Krugman Calls Out Obama Again: Attacking Rivals With Right Wing Talking Points

[wyldwolf]

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.

Mr. Obama... 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.

What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that “my plan begins by covering every American,” it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true.

Now, in the effort to defend his plan’s weakness, he’s attacking his Democratic opponents from the right — and in so doing giving aid and comfort to the enemies of reform.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin

[MannyGoldstein]

1. At Least Obama Doesn't Love War And Accept Torture

Unlike certain candidates.

I guess we'll have to pick the one that disappoints least.

[wyldwolf]

2. who are you referring to and do you have examples to confirm your statements?

[ccpup]

3. one can only assume

the Poster is confused and is thinking * can run again, or something. :shrug:

[Clintonista2]

36. Hello?!?? Delusional much Wyld? Look at who you're asking for proof...

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

[wyldwolf]

37. looks good for the historical DU record. One day he'll claim he did prove it

[MannyGoldstein]

52. You're Kidding Right? You Really Don't Know This?

Clinton, Edwards, Biden, and Dodd voted to attack Iraq. This was a ludicrous thing to do, and most Congressional Democrats voted against it. Either these two are stupid, or they like war. And I don't think they're stupid. I suppose that one could claim that they only voted to *authorize* war if needed - but since 2/3rds of Americans at the time believed that Bush had already made up his mind to attack, this would be an non-believable argument.

Clinton has said that she's in favor of torture under certain circumstances:

http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:uucDTiweBdIJ:www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_hillary_flipflops_contradicts_bill___her.html+hillary+clinton+torture+daily+news&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us.

This falls in line with her husband being the first president to outsource torture via "extraordinary rendition". Since torture within the US was never a policy, I guess that makes him the first president to make torture an official policy of the US.

[Armstead]

4. Mandates suck unless there is a true single-payer plan

When government forces people into private insurance it is a form of corporate Big Brother.

The only way to do it is either create voluntary alternatives of public plans or have a truly universal single-payer plan like expanded Medicare for all.

[wyldwolf]

6. so, if the government enforces a mandate into a government-run plan, it's cool?

:eyes:

"corporate big brother." Progressive-Marxist slogan of the day.

[ClarkUSA]

13. That's right. Hillary should call it her Mandatory Private Insurance Plan.

That's the truth.

[BootinUp]

17. No its not

her plan would offer an option to participate in a medicare like plan instead.

[ClarkUSA]

24. How will she enforce her mandate then?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[BootinUp]

25. I don't think its a question of enforcement

its a question of participation, i.e. what is required to get healthcare. Healthcare providers would have to verify information on what plan you are under. The good part of it is that plans will be more structured and simplified due to new regulations she is proposing.

[BootinUp]

20. a suggestion

read more about her plan here
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/feature/healthcareplan/

[Karmadillo]

5. Obama attacks good Democrats for progressive policies while offering the Republicans bipartisanship.

No wonder Krugman felt the need to address the issue. Here's a snippet from Krugman's discussion of social security and Obama's attempt to "devalue one of the great progressive victories of the Bush years."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/opinion/16krugman.html

<edit>

Which brings us back to Mr. Obama. Why would he, in effect, play along with this new round of scare-mongering and devalue one of the great progressive victories of the Bush years?

I don’t believe Mr. Obama is a closet privatizer. He is, however, someone who keeps insisting that he can transcend the partisanship of our times — and in this case, that turned him into a sucker.

Mr. Obama wanted a way to distinguish himself from Hillary Clinton — and for Mr. Obama, who has said that the reason “we can’t tackle the big problems that demand solutions” is that “politics has become so bitter and partisan,” joining in the attack on Senator Clinton’s Social Security position must have seemed like a golden opportunity to sound forceful yet bipartisan.

But Social Security isn’t a big problem that demands a solution; it’s a small problem, way down the list of major issues facing America, that has nonetheless become an obsession of Beltway insiders. And on Social Security, as on many other issues, what Washington means by bipartisanship is mainly that everyone should come together to give conservatives what they want.

We all wish that American politics weren’t so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists — which is the case for many issues today — you end up being played for a fool. And that’s what has just happened to Mr. Obama.

[ClarkUSA]

7. Krugman in June: "Obama's plan is smart and serious." Since then, he's become a Clinton supporter.

Krugman has become another Hillaryworld Hypocrite. You may as well be quoting HillaryIs44, HillaryHub,The Left Coaster, Taylor Marsh, or Daily Howler.

