Krugman: Progressive Obama supporters don't understand that he's actually undermining their cause

[johan helge]

From http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/health-care-thoughts/:

"Obama’s (health care) plan fell short (because of lack of mandates) — but I was initially willing to cut him slack, figuring that it could be improved. But then he began making the weakness of his plan a selling point, and attacking his rivals for getting it right. And in the process he has systematically trashed the prospects for actually achieving universal coverage.

The Obama plan is still vastly preferable to plans that rely on tax credits and the magic of the marketplace. But from where I sit, a dream is dying — and progressive Obama supporters, caught up in the romance of his candidacy, don’t understand that he’s actually undermining their cause."

[frazzled]

1. If history is any precedent ...

President Hillary Clinton may well end up putting forward a plan with no mandates.
And President Barack Obama may well end up putting forward a plan with mandates.

That is what happened in '92 when the leading candidates all scoped out positions on health care and then promptly reversed them all after the elections.

This is the most myopic, single-issue analysis, and a poor reason to vote for or against either candidate. I'm getting a little sick of this fight.

[johan helge]

6. Krugman's answers to your points

"And President Barack Obama may well end up putting forward a plan with mandates."

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/dean-baker-is-wrong/):

"And given the way he (Obama) has campaigned on the issue, he’ll have a very hard time saying after the fact, “oh, by the way, you have to sign up or there will be nasty penalties if you ever try later.”"

"This is the most myopic, single-issue analysis, and a poor reason to vote for or against either candidate."

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/health-care-thoughts/):

"I believe that universal health care has to be THE central item in a progressive agenda — not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because of its political economy implications. As I explain in Conscience of a Liberal, Republicans went all-out in 1993 to block health reform because they feared that success would reinvigorate the progressive agenda. And they were right."

[BootinUp]

11. I dont remember what you are referring to

but its just common sense that if you give voice to an Insurance Industry/RW type attack you are undermining your own sides goals.

[dragonlady]

2. It also depends on who will actually get any plan enacted

I for one would rather not wait until the end of Hillary's second term (which means probably never).

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Big Blue Marble]

4. Krugman and his faux concern.

He is a Hlllary supporter. He sounds pretty desperate, too.

[johan helge]

12. Yes, I think he is a little desperate - and right:

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/health-care-thoughts/):

"But from where I sit, a dream is dying — and progressive Obama supporters, caught up in the romance of his candidacy, don’t understand that he’s actually undermining their cause."

[Big Blue Marble]

24. You got it.

That is where I saw the desperation.

[OzarkDem]

23. The collapse of our health care system isn't funny

Nor is sacrificing it to use score cheap political points.

The sad thing is, this will affect you as much as it affects the uninsured and low income populations. It will hurt everyone. Everyone.

[Big Blue Marble]

28. Dem, I am not joking.

As someone who has paid over $50,000 in health care premiums for my family in the last four year
I have a pretty good grasp on the crisis. This has been a personal crisis for my family and my finances.
And has kept my husband and I from being able to save for our retirement.

I think Krugman is the one playing the health care crisis for Hillary. And I do not like it.

Her mandates will never get through Congress, never. No one's plan will get through intact.

So a lot of this is just noise. Noise used to scare people. I am very disappointed that
Krugman would sell his cred so cheaply.

[OzarkDem]

36. Take the time to read what Krugman is saying

as he himself has stated, he was willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on his own plan.

But Obama has gone beyond good sense in using GOP talking points to criticize health care reform. He is giving the GOP plenty of ammunition to kill any health care reform plan, including his own.

[Big Blue Marble]

41. Dem, let's stop dancing on the head of a pin.

All these healthcare plans suck. Hillary's, Edwards, and Obama's all protect and support the health insurance institution and the profit-making
healthcare delivery system in our society.

Everyone of these plans fails to give us what we need, a single payer system. We need to completely remove the profit motive from
carrying for sick people. It Krugman had any guts, he would say so.

He has a greater agenda in using this wedge against Obama. And I suspect you do too.

[johan helge]

47. Krugman has said so

From http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why-not-single-payer/:

"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."

[Big Blue Marble]

51. These plans all suck.

And if we accept any of them we continue to support profit in sick care.

The profit component makes all these plans too expensive for our economy to support.

