Obama attacking Paul Krugman's credibility

[jsamuel]

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/7/22374/8663

by Jerome Armstrong, Fri Dec 07, 2007 at 10:37:04 PM EST

...

But it's not right to pinpoint Gibbs as the disaster behind this attack on Krugman's credibility. The fault is with Obama. It's obvious that Obama feels comfortable attempting to trash the credibility of progressives like Krugman. It's even more disturbing when coupled with the admiration that Obama holds for Republicans in his post-partisan quest. But this is just plain stupid.

What's the point? "Krugman Then, Krugman Now." Obama is saying that Krugman said one thing a few months ago and another now, but to what end? That's left unsaid, but the implication must be that Krugman's either a complete idiot who forgot what he said or that he's changed his words due to some sort of unethical or under-handed motive.

Actually, it's worse. Couple it with the quote of Obama's above the PR that says: "I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth -Barack Obama". It is plainly and simply an effort to call Paul Krugman a liar.

But it's also a telling quote of the way that Obama would govern as President-- by attacking those who are most outspoken in the being progressive.

If there's one person that I would point to in the establishment press that was there during the wilderness, the period of '01-'03, before Dean arrived on the scene, it was Paul Krugman. The guy should be awarded some sort of Presidential award by the next President for his truth telling while nearly all the rest of the establishment press could only be found on their knees in front of BushCo during the beginning of this decade.

Is Obama is just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman? Why is he going after the Clinton and Edwards plans to push forward the idea of universal coverage? Does he really have no clue that using the term 'crisis' to describe Social Security is Rovian?

It's mistakes like these that make me think that if Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle, and as he says, that's the way he'd govern too.

Bad form. Now if he were attacking say, Micheal Savage or Drudge, that is one thing...but Paul Krugman? I think it is because Krugman is right on. Obama's health plan is NOT Universal like Clinton's and Edwards'. Obama doesn't need anyone pointing out that he is to the right of his opponents in the democratic primary on the Number One issue in the primary.

[msongs]

1. maybe everything that came before obama is irrelevant ? nt

[Gloria]

2. The last sentence in the box touches on my doubts about O....

[Cameron27]

3. This we agree on,

bad form is right.

[patrice]

4. Thanks for this information.

We may be a "Red" state, but I'm going to caucus anyway.

[AX10]

5. Obama's rightward shifts to appear "bi-partisan" are much..

worse than Hillary's semi-hawkish stances on foreign policy. I see no problem with semi-hawkish stances on foreign policy. We do need a strong defense. Obama's attack on Krugman is for one reason, Krugman is a highly credible person. Obama is worried that the truth about his plan will be out in the open now, and that will hurt is campaign. It is also an opening for Hillary to move up again both in Iowa and nationally.

The truth: "the term 'crisis' to describe Social Security is Rovian"

[Progress And Change]

6. Obama is this year's Lieberman in the primary

He is the best Republican in the primary race...

[Larkspur]

10. Lieberman was Obama's mentor in the senate

And those of us in CT who supported Ned Lamont can tell you that Obama was a big DISAPPOINTMENT during the 2006 general election. Obama back stabbed Lamont and the CT Dems, like me, who ousted Lieberman fair-and-square in the August 8, 2006 Dem primary.

And Obama's "bi-partisan" rhetoric is right out of Lieberman's and the Republicans' playbook.

I despise the Clinton's and have grown to dislike Obama more and more. I'm just hoping that Hillary and Obama can nuke each other so that Edwards can win. I'm not an enthusiastic fan of Edwards, but he's better than both Hillary and Obama, and he did come to CT and publicly support Ned Lamont and the CT Dems.

[ClarkUSA]

26. Mentors are assigned to Senate freshman. Obama had no choice in the matter.

Me, I'm supporting the only Democrat who was against the Iraq war from the beginning.

[jonnyblitz]

39. i just googled "obama picked Lieberman as his mentor"

and got all sorts of interesting hits. I won't link to anything because I don't care to go back and forth with the "true believers" and you will all just discount it anyway but word is out that Obama chose Lieberman and Lieberman likes to brag about it.

