Krugman: "Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate"

[ProSense]

Naked Blackmail

It turns out that in the final stages of the debt negotiations, Republicans suddenly http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2011/07/22/health_care_reform_and_the_debt_ceiling">added a new demand — a trigger that would end up eliminating the individual mandate in health care reform.

This is telling, in a couple of ways.

First, the health care mandate has nothing to do with debt and deficits. So this is naked blackmail: the GOP is trying to use the threat of financial catastrophe to impose its policy vision, even in areas that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, a vision that it lacks the votes to enact through normal legislation.

Second, this is a demand Obama can’t accept, unless he plans on changing his party registration. Health reform doesn’t work without a mandate (remember the primary? Maybe better not to). And if health reform is undermined, Obama will have achieved nothing. So by adding this demand, Republicans were in effect saying no deal — unless, I guess, they believed that Obama is a total pushover.

more

Well, if Krugman is for a mandate, it must be really progressive!

Does Krugman has "primary" issues?

[DJ13]

1. First, the health care mandate has nothing to do with debt and deficits.

Neither does Social Security, but.........

[lumberjack_jeff]

2. He simply has a better memory than you.

Obama briefly ran on a platform of "optional universal" healthcare, until someone told him the definition of "oxymoron".

Pity they didn't have dictionaries at Columbia law school.

[karynnj]

7. Obama spoke of universal ACCESS to healthcare - so there was no oxymoron

He also addressed the obvious problem with not having a mandate, which was that it would be unfair to let people stay out of any insurance, only to sign on when their heath needs made it the obvious thing to do. He said they would have to pay more to join, but did not go into detail. Just as Clinton and Edwards were similarly vague on the penalty for people who violate the mandate.

Obama never changed. What changed was that the Business Circle, made up of CEOs of big companies surprised people in 2008 by supporting universal health care as long as there was a mandate. Ivan Seidenberg was the witness who spoke of this at a Finance committee hearing that was starting to look at healthcare in anticipation of an Obama win. Before this, many said that a mandate would mean that a bill would be DOA - that changed to the opposite view. Both the HELP and the Finance committee plan had mandates.

[Armstead]

11. But not mandates with no publicly supported alternative

That's the crucial difference.

Just saying "You have to buy insurance" without public social insurance that is totally based on individual affordability is not what mandates are supposed to accomplish.

You have to pay into Social Security. But you are not being forced to buy into private investment funds or scams to satisfy that requirement. You pay into a public pool based on what you earn.

Big difference.

[karynnj]

16. Believe me I agree with you, but that was not the issue in the primaries

It was mandates vs no mandates. I really like your analogy with social security as it explains the difference using something well known and accepted by most people. It is a great explanation and argument that I never saw before - and way better easier to get than anything else I have seen.

Not that it would have convinced Joe Leiberman. I wonder if he ever feels any guilt for being the sole reason there is no public option. Had he agreed, the bill would have passed a few weeks earlier, the House would have been happier with it - so it might have passed both Houses in 2009. Who knows, this could have taken the idiotic RW claim of passing healthcare under reconciliation. Maybe it would have made the difference in MA and there would be no Senator Brown.

[bluestateguy]

3. Many liberals would support that

A mandate with no public option is nothing more than a government order that citizens by a corporate product. I don't see that as a very progressive policy.

[Armstead]

12. bingo

[dkf]

4. If he sees nothing wrong with the future of entitlements I can't take him seriously.

[sudopod]

5. Are you a cat? nt

[Union Scribe]

6. Lol, that took me a second.

[Proles]

8. Would it be realistic to believe

that this healthcare bill could one day evolve into a de facto single payer? That's my hope at least, but I'm not sure it'll happen.

[Hoyt]

9. That's my hope too -- at least a Public Option. Even so'called Catfood Commission recommended PO.

Considering where we were with pre-existing conditions, and no controls on what insurers could charge vs. actual medical benefits -- I don't think HCR was a bad start. Could have been better, but there is still a lot of good there -- and more good will evolve . . . . . .well, unless, right wing gets total control of federal government.

[Proles]

10. Yeah,

and that's exactly why that no matter what, we must vote for the democrats. Even if they're spineless, and cave to republican demands every so often, they still have an overall semblence of sanity and care for the American people.

So it's always imperative to ensure the republicans don't take power and destroy even small bits of progress brought forth by the Democrats.

[Armstead]

13. Not politically. Obama and the Democratic Congress poisoned the well for that

If they had gone for positive popular smaller incremental changes OR gone for -- and really fought for -- truly universal access coverage, that could've been possible.

But the bitter taste of this recent fight, the lies of the GOP and the lack of competent salesmanship by Democrats have made it very unlikely this will be brought back to the table any time in the foreseeable future.

[Unvanguard]

14. Obviously the health insurance companies totally own Paul Krugman.

why are you posting this corporatist swill on DU? ;)

[Dr Fate]

15. So true.

Unless you are saying Obama disagrees with him, in that case, whatta bunch of crap.

[Zenlitened]

17. Krugman: "the Rube Goldberg scheme...better than nothing."

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Most of us were willing, however, to accept the Rube Goldberg scheme actually passed — in which community rating, a mandate, and subsidies are combined to more or less simulate the effects of single-payer — as much better than nothing.

little blue link

[ProSense]

19. "ringing endorsement."

"little blue link"

"Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?"

Healthcare: victory for America's soul

Oh, and get over that "little blue link" issue!

[Zenlitened]

21. Context matters

For example...

the reason the president is offering to undermine Medicare is that he genuinely believes that this would be a good idea."

The astute reader will observe the whole of Krugman's writings, rather than cherry-picking quotes for effect (as the above demonstrates).


Links:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[ProSense]

22. "Context matters

For example...

the reason the president is offering to undermine Medicare is that he genuinely believes that this would be a good idea."

Is that context from this "little blue link":

"Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?"

Or is it from this "little blue link":

Healthcare: victory for America's soul

Or are you adding context by "cherry-picking quotes" from a complete unrelated piece?

[Zenlitened]

23. Cherry-picking quotes... that's how this game is played, isn't it?

[ProSense]

24. So you're playing a game

by cherry picking quotes from unrelated articles and labeling it context?

OK, carry on!

[Zenlitened]

25. Artless projection, carry on.

[Enrique]

18. "Krugman: wrong about mandates"

look! there's a LIST in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4382206&mesg_id=4382206

[ProSense]

20. Thanks

for admitting Krugman was wrong, and for the link to that great post:

Mr. Krugman raises some valid concerns here. But what he doesn't say is that this would only be a temporary problem under the Obama plan. If it failed to achieve enrollment rates high enough to offset this 'selection effect,' Obama says other measures would be used - including possibly mandates.