Paul Krugman Says Hillary Clinton is Right and Bernie Sanders is Wrong on Healthcare

[MrWendel]

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/01/18/paul-krugman-hillary-bernie-wrong-healthcare.html



Paul Krugman has entered the healthcare reform fray on behalf of Hillary Clinton, a fact which will no doubt disappoint many progressives. In a op-ed titled “Health Reform Realities,” Krugman argues that though Obamacare is “a kludge: a somewhat awkward, clumsy device with lots of moving parts,” it works:

Health reform is the signature achievement of the Obama presidency. It was the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare was established in the 1960s. It more or less achieves a goal — access to health insurance for all Americans — that progressives have been trying to reach for three generations. And it is already producing dramatic results, with the percentage of uninsured Americans falling to record lows.

In other words, the Affordable Care Act was a big win for us against Republicans, who fought any reform at all. Most will remember the failed Bill Clinton attempt to get healthcare reform done during his administration. As Krugman puts it,

The question for progressives — a question that is now central to the Democratic primary — is whether these failings mean that they should re-litigate their own biggest political success in almost half a century, and try for something better.

Most Democrats probably agree that single payer is better than what we have. It is what most of us wanted to begin with, after all. But how practical is it as a goal? Krugman reminds us that we barely got Obamacare even with a Democratic controlled Senate. If single payer had been a possibility, we would already have it.

But we don’t.

This is a big bone of contention now between Sanders and Clinton. Jason Easley wrote here regarding the Democratic debate:

Former Sec. of State Clinton’s argument is that the country should not tear up with Affordable Care Act and start over again with a new debate would set the country back. Bernie Sanders argued that his Medicare for all plan would cover the 29 million people who still don’t have healthcare.

Sanders said what this debate is really about is whether “we have the guts to stand up to the health insurance industry and the pharmaceutical companies. Clinton pointed out that during the ACA debate Democrats could not get support for the public option. Clinton clearly has been shaped by her experience in the 1990s of trying to pass healthcare reform. The debate within the Democratic Party comes down to whether Democrats should stay on ACA path or take a shot at Medicare for all.

In Krugman’s opinion, the candidates should “focus their main efforts on other issues.” You know, those we haven’t already won, even if the victory was not all we had hoped for. Krugman lists the many problems with pushing for single payer, including the massive influence of the insurance companies, the necessity of raising taxes to pay for it – not only the rich but the middle class – and the disruption to people who already have insurance they are satisfied with.

Krugman makes a powerful argument when he says “progressives must set some priorities,” and calls Sander’s goal of single payer “a quixotic attempt at a do-over, not of a political failure, but of health reform — their biggest victory in many years.” Any president only has so much political capital. There are battles we haven’t fought and won – to any degree whatsoever – that it might make more reasonable objectives for an incoming president.

[ejbr]

1. Let me guess

HE has healthcare.

[closeupready]

20. My first thought, too.

[Hoyt]

2. What the heck does he know? He's old, doing well, probably an oligarch or something.

[hrmjustin]

3. Well said Paul!

[Broward]

4. He may be angling for a position in her administration if she wins.

Of course, this could also be just what he believes.

[ejbr]

6. true and true n/t

[raindaddy]

5. The same Krugman that couldn't figure out why the TPP was such a bad deal?

"OK, I don’t want to be too dismissive. But so far, I haven’t seen anything to justify the hype, positive or negative."

Krugman Gets Informed, Changes His Tune On TPP
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140228/08030526388/krugman-gets-informed-changes-his-tune-tpp.shtml

Paul Krugman isn't the last word on healthcare just as he wasn't on the TPP...

[Hoyt]

13. Yeah, same one that says people blame stuff on NAFTA caused by other factors.

[raindaddy]

14. Stuff? Like dismantling our manufacturing base and shipping it overseas?

That's it Krugman must've been on stuff alert until he finally figured out there is a lot of bad "stuff" in the TPP...

[Hoyt]

15. You too are blaming NAFTA for things caused by other factors.

[raindaddy]

17. NAFTA bad stuff....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html

[LexVegas]

7. Morning Joe hates Krugman. Morning Joe loves Bernie. nt

[MrWendel]

8. Thats it...

in a nutshell.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

9. Bullshit

Universal health coverage by country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_health_coverage_by_country
Ask them how they do it...

education 14th
1 South Korea (1.30)
2 Japan (1.03)
3 Singapore (0.99)
4 Hong Kong (0.96)
5 Finland (0.92)
6 United Kingdom (0.67)
7 Canada (0.60)
8 Netherlands (0.58)
9 Ireland (0.51)
10 Poland (0.50)
can we learn from them?




Where does America rank?
https://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/
How do they do it?

[Gregorian]

10. It's just weak to buy into this notion that something isn't practical, if it's important enough.

Yes, there are a lot of "ifs" involved, but that's the case with anything we'll try to implement. Ask for the god damned moon! Dems have failed us for decades with this meek pandering to the right. Is it impractical because half the Congress is crazy? Then the problem isn't health care, but Congress.

[Number23]

11. Nothing in this piece is even remotely new. But it's still good to get Krugman's opinion

The question for progressives — a question that is now central to the Democratic primary — is whether these failings mean that they should re-litigate their own biggest political success in almost half a century, and try for something better.

My answer, as you might guess, is that they shouldn’t, that they should seek incremental change on health care (Bring back the public option!) and focus their main efforts on other issues — that is, that Bernie Sanders is wrong about this and Hillary Clinton is right.

Basic common sense. K&R

[questionseverything]

12. the arguments against single payer

First, like it or not, incumbent players have a lot of power. Private insurers played a major part in killing health reform in the early 1990s, so this time around reformers went for a system that preserved their role and gave them plenty of new business.

Second, single-payer would require a lot of additional tax revenue — and we would be talking about taxes on the middle class, not just the wealthy. It’s true that higher taxes would be offset by a sharp reduction or even elimination of private insurance premiums, but it would be difficult to make that case to the broad public, especially given the chorus of misinformation you know would dominate the airwaves.

Finally, and I suspect most important, switching to single-payer would impose a lot of disruption on tens of millions of families who currently have good coverage through their employers. You might say that they would end up just as well off, and it might well be true for most people — although not those with especially good policies. But getting voters to believe that would be a very steep climb.

What this means, as the health policy expert Harold Pollack points out, is that a simple, straightforward single-payer system just isn’t going to happen. Even if you imagine a political earthquake that eliminated the power of the insurance industry and objections to higher taxes, you’d still have to protect the interests of workers with better-than-average coverage, so that in practice single-payer, American style, would be almost as kludgy as Obamacare.

//////////////////////////////////////

translation

#1 the insurance company lobbyist are too powerful

#2 the American people are too stupid to stop paying 12 grand a year in insurance rather than 6 grand in taxes

#3 the American people are too selfish and stupid

[Skwmom]

16. It is NOT financially sustainable and just another transfer upward of wealth. n/t

[Bread and Circus]

18. It sounds as if Krugman is making a political argument, not an economic one.

I am not sure what qualifies him more than anyone else to make political arguments.

[TM99]

19. Krugman and others

still confuse getting health insurance with getting health care.

Therefore, anyone who still does and spouts off that an insurance mandate is a progressive victory comparable to Medicare should be ignored.