[ClarkUSA]

44. So what? Senate rules are fixed and not subject to opinion.

And you're the last person to talk about "true believers".

[BootinUp]

46. I guess you missed the interview from 2003 where Obama

said he wasn't sure how he would have voted on the IWR.


Don;t let me rain on your little parade though. ;)

[Larkspur]

122. Obama uses Lieberman's "bi-partisan" rhetoric

Bi-partisam to Lieberman means caving into the Repukes.

[zulchzulu]

14. Bye

Welcome to DU. You're now on my Ignore List because you are an ass.

[ClarkUSA]

16. Um, Hillary & Lieberman are the only neocon warmongering Democrats to vote for IWR and Kyl-Lieberman

Thanks for the partisan BS. You're good at that, I've noticed.

[Progress And Change]

21. Obama is the only Democratic candidate who has ever advocated bombing Iran...

[ClarkUSA]

28. That's a false Clintonian talking point that's been debunked ad nauseum

Read this piece by Cenk Uygur on the matter: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/8/8/21445/23963

Oh, and welcome to DU. :eyes:

[DaLittle Kitty]

7. Here is the Krugman Piece...

AOL/Microsoft-Hotmail Preventing Delivery of Truthout Communications •

Go to Original

The Mandate Muddle
By Paul Krugman
The New York Times

Friday 07 December 2007

Imagine this: It's the summer of 2009, and President Barack Obama is about to unveil his plan for universal health care. But his health policy experts have done the math, and they've concluded that the plan really needs to include a requirement that everyone have health insurance - a so-called mandate.

Without a mandate, they find, the plan will fall far short of universal coverage. Worse yet, without a mandate health insurance will be much more expensive than it should be for those who do choose to buy it.

But Mr. Obama knows that if he tries to include a mandate in the plan, he'll face a barrage of misleading attacks from conservatives who oppose universal health care in any form. And he'll have trouble responding - because he made the very same misleading attacks on Hillary Clinton and John Edwards during the race for the Democratic nomination.

O.K., before I go any further, let's be clear: there is a huge divide between Republicans and Democrats on health care, and the Obama plan - although weaker than the Edwards or Clinton plans - is very much on the Democratic side of that divide.

But lately Mr. Obama has been stressing his differences with his rivals by attacking their plans from the right - which means that he has been giving credence to false talking points that will be used against any Democratic health care plan a couple of years from now.

First is the claim that a mandate is unenforceable. Mr. Obama's advisers have seized on the widely cited statistic that 15 percent of drivers are uninsured, even though insurance is legally required.

But this statistic is known to be seriously overstated - and some states have managed to get the number of uninsured drivers down to as little as 2 percent. Besides, while the enforcement of car insurance mandates isn't perfect, it does greatly increase the number of insured drivers.

Anyway, why talk about car insurance rather than looking at direct evidence on how health care mandates perform? Other countries - notably Switzerland and the Netherlands - already have such mandates. And guess what? They work.

The second false claim is that people won't be able to afford the insurance they're required to have - a claim usually supported with data about how expensive insurance is. But all the Democratic plans include subsidies to lower-income families to help them pay for insurance, plus a promise to increase the subsidies if they prove insufficient.

In fact, the Edwards and Clinton plans contain more money for such subsidies than the Obama plan. If low-income families find insurance unaffordable under these plans, they'll find it even less affordable under the Obama plan.

By the way, the limitations of the Massachusetts plan to cover all the state's uninsured - which is actually doing much better than most reports suggest - come not from the difficulty of enforcing mandates, but from the fact that the state hasn't yet allocated enough money for subsidies.

Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that "force every American to buy health care."

Look, the point of a mandate isn't to dictate how people should live their lives - it's to prevent some people from gaming the system. Under the Obama plan, healthy people could choose not to buy insurance, then sign up for it if they developed health problems later. This would lead to higher premiums for everyone else. It would reward the irresponsible, while punishing those who did the right thing and bought insurance while they were healthy.

Here's an analogy. Suppose someone proposed making the Medicare payroll tax optional: you could choose not to pay the tax during your working years if you didn't think you'd actually need Medicare when you got older - except that you could change your mind and opt back in if you started to develop health problems.

