« Another Word on Man Dates | Main | There Are Some Things In This Life That Never Change »
December 07, 2007
Obama v. Krugman
Something's really gone off the rails when the Obama campaign decides to release an oppo document on Paul Krugman. It's not only the actual attacks that are weak (most of them rely on misinterpreting one comment, then misinterpreting the next, then pretending there's a contradiction), but, seriously, it's Paul Krugman. Arguably the most progressive voice in American media. When I argued that the campaign should take the gloves off, I really didn't expect their target, in this document and in the health care fight more generally, would be progressivism. What in hell is going on over there?
Update: To say a bit more on this, the campaign's attack on Krugman raises the question they don't want to answer: What changed? When Obama's plan came out, Krugman, and me, and Jon Cohn, and all the usual suspects criticized it for lacking an individual mandate, but said that, on the overall, it was pretty good, and Obama had passed the bar. Suddenly, we're all up in arms. Why?
Well, it was one thing when Obama simply didn't have a mechanism to achieve universality. It became a whole other when he began criticizing mechanisms to achieve universality. Previously, he'd gotten some flack for buying into the conservative argument that Social Security was in crisis. Now he was constructing a conservative argument against far-reaching reform proposals. And he kept doing it. And now his campaign is misrepresenting Krugman's comments in order to imply contradiction. But Krugman hasn't contradicted himself. Where his original comments focused on Obama's plan, his newer arguments are attempting to beat back Obama's rhetoric. And Obama's rhetoric has become much, much worse than his plan. That it's ended with him having to go on the offensive against the most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media is evidence of that fact.
December 7, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Is it really taking the gloves off by pointing out that Krugman is more critical of Obama's plan now than a few months ago?
Posted by: mad6798j | Dec 7, 2007 3:34:05 PM
Ezra,
their target, in this document and in the health care fight more generally, would be progressivism.
No.
On the scheme of health policy solutions, mandates are as "DLC-centrist" as it gets.
Welcome aboard.
Posted by: wisewon | Dec 7, 2007 3:35:45 PM
If you didn't then you haven't been paying attention to who are Obaman's backers. He ain't no progressive homes.
Not in the least.
Posted by: A.Citizen | Dec 7, 2007 3:40:35 PM
Why be surprised that Obama disdains progressives? I mean, this is the guy who has so much as said that atheists can not have the same moral value as those who have "faith," and who joins forces with a minister who believes that gay people should be exterminated in order to pick up some votes in South Carolina.
Posted by: dk | Dec 7, 2007 3:41:05 PM
As we all know it was inexcusable brutality of HRC to refer to Obama as "not walking the walk" or something equally anodyne. So I think Obama can be accused of "taking the gloves off" for attacking Paul Krugman for not liking Obama's health care plan.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Dec 7, 2007 3:46:06 PM
I wouldn't trade places with the Republicans this year for anything, and I think we're extremely likely to win the White House no matter who's nominated on either side. The breaking of the DuMond story cemented that impression for me; they're getting a non-viable candidate no matter *what* they do.
But I'm not thrilled with any of our choices. And Obama strikes me as easily the worst of the major three (though still far better than Richardson, who'd be a nightmare on either half of the ticket). There's just nothing to him other than this carefully preened image of the post-partisan candidate--and they call *Edwards* the slick one.
I have lots of problems with Hillary, but we'll be far better off with her both as the nominee and as the president.
Posted by: Mike B. | Dec 7, 2007 3:50:35 PM
Having a guy sing for him at a few campaign stops is hardly "joining forces" with someone who wants to exterminate gays.
He backed measures banning discrimination against gays while in the state legislature, and supports repealing don't ask don't tell in the military. You're really grasping at straws trying to make him out to be viciously anti-gay, and he's not.
As for his piece on Krugman, it reads more like a defense of Obama's position than an attack on Krugman. It's not like he calls Krugman names or implies he's being dishonest.
Posted by: mad6798j | Dec 7, 2007 3:53:55 PM
Well, it was one thing when Obama simply didn't have a mechanism to achieve universality. It became a whole other when he began criticizing mechanisms to achieve universality. Previously, he'd gotten some flack for buying into the conservative argument that Social Security was in crisis. Now he was constructing a conservative argument against far-reaching reform proposals. And he kept doing it. And now his campaign is misrepresenting Krugman's comments in order to imly contradiction. But Krugman hasn't contradicted himself. Where his original comments focused on Obama's plan, his newer arguments are attempting to beat back Obama's rhetoric. And Obama's rhetoric has become much, much worse than his plan. That it's ended with him having to go on the offensive against the most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media is evidence of that fact.
This makes some sense. A lot of time could have been saved by focusing just on this element.
But in the course of pushing back on Obama's rhetoric, a re-examination of the policy differences themselves occurred by the same folks-- you, Krugman, etc. And in the desire to push back on the rhetoric, the impact of the differences in policy were overstated-- as I've said previously-- in a black-and-white nature, when the reality is more gray.
The fact that I really didn't get your concern in this post prior the "update" addition, is evidence of the point. Most of this pushback has actually been focused on the policy particulars rather than the rhetoric. Your first post on this subject and what it said about Obama, was the real interesting nugget in this whole thing. I agreed with you on that. The rest of this has been mostly a disagreement on the presumed impact of mandates and the degree of difference that actually exists between the policies. That's a policy discussion. And it does seem reasonable to interpret a shift in your and Krugman's view on the importance/magnitude of this issue. That may not have been the intent, but that was the effect.
Posted by: wisewon | Dec 7, 2007 3:54:41 PM
Why on earth does Ezra revere Krugman so much????
How dare Obama to criticize the gospel of Krugman.
Posted by: thehova | Dec 7, 2007 4:00:46 PM
Perhaps you can go on "Hardball" with the misogynist Chris Matthews and state your views about how this hurts the Obama campaign, not unlike your views yesterday regarding Clinton. It is unwise when Democrats use Republican talking points and I fear the Obama campaign is, not only about health care but especially about Social Security.
Posted by: Ann Brown | Dec 7, 2007 4:04:07 PM
This, and Obama's apparent surge generally, is very, very troubling. It does not bode well for us at all, as Obama is the candidate most likely to give away an election that is ours to lose.
Democrats need to get really serious about this race really fast. People are always complaining about how "early" it is, but we're barely a month out from a handful of actual votes that will probably decide who carries the Democratic banner in 2008. There is very good reason to wonder whether Obama is ready for prime time, but we're on the verge of putting him there without even considering this question.
If Obama wasn't in the race, I think we'd see a more serious campaign. Clinton and Edwards have reasonably distinct ideological perspectives, and each would bring different electoral strengths to the ticket. It would be nice to have a forceful but rational debate over the future of the party and the different paths they represent.
But Obama is a sideshow, a candidate whose celebrity is his only rationale. It is very fitting that Oprah is campaigning for him. Obama's supporters represent a disturbing cult of personality that I do not see anywhere else (except Ron Paul). They seem to think that his very existence is somehow miraculous and that his election would be "transformative" in some ineffable, metaphysical way. Andy Sullivan's argument, essentially, which should really tell you something.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 4:10:25 PM
Question for Obama supporters: It seems like only yesterday health insurance for everybody was an almost talismanic goal for liberals. And please don't say: we want health care for all not health insurance for all, because even in Canada, say, or Britain, people are enrolled in an insurance plan. It's just that it's social insurance, paid for by taxation. As far as I know, you can't just hop on a plane from New York to Toronto, schedule back surgery, and expect Canadian taxpayers to pay for it. You'll have to provide proof that you're enrolled in Ontario's version of Medicare. This is similar to how our own system works for the elderly. You have to be enrolled in the government-sponsored insurance plan known as Medicare in order to receive benefits. This is just how it's done everywhere in the rich world, because of the necessity of financial controls.
So, back to my point: it seems mighty implausible to me that the many people who are supporting Obama for the nomination supported health insurance for all a few months ago, but now no longer do. So, why, as I browse the liberal blogoshphere, do I encounter almost no criticism among his supporters for the non-universality of his healthcare proposal? This obviously doesn't imply the necessity of urging him to embrace mandates. But why are there no calls for Obama to augment his proposal with, say, a call to open up Medicare for all who want to join (or some other comparably progressive concept to reach universality)? Is universality really just no longer a progressive ideal? Really? Or is it rather the case that y'all understandably don't want to bloody your preferred candidate? The latter seems more likely, and, while understandable, you can hardly blame Ezra and those of us who are passionately committed to the ideal of universality for continuing to inconveniently point out your candidate's principle shortcoming. It is inconvenient for y'all, I can understand that. Just like it would be mighty inconvenient for us to have a standard bearer next year who doesn't support UHC.
Oh, and guess what: an Obama who was calling for Medicare to be opened up for anybody who wants to join would have this particular liberal dropping Hillary or Edwards like a hot potato.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 4:18:46 PM
Yes, I just re-posted the above comment from a previous thread, but apparently the party had moved on while I was furiously typing away. I hope Ezra doesn't begrudge my hogging so much of the internets.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 4:19:53 PM
Look, Krugman should at least be more fair in his attacks. There are serious problems with health care mandates. His attempts to deny that are simply fundamentally unfair. Clinton won't even discuss how her mandate is enforced. Is that being upfront and honest?
Here's part of the Obama doc:
KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Health Care Plan "Is Smart And Serious, Put Together By People Who Know What They're Doing." Paul Krugman wrote, "The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing...So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan." [New York Times, 6/4/07]
KRUGMAN NOW: "The Fundamental Weakness Of The Obama Plan Was Apparent From The Beginning." Paul Krugman wrote, "The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning." [New York Times, 11/30/07]
Posted by: ohiomeister | Dec 7, 2007 4:54:24 PM
A mandate could make insurance cheaper for everyone by forcing the young and healthy, a group that traditionally opts out of the system, to sign up. But making people buy insurance before good plans are affordable could lead more people to ignore the mandate. A mandate to buy insurance before much more is done to make it affordable would also mean even higher profits for insurance companies and bigger government subsidies to make coverage affordable.