We are already spending 16% of our national income on a failed system. Do we really
want to further institutionalize this mess.

[johan helge]

54. Hillary's plan is probably the only realistic way to get rid of the insurance companies

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why-not-single-payer/):

"The public-private competition in the (Hillary's) 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 (i.e. the insurance companies) 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."

[jackson_dem]

26. If he supports Hillary why did he always say Edwards had better policies?

[Big Blue Marble]

29. That's easy.

They both had mandates. They both will force people into a broken system.

[jackson_dem]

33. He said Edwards was more progressive overall and had better economic policies than Hillary

None of that has to do with them having similar health plans.

[Big Blue Marble]

35. They were similar in forcing people in to the system.

This is not politically viable. It just isn't

The libertarian streak is just too deep in this country.

[jackson_dem]

39. That doesn't have anything to do with the false claim that Krugman is a "Hill shill"

No "Hill shill" would say another candidate was more progressive and better. Where he preferred Edwards' policies were on the economy and overall. On healthcare Krugman has acknowledged the fact they were similar.

[Big Blue Marble]

42. See my post above #45.

This is a red herring that he hopes will accrue benefits for Hillary.

I bet it has been focus-tested as a wedge issue with women.

[jackson_dem]

61. My point is there is 0 evidence he is supporting Hillary

If he supported any candidate it was Edwards.

[Jai4WKC08]

30. Nope

He was for Edwards. He was critical of Obama's health care plan from the beginning.

[sniffa]

32. Now that's just silly

Krugman has always been a Dodd guy.

[Jai4WKC08]

56. Not that I remember, but the point stands

I was pretty sure he was for Edwards, but maybe I'm getting him mixed up with Thom Hartman.

Either way, Edwards or Dodd, Krugman has never been for Hillary and has always been critical of Obama's health care plan. For good reason.

[unc70]

65. I believe he preferred Edwards on healthcare

I don't remember seeing him explicitly endorse any of our candidates. He has tended to criticize each of them about some economic bit of hand-waving.

Most independent reviewers have ranked Obama's HC plan behind Kucinich, Edwards, and Clinton. Kucinich's is closer to my goal, Edwards cleverly forced a transitional period favoring single-payer. Obama seemed really late to the game and poorly formed in a bunch of ways. Strange to see him promoting the weakest part of his plan as a campaign positive. Maybe that is the obverse to attacking your opponent on his strenghs.

[Thrill]

5. This guy has an agenda. And I won't be reading his garbage anymore

[johan helge]

7. Yes, I think Krugman definitely has an agenda:

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/health-care... /):

"I believe that universal health care has to be THE central item in a progressive agenda — not just because it’s the right thing to do, but because of its political economy implications. As I explain in Conscience of a Liberal, Republicans went all-out in 1993 to block health reform because they feared that success would reinvigorate the progressive agenda. And they were right."

[mrreowwr_kittty]

40. He's now in the same category I put MoDo in.

The Do Not Read Under Any Circumstances one.

Whatta fucking putz.

[redqueen]

74. Wow.

:wow:

[hfojvt]

8. here's another thought though

Republicans are gonna raise the mandate issue. You can bet on that. If the voters don't like the idea of mandates, it's better to find out now when we can still nominate another Democrat, than later, when our candidate is buried by the RWNM.

I still feel that nobody has undermined progressives than the Clintons.

Plus, I am not convinced that health care is central to the progressive cause.

[johan helge]

13. I think they'll like the idea of mandates

- because they'll like universal health care (UHC). And you can't get UHC wihtout mandates (without having the government pay for it all, and that's even more politically unrealistic).

[CTyankee]

99. I must disagree. Health care for all is the backbone of the progressive cause.

Or at least part of the backbone. It provides better economic security for the people who need it the most, so that they can have better, healthier and more productive lives. They will be materially better off. They see and understand that the system can work for them, so they become more involved in our democracy. Their economic well being is one of the central elements to the progressive cause.

[featherman]

9. I like Krugman - good fighter - but think he is naive on this

Holding out for an absolutism on this one - his way or the highway. Universal, single-payer health care is the goal. Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Kucinich, Kennedy, etc all agree privately. Of this I am certain.

It's about how you get there with a divided Congress. Tremendous obstacles and entrenched interests to overcome. It's plain silly to think a President can pass this with the "bully pulpit" alone. I wish he'd get more serious about the realities of getting to this eventual goal. You don't get there by being not elected. Just saying.