Can we all agree that this would fatally undermine Medicare's finances? Yet Mr. Obama is proposing basically the same rules for his allegedly universal health care plan.

So how much does all this matter?

:bounce:Mr. Obama's health plan is weaker than those of his Democratic rivals, but it's infinitely superior to, say, what Rudy Giuliani has been proposing. My main concern right now is with Mr. Obama's rhetoric: by echoing the talking points of those who oppose any form of universal health care, he's making the task of any future president who tries to deliver universal care considerably more difficult.



:bounce: I'd add, however, a further concern: the debate over mandates has reinforced the uncomfortable sense among some health reformers that Mr. Obama just isn't that serious about achieving universal care - that he introduced a plan because he had to, but that every time there's a hard choice to be made he comes down on the side of doing...



LESS.:nuke:

[gateley]

8. Your comment reminds me that I watched a forum the other day where Obama

told the audience his health car plan lets you buy in just like the one the Senate offers. I remember thinking, what if people can't afford to buy in?

I'm honestly not all that familiar with The Three's plans because I've been focusing on Biden, but Biden's plan would immediately cover kids and catastrophic illnesses, and for the rest of the people, a sliding scale premium -- if you don't have the money, you're covered for free. Doesn't Obama's plan have such a provision?

[zulchzulu]

9. Krugman is absolutely misinformed on how mandated healthcare insurance would be implemented

I agree with Krugman on "Medicare For All". However, I did an OP where I think he's wrong on several issues with mandates and other issues.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3804615&mesg_id=3804615

[penguin7]

11. What a silly argument

Both plans suck.

[penguin7]

13. Actually neither really have plans

Just assorted talking points.

[David Dunham]

12. Krugman has nailed Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[zulchzulu]

15. OK... your turn since no other Hillary supporter will answer my question

Here it is...

How will Hillary's mandated healthcare insurance policy be implemented and what are the penalties if someone wants to opt out of the plan?

Simple question...do you have an answer?

[ClarkUSA]

17. *crickets*

:eyes:

[BeyondGeography]

19. It takes a Potemkin village

to build a health care plan around mandates without enforcement provisions.

[Progress And Change]

23. has Obama ever explain his mandate and enforcement provision in Iowa and NH?

Or is that something he hides from voters?

[BeyondGeography]

27. It's out in plain view

==Obama says he would enforce his mandate for health care for all children by fining parents if they refused to allow health care coverage for their children.

"I am happy to be very clear how we enforce mandates for children, and the reason is because children don't have an option." ==

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/obama-scoffs-at.html

Now what was the Clinton enforcement mechansim again, or so we have to wait for a Blue=Ribbon Commission to put some recommendations together after she's elected?

[Progress And Change]

31. "Obama said on a conference call with reporters,"

:eyes:

That is what Obama says to the establishment. When he is talking to primary voters he rails against mandates...

[BeyondGeography]

40. So write your favorite candidate and tell him or her to call him on his bullshit

To which he would say: OK, Mr./Mrs. across-the-board mandate candidate, tell everyone about the garnishing of wages and the other awful things you would do to impose your mandate while I'm focusing on bringing down the cost of insurance.

Who wins that discussion?

[Progress And Change]

41. obama vowed a new politics but is resorting to lies and deception to acquire power

Obama should practice what he promised...

[ClarkUSA]

56. Gee, I wonder which candidate you support?

Lemme guess.... Shrillary?

[cuke]

105. Hillary has been clear about enforcement

She has said that it is to be decided. This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation for ALL of the candidates. If she had detailed the enforcement mechanisms, she'd be slammed for "dictating" every detail and for going after people with fines, etc, just as Obama is getting criticized.

That's why you won't see me criticize those who have stated enforcement measures for doing so, though I will criticize Obama's double talk on mandates. I won't criticize penalties for not getting insurance because I believe those irresponsible and selfish enough to not do so SHOULD be penalized.