Nor do mandates come close to guaranteeing universal coverage. The Massachusetts health care plan enacted when Republican Mitt Romney was governor mandates coverage. By the end of this month, every Massachusetts resident is supposed to be enrolled or pay a penalty.
The plan has caused some 200,000 previously uninsured people to sign up, according to the New York Times. But at least that many, and probably far more, have not. The $219 penalty in the form of a loss of the personal exemption on the state income tax was not severe enough to prompt everyone to enroll. That penalty is expected to grow to at least $1,000 next year.
The Massachusetts plan has two other problems that the presidential candidates should address. The state has had to exempt an estimated 20 percent of its population from the mandate because they can't afford to participate. And the cost of subsidizing insurance for the many low-income residents who signed up for the plan greatly exceeded predictions, and that's before the double-digit increase in rates insurers are expected to charge next year.
Government mandates have been used to force people to buy auto insurance, immunize their children, pay child support and pay workers a minimum wage. But compliance rates, according to the journal Health Affairs, are far from universal; just 77 to 85 percent for immunization and 30 percent for child support. Some studies have found that despite mandates, about 20 percent of people still don't buy auto insurance, which is why the rest have to pay extra to guard against uninsured motorists.
http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071207/OPINION/712070340/1270/NEWS97
Posted by: ohiomeister | Dec 7, 2007 4:55:07 PM
Jasper:
To answer your question in brief- it's called battered Democrat syndrome. They assume what Obama describes (for that matter Clinton on her it will take you electing me twice) is in fact reality because they assume going in they will lose, so we better lower our standards because that's "realistic." In short, their analysis is based on fear of being hit rather than on what they want to do or believe.
Posted by: akaison | Dec 7, 2007 4:55:53 PM
I'm getting a stiff neck from my head swinging to the left (Edwards), then to the right (Obama sometimes, Clinton sometimes) and then reversing again. I wonder if DSM has a number for 'pendulum neck swing'? LOL
Anyway, Obama's team (whoever they are at any given moment) and Obama himself, doesn't seem to know that there's a war going on in the Dem. party between the progressives and various forms of the middle. And he doesn't seem to know that Krugman is clearly in the progressive camp (and the one name in economics that the progressives nearly all agree with). He's going to drive folks in my camp toward either Clinton or Edwards - and he almost had me.
Every pol will triangulate on some issues, that's a given. But triangulating among the Dem positions just can't be done by adopting the words and themes of the GOP. That's a sellout - and my bet is most progressives won't be the buyers.
Inexperience counts and it shows! My conclusion at this time: Obama's not ready for prime time.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Dec 7, 2007 5:01:12 PM
"Well, it was one thing when Obama simply didn't have a mechanism to achieve universality. It became a whole other when he began criticizing mechanisms to achieve universality"
Exactamundo.
-----
What Team Obama has been up to the past couple weeks on healthcare is not only disgusting, but in terms of politics, it's costing him any real shot at the nomination.
No matter what happens in Iowa, does Team Obama really think they're going to win the eventual 2-way race for the Democratic nomination by running as the implacable opponent of universal healthcare in the field?
This has been a massive miscalculation from Team Obama all along, and they're just digging themselves in deeper into their hole.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 5:08:04 PM
It's more appropriately called empty suit rock star candidate syndrome. After all, the savior can do no wrong.
This is the left's version of the 25% who will always support Bush, no matter what.
Posted by: RalphB | Dec 7, 2007 5:10:22 PM
Obama's just managed to convince me that Clinton is a better candidate for the nomination than he is. While neither was ever my candidate of choice, I'd given their merits relative to each other some consideration and never dreamed that I'd come to this conclusion. I never thought Obama would make it so abundantly clear that he's Clinton's intellectual inferior by speaking such complete gibberish. Obama has absolutely no appeal to me at all as an intellectual lightweight, something I'm now firmly convinced he happens to be.
Posted by: Rob J | Dec 7, 2007 5:16:54 PM
"In short, their analysis is based on fear of being hit rather than on what they want to do or believe."
Isn't it time for a Democratic Party willing to show a little backbone?
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 5:19:55 PM
Think this is overwrought: as one commentator above said, Obama is defending himself, mostly by quoting his attacker. That's going off the rails?
For an intelligent, centrist voice on this debate, check out Ron Brownstein's piece on the same issue in today's LA Times/National Journal, called "Contortions Over Health Care":
http://nationaljournal.com/brownstein.htm
Short version: Obama doesn't want to talk about the need for a mandate, probably to preserve his lifeline to conservatives. But Hillary doesn't want to talk about the costs to the consumer, probably to preserve her connection with liberals. It's not a black/white issue.
Posted by: Kit Stolz | Dec 7, 2007 5:20:27 PM
"Short version: Obama doesn't want to talk about the need for a mandate, probably to preserve his lifeline to conservatives. But Hillary doesn't want to talk about the costs to the consumer, probably to preserve her connection with liberals."
And Edwards is perfectly willing to talk about the details of his plan, since he's the leader of a Democratic Party willing to show a little backbone.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 5:26:30 PM
Obama's biggest, and to me the key, flaw this campaign is his unwillingness to confront directly unless first confront directly, especially against right-wing talking points. This could be a sign that he is weak on the policy and does not know how to effectively confront them when they pop up. It could be a sign, however, that he is unwilling or unable to confront unless directly confronted because he lacks the aggression necessary. If politics is an extension of war by other means, he qualifies as a concientious objector...
Posted by: William Smith | Dec 7, 2007 5:32:39 PM
While I agree with everyone here, Obama can walk back on this when he's elected. It's bad, but it's not a disaster. Saying he's not a progressive (as if this is a definitive litmus test) is also ridiculous. He or anybody else will be "right" on some things, and not on others. I'd bet that in the long run he'd provide a decent health plan - maybe no worse than Edwards or HRC.
People here have very active imaginations.
Posted by: B Clark | Dec 7, 2007 5:46:10 PM
A mandate could make insurance cheaper for everyone by forcing the young and healthy, a group that traditionally opts out of the system, to sign up. - ohiomeister
Well, as you kinda say yourself, then a mandate certainly doesn't make insurance cheaper for the young and healthy, does it?
Let's face it: what the young and healthy need is good major medical and access (perhaps with a small monthly fee in addition to care at cost) to clinics to receive occassional (about 1-2x a year) bits and pieces of medical care. When I was a student, I had this -- I could go to the college health center when I had a bronchitis secondarily to a cold and could get major medical from some company with whom the school negotiated to provide an affordable rate.
As someone who is no longer a student, I have no access to a similar clinic nor am I part of any block with bargaining power to get a good price on major medical. I don't need fancy health insurance, though -- I can afford to pay for major medical if I could get it for a good price (which is possible due to my youthful health -- so long as I could be part of some bargaining block -- but wouldn't be possible with community rating) and I can afford to pay at least the cost of the minor medical interventions I'd need on a regular basis (and for which an "insurance" model only sometimes makes sense).
OTOH, I likely could not afford whatever insurance would be mandated. And the mandate would introduce demand inelasticity. And if you think subsidies to those of us making over 200% of the poverty line won't be killed by GOoPers complaining about "those who already have money being irresponsible and on the gummint dole" and any price controls won't be killed by those who charge the prices saying "if you don't pay us, we won't provide the coverage" (this has happened, for example, time and time again with auto-insurance companies holding states that try to regulate them hostage) -- I'd like to smoke what you're smoking.
Pace what Jasper's been saying, isn't the best way to achieve universal health care just to look at why the current system isn't providing health care to different populations and then actually, well, providing them with health care? Isn't all this talk of a one-sized fits all program enforceable by government mandate merely exactly the sort of thing that gets people mad at Democrats and voting GOP so absolutely nothing gets done?
Why not have a "single payer" (aka gummint) provide different groups of uncovered people with appropriate forms of medical care -- non-profit clinics and bargaining groups for major medical for us healthy young-uns, Medicaid you don't have to be destitute to use for others, etc. -- and then as more people realize that gummint-funded medical care ain't bad after all, we'll evolve toward the system we liberal moonbats keep sayin' we should have? Why prove true people's worst suspicions of Democrats and big, inflexible gummint by forcing people like me to pay for health care we don't need and can't afford?
Posted by: DAS | Dec 7, 2007 5:52:11 PM
The oppo doc gets no points for being correct, except a half-credit in showing that Krugman originally called Obama's plan strong, and now calls it "relatively weak."
Only a half-credit: Hillary's plan came out in the meantime, and on this one, but important issue, she triangulated in favor of something that was truly progressive and nearly as good as Edwards. Relative to that development, Obama's plan looks weaker.
All the more reason to prefer Edwards, in my mind.
Posted by: Brian Schmidt | Dec 7, 2007 5:52:18 PM
Every pol will triangulate on some issues, that's a given. But triangulating among the Dem positions just can't be done by adopting the words and themes of the GOP.
Plus, the smart thing to do is triangulate on matters of mostly symbolic importance. "Sister Souljah moment" has entered the lexicon, but a lot of people seem to think that a good way to create such a "moment" is to take a contrarian position on something like healthcare or social security. They forget that the actual Sister Souljah moment had nothing to do with anything of real import.
Obama's just managed to convince me that Clinton is a better candidate for the nomination than he is.
I am also very, very surprised to find myself there.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 5:55:48 PM
Obama loves rightwing talking points--he did it with "faith", and he did it on SS, and he did it on healthcare--it's appalling.
He's either Sister Souljah-ing us and all that Democrats hold dear, or he thinks it makes him look nonpartisan and different from other politicians. He's wrong. It makes him look like a Joe Klein.
Posted by: amberglow | Dec 7, 2007 5:56:10 PM
It seems to me that Hillary is just as vulnerable as Obama to charges of insufficient partisanship, confrontationality, etc. She may sound more tough and partisan at times, but her support for the war is concrete evidence that she's either scared of the Republicans or quietly in agreement with them on foreign policy.
