Paul Krugman’s Shocking, Revisionist, and Obscurantist Views on Single Payer

[marmar]

Paul Krugman’s Shocking, Revisionist, and Obscurantist Views on Single Payer
By Lambert Strether of Corrente.


I hate to chew the ankles of blue America’s favorite quasi-Nobelist, because during the dark early days of Bush the Younger, his was a lonely and desperately needed voice of sanity. Also too, cats. But I read this column (“Why Is ObamaCare Complicated?”) in Conscience of a Liberal, and I was shocked. This is too much. Krugman’s piece contains historical errors, analytical errors, and errors of conscience. Let’s take each in turn:

Krugman’s historical errors:

Political constraints made (note lack of agency) a straightforward single-payer system unachievable.

But what was the origin of these mysterious “constraints”? Krugman doesn’t say, so let us supply the lacuna. I suggest the real constraints came from three sources, as indicated by their behavior from 2009, when battle for health reform was joined: (1) The Democratic nomenklatura, which censored single payer stories and banned single payer advocates from its sites, and refused even to cover single payer advances in Congress, while simultaneously running a “bait and switch” operation with the so-called “public option,” thereby sucking all the oxygen away from single payer;1 (2) Democratic office holders like Max Baucus, the putative author of ObamaCare — Liz Fowler, a Wellpoint VP, was the actual author — who refused to include single payer advocates in hearings and had protesters arrested and charged; (3) and Obama himself, who set the tone for the entire Democratic food chain by openly mocking single payer advocates (“got the little single payer advocates up here”), and whose White House operation blocked email from single payer advocates, and went so far as to suppress a single advocate’s question from the White House live blog of a “Forum on Health Care.” (Granted, the forums were all kayfabe, but even so.) As Jane Hamsher wrote, summing of the debacle: “The problems in the current health care debate became apparent early on, when single payer advocates were excluded (note, again, lack of agency) from participation.”

In short, if single payer was “politically infeasible” — the catchphrase of that time — that’s because Democrats set out to make it so, and succeeded. ...........................(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/46940.html#i293zSymWd1X0Gp0.99

[Schema Thing]

1. "democrats" like Joe Lieberman. Max Baucus. Collins and the other one.

"In short, if single payer was “politically infeasible” — the catchphrase of that time — that’s because Democrats set out to make it so, and succeeded. "



uh, yeah, maybe. Probably. Also "set out to make it so"? : republicans.


So what is new, and how is Krugman wrong?

[JVS]

2. But it sounds so much better than "We don't want to do it"

[Jackpine Radical]

3. Everything Strether says is true; nevertheless,

I seriously doubt that we could have gotten single-payer through, and probably not a public option either.

The reason is simple--either plan would have forced the insurance companies into a fight for their very lives, and when a multi-trillion dollar industry goes to the wall, blood will be let. Remember how Harry & Louise creamed Hillarycare back in '93-'94? That was mild compared to the all-out, no-holds-barred, dirty-fighting nuclear assault the insurance industry would have launched against anyone and everyone who even hinted they might support single-payer.

Obama remembered the Hillarycare lesson well, and thought he could get smooth sailing by feeding the Republicans their own plan back to them. Well, we all know how that turned out, but we must also note that the insurance companies were well and thoroughly bought off, and consequently stayed out of the fight.

So, yeah, the Obamites squelched dissent and forced through a Heritage Foundation plan. Whether they did so because that's the plan they really wanted or whether it was the only plan they figured they could get, it's what happened.And maybe it was the best we could realistically hope to get.

[Doctor_J]

4. these points are why a lot of 2008 newbies stayed home in 2010

The party and the president lied about their commitment to the po. It's beneath Krugman to rewrite history on the issue. What's more, if the dems had fought for it and lost, instead of handing big insurance 600 billion dollars, they might well have picked up seats in the midterm.

[ProSense]

5. Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Sanders: Single Payer Never Had A Chance

Evan McMorris-Santoro

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) reminded the progressive media gathered on Capitol Hill today that single-payer health care reform was dead before it started in the Senate.

“It would have had 8 or 10 votes and that’s it,” he said, addressing a topic central in the minds of many who the bloggers and left wing talk show hosts gathered for the 4th annual Senate Democratic Progressive Media Summit in Washington reach everyday.

Sanders is among the few in the Senate not afraid to say he supports government-run, universal health care. But his calls for such a program have gone unanswered, much to the chagrin of progressives who still feel it is the best way to solve the nation’s health care crisis.

Sanders said it was still possible for single-payer to come to the U.S. eventually — but he said the road will not begin in Washington. If a state like California or Vermont ever instituted a single-payer system on its own, Sanders said, it would eventually lead to national adoption of universal coverage.

Sanders has put forward an amendment to the current health care bill in the Senate that would allow states to use federal funds to create their own single-payer plans, he said.

- more-

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/sanders-single-payer-never-had-a-chance.php

People seem to forget that the likes of Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson and Pryor wouldn't even support a public option.

In fact, Lincoln, Nelson and Pryor voted against the final health care law that passed via reconciliation.

I took Krugman's statement to mean the resistance. I mean, look how many people are crying over the crappy insurance scams that are being canceled.

Here's another thing, from the OP link:

(I get a kick out of “so be it”; it’s a classic example of vacuous, banal pragmatism from Obama’s Amen corner of Democratic hacks.) Forget the weasel word “somewhat”; let’s just unpack the deception in “cover the uninsured,” shall we? Never mind that the “infuriating” #FAIL of the ObamaCare rollout has made it impossible to get a good overall sense, despite anecdotes, of whether the coverage on offer from ObamaCare offers value for money;4 and never mind that, although Obama claims health care is a right, access to that right is delivered capriciously and whimsically, varying by jurisdiction, age, income (especially at the edge cases of 138% and 400% of poverty level), and whether HHS’s marketers think you will make ObamaCare actuarially more sound, or not; and never mind that ObamaCare, given that there are proven health care delivery systems available, is an experiment performed on the American people without their informed consent; no, never mind all that: Krugman surely must know that ObamaCare, when fully implemented, will still leave ~25 million without coverage. How, in good conscience, can anybody say “So be it” to that? And how, in good conscience, could anybody write “cover the uninsured” instead of “cover a large fraction of the uninsured,” when the former is a lie, and the latter is the truth? The mind reels.

Considering this is coming from a PUMA tool, it's fucking laughable.