[cuke]

113. *crickets*

Z wants to maintain the claim that no Clinton supporter can answer the question

[zulchzulu]

132. So there it is...Hillary hasn't decided how the mandate will work

Finally! An answer...which is nothing!

We have to wait for an answer how the mandate for forced healthcare insurance is implemented...oh...OK...

:shrug:

[Progress And Change]

32. "Obama said on a conference call with reporters,"

:eyes:

That is what Obama says to the establishment. When he is talking to primary voters he rails against mandates...

[Fredda Weinberg]

20. No, there's no penalty

Everyone is obliged to be covered in one way or another: through an employer’s plan, privately purchased insurance, or one of two government plans, either a version of Medicare (currently for old folks) or a scheme covering federal workers. Larger employers would have to pay for insurance or pay a penalty.

http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9825823

[ClarkUSA]

30. Actually, that's not what a Hillary spokesman and supporter said on MSNBC last week

He said that there would be a penalty along the lines of Romney's plan in MA -- a fine of $200 or thereabouts for non compliance by individuals.

[Fredda Weinberg]

111. I offered a source for my claim. Where's yours? n/t

[zulchzulu]

112. So a mandate doesn't have a penalty? Mandate and mandatory are the same thing

If healthcare insurance is called a mandate by Hillary Clinton, yet there is no penalty, then it's not a mandate. Does she mean man date?

:rofl:

[Progress And Change]

22. ask the same questions about Obama's mandate on millions of parents...

[rodeodance]

18. I trust Krugman regarding what he says about Obama's health care plan.

[ClarkUSA]

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

Please read the following, everyone who's interested in seeing another side of the argument as opposed to people only interested in
bashing Obama:

Editorial

Don't get sidetracked by the mandate debate
Monitor staff
December 07. 2007 12:40AM


The great health care mandate debate is a sideshow. Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards insist that
forcing individuals to buy a policy is crucial to providing universal health care or something close to it. Rival Barack Obama disagrees.
A mandate may be necessary to force those who refuse to sign up once affordable options are available, he says, but that step should
come at the end of the march to universal care, not at the beginning.

The debate has degenerated into arguments over who is or isn't being honest with voters. The question voters should focus on is which
candidate, if elected, can convince enough Republicans - who will use words like "confiscation" to describe any mandate - to go along
with a plan. The next question should be: Is this plan the best and most affordable path to universal coverage?

On the honesty question, when it comes to health care mandates, the edge goes to Obama. He rightly says they force people to buy
something before they know what it will cost and how good it will be, and many won't comply...

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

Former Clinton Secretary of Labor and Social Security Trust Fund trustee Robert Reich has already noted that:

But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and
contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old.
Hers requires that everyone insure themselves.

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

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.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3806817

[BeyondGeography]

35. Excerpting from that, there's the Massachusetts mandate mess

-==The plan has caused some 200,000 previously uninsured people to sign up, according to the New York Times. But at least that many, and probably far more, have not. The $219 penalty in the form of a loss of the personal exemption on the state income tax was not severe enough to prompt everyone to enroll. That penalty is expected to grow to at least $1,000 next year.

The Massachusetts plan has two other problems that the presidential candidates should address. The state has had to exempt an estimated 20 percent of its population from the mandate because they can't afford to participate. And the cost of subsidizing insurance for the many low-income residents who signed up for the plan greatly exceeded predictions, and that's before the double-digit increase in rates insurers are expected to charge next year.==

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID...

The experience in Mass. alone tells you Obama is right to focus on affordability before mandates.

[ClarkUSA]

48. "The experience in Mass. alone tells you Obama is right to focus on affordability before mandates."

That's right... and I've had at least two DUers from MA (who haven't drunk the Clinton Kool-Aide) say the same thing as you in one of my OP threads.

[BeyondGeography]

51. Obama is very friendly with Gov. Patrick, as you know

I'm sure they talked a lot about the situation there when he was putting his program together.

[ClarkUSA]

59. Good point... I'm sure you're right (those two are the best Democrats of their generation, btw)

Gov. Patrick, to his credit, endorsed Obama despite his ties to the Clintons. He gave a damn good endorsement speech as I recall.
Patrick also asked his supporters to help Obama in NH -- great guy!

