UPDATE:
I know there have been diaries on this. But I wanted to give my side of the story and what the Column did to affect my positions and candidate preferences.
New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote a scathing attack column on Obama's Health Care plan.
This comes at a very troubling time for me. Today, at the DNC Meeting in Virginia I walked into the ballroom as Uncommitted Leaning John Edwards.
After seeing Edwards give a good speech, but not a great speech, followed by Obama give a fantastic, hopeful, uplifting speech, I walked out of the ballroom as Uncommitted not leaning.
As I drove home, my thoughts continually turned to Obama's speech vs. Edwards speech. Edwards said all the right things on the important issues (and all of them twice) and spoke with conviction and charisma. He was able to give the typical catchphrase or sound bite while giving me the impression that he really knew the details and "nuts and bolts" of the issue.
Obama said all the rights things to energize me, give me hope, and want to be a true believer again. And it was those things that made me lean back away from Edwards and towards Obama. But the more I thought about it, there wasn't nearly as much substance, force, or detail behind anything that Obama said.
As I got back to the office, chatted with coworkers about the event, noted that I'm beginning to see why Obama, with almost zero national stage experience, is fund raising and polling way out of a 3-year senator should, and saying that I was legitimately torn ... I sat down at my desk to read Krugman.
From the beginning, advocates of universal health care were troubled by the incompleteness of Barack Obama’s plan, which unlike those of his Democratic rivals wouldn’t cover everyone. But they were willing to cut Mr. Obama slack on the issue, assuming that in the end he would do the right thing.
Now, however, Mr. Obama is claiming that his plan’s weakness is actually a strength. What’s more, he’s doing the same thing in the health care debate he did when claiming that Social Security faces a "crisis" — attacking his rivals by echoing right-wing talking points.
The central question is whether there should be a health insurance "mandate" — a requirement that everyone sign up for health insurance, even if they don’t think they need it. The Edwards and Clinton plans have mandates; the Obama plan has one for children, but not for adults.
Why have a mandate? The whole point of a universal health insurance system is that everyone pays in, even if they’re currently healthy, and in return everyone has insurance coverage if and when they need it.
Here’s why: under the Obama plan, as it now stands, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance — then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. Insurance companies couldn’t turn them away, because Mr. Obama’s plan, like those of his rivals, requires that insurers offer the same policy to everyone.
As a result, people who did the right thing and bought insurance when they were healthy would end up subsidizing those who didn’t sign up for insurance until or unless they needed medical care.
In other words, when Mr. Obama declares that "the reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it," he’s saying something that is mostly true now — but wouldn’t be true under his plan.
The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning. Still, as I said, advocates of health care reform were willing to cut Mr. Obama some slack.
But now Mr. Obama, who just two weeks ago was telling audiences that his plan was essentially identical to the Edwards and Clinton plans, is attacking his rivals and claiming that his plan is superior. It isn’t — and his attacks amount to cheap shots.
Mr. Obama, then, is wrong on policy. Worse yet, the words he uses to defend his position make him sound like Rudy Giuliani inveighing against "socialized medicine": he doesn’t want the government to "force" people to have insurance, to "penalize" people who don’t participate.
I recently castigated Mr. Obama for adopting right-wing talking points about a Social Security "crisis." Now he’s echoing right-wing talking points on health care.
Before I can throw my support behind Obama, I need to see much more clear and articulate plans that will stand the test of time as POLICY.
I see what hes doing. Obama is trying to triangulate on issues such as this, and not piss off too many powerful interests like Insurance companies. To think that this will help him win over republicans and independents I believe is naive.
The most important part of the column for me is this:
Well, John Edwards has just called Mr. Obama’s bluff, by proposing that individuals be required to show proof of insurance when filing income taxes or receiving health care. If they don’t have insurance, they won’t be penalized — they’ll be automatically enrolled in an insurance plan.
That’s actually a terrific idea — not only would it prevent people from gaming the system, it would have the side benefit of enrolling people who qualify for S-chip and other government programs, but don’t know it.
This simply reinforced my notion that Edwards is not just the guy with a PLAN, but a guy who is savvy enough to make POLICY once he's elected. He's this cycle's policy wiz kid (save for Biden, but he can't win no matter how much I may like the guy, I'm still realistic).
I need someone to convince me to support Obama. I just don't see the credentials and the policy prowess to lead us on issues like Health Care.
During the speech Obama said he was running for President because this is the democrats' "moment." After seeing what happened with naive policy makers on health care in 1993-94. I need a real reason to think that Obama wont make the same mistakes if he is elected.
Until I see that, I have to lean back Edwards.