Here's what he said only five months ago:

No Democratic-leaning pundit, it seems, has been more passionate or serious on the need for health-care reform than the New York Times' Paul Krugman. As a result, people took notice when his column today blasted Obama's health-care plan, as well as the candidate's recent statements on it. "What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama’s caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan. Although he declared, in his speech announcing the plan, that 'my plan begins by covering every American,' it didn’t — and he shied away from doing what was necessary to make his claim true."

But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he 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.

Below is the second half of his June 4 column, which discusses Obama's health plan.

"First, the good news. The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing. It also passes one basic test of courage. You can't be serious about health care without proposing an injection of federal funds to help lower-income families pay for insurance, and that means advocating some kind of tax increase. Well, Mr. Obama is now on record calling for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts. Also, in the Obama plan, insurance companies won't be allowed to deny people coverage or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history. Again, points for toughness. Best of all, the Obama plan contains the same feature that makes the Edwards plan superior to, say, the Schwarzenegger proposal in California: it lets people choose between private plans and buying into a Medicare-type plan offered by the government.. "So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan.
In fact, it would have been considered daring if it had been announced last year.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/30/490207.aspx

[wyldwolf]

8. Obama wasn't using right wing tactics against his opponents then

[ClarkUSA]

10. Krugman wasn't using Clintonian talking points against Obama then

Hillary Clinton not so subtly accused Edwards of "echoing Republican talking points" in the Philly debate, too. Krugman has Mark Penn's memo down, alright.

[wyldwolf]

32. you can quote an example of those?

[BeyondGeography]

9. Here we go again...

Check this link out; it pretty much lays Krugman and enforced mandates to waste:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/30/173832/21

Last night's discussion of this dupe thread is here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3776841

[ClarkUSA]

12. Thanks for the debunking links, BG

These multiple dupe threads by pro-Clinton Krugman smack of desperation borne of nosediving poll numbers.

[Sparkly]

14. I still don't see how "Krugman flip-flopped" negates his argument in the recent article.

The issue of mandates is not refuted in your links, except to claim that it's difficult to do. Maybe so, maybe not. It has to be paid for somewhere, somehow, and there's flexibility in all of these plans.

The point I think Krugman raises, which I haven't seen answered yet, is that without a mandate, there's no reason for healthy people to get coverage -- not until they face an expensive health crisis, and then they can jump in. That doesn't work for a public plan, because it makes it way too expensive for others. To my mind, it's like having optional car insurance, but once you have an accident you can sign up and get the benefits. That and affordability don't go together.

If there's an answer that addresses that issue, I'd like to know. (Not an answer that talks about other plans, but a straight answer to that one issue.)

[ClarkUSA]

18. Clinton supporter Krugman's recent Obama hit piece was more rancid opinion than facts.

And he conveniently refused to discuss the gaping hole in Clinton's Mandatory Private Insurance Plan -- how in hell does she propose to enforce her mandate?
Nice of him, eh?

[Sparkly]

19. Can you address this specific question?

What is factually wrong in his argument about mandates?

[ClarkUSA]

21. There's plenty wrong. If you're interested, read the links that are provided...

Here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3778282&mesg_id=3778430

[Sparkly]

23. I did, but I don't see an answer to this specific question.

In other words, how can a plan make health insurance affordable for ALL without requiring health insurance for ALL? If the incentive is only for people with health problems to enroll, how can it be affordable?

[ClarkUSA]

26. Krugman won't address the fact that without enforcement mechanism, Clinton's 'mandate' is optional

Before Krugman writes another hit piece full of ad hominem attacks on Obama, he should address why:

New York Times: If Massachusetts Can't Achieve Universal Coverage With an Enforceable Mandate, How Can Hillary Clinton do it Without One? 'A year after Massachusetts became the only state to require that individuals have health coverage, residents face deadlines to either sign up or lose their personal tax exemption, worth $219 on next year's state income tax returns. More than 200,000 previously uninsured residents have enrolled, but state officials estimate that at least that number, and perhaps twice as many, have not. Those managing the enrollment effort say it has exceeded expectations. In particular, state-subsidized insurance packages offered to low-income residents have been so popular that the program's spending may exceed its budget by nearly $150 million. But the reluctance of so many to enroll, along with the possible exemption of 60,000 residents who cannot afford premiums, has raised questions about whether even a mandate can guarantee truly universal coverage.'

Clinton Advisors Concede Her Plan Will Not Cover Everyone. 'MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's health care advisers, describes her plan as a 'universal coverage' plan, in contrast to the Obama plan, which he terms a 'universal access' plan. But he also acknowledges that the Clinton plan will not include everybody. 'Any system that does not have a single payer will not have 100 per cent coverage,' he told me, when I reached him after the Las Vegas debate. 'But you can come very close.''