[jillan]

25. Is he a Hillary supporter?

If Obama wants to win the nomination - and does - he better get used to people criticizing him.

[Progress And Change]

34. i doubt it. i think krugman is just interested in universal health care

[jsamuel]

37. exactly. He doesn't want people to get spun out of UHC.

[Nedsdag]

77. Then he should come out in favor of Kucinich.

He's a single payer advocate too. Why is he hiding behind Hillary and Edwards' mandates?

[Progress And Change]

82. kucinich has no shot at winning. that's why

[ClarkUSA]

54. Prof. Krugman is definitely a Clinton supporter.

I've said before that I know it from private conversations I've had with him (I know him dating back to 2003 from political circles in town).

And believe me, Obama is used to people criticizing him by now. lol

[BootinUp]

55. unbelievable.

Please supply more evidence.

[MontanaMaven]

103. Krugman is Not a Clinton supporter. Read his new book

I'll be diarying on "Conscience of a Liberal". Krugman has come to the conclusion that Universal Health Care cannot be compromised.
It's all about turning this nation around quickly. He's very concerned about the downward spiral of the economy. He used to think like most economists that it was about globalization. Now he has come to the conclusion that it's about bad politics. So he says that "bi-partisanship" cannot work in the present atmosphere. Income equality must be fixed first.

He might have been an admirer at one point, but I wouldn't bet money on it now.

[BlueEyedSon]

121. Maybe in 2003, but not now.

[calmblueocean]

29. As I read it, Krugman's the one who doesn't get it.

The way I understand it, Obama is basically refusing a mandate because some people at the bottome JUST CAN'T AFFORD to pay for health insurance, period. They don't make enough. Krugman points out that other people will end up footing the bill, but I don't have a problem with that. Demanding that even the poorest people pay for health insurance just ensures that they will have a harder time moving out of poverty.

Honestly, I support Kucinich's single payer, not-for-profit, universal health care proposal, but Krugman's attacks on Obama seem wrongheaded and out of line to me. If I've misunderstood something about this complex issue, I'm sure some smart DUer will correct me. :)

[ClarkUSA]

33. You obviously get it.

Thanks for the unbiased summation. :thumbsup:

[Union Thug]

42. I think you've nailed it. And I agree, single payer UHC is the only plan

that makes sense.

[BootinUp]

50. Sure I'll correct you

People who can't afford to pay for health care under the Hillary Healthcare mandate will get subsidies.

[geek tragedy]

36. Krugman is trying to help Hillary get elected.

He's fair game.

[Progress And Change]

38. anyone who criticizes obama must be for hillary, right?

[Nedsdag]

78. Let's put it this way.

If he was a true single payer advocate, he would back Kucinich and stop with this masquerade.

[Colobo]

43. Absolutely- he's trying to put down Obama, but it won't work.

[Progress And Change]

52. krugman has a long record of fighting for progressive ideas

So it is not surprising that he is fighting Obama's right-wing assault on universal health care. That has zero to do with Clinton. It has to do with Krugam's audacity of hoping for universal health care.

[Cameron27]

45. I don't think so.

Just because Paul Krugman finds fault with Obama's plan, doesn't mean he's doing it to help Clinton.

[geek tragedy]

47. He attacks Obama with extremely angry language

about once per week. He's made it clear he can't stand Obama for the better part of a year now.

[BeyondGeography]

49. Or Edwards

or his delicate academic sensibilities have somehow been offended by the bare-knuckled spectacle aka primary season.

[BootinUp]

53. How someone can read an editorial that praises every plan except Obamas

and conclude that person is a Hillbot is beyond me. Feel free to explain this seemingly ridiculous assertion.

[ClarkUSA]

57. Because Krugman has attacked Obama in 3 out of the last 4 columns while defending Clinton

And Krugman is not a NYT editor -- he's only an opinion columnist (like Maureen Dowd). Also, I know him personally and he is indeed a Clinton supporter.

[BootinUp]

58. So let me get this straight.

You have out of hand dismissed his critique of Obamas plan and political tactics and decided he is just a Hillary supporter (I'm sorry, you know him, lol).

