. But Krugman is a glass half full kinda guy

why I love him. Either way, the Pukkkes are going to use the vote to their advantage. So the dems might as well vote for it, for the 3 million who might be saved. and Lieberman too, now that it has all the objectionable stuff out of it--like all the stuff that would help more than the most destitute.

[kstewart33]

4. Well said.

I'm fed up, but it's time to pass this bill and get what we can. It's a start.

What's the alternative? If we pass nothing the Repubs win, and you can say a permanent so-long to any HCR.

I do hope that Obama has learned something from this mess - that he can't punt to Congress and let them do the water carrying for him. That mistake cost him huge, allowing the Repubs to gain an advantage.

[bluestateguy]

5. I'll support the bill

If it makes life better, even just a little better, for a few people, then we have to do it. But we can also lament how much more we could have done.

[Vinnie From Indy]

6. Well Krugs is making a mistake that many progressives are making

That is that they base their argument to support this plan on the shaky premise that big insurance is actually going to implement the so-called "good" provisions in good faith - they won't. Granted that is just my opinion formed over years of observing how they operate and how other industries like the credit card industry behaved after their world was allegedly "reformed". In other words, the good that all progressives hope for and point out in this crappy bill is simply not going to happen if left to big insurance. It reminds me of the Nigerian email scam. Send us money and we will deposit a huge check in your account later.

While I cannot say with 100% certainty that insurance companies have already devised plans to circumvent the "good" parts of the bill, I think the odds are good that I am right.

on edit: Let me add that I hope I am wrong and that the folks that need health care can get it. I guess we will have to take another run at kicking the football and hope it isn't pulled away at the last minute as always seems to happen. If a bill passes, I hope it works for those people that need it.

I will ask though at what point is enough enough? Will it be in a few years when it is being reported that Big Insurance is still killing as many folks as now only using different methods and strategies?

[regnaD kciN]

12. He's also been supporting the individual mandate, even without a public option...

...as "the lesser of two evils" since before Obama became president.

Remember, he was a big Hillary backer on this last year.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. "don’t take it out on the ... Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes"

With mandates, fines, possible jail, but no cost control, no prevention of caps on payouts, no real restrictions of any kind on the people who've destroyed health care in this country...

No reason to think this bill will help anyone.

But to answer your question, there's no reason to think that Krugman will be the last sellout.

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. Under the bus again?

[Eric J in MN]

9. Paul Krugman also supported the Bank Bailout Bill.

I'm not surprised to see he supports the Health Care bill no matter lousy it gets.

[regnaD kciN]

10. Let's do an honest translation here...

But don’t take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will have health insurance if this bill passes...

"But don't take it out on the tens of millions of Americans who will be fined for not being able to afford legally-required health insurance if this bill passes..."

This bill doesn't "cover" anybody -- it merely orders them to cover themselves, and fines them if they are unable to do so.

[HughMoran]

11. I don't think coming back together is possible after this

Too much vitriol has been posted for DU to ever become whole again. You know that expression about making certain criticisms about your significant others? Some things can't be "taken back". It's over.

[tridim]

15. We agree about 95% of the time.

I think DU will survive, although I must admit I don't enjoy coming here as much as I used to in the old days.

[HughMoran]

21. Go look at the "top tens" page

A post by Nance stating "I'm in - and I'm staying in" - basically stating that she will remain a Democrat even though there are tough times now - has 70 unrecs. Compare that to the post tearing Obama apart on everything he's done since being in office - it only has 34 unrecs. There aren't enough people left here who support Obama (or most Dems for that matter) for this site to survive as a "Democratic" site. There aren't many Dems left here and the level of vitriol is at super hyperbolic level too often to even make posting enjoyable. The site has also become one giant ad-hominem attack on anybody who dares to argue the Democratic Party viewpoint. I see no saving this place after what people have said in the past 2 days.

[tridim]

24. Well, I just started using ignore today.

It's helping. Never paid much attention to rec/unrec, but that Nance unrec fest you pointed out is certainly shocking.

I wonder who gets to keep DU when this is all over? :cry:

[TwilightGardener]

25. I added several people to ignore today, because I dared question

Howard Dean's sudden vehemence against the bill, and a handful decided that that was worthy of personal attacks. Level of discourse is in the toilet here.

[HughMoran]

28. I'm "X"ing out of DU for a while

Let them have the place for a while - see how much fun it is not to have people to "ad hominem" attack.

[dionysus]

38. do you see this level of outrage among dems outside of the internet? i don't

[regnaD kciN]

18. Not just DU...

Policy disagreements, even over major issues, are possible among progressives. And I knew, even as I was working for Obama, that there would be times I'd strongly disagree with what he was doing as president. But, what with the Obama administration coddling Joe and then trotting out the big guns to suggest that Dean is "deranged" and opponents of the gutted bill are morally-responsible for the deaths of thousands, this seems to have reached a breaking point among Democratic progressives.