Clinton Said That She Did Not Have Any Punitive Measures To Enforce The Mandate Of Her Health Care Plan. Hillary Clinton said about the mandate in her health care plan, 'At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed. We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans.'

http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2007/11/25/fact_check_without_an_enforcem.php

[Sparkly]

28. As I wrote above...

"If there's an answer that addresses that issue, I'd like to know. (Not an answer that talks about other plans, but a straight answer to that one issue.)"

Instead, the answers are about Clinton's plan and the difficulties of enforcing mandates. I understand there may be difficulties with enforcing mandates.

My question is about Obama's plan, and how a non-mandated public plan can provide equal coverage to all, and still remain affordable, for the reasons I stated above?

[ClarkUSA]

30. There will never be 100% participation without single-payer.

Other than that conclusion, read the links I provided. If you can't find the answers in there to satisfy you, then I can't help you further. It's obvious that Obama
has a good plan that doesn't have the albatross of an unenforceable mandate. I will leave you with this:

"The only place in the U.S. that has attempted a mandate is Massachusetts, and we do not know if it is going to work here," said David Blumenthal, a professor of health policy at Harvard university and an adviser to the Obama campaign. "A mandate is not a slam-dunk solution. The key question is whether there is the political will to enforce the mandate once it goes into effect."

Blumenthal concedes that the Obama plan will not cover all the uninsured, at least to begin with. But he claims that Obama will do a better job than Clinton in reducing the cost of health care premiums. He says that Obama might consider a mandate at a later stage, if his present plan does not achieve its goal of universal coverage.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/clinton_vs_obama_on_health_car.html

[Sparkly]

31. How would Obama's plan be affordable w/o a mandate?

That's the question. I think it's a flaw in Obama's plan and I haven't seen it explained.

I think a plan can be affordable even if there isn't 100% participation, but it'd have to get close at least.

How to enforce a mandate is a separate question. One way for enforcement that neither Clinton nor Edwards seem to want to propose is a progressive tax. Those with private plans could simply show proof and be exempt from the tax. I don't understand why they don't suggest it (except for the big fear of tax increases).

(For the record, I favor Kucinich's proposal.)

[ClarkUSA]

34. Expert: " Obama will do a better job than Clinton in reducing the cost of health care premiums."

"The only place in the U.S. that has attempted a mandate is Massachusetts, and we do not know if it is going to work here," said David Blumenthal, a professor of health policy at Harvard university and an adviser to the Obama campaign. "A mandate is not a slam-dunk solution. The key question is whether there is the political will to enforce the mandate once it goes into effect."

Blumenthal concedes that the Obama plan will not cover all the uninsured, at least to begin with. But he claims that Obama will do a better job than Clinton in reducing the cost of health care premiums. He says that Obama might consider a mandate at a later stage, if his present plan does not achieve its goal of universal coverage.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/clinton_vs_obama_on_health_car.html

Refer any further questions to Mr. Bluementhal. I believe he knows what he's talking about better than I or you and anybody on DU, for that matter.

I will not kick this Obama-bashing thread any longer.

[Sparkly]

35. He may have had a hand in writing the proposal, as an advisor to the campaign.

:shrug:

Still doesn't answer the question.

[ClarkUSA]

38. That's BS speculation unsupported by the article's facts

And it answers your question on Obama's plan's affordability. I'm beginning to think that you're only interested in questions and not the answers.
In any case, I'm done here. Thanks for playing.

[Sparkly]

40. Huh? I got that from the article.

"The only place in the U.S. that has attempted a mandate is Massachusetts, and we do not know if it is going to work here," said David Blumenthal, a professor of health policy at Harvard university and an adviser to the Obama campaign.

I did write to Timothy Noah as you suggested in another thread, because I do NOT see an answer about affordability when healthy people are opting out, and can opt in once they have major expenses.

[ClarkUSA]

41. You misread me.

I was referring to your continued speculative denial that the reams of links and facts - including the ones in the above fact check article - I've sent your
way does not answer your question. Well, they do and you just want to milk a question that's already been answered to my satisfaction. I'm glad you
wrote Noah -- perhaps he can answer your question to your satisfaction but somehow I doubt it. I look forward to seeing his answer nonetheless.

[Sparkly]

42. Geez!

How would any plan be affordable if only sick people were using it? That's the basic question and no, there has not been an answer to it and no, I'm not being disingenuous or insincere about this.

[gulliver]

43. I think all three major plans head us toward single payer.

They all allow people (my understanding) to buy into government health insurance. That creates a "really big payer" if not a single payer. Then, the private companies that compete with the government will either find a market way to keep customers or go out of business. If they all go out of business, then we have single payer. If they don't we have private companies keeping the government program on its toes through competition -- or specializing in high end/luxury health care, etc.