The only Democratic candidate with a clear advantage on drawing clear distinctions between the parties is, of course, Edwards. Who I would wholeheartedly support if he had enough money. But I have yet to see a convincing argument that taking public financing isn't going to significantly hurt him in the general if he's the nominee.
If the race does come down to Hillary or Barack, though, I don't think it's right to say that anyone should vote for Hillary because Barack isn't enough of a partisan fighter. Hillary has her own weaknesses there.
And Barack's whole post-partisan shtick may just be an effective piece of political jujitsu. This is hardly the first time a politician has been successful by appealing to people's desire for unity and making his opponents look like they're just being negative. That's not a very effective appeal to me personally (or to many commenters here), but if it's an effective appeal to the public and gets a good, smart man elected, then I see no reason to criticize it.
Also, I second what B Clark said.
Posted by: Tom | Dec 7, 2007 5:56:35 PM
Obama's campaign has achieved full weenieism.
Yes, I read their response to Krugman.
Oy.
Just oy.
Posted by: Charles | Dec 7, 2007 5:58:08 PM
there's only one progressive running, and it ain't obama.
(athough, to be fair, dodd isn't that far off. say 1-1/2)
Posted by: dirk gently | Dec 7, 2007 5:58:40 PM
it ain't edwards, either.
Posted by: dirk gently | Dec 7, 2007 5:59:41 PM
I am getting tired of even calling an individual mandate "a method of achieving universality". It isn't. An individual mandate does not provide any health care coverage whatsoever, much less universal coverage. All it does is tell the victims of our health care system who can't afford insurance that it's their own damned fault and they better spend money they don't have buying crappy coverage from a bad HMO or else we'll arrest them or take away their tax refunds or whatever else we will do.
The only way to "achieve universality" is to COVER THE PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE COVERAGE. Now, I will make clear, this is a different argument than the argument for single payer. I support single payer, but you can also cover the people who don't have coverage by buying coverage for them on the private market.
But a mandate doesn't do either of those things, so it doesn't achieve universality in the relevant sense. The health insurance problem is not that people who could buy coverage are choosing not to. It is that people can't afford coverage and aren't getting it from their employers. If the problem were the former, it might make sense to talk about an individual mandate. But since the problem is the latter, in order for a policy to be said to "achieve universality" it must provide coverage to all the people who don't now have coverage, not turn them into criminals.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 7, 2007 6:00:34 PM
Ezra:
Obama's target is not progressivm, thus, this is not an attack on progressivm per se. This, it seems to me, is a policy dispute, not an ideological one (and it's a small dispute at that).
Think about why Obama is hitting back:
- Kerry lost (or so goes the CW) because he did not hit back hard enough, fast enough or often enough. Obama has decided he will not make that mistake.
- BTW, since when is it off-limits for one Democrat/liberal/progressive to criticize another? Are we the GO-fucking-P?
- Dusting it up with Krugman is smart because it demonstrates that he is willing to mix it up, no matter who he is disagreeing with.
- It demonstrates that Obama is not afraid to disagree, even with those in is own party.
- It will get lots of play in the NYT and in the blogs, thus drawing attention back to the Obama campaign.
- I predict that at the end of the day, Obama and Krugman will shake hands and both emerge stronger for having tussled. This does little to no damage to either of them.
- I would note that while to you and to many fellow progressives Mr. Krugman is the "most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media," to many other Americans (whose votes Obama also needs) Krugman is considered a shrill hippie leftist. Arguing with him a bit- and let's not blow this disagreement out of proportion, it is a small argument- serves to differentiate Obama from the unwashed hippie masses which they fear.
I guess the real question is why are you so fixated on mandates? It's not the only path to universality.
Posted by: nikkos | Dec 7, 2007 6:01:21 PM
Dilan Esper is a moron.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 6:03:54 PM
This, and Obama's apparent surge generally, is very, very troubling. It does not bode well for us at all, as Obama is the candidate most likely to give away an election that is ours to lose.
Democrats need to get really serious about this race really fast. People are always complaining about how "early" it is, but we're barely a month out from a handful of actual votes that will probably decide who carries the Democratic banner in 2008. There is very good reason to wonder whether Obama is ready for prime time, but we're on the verge of putting him there without even considering this question.
If Obama wasn't in the race, I think we'd see a more serious campaign. Clinton and Edwards have reasonably distinct ideological perspectives, and each would bring different electoral strengths to the ticket. It would be nice to have a forceful but rational debate over the future of the party and the different paths they represent.
But Obama is a sideshow, a candidate whose celebrity is his only rationale. It is very fitting that Oprah is campaigning for him. Obama's supporters represent a disturbing cult of personality that I do not see anywhere else (except Ron Paul). They seem to think that his very existence is somehow miraculous and that his election would be "transformative" in some ineffable, metaphysical way. Andy Sullivan's argument, essentially, which should really tell you something.
The rhetoric in Jason C's post sounds very familiar....
Wait, I know! He must have just taken an old Al From/DLC jeremiad from 2004, replaced the name "Dean" with "Obama", threw in "Clinton" in place of "Kerry", and added a couple other topical references as red herrings. Pretty clever!
Posted by: C.L. | Dec 7, 2007 6:04:20 PM
Unfortunately, I think Jim from Portland is correct, above, when he says that Obama "is not ready for prime time". I really have high hopes for my senator, but either he's getting some pretty poor advice from his team and he's not yet strong enough to run the show and is being "run" instead, or, he just doesn't know what he thinks yet.
I've watched him pretty carefully during his brief career here in Illinois. I believe he's got the right stuff, but like jello that hasn't been in the fridge long enough, his ideas have not yet jelled.
Posted by: Pope Ratzo | Dec 7, 2007 6:11:28 PM
Obama loves rightwing talking points--he did it with "faith", and he did it on SS, and he did it on healthcare--it's appalling.
Bingo.
Obama is dead to me. I'd rather vote for the Eisenhowerish Hillary before I'd vote for the Hunt Brothers oriented Obama.
Posted by: Apprentice to Darth Holden | Dec 7, 2007 6:15:52 PM
Dilan Esper is a moron.
Way to rebut my argument, Petey.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 7, 2007 6:16:43 PM
Obama is going to become the Google of the presidential candidates in 2008...watch for him to really take off and win the nomination by a BIG margin...and I expect Obama to defeat any candidate that the GOP decides to nominate -- this is "a change election" and Obama is positioned very well.
Posted by: techinvestor | Dec 7, 2007 6:19:14 PM
Having now read the Obama website's "attack" on Paul Krugman, I read it as not so much an attack, but rather an effort to blunt Krugman's criticism by putting it in context. Obama doesn't say anything that reflects badly on Krugman -- he just points to some positive stuff that Krugman said about his health care plan a few months ago, in the hope that it will make Krugman's recent criticisms seem like less of a big deal.
I think the Obama response is misleading and unpersuasive to anyone who's actually read the relevant Krugman columns, but I wouldn't call it an "attack."
Posted by: Tom | Dec 7, 2007 6:20:49 PM
"He backed measures banning discrimination against gays while in the state legislature, and supports repealing don't ask don't tell in the military. You're really grasping at straws trying to make him out to be viciously anti-gay, and he's not.
Posted by: mad6798j | Dec 7, 2007 3:53:55 PM"
Nobody said or implied that Obama is viciously anti-gay. He's just a slimy weasel who will throw teh gays under the bus in order to appeal to the viciously anti-gay South Carolinians. He's a sell out with no moral convictions at all. Besides being a creep, the execution of that precious little strategem was pathetic and incompetent. He should be running as the Connecticut for Lieberman nomination.
Posted by: jussumbody | Dec 7, 2007 6:21:09 PM
For all its talk of 'new politics' and looking forward, Obama's campaign is bizarrely retro in so many ways, not least its attempt to establish Village bona fides.
Posted by: pseudonymous in nc | Dec 7, 2007 6:21:20 PM
Why not have a "single payer" (aka gummint) provide different groups of uncovered people with appropriate forms of medical care -- non-profit clinics and bargaining groups for major medical for us healthy young-uns, Medicaid you don't have to be destitute to use for others, etc...
Why not? But this doesn't sound like anything Obama's offering.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 6:21:58 PM
Oh, the smell of blood, here come the hyenas agrinning.
Posted by: Donna | Dec 7, 2007 6:27:00 PM
Lets see who's supporting Obama...Oprah, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the founders and CEO of Google, George Soros, Many of the smartest venture capital investors from all over North America, John Kennedy's former speech writer, and the list goes on and on...These folks know how to identify top talent and it's becoming clear that Obama's the best candidate for President in 2008.
Posted by: techinvestor | Dec 7, 2007 6:29:16 PM
I support single payer, but you can also cover the people who don't have coverage by buying coverage for them on the private market...But a mandate doesn't do either of those things, so it doesn't achieve universality in the relevant sense.
Dilan Esper: Of course "a mandate" doesn't do either of those things. But "a mandate featuring generous subsidies and other policies to address affordability " does achieve universality, especially if combined with Edwards-style automatic enrollment.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 6:33:09 PM
Techinvestor, it seems like a mistake to cite a list of very rich corporate supporters as a reason for anybody to support Obama. Surely it would be easy to make a rather longer list of similar people who support Republicans. And there are better reasons to support Obama.
Posted by: Tom | Dec 7, 2007 6:35:07 PM
Al Gore, are you listening?
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 6:37:54 PM
The Obama oppo mimics the horrible Ruth Marcus oped in the WaPo a week or two ago. The whole point is to destroy Krugman's credibility. That's Obama's modus operandi - he doesn't seem to care who or what he destroys if it gets in his way.
At this point, I think I'd take Edwards.
Posted by: Bloix | Dec 7, 2007 6:38:48 PM
For all its talk of 'new politics' and looking forward, Obama's campaign is bizarrely retro in so many ways, not least its attempt to establish Village bona fides.
