Skip to main content

View Diary: Two Nobel Prize Economists Recommend Obama (203 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  he holds a grudge (19+ / 0-)

    Early on, Krugman -- correctly in my opinion -- criticized Obama for the lack of mandates in this health care plan.  The Obama campaign made the big mistake of criticizing Krugman in return and ever since Krugman has been at war with Obama.

    While I agree with Krugman on the narrow issues of mandates, he exaggerates the difference: neither plan is single-payer, neither is universal.  But now it is very clearly personal with Krugman.

    •  no chance (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Phoenix Woman, bigchin

      And neither plan has a snowball's chance in hell of being put into practice.

    •  Which is actually pretty unprofessional (8+ / 0-)

      on Krugman's part. Presidential candidates say all sorts of stuff that people shouldn't take personally. Obama's campaign was wrong to criticize Krugman, but he sure has held onto this grudge an awful long time.

    •  Neither plan goes anywhere (5+ / 0-)

      without the support of Congress.  

      •  Respectfully, (10+ / 0-)

        I disagree with the assertion is was "wrong" for Obama to defend himself against Krugman.  He has every right and reason to rebut criticism.  Why put Krugman on some pedestal that makes it taboo to disgagree with him?  On the other hand, Krugman has every right to criticize Obama's plan and promote one that he thinks is best.  However, Krugman has gone way beyond that.  He writes these hectic, misleading op-ed's that (in my opinion) damage his credibility because it makes it seem that he is incapable of being objective.  It's as if, in his mind, Obama dared to defend himself, and his plan does not have mandates, therefore I must attack him and his supporters on every issue, at every level, regardless of the facts and without thought of balance and integrity. Neither Hillary's nor Obama's plans are the best - but the fact is is that Hillary is incapable of leading a bi-partisan effort to form concensus in Congress - on any issue.  Obama can - he has a gift for it.  This is one reason I support Obama - because I know he has the best chance of actually implementing his proposals.

        •  I don't disagree with you (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          churchylafemme, SciVo, Amber6541

          at all.  Krugman is a highly respected academic with the skills to present cogent arguments on matters of economic policy.  He should stick to that and cut out the personal remarks and emotional responses.  They undermine whatever valid criticisms he might make.

          What I try to point out at every opportunity is the critical role of Congress.  What good does it do to get so vitriolic about differences in the various plans when they are only proposals and will likely not survive the realities of Congressional action without substantial revision?

    •  Mandates are wrong (15+ / 0-)

      Given that we have an inefficient and often corrupt health care industry, mandating that everyone buy its products only makes the problems worse. Yes, everyone then "has insurance," but insurance of dubious value purchased for more than many people can prudently afford.

      By contrast, the option not to buy which Obama's plan allows means that the insurers actually have to compete for customers on price - competing not just with each other (which they hardly do now, raising prices in collusion), but with the option of our spending our money for greater rewards elsewhere - perhaps on alternative healthcare not covered by their policies.

      Clinton wants a lockin to conventional Western medicine at an often-unaffordable price. Obama offers the health-care sellers the opportunity to expand their customer base, but only if they accept incentives to improve the affordability and scope of their offerings.

      In terms of economic prudence, Krugman is very, very wrong.

      •  I've looked into it a bit. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        churchylafemme, alizard

        There are a few countries that use "insurance mandates" instead of single-payer care. However, the difference is largely technical, since the mandate in those countries is for such a heavily-regulated, heavily-subsidized, price-controlled plan that Rush Limbaugh's head would explode from the "socialism".

        I personally believe that a corrupt mindset is too entrenched in our health insurance companies for that to work. With things like implicit company policies of contesting every claim, they seem too devoted to maximizing profits at the expense of their own ethics and their customers' health. I'm convinced that even if the mandated plan had to be technically "non-profit", they would find some way to squeeze every penny possible out of the health care system and into their executives' compensation.

        I want single-payer the most, and Barack Obama's plan would be my second choice.

        My own sig line bores me.

        by SciVo on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:18:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  **One of her biggest fundraisers is the wife.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Overseas

        of the owner of FHC Health Systems, which is a privately held behavioral health care company.  The company recorded revenues of over $1,500 million during the fiscal year ended December 2006.  Does anyone really believe they made all that money spending it on patients?   I'm not buying ANY of her crap about health care.  

        If the choice is between hope and fear, always choose hope. BC

        by greylox on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 02:46:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Mandates really aren't a narrow issue. (7+ / 0-)

      For people like Elizabeth Edwards and Paul Krugman, mandates are a matter of whether or not we have truly achieved "universal health care."

      For people like me, mandates are a matter of whether or not we get sent to debtors' prison for not being able pony up cash to a private health insurance corporation.  Unless we ultimately just get ignored and the whole argument was pretty meaningless to begin with.

      WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Sen. Clinton's or Sen. McCain's).

      by Anarchofascist on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:44:48 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  DEBTORS' PRISON (0+ / 0-)

        Sorry, I feel that needed to be repeated.  Just remember, it's not really a mandate unless there's a fed pen at the end of the line.

        WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Sen. Clinton's or Sen. McCain's).

        by Anarchofascist on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 08:47:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  See this is the thing (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard, Overseas

          it is so difficult to find the consequences in Hillary's plan if you do not purchase the corporate insurance nor pay the fine?  What happens then, debtors prison was abolished I believe years ago.  But there has to be a penality or otherwise people will not pay the fines, and then it is not universal payments.

          Plus I still have not heard wether or not, after you pay the fines do you recieve the corporate insurance or not?  What I am asking is, will someone have to pay a fine and still not have insurance?  

          "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption." --Trenton, N.J., Sept. 23, 2002-GWB

          by meatwad420 on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 09:04:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Not Debtor's Prison, Starvation, Eviction, ect. (6+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          alizard, Overseas, evora, SciVo, RoCali, schnecke21

          Her "Mandate" won't send people to prison, it will garnish their wages.   So if people are on the bubble.  Where they do not fall within the wage range where the government is covering their Healthcare.  If they try to temporarily sacrifice healthcare to make ends meet, they could find they are still having it taken out of their pay.  Which could result in the failure to meet daily needs.

          And Elizabeth Edwards, and Hillary Clinton, both do not understand.  It is not just a matter of not having healthcare.   It is a matter of people not being able to get sick even if they do have it.  Thousands of dollars in bills with healthcare is just as crushing to alot of people as  hundreds of thousands without.  For alot of people being hit with hundreds of thousands of dollars will have less impact on their daily lives, than a couple thousand, because they could never be expected to pay back it back.

          Obama's plan gives alot more detail and pays more attention to addressing costs.  So if you are not going to true Universal Healthcare (single payer) the Obama plan is actually the more realistic of the two.

          •  Well, I'm safe. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            OH 09 Dem

            Independent contractor, have no wages.

            No debtors' prison for me, or starvation, just -- no coverage.

            Hey, I thought her plan covered everyone!

            WARNING: There is a high probability that the preceding comment is snark. Use your best judgment (hopefully better than Sen. Clinton's or Sen. McCain's).

            by Anarchofascist on Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 10:20:11 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site