My take on the Obama campaign-Krugman exchange

[antiimperialist]

I am no health care expert so I have to admit I have no idea whether a "mandate" requiring everyone to have health insurance makes Obama's plan better or worse than the rest of candidates'.
But focusing on Krugman's criticism of Obama's plan and Obama's campaign response, I have to say that Krugman has been consistent, and Obama's camp admits it.

Obama's campaign notes that back in June, Krugman praised Obama's plan. But that's irrelevant, since Krugman at the same time criticized the same point he takes issue with this time around: The mandate.
Read Krugman's June article on Obama's health care plan. He said,

"Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn’t — a point Mr. Edwards made in last night’s debate. The Obama plan doesn’t mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances — and then end up receiving treatment at other people’s expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it’s actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

Obama's camp complains that although the substance is the same, the "tone" has changed. That's troubling to me, since the criticizm appears on a section called "Fact Check". What do you associate more with facts, substance or tone? I'd go with the former.

But they don't mention that the Obama vs. Clinton issue only recently heated up , and any reporter would change the tone, digging deeper into an issue, when it's the hot topic of the moment. Besides, Krugman wrote his first article before Obama had issued some statements such as the one that "his plan's weakness is a strength" that in Krugman's opinion were similar to right-wing talking points.

I give a point to Krugman on this one.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. Here's The Problem With Lack Of Mandates

I know a guy who didn't buy insurance until (after) he broke his tibia...He walked around for about a week with a broken tibia... With surgery and rehab the bills were well in excess of $10,000.00...That raises the price of everybody who was diligently paying for their health insurance and not using it... If there are no mandates but insurance companies are compelled to insure everybody regardless of pre-existing conditions what incentive is there to buy health insurance...

I'm paying nearly $700.00 a month for health insurance out of my (own) pocket...Under Obama's plans I could cancel my insurance, wait to get sick, and then reinstate it... Insurance works because everybody puts money in but not everybody takes money out...

[BeyondGeography]

2. As long as there isn't a Krugman surge, I guess we'll be OK, right?

Obama's choice to emphasize affordability and only using mandates to ensure that children are covered has many defenders. The voting public will not pay attention to the Monster Wonks who differ on this point, they want to make sure that the candidates are committed to universal coverage (understanding that it won't happen overnight), aren't captive to special interests and they have some demonstrated ability to bring disparate parties together get difficult legislation passed. Obama is doing well on all those levels. Those who would elevate Krugman's often academic talking points to something resembling a campaign strategy are wasting their time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

3. It's A Legitimate Point

If insurance companies are compelled to accept folks regardless of pre-existing conditions what's the incentive to buy health insurance... A fiscally prudent person could wait to get sick and then buy insurance... I have spent about $50,000.00* on health insurance in the past ten or so years and recived about $5,000.00 worth of benefits... Under Obama's plan the prudent thing for me to is cancel my insurance and see if I get sick and need it... Then I can buy it...


*Hard to figure out... I went from paying around $200.00 a month to $678.00 a month and not because I got sick a lot... I just got older...

[antiimperialist]

5. Yes, but only wealthy people would spend lots and lots of money, I assume

I assume health care for the very poor would be free, and low-cost for those with low income.
Question: What's your salary?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. Before Real Estate Crashed About $50K

Now about half...

[antiimperialist]

8. Yes, but under Clinton's plan, your costs wouldn't be so high

Because when everyone's chipping in, the costs will go down.
Krugman said that all three plans would reduce costs. He said, "In fact, all three plans include impressive cost control measures."
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/30/opinion/30krugman.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Op-Ed/Columnists/Paul%20Krugman

[DemocratSinceBirth]

9. Exactly

But if insurance companies were compelled to insure you regardless of pre-existing conitions I would give serious consideration to dropping my insurance and waiting until I get really sick... I could be spending 33 1/3 of my income on health insurance...

I think Medicare for all is the answer... If someone wants to supplement their Medicar; fine...

[ClarkUSA]

4. Actually, it's MSNBC's First Read that first said Krugman's tone "had" changed

Specifically, his accusation that Obama was echoing Republican talking points. Six months ago Krugman said,"The Obama plan is smart and serious, put
together by people who know what they're doing." That's a definite change in tone to me. :shrug:

[antiimperialist]

7. I didn't say the tone didn't change.

Actually I admitted the tone changed in my oringinal post.