[johan helge]

10. Krugman about the Congress

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin):

"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."

[joshcryer]

15. Obama won't get there by diminishing the cause and arguing against mandated health care.

He'll never get there.

[OzarkDem]

19. Obama is poisoning the well vis. health care reform

He's not holding out for anything, he's simply destroying the last chance we have of fixing the system, even in a marginal way.

[Big Blue Marble]

34. That is a simple narrative that just does not fly.

No one will get mandated health care for all through the Congress.

I seriously doubt that anyone would win the general election with forced participation in the health care system.

independents will scatter like roaches in the light when you talk mandates.

Obama has a much more realistic plan that will effectively be legislated, enacted, and will in the long run
be the more effective coverage for the most people


Personally, the thought of being forced in to a private insurance plan that the government tells me I have to take,

is repulsive to me.

[OzarkDem]

37. Obama's fear mongering means NO health care reform. Nada, zip

Obama won't even be able to pass his own plan, he's given so much ammo to his enemies on this issue.

If you like the status quo on health care, then go with Obama.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. What evidence to you have of this?

Obama hopes to win by saying "me too" regarding universal coverage while simultaneously bragging about his plan being optional.

Read his lips. He doesn't want everyone to have insurance, nor does he want medical insurance to be a public function. It is as simple as that.

You're betting that when the insurance companies let loose the floodgate$ in the general election, he'll change his mind on our behalf.

Riiight.

[joshcryer]

14. Keep up the fight johan helge, I tried all night to get this point across, but no one listened.

[johan helge]

43. Thanks!

I think Krugman is right - universal health care is a key issue.

[AtomicKitten]

16. I understand Krugman has a hold of Obama's pant-leg and won't leg go.

[killbotfactory]

17. If you put mandates in before you bring costs down

You are going to screw a lot of people.

[OzarkDem]

21. Mandates bring the cost down

Sorry there's evidence to back it up.

No mandates causes costs to go up.

Uninsured represent the highest costs of today's health care world. Its not an opinion, its documented fact.

The more uninsured people you have, the higher the cost of health care for everyone.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

38. And the costs won't come down either

What incentive would the industry have to lower costs when people are mandated to buy their product?

[killbotfactory]

46. Exactly

[johan helge]

49. They can also buy government-offered insurance instead

- And that's how this can evolve into a single-payer system, because the insurance companies may not be able to compete with the government insurance.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

52. Dream on.

To believe that this mandated private insurance scheme will evolve into a single payer system requires one to believe that the insurance lobby is going to willingly participate in its own demise.

In other words, it ain't gonna happen.


Any healthcare proposal needs to go through Congress. It will be changed by Congresspukes who are bought and paid for by Big Medicine.

[johan helge]

55. Read this

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

"The public-private competition in the (Hillary's) 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 (i.e. the insurance companies) 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."

About the Congress: The Congress may stop Hillary's plan. But what's the alternative?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. The Congress will stop the plan and the alternative is single payer

Which needs to come from Congress.

Krugman is full of shit on this.

[johan helge]

60. So, according to you:

Congress will not accept Hillary's plan (because they are bought by the insurance companies), but Congres may accept single-payer. That does not sound very logical?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

62. It's not meant to be.

Congress would need to be taken over by progressives, which isn't going to happen anytime soon.

Therefore, you are correct that a Hillary or Barack plan is better than nothing. But you can bet the farm that if hers does pass Congress, it will NOT allow people to choose a cheaper government plan over private insurance. The government plan will be for the poor and uninsurable only. Everyone else will be forced to buy private insurance. Because you can bet the farm that the 'mandate' part will stay.

Again, Krugman is full of shit on this. Almost as much as he is on outsourcing (which he loves BTW).

He's no liberal.

[johan helge]

67. I think the mandate part should stay -

because that means universal health care.

For a long time, Democrats have been trying to increase the number of insured. It would be a big step forward if everyone was insured - and the Democrats just had to try to increase the number of government-insured.

[OzarkDem]

18. Yes, he is; everyone has cut him too much slack

Obama's even destroying any chance for passing his own plan. If he destroys the effort for health care reform by using Reaganesque demagoguery just for political gain he will be hounded from political life in the Democratic Party.