Talking about 'new politics' is itself an old tactic -- as is establishing one's bona fides with the still-indispensable mainstream media. I don't see a problem here -- just normal tactics.
He's just a slimy weasel who will throw teh gays under the bus in order to appeal to the viciously anti-gay South Carolinians. He's a sell out with no moral convictions at all. Besides being a creep...
Yikes. Um, what exactly did he do to deserve this tirade? No moral convictions at all? Years spent in community organizing, and opposing the war when it was popular, those aren't evidence of moral convictions?
Posted by: Tom | Dec 7, 2007 6:38:55 PM
Obama is...and always has been...a McGuffin...a red herring...a lure...a decoy. His only purpose was to be a bright shimmering new face...a place where people who did not like Clinton could be rendered harmless...actually, I think it's pretty funny he's got so many anti-Clinton Democrats to drain their wallets into the sea. Hill and Bill talked this guy up for a reason, I may not like Hill & Bill, but they did manage to snooker the progressives in the Democratic party and most of them haven't figured it out yet.
Posted by: S Brennan | Dec 7, 2007 6:40:18 PM
"Way to rebut my argument, Petey."
Jasper's comment at 6:33 PM had the patience to answer your red herrings that I lacked.
And to repeat myself, if you actually believe the nonsense you're spouting here, you're a moron, Dilan Esper.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 6:52:28 PM
Geez.... Okay, will it mark me as hopelessly square if I asked all these people who are really, really convinced that Obama is spreading all these dastardly right-wing talking points actually to point to some evidence? Krugman's been running this train for a couple of weeks now, and one thing I've yet to see in his columns or on his blog is a quote from Obama that clearly supports the thesis. On the supposed Social Security crisis gaffe, e.g., it's pretty clear that Krugman's just pissed off at the use of the word "crisis" and doesn't care what Obama actually said. On the mandate question, I've yet to see a quote from Obama that's not ambiguous or completely irrelevant---we just have Krugman's assertion that Obama is spreading the right-wing perspective. Is it too cute to suggest that if Krugman had the evidence he woulda shown it by now? Krugman's usually "the most progressive voice in American media," but he's usually better than this, too.
Posted by: Jack Roy | Dec 7, 2007 6:53:28 PM
"Yikes. Um, what exactly did he do to deserve this tirade?"
What Obama's done to deserve that tirade is spending the last few weeks arguing against universal healthcare using right-wing talking points.
The tirade is over the top. I don't think Obama is a bad guy. As of a few weeks ago, he was clearly my second choice behind Edwards.
But if you don't understand that trying to slime universal healthcare is going earn Obama some serious enmity in the progressive community and in the Democratic Party, you've got a lot to learn about lefty politics.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 6:57:24 PM
Dilan Esper: Of course "a mandate" doesn't do either of those things. But "a mandate featuring generous subsidies and other policies to address affordability " does achieve universality, especially if combined with Edwards-style automatic enrollment.
No. A mandate coupled with a subsidy that was large enough to ensure that no American spends one dollar he or she cannot afford and which ensures that the health care coverage that is purchased is adequate (i.e., comparable to generous employer-paid plans, not crappy HMO's that deny coverage) would achieve universality.
Anything less than that, however, would not do so. And what Edwards and Clinton are proposing is quite a bit less than that. It is all about forcing the poor to purchase crappy policies, with subsidies that may or may not get cut each year (especially when the Republicans get some power again).
Mandates blame the victim. And they set up a program that will almost surely screw the poor, because the same political system that you guys say will never get us to single payer will also never give the poor enough money that they can actually comply with the mandate AND obtain decent health care.
And, it is simply immoral to require a poor person to purchase a health insurance policy, rather than simply taxing a rich person and paying for the poor person's medical bills.
So Obama is closer to the liberal position because he opposes blaming the poor for the health care crisis. Hillary, as usual, just wants to funnel our money to corporate America by forcing us to give it to avaricious health insurance executives.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 7, 2007 7:00:37 PM
"Paul Krugman. Arguably the most progressive voice in American media"
Oh Jeezuz.
Posted by: seth edenbaum | Dec 7, 2007 7:09:08 PM
"And, it is simply immoral to require a poor person to purchase a health insurance policy"
But, of course, Edwards budgets $120 billion / yr for subsidies so the poor will get healthcare coverage for free.
Even the Obama campaign isn't trotting out this kind of slimy garbage.
Are you a moron or a liar, Dilar Espar?
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 7:09:23 PM
Obama was in hole and he continued digging. Instead of gracefully accepting yes a mandate may be required he started defending the indefensible and Krug took him apart.
Posted by: John | Dec 7, 2007 7:15:13 PM
But, of course, Edwards budgets $120 billion / yr for subsidies so the poor will get healthcare coverage for free.
Even the Obama campaign isn't trotting out this kind of slimy garbage.
Are you a moron or a liar, Dilar Espar?
1. I don't trust Edwards. The whole reason nobody wants to simply provide the insurance through the government is because they are afraid of raising taxes. So we are to believe that Edwards will raise taxes to pay for the health subsidies. He will bargain away the subsidies and keep the mandate, because the insurance companies love that part.
2. There's a big problem with defining what people are entitled to in terms of money (i.e., subsidies) rather than coverage. If you define it in terms of money, the subsidies will be cut the next time the Republicans control either the Congress or the Presidency. Further, even if there are no budget cuts, the subsidies won't keep up with costs. And that will mean that the poor will be forced by the mandate to buy ever more crappy coverage from HMO's which will be engaged in hyper-cost cutting and coverage denials to ensure that the coverage can be provided at the subsidy level.
This is one BIG reason you have to have the government pay for the coverage directly-- whether through private companies or a single payer. Then, the entitlement is defined in terms of its BENEFIT-- a certain level of health care coverate-- rather than a sum of money. And that makes it harder to cut, just like Medicare.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 7, 2007 7:22:02 PM
A mandate coupled with a subsidy that was large enough to ensure that no American spends one dollar he or she cannot afford and which ensures that the health care coverage that is purchased is adequate...
And hopefully the legislation that reaches the desk of the next Democratic president contains provisions that guarantee nobody spends "one dollar he or she cannot afford." Why the utterly gloomy defeatism, months and months before we even get a Democrat elected, much less see the first draft of the "Univeral Health Care Act of 2009?" And obviously, "a dollar he/she cannot afford" is not synonymous with "a dollar he/she does not want to spend."
It is all about forcing the poor to purchase crappy policies, with subsidies that may or may not get cut each year...
Why must you keep using scare terms like "crappy policies?" Why most private insurance be crappy? You seem not so much ideologically opposed to mandates per se, as ideologically opposed to the very existence of private health insurance. You do know private insurers play prominent roles in the healthcare systems of such UHC-equipped countries as Britain, France, Australia, Holland, Switzerland, and Germany, don't you? I don't think private health insurance sucks per se, I think poorly-regulated, American-style health insurance often sucks. Hopefully legislation coming to a Democratic administration near you will impose some much overdue regulation of the health insurance industry -- that is if we don't go to pieces over the fact that America's political culture ain't identical to Denmark's.
...(especially when the Republicans get some power again).
This, in my mind, is the single greatest danger with the Obama approach: we fail to lock in truly universal health care coverage while the opportunity is there, and then, two or three years down the road, when the GOP is again on the upswing, getting everybody covered will no longer be feasible.
And, it is simply immoral to require a poor person to purchase a health insurance policy, rather than simply taxing a rich person and paying for the poor person's medical bills.
Not if said poor person's purchase is subsidized to the point where the cost is nominal. I mean, most liberals I know would rejoice if this country adopted "Medicare for all" even if some of the cost were financed with consumption taxes or increased payroll taxes. Would, that, too, be "immoral" because some of the people asked to help pay for it happened not to be rich?
Hillary, as usual, just wants to funnel our money to corporate America by forcing us to give it to avaricious health insurance executives.
You do realize, don't you, that the vast majority of persons on the health insurance industry's $30 billion payroll are Just Plain Folks? I foresee pink slips for lots of these people in the fullness of time, but I'm not sufficiently convinced of my moral superiority to demand their firing this very instant as a matter of policy.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 7:36:43 PM
When Obama's plan came out, Krugman, and me, and Jon Cohn, and all the usual suspects criticized it for lacking an individual mandate, but said that, on the overall, it was pretty good, and Obama had passed the bar. Suddenly, we're all up in arms. Why?
You all read "The Princess and the Pea" in your book circle and now identify with the Princess?
Seriously, you have a disagreement on a policy detail and don't like Obama's rhetoric, not his substance, his rhetoric. That's not a big disagreement in the scope of things unless you are an uber-wonk. People without healthcare tend to understand Obama's "here's a cheap pool, jump in" approach a lot more than the Clinton/Edwards/Krugman/Klein "Congrats, I've mandated you have health care. Now pay me $660/month or you're in big trouble!" approach. As far as I can tell from reading your own Health of Nations piece on Germany people making over $40,000 are exempted from the mandate and Germany still manages to have 99.8% with health coverage. This dispute is much ado about nothing IMHO. Unless you wonk for a living.
Posted by: joejoejoe | Dec 7, 2007 7:37:46 PM
techinvestor,
Bill Gates and fellow microsofties supported Bush II in 2000 because they thought the Clinton justice department should NOT enforce anti-trust laws on the books, the fact that Bill now support Obama should be a harbinger of ill tidings.
Posted by: S Brennan | Dec 7, 2007 7:38:44 PM
"I don't trust Edwards."
So you're willing to lie about the Edwards plan because you don't trust him?
O....K....
"the subsidies will be cut the next time the Republicans control either the Congress or the Presidency."
Sorta like how the Social Security subsidies for low income earners have been cut during the times Republicans have controlled either the Congress or the Presidency between 1935 and 2007? Oh, that's right, they haven't.
You may think universal government programs are unpopular and vulnerable, Dilan Esper, but that just seems to be part of why you're a moron.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 7:39:39 PM
"Not if said poor person's purchase is subsidized to the point where the cost is nominal."