[ClarkUSA]

10. New Hampshire's Concord Monitor agrees with Obama on the false "mandate" issue:

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

It's easy to see that if noncompliance rates are anything like those in other mandate situations, the Clinton plan will also leave millions or even
tens of millions uninsured. (We can get 15 million uninsured by taking about 5% noncompliance for the country or about 30% noncompliance
for presently uninsured, and we would be as likely to be right as any other expert.) The bottom line is that we have little reason to think that
mandates are important, and that Obama is open to considering them if experience proves they will help.

[antiimperialist]

11. Are you suggesting that car insurance and immunization should not be mandatory?

By logical analogy, that's your suggestion. I find it outrageous.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Huh? WTH did you get that from?

Logic has nothing to do with your conclusion... which I find outrageous. Personally, I think it's an unimportant distinction, since it will be difficult to
pass any of the plans through Congress (unless there's a strong Democratic majority) and it's not clear mandates work.

[antiimperialist]

17. logic has everything to do with it.

You said, "There little reason to think that mandates are important". And don't tell me you were only talking about health care, because you threw car insurance and immunization into the mix.

[ClarkUSA]

18. Um, I did not say that... the Concord Monitor editorial did.

So much for your "logic". :eyes:

[antiimperialist]

20. Why would you bring up the Concord Monitor's opinion if you didn't agree with it?

It is implicit in your post that you agree with what the NH paper said, because you presented it to us as support to your argument.

[sandnsea]

12. Uhm, get an idea, that's what matters

Paul Krugman doesn't matter because the bottom line is he's never going to have to deal with the financial consequences of an unaffordable mandate anyway.

You don't know whether a mandate is a good idea or not? Well the responsibiity of a voter is to develop an informed opinion on which to vote. Massachusetts is the only state with mandated insurance. You can see how that works. Oregon has subsidized insurance without a mandate. You can see how that works. Other states have different kinds of plans. Read the details and decide what you think. That's what really matters in the end.

Hillary pretending her plan is 100% coverage because it has an unenforceable mandate - well that's just silly season double talk and Paul Krugman knows it.

[antiimperialist]

13. You don't need to have cancer to do research on it

You used the same invalid logic that's been used against John Edwards, who has been attacked for being too rich or spending too much in haircuts to help the poor.

Your claim that "Paul Krugman doesn't matter because the bottom line is he's never going to have to deal with the financial consequences of an unaffordable mandate anyway." is funny.

Krugman might as well retire, if you were up to you, before writing about any idea on what's best for the poor or middle class.

[antiimperialist]

14. And I don't have to have an idea. I am not eligible to vote. I'm a legal resident of the US

Not a Citizen. And If I were eligible to vote, I will find out about the few issues I don't know anything about before election day. It's only December 6th.
Plus my main point was the difference between substance and tone and Krugman's consistency, regardless of who's right or wrong.

[sandnsea]

15. And mine was that it isn't important when you're dead n/t

[Patsy Stone]

19. Here's my take

To be honest, I just caught up on all of this today, and I don't see what the brouhaha is about.

I'm not sure when it became assumed that his "universal" plan meant socialized care, and when it was determined that the socialized plan had to happen all at once. If I understand the situation, Obama's plan was for universal health care by 2013.

If universal health care means "everyone has health insurance", then I can see the point of Obama's plan. If he can talk to the insurance companies and negotiate the price down, and the gov't pays/subsidizes to insure every low-income kid, some seniors, and everyone who is currently un-insurable and catastrophic cases, then employers can continue to cover their workers and their families, and medicare will cover the remainder of the seniors. Then, theoretically, everyone will have health insurance.

I imagine, as his term progresses, if he so chooses, he could work towards completely subsidized single payer insurance and take the employers out of it completely.

I never thought his plan was socialized medicine, so I'm not disappointed to find out it's not. I think a lot of the disagreement is about what people interpret as their vision of the perfect health care plan (including Krugman), and how Obama's plan differs from that, yet does insure all Americans.

The fact that everyone who wants to (and those who need to) be insured will be insured, and that any mandate would come only after they see how the plan progresses on it's own, do matter; and, let's face it, it would be a better world than the one we're in now.

I'm not sure an upfront mandate would be a better idea, maybe it would, but I'd be willing to try it without it first. As I said, I've just tuned in to this today, so if I missed anything, please let me know.