Krugman has been a reliable progressive voice longer than you and even longer than Wes Clark. Your charge is severely lacking in any credibility.

[ClarkUSA]

66. Wrong again.

I dismissed Krugman's attacks - replete with Clintonian talking points - on Obama as partisan-motivated. And yes, I do know Prof. Krugman through social
political circles since 2003-2004. He's not shy about telling people he knows whom he supports.

To assume Krugman's progressiveness means that he is free of partisan bias is ridiculous. He was for Dean in 2003-2004 and it showed in his op-eds then
(yes, he told me he was for Dean in 2003). BTW, your bias towards all things Hillary and against all things Obama makes you a poor judge of my credibility
or lack thereof, not that I give a damn what you think.

[BootinUp]

72. You're like a rovian attack dog.

All you have is your smearing of people based on proven or unproven alliances. Please realize, that some are smarter than to buy that kind of bullshit and prefer to focus on facts.

[ClarkUSA]

80. That's funny coming from a supporter of a campaign that sends out swift boating Madrassa emails

Like I said, I don't give a damn what you think. And since when have you ever focused on facts? You've been nothing but a Clinton apologist and cheerleader
ever since Clark endorsed Hillary. At least I've been consistent since September 17, 2003... I'm still supporting a candidate who opposed the Iraq war from
the beginning.

[BootinUp]

88. I don't care a lick if you give a damn, I'll still refute your bs time permitting. nt

[ClarkUSA]

90. Your idea of BS is Clintonian for "anything critical of Her Royal Hillaryness or her loyal subjects"

Too bad dissent is no longer patriotic, eh?

See ya.

[BootinUp]

92. Whats this a 5 minute complete edit. Did you get that hate out now?

:rofl:

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. What Did She Say?

One Obama supporter who I am prohibited by DU rules to repeats his name said "it was a shame Hillary wasn't taken hostage" ... Did it top that?

[BootinUp]

106. You are seeing the worst of it.

Before it was just a "Uh huh."

I was just pointing out how it morphed from that to another Clinton hate screed.

[Sparkly]

76. I still haven't seen Krugman's main point refuted anywhere

Was it you I had this discussion with a week or so ago?

The question of how an unmandated plan can be affordable hasn't been answered. (The 'answers' are criticisms of other plans, gotchas about car insurance, even comparisons with Europe, in an effort to throw the question aside.)

If I saw an argument that showed Krugman's reasoning is wrong, I might think he was disingenuous and for some reason simply wanted to support Clinton and all the integrity he's been known for was a farce. (On edit: or that he's stupid, which is hard to believe.)

But I haven't seen such an argument.

[ClarkUSA]

84. You're not looking hard enough then.

Try again. There's plenty of replies on this thread that gives food for thought but I doubt confirmed Clinton Kool-Aide drinkers are really interested.

[Sparkly]

85. I'm not sure whether that insult was directed to me

but I'd be very interested in understanding if there's a way for an unmandated plan to be affordable, given that healthy people wouldn't have an incentive to sign up for it until they ran into high medical expenses.

Nothing I've read on DU or anyplace else really counters what Krugman is saying on that. I think he's pretty brilliant, but while I see him being attacked, I don't see the basis for it. If he's wrong on this -- his main point -- I'd like to see a real counter-argument.

"An unmandated plan, without any penalties for signing up after an expensive health need arises, can be made affordable for those who subscribe to the plan by....?" Can someone who claims his argument has holes in it please fill in that blank?

[ClarkUSA]

86. No insult intended at all...

Just a personal observation. And I've posted counter-arguments to Krugman's hit piece(s) on this thread and many others that are bashing Obama so if you
haven't seen them/can't see them, I can't help you further.

[cuke]

114. Not true

I am also waiting for an Obama supporter to actually defend his plan and explain how a plan can be universal if there are no individual mandates, and no one has been able to answer that question.

The only "counter-argument" you have is that Krugman was not as harsh about Obama's plan when it first came out. Your "counter argument" is about Krugman, and says nothing about Obama's plan.