Just to be clear, under the Edwards plan, the cost for the poor to "purchase" healthcare will not be nominal, it will be free. The cost for the near-poor will be nominal.
And unlike Clinton, Edwards is willing to specify exactly where he's going to raise the money to fund the subsidies.
Posted by: Petey | Dec 7, 2007 7:43:26 PM
As far as I can tell from reading your own Health of Nations piece on Germany people making over $40,000 are exempted from the mandate and Germany still manages to have 99.8% with health coverage.
The comparison is not quite apt. Per Ezra's post, the $40,000 exemption in Germany (this was in 2005, the amount may be higher now) is an exemption from the necessity of joining a wellness fund. The presumption is that most people who aren't required to be members of a fund will nonetheless purchase private health insurance, or otherwise (in the case of the very wealthy) pay out of pocket.
Still, I don' think most of us who favor mandates as a means to universality would have a huge problem if a president Clinton's or Edwards's legislation likewise contained an opt-out for people with higher incomes. But, in the US, due to somewhat higher levels of wealth and much higher medical costs, the opt-out would have to be set higher -- say, $150,000. And at that level it's unlikely most people would be financially imprudent enough not to buy health insurance. And if they were, they'd likely have sufficient wealth to pay out of pocket. Not that any of this is particularly relevant, because I doubt America's political culture will allow passage of a bill that requires everybody to have coverage, except the well-to-do.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 7:53:59 PM
Well, you have a point here. I don't really like Obama's attempts to defend his health care plan either. But honestly I think the whole thing has been blown up out of proportion. Some people in the thread are really going off the rail.
Posted by: Korha | Dec 7, 2007 8:12:26 PM
The rhetoric in Jason C's post sounds very familiar....
Wait, I know! He must have just taken an old Al From/DLC jeremiad from 2004, replaced the name "Dean" with "Obama", threw in "Clinton" in place of "Kerry", and added a couple other topical references as red herrings. Pretty clever!
Not quite! Obama is in many ways the anti-Dean. Who the hell heard of Howard Dean before he started running for president? His support was driven almost entirely by two things: (1) policy - he (and only he) was right on the biggest issue of the day, Iraq; and (2) he was willing to throw elbows with the Republicans.
Now, Obama was also right on Iraq back in 2003, to his credit. But his position now is essentially the same as everybody else's. So that is not driving his candidacy. And unlike Dean, he's not really a fighter.
Dean was unpolished and willing to say things other candidates weren't. The Obama phenomenon is entirely a function of his celebrity, period.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 8:30:25 PM
But honestly I think the whole thing has been blown up out of proportion. Some people in the thread are really going off the rail.
On the off chance this is referring to anything I wrote, I would just like to say for the record that my feelings about Obama cemented before I ever heard about this thing.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 8:32:10 PM
Whatever plan that the final candidate adopts will have to be sold to the American people, because, in the end, congress won't do anything to offend Big Insurance unless there is a high approval rating for whatever plan is proposed. There is only one plan that is simple enough, broad enough and does not threaten the average persons pocketbook, and that is Single Payer. It is easy to explain, easy to illustrate (most people have someone in their family w/ Medicare) and easy to justify. Anybody that remembers hillarycare will know how easily the insurance industry will take apart any other plan.
Posted by: john in california | Dec 7, 2007 8:37:37 PM
Ezra,
I have been reading your writing since you were with Pandagon, and your current blog remains for me a daily must read. (And btw, congratulations on your blog's move to the American Prospect!)
However, after reading this reported "oppo-document" that the Obama campaign put together on Paul Krugman.....I really don't understand why you believed it was such a big deal.
From what I can tell, Obama's campaign is not attacking Mr. Krugman, but rather pointing out that he has been inconsistent in his two (published) assessments of Obama's health care plan. The post doesn't say one word against Mr. Krugman personally nor is it particularly mean. The Obama campaign is simply pointing out that Krugman's recent attacks on Obama's plan are inconsistent with what he said about the same plan back in June.
It seems that much of the criticism against Obama in the comments above are being made by people who did not like him (or prefer him as a candidate) in the first place; but who, after hearing about his campaign's supposed attack on Krugman (Obama goes "on the offensive" against "the most forthrightly progressive voice in major American media"), are reflexively jumping all over him. And for what I can tell by reading the Obama camp's criticisms, they appear entirely fair and certainly not worthy of the vitriol being sent Obama's way.
Krugman has now written two negative articles on Obama over just the past couple of weeks, using (I think) a somewhat accusatory and arrogant tone in both (and I say this as an admirer of Mr. Krugman's work). I personally think the whole Social Security thing was blown WAY out of proportion- and Krugman contributed a great deal to that. (I understand that people commenting here will disagree, however, that is probably how the Obama campaign viewed those pieces as well.)
Krugman's op-eds are WIDELY read, especially by those who tend to vote in high numbers; if the Obama campaign believes that Krugman is being blatantly inconsistent (and perhaps, disingenuous?), then why are they so wrong for pointing this out?
And I feel I need to say this, because Obama supporters get accused of this all the time in comment threads: No, I don't think Obama is perfect and he certainly IS NOT above criticism. I just thought that your (Ezra's) view that Obama was "going on the offensive" against Krugman with "oppo-research" was a wild exaggeration. Is it really considered "oppo-research" to compare one op-ed to another? And is it really going on the offensive to compare what a writer said last week with what he said a few months ago?
In any case, having said that.....best of luck with your move Ezra. I look forward to visiting your new digs over at the Prospect.
Posted by: Aaron M | Dec 7, 2007 8:43:40 PM
john in california: You dreamer you. While single-payer would be the best way to go, there are still too many people in this country who think government is the problem to ever sell it.
Don't believe that, ask your friends at work who's willing to give up their private insurance to enroll in a gubmint run plan. If your compatriots are anything like mine, the answer won't be pretty.
Posted by: RalphB | Dec 7, 2007 8:44:09 PM
Aaron M: It's disingenuous when you cherry pick from a previous Krugman column to change it's original meaning. See my earlier comment containing "timidity of hope" from his original column for an illustration of who is being disingenuous. Hint: It's not Paul Krugman.
Posted by: RalphB | Dec 7, 2007 8:49:30 PM
You may think universal government programs are unpopular and vulnerable, Dilan Esper, but that just seems to be part of why you're a moron.
I wouldn't claim, as you seem to be claiming, that any "universal" government program is going to be popular, and I certainly wouldn't claim that the subsidy element of the Edwards/Clinton plan is "universal".
First, on universal government programs, you might want to educate yourself about Medicare's catastrophic care coverage, which was so unpopular that seniors demanded a repeal just a couple of years after it was passed.
Second, even if we believe that universal programs will never be touched, the Edwards/Clinton subsidies are not universal. They are-- and will be seen-- as programs for the poor. Indeed, they are designed that way-- to ensure that we don't have to touch people's existing coverage, we create a plan to give the poor coverage without touching people who are already insured.
Well, that's just asking for it, isn't it? You truly don't believe that this won't turn into a second version of Medicaid, which is already cut to the bone every time the Republicans get a chance?
And Medicaid is a great example of what happens to this sort of health program. You see, the Republicans have forced a lot of Medicaid to be delivered through the private sector. And those private sector health plans have to be of the crappy, cost-cutting types, because thanks to Republican budget cutting, Medicaid dosn't pay enough.
Indeed, it is EASY to screw over the recipients of the Edwards / Clinton health plan, because you don't even have to cut funds. Just don't raise them at the level of health care cost inflation (which exceeds inflation in the rest of the economy by quite a bit). It's bound to fail, because when you define the benefit in terms of a monetary subsidy, it can be cut without people directly and immediately seeing what is being cut.
And in response to Jasper, it isn't that I hate private health coverage-- though an insurance company adds NOTHING to the equation. It would be ideal to cut out the middleman as much as possible. I also think it is ridiculous to think of health care spending as a jobs program for people in the insurance industry.
Nonetheless, what I do think is really bad is the sort of low-end HMO coverage that many of the lower wage full time workers get in this country. It stinks. It is all about cost-cutting through denials of coverage, red tape, waiting times, and everything other than delivering care to the patient.
And my vision of what we should provide to the poor isn't that sort of policy. Again, if you want to provide high-end private care to them, I don't have a MORAL objection to that; I just think it will end up costing more than having the government do it itself, and that's why the government does it itself in the Medicare system.
My moral objections are to: (1) providing crappy care to poor people, which is an almost guaranteed result of Edwards/Clinton approach, despite their claims, and (2) blaming people who can't afford insurance for their own predicament, and making THEM criminals rather than going after the actors should actually be responsible.
Posted by: Dilan Esper | Dec 7, 2007 8:51:00 PM
The Obama phenomenon is entirely a function of his celebrity
I don't understand this. Hillary was a celebrity (First Lady) before she was a senator. Obama, to the extent he is a celebrity, became one by giving a very good speech at the Democratic Convention when he was already a state senator and the party's nominee for a U.S. Senate seat. Obama isn't someone who was already a celebrity and decided to use that to run for political office (see, e.g., Schwarzenegger, Franken, Ventura) -- he is someone who became something of a celebrity because he did a good job of being a politician. It's hard to see how that's a strike against him.
Posted by: Tom | Dec 7, 2007 8:51:00 PM
There is only one plan that is simple enough, broad enough and does not threaten the average persons pocketbook, and that is Single Payer.
It's touchingly naive of you to suppose Big Insurance won't convince millions of people that Single Payer is an evil communistic plot to take away their insurance. That's because there would be more than just a grain of truth to their scare tactics: single payer would take away from millions of people the private insurance plans they're happy with. Can you honestly envision an alternate universe whereby hundreds of thousands of employers fail to take advantage of the increase to their profits that being able to drop health insurance would represent?
