Paul Krugman - "Health Reform Myths" - Why Is He Not Being Featured More On Cable News?

[TomCADem]

Paul Krugman was damn near ubiqitous on cable news and in magazine interviews when he was attacking the President's stimulus bill as too small or the President's refusal to nationalize more banks. But, I am not seeing him as much now that he has been extremely supportive of efforts to pass the current HCR bills. Coincidence?

Well, here is Paul doing a great job of pushing back aganst Republican talking points albeit with a lot less media coverage than when Krugman is attacking the administration from the left:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html

Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?

But reform still has to run a gantlet of misinformation and outright lies. So let me address three big myths about the proposed reform, myths that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.

The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.

Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a “takeover,” that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.

The only part of health care in which there isn’t already a lot of federal intervention is the market in which individuals who can’t get employment-based coverage buy their own insurance. And that market, in case you hadn’t noticed, is a disaster — no coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage dropped when you get sick, and huge premium increases in the middle of an economic crisis. It’s this sector, plus the plight of Americans with no insurance at all, that reform aims to fix. What’s wrong with that?

[SoCalDem]

1. He buys no airtime for commercials from the media tycoons

and he wishes for those corporations' demise:)

[grantcart]

2. Because when he is on the TV all of the boys and girls in make up

that appear after him get really really big head aches and their mothers complain.

[The Magistrate]

3. Mr. Krugman, Sir, Is A Very Sound Fellow

[Ozymanithrax]

4. Because the phrases "socialist takeover" and "corporatist takeover" do not appear in his comments.

His comments have no appeal to the right or the left, so they ignore him.

[Oregone]

5. Krugman has called it "simulated single-payer"

So he couldn't be more ridiculous on this issue

[girl gone mad]

6. It makes about as much sense..

as his tomfoolery on oil prices back in 2007/2008 (permanent plateau, yada, yada).

[warm regards]

7. Perhaps because he is an economist and not an expert in HCR.

[ThomWV]

8. And lets face it, an expert in HCR is just the person to talk to when the subject is financing.

[TomCADem]

9. I Guess That Is Why McCain Gets So Much Interview Time...

...because of his expertise on HCR and the economy? I can understand inviting McCain for a neocon perspective on foreign policy issues. However, McCain really has no leadership position in the Senate nor is known as a policy wonk. Why does McCain get so much air time except to spout RW talking points. For that matter, is there any Republican or conservative who is getting air time that could qualify as a health care expert with the exception of Tom Coburn, a physician?