[BootinUp]

60. To all those attacking Krugman. F You, seriously,

This guy has been fighting the good fight long enough and on the front lines, to where he doesn't have to deal with blogger conspiracy theory bullshit. Get some creds first then you can think about challenging him.

[BeyondGeography]

61. We bow down in reverence before his CRED

Absurd.

[BootinUp]

62. What is absurd is ignoring his commentary on policy. nt

[BeyondGeography]

63. We're, um, discussing it

Which is the whole point of this site, I think.

[BootinUp]

64. I am talking about charges he is writing articles to favor one candidate. And

I repeat my eralier statement, F those that are doing it.

[BeyondGeography]

65. Well, would you say he has been writing articles to oppose one candidate?

[BootinUp]

67. No. He has been writing articles that criticize one candidates policies/tacticts. nt

[BeyondGeography]

68. Three in a row about one candidate in a six-horse race...a little strange isn't it?

In fact, in all my years as a Times reader, I haven't seen anything like it.

[Progress And Change]

70. one candidate who is the front-runner in Iowa and opposes universal health care

He is the logical target for someone with Krugman's record. What is he supposed to be doing? Attacking Clinton for her universal proposal?

[BootinUp]

74. You mean you find it strange he wrote another after Robert Reich attacked him? nt

[BeyondGeography]

81. I find it strange that before ONE single caucus, let alone a primary

he has gone after the same candidate three times in two weeks. Again, this is unprecedented at the Times, I promise you.

His motives were something I and many others were more fired up about a week ago. As you can see from the threads tonight, most of the conversation is about the advisability of mandates, and it has been pretty informative. No need for the "F you," if you ask me.

[BootinUp]

87. 3 times? I have only seen 2 articles, and one was after

he was attacked by Reich. I am afraid to read the thread based on a few posts I have looked at. As for the F you part, it comes from being on the lower part of the totem poll ( minority ) and trying to fend off an onslaught of unfair and unfounded criticism that too often looks like something from the RW, slime and defend tactics.

[cuke]

115. BG is flat out wrong about that.

The first of three was not in the last two weeks. It came out in June I think, when Obama released his plan. The 2nd was in response to Obama's use of rightwing rhetoric, and the last was in response to Reich's arguments

[Progress And Change]

69. which is to be expected given krugman's record on universal health care

Why would Krugman be silent on a right-wing assault on UHC simply because it is Obama, not Giuliani or Lieberman, behind it?

[BeyondGeography]

71. The first column was on social security, Mario

[Progress And Change]

73. Krugman is a strong advocate of Social Security as well

Is it a surprise that Krugman is attacking a Democrat who is attacking progressive ideas from the right? Would you be surprised if Krugman attacked Lieberman? Mario?

[ClarkUSA]

75. LOL

:toast:

[maximusveritas]

79. Jerome is worse than Krugman

He's an Obama hater. It goes further than disagreement with him. It's personal.

As far as Krugman, I really object to the idea that just because of his past, we can't criticize him or respond to any mistakes he makes. Now, the response by Obama may have been weak and misleading, but I don't like the idea of saying we can't criticize Krugman and those like him.

[killbotfactory]

83. Oh please

This line of argument is absurd. Obama disagrees with Krugman's take on his plan, obviously, he's not trashing his credentials as a progressive or whatever stupid crap he's trying to imply.

[burrowowl]

89. Say what!?

Obama is very DLC!

[ClarkUSA]

91. Since when?

Obama is not and has never been a member of the DLC and he was rated this year by National Journal as the most liberal of all the Democratic presidential candidates.

Try facts next time.

[Radical Activist]

93. What a bunch of crap.

Could it be that Krugman is stretching the truth because he doesn't like Obama? That would be the logical, simplest explination. But oh no, its another weak attempt to paint Obama as a conservative by a supporter of a guy who only figured out he was liberal right before he ran for President the second time.

[Cameron27]

94. No, Krugman's earned his creds,

and this isn't about Edwards, (who's last on my list of candidates btw)and not about Clinton, it's about the Obama campaign sniping at a respected progessive because he faulted his healthcare plan.