He could very well be sowing the seeds that lead to collapse of our current health care system. What rises from those ashes will be a two tiered system resembling that of a 3rd world country.

Obama's only remaining option would be to turn GOP something he would probably like to do anyway.

[CTLawGuy]

20. Krugman is a Hillary shill

let's be honest with ourselves.

[OzarkDem]

22. No, I'll be honest with you

Take off your blinders. Repeating GOP talking points to destroy ANY and ALL efforts to destroy health care reform is not only pathetic, its unconscionable.

Do you want to destroy the health care system?

Do you want to see your own costs of health insurance rise?

Do you want to end up uninsured?

If so, keep repeating those GOP talking points.

[CTLawGuy]

81. being against mandates is NOT being against UHC

1. actually I would ideally like to set up a universal, single payer health care plan, so I am to the left of Obama on this. What I don't want is to force people into this disaster of a health care system.

2. No. That is why I support a focus on reducing costs.

3. No. that is why I want insurance to be made more affordable.


Be honest with yourself...

Do you want to punish people who can't afford to comply with the mandate?

Do you think that we have 44 million freeloaders who won't buy health insurance becuase they'd rather get "free" care? Do you think that if we just mandate it, the health coverage problem will solve itself?

Do you want to force people to participate in a broken system?

Speaking of GOP talking points, did you know that Mitt Romney put in a system of mandates in MA? Why is Romney-care suddenly progressive? Is Romney progressive?



I don't think any of those questions reflect GOP talking points, Mr./Ms. Angry Edwards-guy/gal.

No mandate will in fact cover everyone. In MA, almost 20% of the uninsured had to be excused from Romney-care's mandate regime.

Obama wants UHC, he just has different means to get there. He says that everyone who wants insurance will get it if they can afford it (and that mandates for adults are not necessary), so he concentrates on reducing premium cost. For people like Krugman and Hillary to say that he opposes UHC is wrong and fundamentally dishonest.

[jackson_dem]

27. Hillary shills say Edwards was more progressive and had better policies than Hill?

[CTLawGuy]

77. Edwards is no longer in the race

she's his #2

[thoughtcrime1984]

25. Lots of anti-Obama Krugman posts on here

It's like Operation Dumbo Drop with the negative articles, sheesh.

[OzarkDem]

31. Try reading his column and you'll understand why

Krugman likes Obama, even though his plan is not quite as good as Clinton's. He was even willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt that, if elected, he would fix some of the problems with his health care reform plan.

But Obama's latest demagoguery about universal health care has caused Krugman to speak out. Obama is not only wrong in the Reaganesque talking points he's using to attack universal care, he's giving the opposition talking points to kill any real health care reform plan, including his own.

Obama is getting a LOT of opposition because he's setting back health care reform by several years - all in a cheap attempt to get attention and pick up GOP votes.

He's prompted a lot of outrage among economists and health care advocates, and rightfully so.

[jacksonian]

48. well said, OzarkDem

I like Obama, but this is a believe one humongous campaign fuck-up of epic porportions. He is trying too hard to run right and has misstepped.

Listen to Krugman. I see the path in Hillary's health care toward universal, single payer. But that is exactly what is missing in Obama's, that path to a better system. He is pandering, and this is TOO important an issue to us.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. delete read wrong

[Krashkopf]

45. Krugman is WRONG . . .

Now THOSE are words I NEVER thought I would write!

Krugman is wrong because, as a PROGRESSIVE, I have no illusions about who Barack Obama is, or where he stands on issues like universal health care.

Barack Obama is NOT a progressive, and NEITHER is Hillary Clinton, for that matter.

But, as a Progressive DEMOCRAT, I will support which ever one of them turns out to be the nominee, because I KNOWthat there IS a real difference between a "D" and and "R" on a whole slew of issues.

[awaysidetraveler]

50. Krugman's criticism of Obama's healthcare plan grossly exaggerates the substantive differences.

Moreover, Hillarycare was a fiasco, not a success story.

[jacksonian]

58. the differences remain significant

Hillarycare, as you call it, was 15 years ago by some well meaning progressives who were still neophytes at Washington politcs. I have never understood this argument - she had her one shot, so forget it. Bah.