I'm more than willing to accept any of the proposed plans from the Democrats. I like Hillary's best because it requires participation. That lowers the costs for all participants. As Krugman points out, if there were no requirement to participate, we would have people joining the plans only when they needed health care. That absolutely completely defeats the purpose of universal health care insurance as far as I can tell. A person would be a fool to buy health care insurance in advance when they can just buy it the day they need it. (Then, I suppose, drop it again...)

On edit: I think Obama would probably add mandates if he were elected. He would just find a way to call them something else like "auto-enrollment" or something. Right now he is on the wrong side of the argument. I would like to think he is not just playing political word games to pander to the right.

[inthebrain]

11. Not for nothing but Hillary's ideas on Social Security are whacked as well

Bipartisan commission?

She ain't got her nutz and bolts in the right place on this one either. Allowing the Republicans in on this issue like allowing the fox inside the henhouse.

[Sparkly]

15. They'd have to vote for it, no?

Make them take some responsibility so it gets passed.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Slate: Obama has the better argument on health care

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are slugging it out over their respective health care plans. It's a fairly pointless argument to begin with, because they both have pretty good proposals on the table. (Click here for my earlier discussion of Obama's plan, and here for my earlier discussion of Hillary's.) Paul Krugman of the New York Times has weighed in on Hillary's side of the dispute, and so, less emphatically, has John Nichols of the Nation. But to the very limited extent that this debate is worth following at all, it's Obama who has the better argument... Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all have plans that would steadily enlarge the role of government health insurance. These are accommodations to political reality. I question the wisdom of including, within such an accommodation, a mandate that would render that accomodation unattractive to a large bloc of voters. If we're going to create a ruckus, better to do it in the service of a more comprehensive solution than either Clinton or Edwards has put forth. If we aren't, Obama's resistence to an individual mandate makes perfect sense.

http://www.slate.com/id/2178896 /

h/t to Beyond Geography at: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3778364&mesg_id=3778364

[Evergreen Emerald]

22. The idea that Social Security is a major problem is a right-wing talking point

Bush wanted to dismantle social programs, including Social Security. He claimed that it was a huge problem that needed to be "fixed" through privatization. There is no huge problem.

Obama is wrong on this. And Clinton is correct. It is an issue that can be addressed with fiscal responsibility. The issue will be corrected when the government is run by responsible people--rather than those with an agenda to destroy it.

[ClarkUSA]

27. It is also a Democratic concern to many on the left as well.

The attempts by Clinton partisans like Krugman to write hit pieces full of ad hominem attacks on a good Democrat is deplorable but not at all surprising.

[BootinUp]

29. Krugmans piece focuses on issues

and is not a Clinton puff piece. It actually commends all the Democrats plans except Obama's. Sorry that doesn't work for you.

[ClarkUSA]

44. Krugman's hypocritical hit piece focuses on 1 issue: bashing Obama using Clintonian talking points

No, that doesn't work for me.

[BootinUp]

47. In politics

we can all choose to see what we want. I'm done with this.

[wyldwolf]

33. besides (all of a sudden) Obama supporters, who else?

[ClarkUSA]

45. I can't wait for another Hillaryworlder's Krugman thread to dupe tomorrow.

I guess it's easier to post additional threads than allow DUers to see the debunking of pro-Clinton Krugman's BS Obama bashing.

[wyldwolf]

46. so... does that mean you don't have an answer?

[BeyondGeography]

51. The answers appear in last night's thread

You can always go there and read them as the link appears upthread. Posting a day-old column in the hope of revisting a debate that you think will be favorable to your candidate is minor league.

[wyldwolf]

53. I checked, and nope! The answer to my question wasn't there. Next?

[Evergreen Emerald]

48. Actually, that is an exaggeration

It is true that in 30 or so years, at the rate we are going, Social Security will be in trouble. And that is what Clinton said. But, it is not true that it is in dire need of immediate fixin. There are many many more issues that need immediate response (Iraq, Medicare, Health care).

Clinton is right in her response. Obama is mimicking the right-wing talking points and was called on it. It shows his inexperience and superficial knowledge of important issues.

[Joanne98]

39. Both the Clinton and Obama plans include the corporations!

DK has the best plan. NO SHAREHOLDERS ALLOWED!

[Colobo]

49. Krugman is a hitman for the Clintons.

[wyldwolf]

54. I see you're still not back from your stay in the Twilight Zone

[SOS]

50. Krugman on health care

This article is informative as well:

"Edwards Gets It Right"

http://select.nytimes.com/2007/02/09/opinion/09krugman.html?pagewanted=print