The easiest path to single payer, or some other version of taxpayer supported UHC, is: UHC attained by an individual mandate with subsidies, and then, in a few years, take advantage of the accompanying shakeup in the private health insurance market to change the law and require Medicare to accept everybody who wants to join. I think we can get to taxpayer-supported UHC, and I think we can get to it fairly soon, I just don't think we can get it as the initial stage of comprehensive reform.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 8:53:36 PM
I can understand Obama wanting to clarify his position, and emphasize what he sees as important selling points for whatever target demo he needs (this was obviously not for the prog left), but it is curious that he was deliberately confrontational with the presentation of his clarification. Not sure why he would see Krugman as the enemy. Why wouldn't he co-opt Krugman instead, and solidify his base?
My guess is that he's counting on conservative-independent left voters to swing him through New Hampshire, and this is tactical. We need some talking heads to explain this to us.
But those who keep referring HRC seem to ignore her equally odious positions on our presence in Iraq. How can Obama be so bad and HRC so good? That just doesn't fly from my perspective.
Posted by: Goldcap | Dec 7, 2007 9:05:25 PM
NEWSFLASH: While you all are tussling about in your liberal sub-universe about health care plans that are never going to pass the Congress in the first place, Barack Obama is taking the lead in the early states.
P.S. I never even HEARD of Paul Krugman before, and most of America hasn't.
P.S.S. The reason so many people are mad at Obama is because he hasn't paid his dues and kissed the appropriate a## of the Democratic elite. It's not about you folks, it's about the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Your hyper micro viewpoints are out of touch with reality.
Posted by: Tired of all the drama | Dec 7, 2007 9:06:52 PM
Since I disagree with both Obama and Hillary/Edwards' plans perhaps I can give a more impartial assessment of the Krugman v. Obama feud.
Obama has proposed a pragmatic solution to the issue of health care. When his plan was introduced in June it was the first realistic initiative by a major contender. Criticizing his plan for being too moderate in June would have appeared radical. So instead he praised the plan without getting involved in detail. Once Clinton's plan was introduced it is only natural he would favour the more liberal approach. It would be like choosing the nicest car and if a better car were to come along to choose it instead. I am sure if a plan were raised which more towards the left (my limited imagination cannot go so far) Krugman would be behind it instead.
As Krugman has claimed universal health care is a moral responsibility but what does an economist know about morality. Krugman should stick to what he knows and tell the people what the economic costs/benefits of any policy are. Let the people decide whether it is moral or not.
Posted by: Alexander | Dec 7, 2007 9:07:43 PM
I'm glad Obama addressed Krugman's columns.
I've been really dissapointed in Krugman's attacks on Obama. And yes, to me accusing a dem candidate of "republican talking points" is an insult.
I am GLAD Obama wants to make sure SS is there when i retire in 30 years. Should we wait to act until everyone agrees it is in CRISIS??? Let's try to avoid that, eh?
As far as healthcare, when attacking Obama's plan, Krugman could at LEAST state the truth, plain and simple, that the mandate proposed by the others, is a law to force people to buy insurance. It's not a mandate that someone is gonna give you insurance. I don't see why Krugman and the rest of the media lets Hillary and Edwards get away with calling their plans "universal healthcare" when there plans are really just universal insurance mandates.
A mandate is a crummy idea that will put undue strain on middle class families who make too much $ to qualify for the government programs, but make too little $ to be able to afford the $12,000 a year a private health insurance plan costs.
If Krugman were going to be UNBIASED in his blogs, he would point out the truth, that even a MANDATE won't cover everyone, if they still can't afford insurance.
I'm sick of Krugman furthering the myths of Clinton's and Edwards plans, the myth that they have a single payer universal healthcare plan like Kucinich. They don't. I'm also sick of people like Krugman, who HAVE INSURANCE telling those of us who can't afford it, that we just need to be forced with a mandate, and it'll all be ok.
Posted by: julie | Dec 7, 2007 9:16:18 PM
Jasper - I understand in Germany the lack of a mandate is at the opposite end of the income spectrum but between Medicaid tweaks and SCHIP expanion (kids up to age 25) I think you can get somewhere close (say 75%) to the $40K threshold of mandated coverage found in the German system. I shouldn't have been so snarky above because I've learned so much of this stuff from Ezra's writing but I see this argument as being almost entirely about politics and NOT policy. In that arena it's Obama, not Ezra or Krugman, that has the track record of getting things passed and negotiating obstacles. I think his record should be respected and it's a grave mistake to get into some Lakoffian detour about rhetoric. The '05 Social Security debate (newly reelected GOP president, GOP-led Congress) is entirely different terrain from future battles and too many on the left (Krugman for one) are assuming that terrain as the playing field now and that is just flat wrong. Adding the false assumption about Obama's "GOP rhetoric" (he's saying $97,000 isn't middle class - some GOP talking point!) to the policy discussion about health care mandates doesn't seem like the most logical approach. The complaints about Obama coming from some brilliant people on the left sound like Frankenstein reacting to fire and just as smart.
Here's how I analyzed the politics of Obama's plan (at Dohiyi Mir) when Krugman first criticized it in June '07:
While brilliant, Krugman isn't a politician. The best plan can be brought down by effective opposition and the opposition to ANY fundamental changes to our healthcare system will be well funded and well organized. Obama's plan has a modest approach but I also believe it's the hardest to knock down. And it was only Obama last night who spoke about introducing his healthcare plans in his first 100 days.
Think of John Edwards plan like it's running back Herschel Walker. If you were going to design a running back in a lab you would probably design Herschel Walker - 6'1", 225, sprinter speed, strong as can be. But you don't play football in a lab. Walker ran a bit too upright and didn't have a low center of gravity. Barry Sanders was about 5'8", 205, not as fast and were incredibly hard to knock down. And a better running back.
Obama's plan doesn't look great on paper, it's basically SCHIP for all kids, a giant pool, some more insurance regs and funding to modernize medical record keeping - but how do you knock it down? I'd rather have a 90% chance of 95% coverage in 2009 than a 70% chance of 100% coverage in 2011. Obama could introduce his plan as 3 stand alone pieces, SCHIP for kids, the digital records funding, and then the Health Insurance Exchange (the big pool) + stricter regulations. That's simple and easy to mobilize support behind.
Obama's plan looks short and squat but it's hard to knock down and that's beautiful to me.
It's still looking good to me and I don't have health care. I'll take 90% of a loaf in '09 instead of a promise of something in 2011.
Posted by: joejoejoe | Dec 7, 2007 9:17:41 PM
I am GLAD Obama wants to make sure SS is there when i retire in 30 years. Should we wait to act until everyone agrees it is in CRISIS???
Yes. Of course we should wait. Probably another fifteen years, when the by then necessary injection of cash from the general fund required to pay for Social Security begins to become burdensome. At that time we can calmly discuss the extremely modest changes necessary for Social Security's future. This is progressive politics 101, Julie. It's a pity Obama got rolled by the right wing on that one, just as he's getting rolled with respect to healthcare.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 9:23:03 PM
By the way, John (previous poster),
Obama DID "gracefully accept, 'yes a mandate may be required", but he said he wouldn't consider a mandate until after health costs were lower, and then access that situation.
Like alot of things, Obama is RIGHT- that people aren't without insurance because they WANT to be, but because they can't afford the high premiums.
People who think a mandating people to buy insurance is good idea, have obviously never been in the unfortunate situation of not having it, and not being able to afford it.
Posted by: julie | Dec 7, 2007 9:24:24 PM
Ezra, for Pete's sake, please lay off Obama. We're begging you. Petey lays out a dandy defense of John Edwards' mandate in the comments by demonstrating that, in theory, his specified subsidies are going to force poor people into bankruptcy to purchase health care, but he doesn't try to do that with Hilary Clinton, because we have no idea what kind of regressive deal she's going to cut with Republicans.
Meanwhile, Edwards has no chance of getting elected. What you and Paul Krugman are doing is, basically, fighting to hand over the Democratic nomination to Hilary Clinton - who has an unbroken track record of pre-emptively caving on every imaginable policy issue to Republicans - Iraq, Iran, civil liberties, FISA, global warming, you name it. Someone wouldn't know how to "come out swinging" if her life depended on it.
Seriously, I hope you remember this spell of insanity when Rudy Guliani is being inaugurated with a serious sense of regret. You're tossing the whole presidency out the window by trashing Obama over a teensy healthcare policy dispute, one in which lots of progressive democrats disagree with you and agree with Obama.
You've lost perspective on this, convinced yourself that the lack of a mandate endangers the whole health-care plan on nothing more than speculation and projections. I'm not a hundred-year-expert, but I think the *existence* of a mandate endangers the whole health care plan, for political reasons.
Agitate for mandates if you must, but don't demonize Barack Obama for an honest disagreement with you about the best way to improve health care for poor folk. Don't make this into a piss*ng contest.
Posted by: glasnost | Dec 7, 2007 9:26:13 PM
Why on earth does Ezra revere Krugman so much????
Because Krugman has a much better track record than Obama. (Or you, for that matter.)
How dare Obama to criticize the gospel of Krugman.
Especially when Obama's reinforcing right-wing bullshit points about Social Security. (Wanna see just how bullshitty? Click here.)
Posted by: Phoenix Woman | Dec 7, 2007 9:26:16 PM
"Previously, he'd gotten some flack for buying into the conservative argument that Social Security was in crisis."
It's interesting that you keep saying that, since BILL CLINTON said social security was in crisis before he left office.
Posted by: jen | Dec 7, 2007 9:28:21 PM
Remember these lines from Cohn's piece:
"It's true that nobody knows exactly just how much impact a mandate would have. But if it would be wrong to have blind faith in mandates, it would be even more wrong to discount them."
(after which he proceeds to discuss why the evidence suggests that a mandate "offers the best prospects for getting [to UHC]")
Obama has NOT discounted mandates; he's explicitly stated that he would consider them if it appeared his plan was not working.
I think we are witnessing the mandate issue becoming a purity litmus test: who is REALLY committed to universal health care (presumably, Edwards & Clinton) and who is just a shill (Obama). But all are committed to UHC; the devil is in the details, so this picture is distorted.