Besides the lesson here may very well be about politcal newcomers not knowing the limits of their charisma. Don't get the idea I think Hillary's all wonderful on this topic, but I know were she's coming from and I can accpt it from a progressive perspective. It can lead to better things, I can see how. I do not understand what Obama is doing - at least it's a political error.

Nobody interested in seriously improving healthcare brings up Harry and Louise and threatens pick-pocketing. I don't get it.

[calmblueocean]

57. Krugman is to Obama what Limbaugh is to McCain

It's just interesting to me to watch both men essentially have tantrums because the party is ignoring their wisdom and making different choices.

[johan helge]

98. But it's more reason for the Democrats to listen to Krugman

than for the Repubs to listen to Limbaugh, don't you think?

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/health-care-thoughts/):

"Obama’s plan fell short — but I was initially willing to cut him slack, figuring that it could be improved. But then he began making the weakness of his plan a selling point, and attacking his rivals for getting it right. And in the process he has systematically trashed the prospects for actually achieving universal coverage."

[Seabiscuit]

63. I must say, Paul Krugman always gets it right. n/t

[Joanne98]

64. I know that! I don't care. Change comes from the bottom up!

We will get universal healthcare, because if we don't, everybody is FIRED!

[Sir Jeffrey]

66. Krugman: I used to work with Enron now I am the hero of progressives...

no thanks.

[redqueen]

75. What an idiotic, throwaway, bullshit comment.

http://www.pkarchive.org/personal/ShortVersion.html

Do some research before spoutin off next time, eh?

[Sir Jeffrey]

78. Hit a nerve, did I?

If you believe that Enron's advisory panel just got paid to sit around and do nothing but collect checks, then you are living in a dream world.

[redqueen]

79. No... you said something stunningly ignorant.

But hey, not like you're all alone in that, so... good luck.

[Sir Jeffrey]

80. Ever been handed $50,000 for sitting on your ass and doing nothing?

[redqueen]

83. Maybe this will help:

http://www.slate.com/id/2061092/

You are parroting right-wing lunacy, you do know that, right?

[Sir Jeffrey]

85. Sorry, not taking the bait...

I know how power works, and I know how influence peddling works. You don't get paid $50,000 to sit on the advisory board of a company as powerful, rich, and important as Enron was and do jack shit for it...especially if you are not "one of the boys". That money was paid for a reason, and it wasn't to see Mr. Krugman in a suit.

[redqueen]

94. Obviously you're committed to seeing what you want.

Good luck with that.

[Sir Jeffrey]

95. I'm committed to pointing out bullshit when I see it...

if you want to believe Mr. Krugman's self-serving version of events of his tenure on Enron's Advisory Panel, go ahead. Believe that he did *nothing* for Enron while sitting on the same panel as Bill Kristol, Bob Zoellick, and Larry Lindsey. After all, there is no evidence of any shenanigans, right? Or at least any evidence that we can find. And the company he kept on that panel was just an all-star cast of progressives, right? After all, he is writing articles that you agree with now, so hooray for him and hooray for progressives.

Not buying it. Sorry. Don't take it personal. I just don't buy bullshit excuses.

[redqueen]

96. Nope, I don't take it personal... I just don't see the world in black and white.

Are you implying that Kristol is evenhanded in his journalistic efforts?

Do you think that Krugman isn't?

Kind of a difference there... but hey... whatever.

[Stuart G]

68. Question?..Is it true that Obama sent out direct mailing piece that....

was vicious on Hillery's health care plan. Krugman states that the piece was almost like the piece that destroyed the opportunity in 1993..............Here is the quote for today's column.........."

.."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."............



How do we know if that is true? If Obama is using these tactics, and Hillery is using her tactics, then what is what?

[johan helge]

69. Here's the link:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/obama-does-harry-and-louise-again/

[Barack_America]

70. Paul Krugman, meet Taylor Marsh. Taylor Marsh, Paul Krugman.

I'm sure you two will get along famously.

[maximusveritas]

71. Oh yeah, we don't understand. We're not as smart as Krugman

I've always noted an arrogance about him that was unbecoming. But it's getting downright repulsive now.

[johan helge]

72. Listen to what he says, how he says it is less important

- I like his way of writing. He may be a little too tough on people sometimes, though.

[redqueen]

76. OMFG.

There's no hope...