Remember when Clinton was triangulating on virtually everything from NAFTA to welfare dismantling to DoMA? That was bad enough, but even Clinton and his crew didn't do it while staging a public scorched-earth campaign against fellow Democrats like we're seeing now. You give the example of criticizing your S.O. -- to me, the White House's behavior over the past few days is equivalent to a wife telling her husband "By the way, about our son...you're not his real father." It's clear that your partner has no respect for you, and never will. The only option is to separate.

[backscatter712]

22. That's what they said in the primaries.

We had the Hillary fans and the Obama fans screaming at each other with a huge amount of vitriol.

We'll manage.

[HughMoran]

23. We've not recovered from that

It's still brought up on a daily basis and some here are dedicated to destroying Obama since Hillary lost.

This latest tiff has set certain "lines in the sand" re: healthcare that can never be taken back or compromised on.

[rudy23]

26. For the record, I was an Obama supporter during the primaries, and I scream about him all the time

I had no idea how far right he'd go. I knew he'd be centrist, but I feel blindsided by the attacks on Progressives. It's infuriating.

[LoZoccolo]

32. It's reached critical mass and now I think there'll be massive brain drain.

People who post smart and reasonable commentary just won't come, and DU will largely rely on funding from people who use this place to bounce off the walls and scream. There was a time when Skinner tombstoned all of the third-partiers; now I think the site is too dependant on them for money. They'll chase good posters away and I don't know what will have to happen to get this place back to where it can be used to support Democrats.

[HuckleB]

39. It was just as bad during the primaries, no?

[mike_c]

13. "Having a different opinion doesn't mean you're a sellout."

Exactly so. I think Krugman is dead wrong on this, and I even think I know why he's taking this position-- and I don't particularly respect what I think are his reasons. But you're right-- that is disagreement, plain and simple, and intelligent and virtuous people can still disagree.

Rec'd.

[Zodiak]

14. I don't agree

And I didn't agree when he was recommending it in defense of Hillary in the primaries.

I agree with Krugman about 75% of the time. Not this time.

The mandate is a real shackle put forcibly around people's ankles when they don't have any more to give. I am thinking of people who, even with a "subsidy" cannot squeeze $20 out of their budgets a month.

Mandating insurance for cars did not reign in car insurance prices. It emboldened and empowered those companies.

Why would it not have the same effect on health care?

[AllentownJake]

16. I trust Howard Dean on Health Care more than Paul and I trust Paul more on economics than Howard nt.

[BrklynLiberal]

17. and disagree with Thom Hartmann, Howard Dean, Dennis Kucinich...

What do they all have in common? They are real PROGRESSIVES!!!

[Jane Austin]

33. Could they all also be Holier than Thou

and huge egoists?

I love Dean, but he may have a big ego, too.

[BrklynLiberal]

35. As compared to which humble politicians that you have encountered?

There certainly aren't many in DC nowadays...of either party..or in any part of the government.

[Jane Austin]

36. Some are much more arrogant than others. ..........n/t..............

[laughingliberal]

19. It would appear so, yes. nt

[HuckleB]

40. Nope.

[WeDidIt]

20. The only person I consider a sellout is Obama

The rest are taking their gruel because they see nothing else.

I am lobbying my Senator, Roland Burris, to join the filibuster and kill the bill.

[NJmaverick]

27. Oh this is sweet

[girl gone mad]

30. Why?

You hate Krugman with a flaming passion and have been bitterly, angrily opposed to him at every turn. You've used extremely mean spirited personal attacks in a futile attempt to tear apart his reputation.

Now you think we should blindly agree with his opinion?

Sorry, but you and the other Krugman bashers have absolutely no credibility on this one.

[NJmaverick]

31. Now YOU have a problem with mean spirited personal attacks?

:wow:


still I think it's sweet because people like yourself, who practically worshiped Krugman as some infallible god when he was bashing President Obama, are now forced to deal with him holding a view that contradicts your latest outrage. The spin you guys are putting on this is pretty amusing.

[girl gone mad]

29. I disagree with Krugman's analysis, like I disagreed with him on the bailouts..

and on whether or not oil was being manipulated by speculators (I was right, he was wrong). I still like Krugman.

After the cheerleaders spent most of the past year trashing Krugman, it comes across as pretty disingenuous to cite his support for the bill as cause to get behind it.

[Lilith Velkor]

34. You're just as dead if the insurance company fucks you, and out the monthly premium $ to boot

Supporters of the bill never seem to acknowledge that.

[HuckleB]

37. As usual, Krugman keeps his head.

The emotional ranting and raving don't seem to bother him.