What we need from Obama is a more comprehensive account of why foregoing the mandate option at this point is smarter politics
What we need from others interested in an honest dewbate is less grandstanding and insistence that mandates are an issue to hang your soul on; especially in light of what all agree to be considerable uncertainty and unpredictability as to what difference in practice a mandate will make (not to mention extreme wonkishness surrounding this issue).
Posted by: eli | Dec 7, 2007 9:31:57 PM
People who think a mandating people to buy insurance is good idea, have obviously never been in the unfortunate situation of not having it, and not being able to afford it.
Julie: that's bullshit. I've been without health insurance before. Very recently, as a matter of fact. And I think a reform plan with a mandate -- while not as desirable as taxpayer-supported UHC -- is superior to one without, at least if it's bolstered by serious subsidies and out of pocket caps.
Why? Because the "we'll do mandates later on down the road if they're necessary" approach favored by Obama risks squandering the probably narrow window of opportunity to get us to universal coverage. There's no guarantee that the political climate that allows us to enact major reforms in 2009 is still around in, say, 2012. In fact there's every reason to believe it won't be still around.
Ezra, for Pete's sake, please lay off Obama. We're begging you.
Ezra: I urge you to continue. Some things are worth fighting for. Universal coverage used to be one of them. At least for Democrats. How about instead of asking Ezra to lay off, you all lay on the Obama campaign to augment his healthcare plan to make it universal? An augmentation need not be construed as "flip-flopping."
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 9:40:49 PM
There's two ways to look at Obama's comments on SS & health mandates: 1) he's not media savy & has no sense of framing or 2) these are Sister Souljah moments to convince the public he's a moderate. I believe its a mixture of both. Obama's campaign has been a cult of personality, the man of the hour.
A large part of his campaign has centered on making a black candidate acceptable to the great white middle voting pool. Thus, he dwells on working together, using a bipartisan approach. To offer reassurance, he adopts the conservative frames - SS is in crisis, the govt is going to adopt mandates & take away our freedoms. These public postures will make it difficult for him to do the heavy lifting if he should win the presidency. And thus we'll be left with Republican light programs.
Posted by: Carter | Dec 7, 2007 9:46:03 PM
Obama is harming the effort to get universal health care. Krugman is right.
Great post, Ezra. Have you noticed that when Obama "takes the gloves off," it's always progressives he attacks?
Posted by: Tom Wells | Dec 7, 2007 9:54:23 PM
Obama is a Trojan horse. Progressives ought to beware.
.
Posted by: pluege | Dec 7, 2007 9:57:15 PM
Krugman is right. Clearly. You play from strength or you don't play at all. Obama is giving ammunition to republican hacks. And his response now is stupid.
But Krugman has never been "the most progressive voice in American media." That's equally absurd. His history is as a free trader.
A pox on all your houses.
Grow up.
Posted by: s.e. | Dec 7, 2007 9:58:28 PM
I think the Obama response is misleading and unpersuasive to anyone who's actually read the relevant Krugman columns, but I wouldn't call it an "attack."
It's worse than an attack and worse than misleading. It demands revision of a well known aphorism: It's better to be though intelligent than to open one's mouth and prove oneself a fool.
Obama and whoever is advising him on health care policy are talking at length on subjects for which they clearly lack any understanding. Obama's claim that his plan would cover more people than a plan with a mandate is libertarian flat-earther in terms of its economic illiteracy. Obama's way over his head on health care and hasn't the wisdom to choose advisers sufficient to make a difference. He's shown that the fact that his health care plan is merely mediocre rather than awful has little to do with his ability to think through policy and a lot to do with his plan being the minimum acceptable from a serious Democratic candidate.
I want a candidate who can and will teach himself sufficient economics to be able to understand and develop good policy, not an incurious, unintellectual lightweight who settles for appeals to the least common denominator on matters he doesn't immediately understand in depth.
Posted by: Rob J | Dec 7, 2007 10:00:32 PM
But those who keep referring HRC seem to ignore her equally odious positions on our presence in Iraq. How can Obama be so bad and HRC so good?
Goldcap
The RW noise machine has successfully branded Hillary as a dye in the wool liberal. To counter this image, Hillary has been presenting herself as tough in the foreign area. This is an important image for a woman candidate, given the popular stereotype of women being softies.
Posted by: Carter | Dec 7, 2007 10:02:29 PM
"What we need from Obama is a more comprehensive account of why foregoing the mandate option at this point is smarter politics"
Eli - What difference would that make? It's pretty clear that those of you who are FOR mandates aren't interested in listening to any argument that is against mandates.
The arguments have already been made:
*Car Insurance - required, but 20% of drivers nationwide don't have it.
*MA mandated healthcare - Had to exempt 15% of the population because they can't afford the healthcare, and hundreds of thousands of others still haven't bought into the plan (and will soon be fined for their lack of cooperation).
...But just keep arguing that mandates are the holy grail, particularly when family coverage under HRC's plan is estimated at $12K per year. The average american household makes $46K per year (GROSS), so how in the heck is the AVERAGE American family supposed to spend $12K on just health insurance premiums? Doesn't matter, though, because according to you all, affordability is not the issue. All you have to do is say we are forcing you to buy into this plan, and that will solve everything.
Until HRC figures out how she's going to bring those premiums within reach of the average family, she shouldn't be talking about mandates.
Hillary doesn't LISTEN - Voters didn't ask her for the healthcare mandate police, they asked for affordable healthcare. At this time, she has no plan in place to deliver AFFORDABLE healthcare, just FORCED healthcare insurance premiums.
Posted by: MAY | Dec 7, 2007 10:04:54 PM
Ralph B: In the first paragraph of the Obama campaign's fact-sheet they state:
"Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he (Mr. Krugman) mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate. The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not."
That is, as far as I can tell after re-reading Mr. Krugman's June 4th op-ed, exactly right.
The point the Obama campaign is trying to make is that Mr. Krugman's TONE is much different than it was in June.
And it goes beyond the fact that Obama has since criticized his opponents plans (as Ezra referred to above). Where he once praised Obama for passing a "basic test of courage" he now (on 11/30) pretty much accuses him of political cowardice for not including a mandate.
Yes, Mr. Krugman noted the lack of mandate in his 6/4 op-ed, but also took the time to quote one of architects of the plan, as to why they decided to not include it. It is completely appropriate for Mr. Krugman to disagree with this approach, but to ignore the fact (in the 11/30 op-ed) that there was a serious rational behind leaving out the mandate, and instead conclude it was left out due to fear of GOP attacks, is more than a bit disingenuous on Mr. Krugman's part. And that, I believe, is the change of tone to which the Obama campaign is referring.
Several sentences in particular, in Mr. Krugman's op-ed, seemed particularly unfounded:
At the very beginning:
"It’s the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they’ve concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance — a so-called mandate.....But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he’ll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form."
And in the final paragraph:
"I’d add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn’t that serious about achieving universal care — that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there’s a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing less."
This last paragraph is particularly unfounded as Obama has always stated that he supported universal health care, and that it represents one of his top priorities. Obama has been working on and for progressive causes his entire life, and getting universal health care in this country is clearly something that is very important to him.
His plan, despite what Mr. Krugman may think about mandates, is a very serious one. AND Obama's people have stated (as Eli noted above) that they would consider mandates if it was found that the plan was not working (which makes the first paragraphs of Mr. Krugman's 11/30 op-ed also disingenuous).
I am not surprised then that the Obama team felt the need to respond.
Posted by: Aaron M | Dec 7, 2007 10:17:11 PM
Well, jasper, I don't think I am naive at all (and thanks for the touching condescension), It is precisely because I am sure that Big Insurance will fight any plan, even a mandate, that requires oversight and regulation of coverage and profits (as the h/o/e plans would) that I think single payer is the most defensible. One can argue for single payer as system that expands coverage for the majority of people that presently have insurance as will as covering the uninsured. It is simple to understand and defend, while all the other proposals can be picked apart in a hundred ways. And, yes, I am sure most employers will jump at the chance to get out from under the ever increasing cost of health insurance, but I disagree that that will make the employees unhappy unless they get less coverage. A single payer system, with no more spent than now will, on the contrary, increase the benefits (dental, mental health, etc ). I also disagree with your argument that one of the other plans will lead to a single payer system, quite the opposite, for it seems to me that the other plans will not contain costs nor lead to better care while making big gov the scapegoat. Medicare is already the biggest insurer in the US and while it is not perfect, you will not see a significant number of its recipients willing to trade it for and hmo driven private system like their children have.
Posted by: john in california | Dec 7, 2007 10:17:13 PM
But Krugman has never been "the most progressive voice in American media." That's equally absurd. His history is as a free trader.
I agree Krugman's never been "the most progressive voice in American media." These days I'd likely give that title to Michael Moore. But Krugman's history as a free trader has nothing to do with lack of progressivity. There is absolutely nothing contradictory about being a progressive and favoring the free flow of trade. Just ask the Danes and Swedes and Finns. Just read up on Roosevelt. Indeed, it is the desirability of keeping America involved in and hopefully leading the global economy that is one of the best reasons to fight for strengthening the safety net. Support for trade with other nations is naturally growing weaker in that Dickensian place called the USA.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 10:20:42 PM
If mandates are such a bad idea, then why does Obama have one for children?
As for Clinton and Edwards, their plans also include subsidies to eliminate or greatly reduce the cost of health insurance for lower-income folks. PLEASE stop saying all they do is require that you buy insurance. There's a lot more to it than that, including the establishment of public health plans and many new regulations on insurance companies.
Also, please stop comparing the Edwards and Clinton plans to 1) car insurance, which is a completely different animal, or 2) the Massachusetts experiment, where Romney didn't provide the proper level of funding.
The point that Krugman and Ezra are making is this: look how much rhetorical firepower is being trained against the idea of mandates right now, by both Obama and his supporters. When the Republicans begin their fight against whatever Democratic health plan is proposed, they'll be following the groundwork that's being laid out right now.