*sigh*

[AX10]

73. k/r

Someone has to hit back at Obama for using right wing talking points.

[MagsDem]

82. Exactly!

Which is what Hillary has been saying, in an ultra polite way, since Obama came out with the plan. Unfortunately he just doesn't have enough political experience understand these things as well as he needs to in order to get anything passed. He's timid, passive, and unexperienced. We need a fighter if we are going to get anything done on the Dem agenda.

[Summerza]

84. The OP misleadingly crops Krugman's statement

Krugman thinks that WHEN IT COMES TO THIS HEALTH CARE PROPOSAL Obama undermines progressive goals; but he does not refer to Obama's platform in general.

[progressive_realist]

86. Whole lot of hype on Krugman's part about nothing

The President doesn't make law in this country -- Congress does. So the details of Obama's and Clinton's health care plans don't make the slightest bit of difference.

If Congress put a decent universal health care bill in front of the next President, would s/he sign it?

Clinton? Yes
Obama? Yes
McCain? No
Romney? No

Next issue, please.

[johan helge]

87. Well,

I think it matters what the President wants, too, don't you think?

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin):

"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."

[progressive_realist]

88. People can't even remember what last week's controversy was

By the time the next President is in office, whatever s/he said during the campaign season is going to be far down the memory hole. It has no importance whatsoever.

Republicans and industry lobbyists are going to demonize universal healthcare no matter what. If we can get a solid progressive majority in Congress and a Democrat (any Democrat) in the Oval Office, single-payer is attainable. If not, it isn't. The Clinton vs. Obama rivalry and various campaign promises are irrelevant.

[kelligesq]

89. Krugman is one of the most brilliant around-doesnt think much of Obama huh?

[johan helge]

97. But Obama seems to be seriously against mandates

- which is the only realistic way of getting universal health care.

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/more-obama-ugliness-on-health-care/):

"I really, really wish he would stop this:

'Obama likened Clinton’s health care mandate proposal to eliminating homelessness by requiring everyone buy a house.'

The Clinton plan does every bit as much to ensure affordability as the Obama plan. This is just grotesque.

Add: There are no excuses this time. You can’t say that it’s the work of some staffer. This is unscrupulous demagoguery from the candidate himself."

To me, mandates is just another name for a tax for health care. Every one has to pay taxes, and every one gets health care - like in civilized countries.

[gravity]

90. Exactly

I hate these arguments with the nuances with the health care bills. They both want the same thing, an it is congress who is going to sort this mess out in the end.

[gulliver]

91. Krugman needs to worry that "myleftshoe" on DU" thinks he's wrong.

Myleftshoe's opinions are always REALLY AWESOME! He works at a shoe store, so he meets LOTS of REAL people. Krugman just sits in his ivory tower and mouths off. Personally, I'll take myleftshoe's opinion over Krugman's any day dude!!

[thoughtcrime1984]

92. What Obama knows is that pushing Progressive ideals in the campaign

is a surefire way to not get elected. He has in actuality, been quite liberal in his time in the Ill. Senate and the US Sen. I don't doubt that he will actually do more for the left than it seems right now. It is how he can pull some Indies and soft Repubs into his camp. His "celebrity" may just expand the Democratic base, which will make it easier to get some of the Progressive ideals into our National Policy.

[Bullet1987]

93. I can understand where you're coming from...Obama has a lousy healthcare plan

and I wish he were a little more bolder with it. With that in mind though, I'm 20 years old and healthcare isn't a #1 issue for me right now. Other than knees that feel like they're getting worn out because I run too much...I'm relatively healthy. You have to go with your gut. Like another poster above said, truth be told...there's not a big difference between Obama and Clinton's plans. And once they both go through the legislative process, politicians will try to weed certain things out. I'm a fan of Single-Payer myself...but my support for Obama goes farther than Healthcare. There are things he wants to do that none of the other 3 want. Case in point, Open Government is a big issue for me, but maybe not as much for you. Obama is the only one left running with that on his platform.

I'm hoping Obama is simply running on a more PR friendly Healthcare plan and will change his mind if he becomes President...like many of them do. It would be political assassination for him to run on a Single-Payer plan and I understand that. But he supported Single-Payer once while in the State Senate and has expressed "feelings" towards it more recently. So here's to HOPING...lol.