Posted by: Steve | Dec 7, 2007 10:30:23 PM
"The arguments have already been made:
*Car Insurance - required, but 20% of drivers nationwide don't have it.
*MA mandated healthcare - Had to exempt 15% of the population because they can't afford the healthcare, and hundreds of thousands of others still haven't bought into the plan (and will soon be fined for their lack of cooperation)."
May, you clearly haven't actually read Krugman's column, as he directly addressed these very points. That car insurance statistic is considered totally invalid and is really far lower. Why? Because its derived by counting how many people who have traffic accidents don't have insurance (about 20%). Problem is, almost by definition, those without insurance are often without because they are more likely to have accidents. Hence, they are far more heavily represented amongst those who've had accidents. In fact, most insurance companies estimate the number as low as 8-10%, max. And some states that aggressively enforce auto insurance laws (ie. Georgia) have achieved rates as low as 2% noncompliance!
And MA always knew they would have a percentage of the population who could not afford the insurance, but the state legislature hasn't yet allocated the originally agreed upon funding to aid those who can't afford health insurance. If they ever vote the funding they knew would have to be spent, that percentage would be far lower. As to the hundreds of thousands who've not yet purchased an insurance policy...your point is? Its a legal mandate. If they chose to ignore it, like any law violation, they'll be fined! And why not? Why should law abiding citizens pay for health insurance, and law breakers be allowed to opt out (until they're in an accident and show up in an ER somewhere, expecting thousands of dollars in medical resources to be spent trying to save their lives)?
Posted by: Zoomie | Dec 7, 2007 10:41:19 PM
This whole debate is absurd. Obama's plan is good, Krugman says, but the rhetoric is bad. Krugman's constant attacks on the rhetoric start to make it sound like Obama's plan is bad. Hillary latches on to it, uses Krugman to attack Obama's plan. Obama releases a fact sheet pointing out that Krugman has said his plan is good to blunt Hillary's attacks. Big deal.
It's a campaign. Everyone breathe. I think the fact sheet is more than a little silly, but such is primary season. Let's relax.
There are valid points to be made for and against mandates--but your progressivism or liberalism doesn't depend on which side of the fence you're on. All Democratic candidates have brought forth progressive health care plans, some more than others. To suggest a candidate is a "Trojan horse" conservative simply because of a policy and rhetorical difference is absurd. We can disagree, but we don't have to ridicule each other. The vitriol and venom in some of the above comments does nothing to support an argument, it simply makes me scroll down to find someone who can have a conversation without resorting to petty attacks and name calling.
Just remember this: any of the candidates running will be far, far better than another Republican.
Posted by: Jared | Dec 7, 2007 10:42:28 PM
Aaron M: You didn't read the original post or you would have seen it was not complimentary to Obama's plan. The "timidity of hope" is hardly high praise.
Posted by: RalphB | Dec 7, 2007 10:43:40 PM
And, yes, I am sure most employers will jump at the chance to get out from under the ever increasing cost of health insurance, but I disagree that that will make the employees unhappy unless they get less coverage.
Then you don't read opinion polls. Surveys in this country have consistently shown strong, widespread, and deep-seated resistance to adoption of single payer. The one or two times such plans have been proposed at the state level, they have failed by wide referendum margins reflective of this resistance. As much as you and I might wish the facts on the ground away, they remain the facts on the ground. The unfortunate reality is, sometimes the general public is just wrong.
I think it probably would be politically feasible (at least vis a vis the public, if not the insurance lobby) to augment an Obama/Clinton/Edwards-style plan with a provision to open up Medicare to people who want to join. But for whatever reason (surely fear of Big Insurance), none of the big three is proposing that. The reason why I think this path is the easiest one to taxpayer-supported UHC is that, if you make joining Medicare a voluntary option, you'll probably start a stampede that quickly makes private health insurance a much smaller player in American healthcare.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 10:50:22 PM
Oprah>Krugman .
Posted by: thehova | Dec 7, 2007 10:53:19 PM
As to the hundreds of thousands who've not yet purchased an insurance policy...your point is? Its a legal mandate.
What needs to be mentioned in the discussion of Massachusetts is that, 2007 is the year the law took effect. The tax penalty deadline didn't occur until four weeks ago, and even then, there is some possibility to sign up until the New Year and avoid the penalty. Moreover, the law quite deliberately goes easy on people in the first year, via use of a fine of only two hundred dollars. In other words, the Massachusetts plan is not designed to achieve 99.9 % coverage in year one.
But even so -- and even with the relatively paltry tax penalty -- my reading of the data suggests the Bay State will get to something like 96% coverage by the beginning of 2008.
Far from demonstrating the difficulty of an individual mandate plan, I believe it will soon be obvious that Massachusetts's experience proves they can rapidly get us to universal coverage.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 10:59:30 PM
Obama has said more than once that he would be willing to consider a mandate once cost is down. Until cost is down he believes a mandate would be unfair to those who would already like to buy insurance but can't afford it, which is most of the people without insurance.
Obama has even said he would be willing to include a "trigger" in the law that would cause a mandate to come automatically into effect if one is needed.
The difference between Obama and Edwards/Clinton on this is barely wide enough to shine light through. It does NOT justify the sound and fury here and in Krugman's columns. Relax, everybody. Or at least go pick another battle.
Posted by: Rachel | Dec 7, 2007 11:01:30 PM
Jasper, please, qoute a poll. I have never seen a poll that proposes medicare for all. If you ask people "do you want the English/Canadian/French systems, about which people only know the rightwing propaganda, of course most insured say they don't want it, but if you ask "Would you trade your present insurance coverage for Medicare coverage, I beleive most people would say "Yes".
Posted by: john in california | Dec 7, 2007 11:02:50 PM
Hillary was a celebrity (First Lady) before she was a senator. Obama, to the extent he is a celebrity, became one by giving a very good speech at the Democratic Convention .... he is someone who became something of a celebrity because he did a good job of being a politician.
I think this underscores the problem with Obama - his greatest achievement to date is a speech he gave.
Fair point about Hillary, but I think she's proven herself to a greater extent than Obama. Obama simply hasn't won a seriously contested election, at least not at the major-league level. Even his primary victory was a forfeit.
Hillary, on the other hand, carpetbagged her way to a New York Senate seat, kicking the shit out of Rick Lazio, who at the time was regarded as a formidable opponent. He's only laughed at in retrospect because she wiped the floor with him.
Posted by: Jason C. | Dec 7, 2007 11:04:16 PM
Obama has said more than once that he would be willing to consider a mandate once cost is down.
If he can guarantee us the political climate will remain conducive to the adoption of universal coverage while he does his "considering" I reckon that would be a worthwhile statement. Somehow I doubt the Republicans are willing to give us a time out for two or three years while President Obama contemplates the possibilities.
If you really value the universality of coverage as a core value worth fighting for, the safest course of action is to push for it immediately. At the first possible moment. By any means necessary.
Posted by: Jasper | Dec 7, 2007 11:08:09 PM
I thought Rick Lazio was the second stringer who ran because Rudy Giuliani pulled out.
Posted by: Rachel | Dec 7, 2007 11:08:18 PM
Jasper -- He's mentioned you could put a "trigger" for a mandate in the original law. That would avoid having to pass a second law in a possibly different political climate.
Posted by: Rachel | Dec 7, 2007 11:12:32 PM
Jasper, I did a one minute google to find polls that show the opposite of what you contend. The majority of the public wants single payer. Take a look.
http://www.davidsirota.com/2006/03/news-flash-america-wants-single-payer.html
http://www.guaranteedhealthcare.org/blog/shum-preston/2007/10/29/another-poll-voters-want-single-payer
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2007/01/startling_field.html
Posted by: john in california | Dec 7, 2007 11:18:00 PM
Obama simply hasn't won a seriously contested election
Hillary and Edwards have only won one seriously contested election each, I believe. So none of the three has overwhelmingly proven him/herself to be some sort of genius campaigner. At least Edwards won his one election in North Carolina, a far tougher place than New York for Dems. But I think if someone's likelihood of winning the general election is your main concern, it makes sense to focus on their performance in this election campaign, and on what the polls say about voters' preferences in the general. By this standard, Hillary's not the most likely to win.
Posted by: Tom | Dec 7, 2007 11:24:33 PM
"Nobody said or implied that Obama is viciously anti-gay. He's just a slimy weasel who will throw teh gays under the bus in order to appeal to the viciously anti-gay South Carolinians. He's a sell out with no moral convictions at all. Besides being a creep, the execution of that precious little strategem was pathetic and incompetent"
He never threw gays under the bus. He had someone who is anti-gay sing for him at a few rallies, and made many public statements at the time pointing out that he disagreed with his views on that subject. You're being crazy calling him a sellout with no moral convictions. He has a clear and consistent pro gay record.
Posted by: mad | Dec 7, 2007 11:41:31 PM
Obama and Pelosi are both idiots. You negotiate from a position of strength. That is why Pelosi should have never taken impeachment off the table, and it is why Obama and every other candidate should start with UHC and go from there.
Posted by: Joe Klein's conscience | Dec 7, 2007 11:45:04 PM
The majority of the public wants single payer. Take a look.
John: I don't think anybody disputes the fact that either side in the single payer debate can capture a majority of respondents given sufficient skill at wording the question. One would think, however, that if single payer is as popular as the polls you've cited, it might actually, you know, be adopted by states where it has been put to referendum. Like Massachusetts and Oregon -- two deep blue states where the voters recently rejected it. Look, I don't dispute the superiority of single payer over what we have now. I'm saying it's not politically feasible in the next year or two as part of first stage comprehensive reform (and I repeat my belief that I think SP is possible in the future). I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong about having to wait a while for single payer. But not one of the viable Democratic candidates is even proposing it -- not even populist John Edwards. You'd think one of the major candidates would take advantage of an idea as allegedly popular as single payer. Anyway, as I stated upthread, now's Obama's chance to re-capture the high ground on the issue: how 'bout it,