[Radical Activist]

96. Even progressives have biases

that make them unfair sometimes. The fact that Obama thinks Krugman is being unfair or inaccurate toward him doesn't make Obama a conservative. That's just idiotic.

[Cameron27]

98. Krugman objects to the language that Obama's

used to defend his plan while attacking the mandates in Clinton's and Edwards' plans. Obama's also used some RW catch-phrases about SS to go after Clinton.

[Radical Activist]

99. When someone has detailed policy proposals and a long record

like Obama does then there's no need to make judgments based on someones opinion about what sounds like a right wing catch phrase. Pitching progressive ideas in language that moderates and conservatives understand is how progress is made.

[Cameron27]

101. It didn't sound like a RW catch-phrase,

it was the very thing that the conservatives have used against SS for years.

[Radical Activist]

102. What would that be exactly?

Somehow I missed that round of painting Obama as a conservative. I do see a problem. I don't think young workers and others working low wage jobs should be taxed regressively to support the richest age group in the country. Doing something now to avoid bigger problems later sounds good to me.

[cuke]

117. Here are a few examples of Obama using right wing rhetoric

1) He claims there is a SS crisis.

2) He states that most teens believe that SS will not be around when they retire

3) He criticizes mandates because they force people to do something they don't want to

4) He claims that Hillary has been planning on running for president for 20 years or more

And you repeat rw propoganda with your anti-tax talk. There is nothing regressive about mandates or universal health care. What's regressive is a health care system that doesn't provide care to the uninsured.

[Radical Activist]

124. The social security tax is very regressive.

That's not a right wing talking point. Its the truth. The burden of that tax is placed unfairly on the poor and the progressive thing would be to abolish it altogether or ask the wealthy to pay more. Its pretty scary if we start calling people right wing just because they state real facts.

So besides the fact that Obama made factual, accurate statements about Social Security, what's so conservative about his plan about it? Anything? Or is your argument so weak that you have to make Obama look conservative with spin about what he says rather than looking at his actual proposal. If there's something conservative about what Obama has actually proposed for SS then go ahead and post. Please.

[cuke]

125. Obama doesn't think so

He disagreed when Clinton pointed that out. Once again, Obama is on the "right" side of an issue.

But since YOU think it's a regressive program, do you oppose SS?

[Radical Activist]

129. Doesn't think what?

You didn't post anything about Obama's plan so you must not find it conservative at all. Facing up to the reality that we have a problem doesn't make someone conservative. It means they aren't an ostrich.

I think the cap on what the rich pay should be lifted. It would make the tax less regressive.

Ideally, I would love to see the SS tax abolished and funded through the income tax instead. It would be far more fair that taking a huge portion out of the paychecks of people who make very little and giving it to the richest age group in the country. Why should people struggling to get by be taxed to subsidize retired people with tons of cash sitting in the bank? Right now people on welfare working for minimum wage are having SS taken out of their check so that people as rich as Dick Cheney can collect on it. Tell me what exactly is progressive about that.
And if the day comes when we have to tax 30% of the paychecks of young people in order to pay for social security and medicare for babyboomers then there will be a revolt. So why not deal with that problem now instead of pretending there isn't one?

[jsamuel]

95. Or maybe it is possible that he disagrees with Obama on the issue of healthcare.

just maybe

[Radical Activist]

97. And even that wouldn't make Obama a conservative.

Obama has a progressive record more than 10 years long. Edwards has a lot of things to apologize for. I want someone with a record that backs up his rhetoric, not someone who moves left during the primary.

[Progress And Change]

100. Obama is the most conservative candidate

On the two most important domestic issues, health care and Social Security, he is far to the right of Clinton and Edwards. On Iraq they are all about the same.

Typical. When Obama is being criticized deflect attention to Clinton or Edwards. What does Edwards have to do with Obama's promotion of right-wing memes and his non-universal health plan?

[flpoljunkie]

107. Jerome Armstrong and Taylor Marsh both need to read Robert Reich, "Why is HRC Stooping So Low?"

Monday, December 03, 2007
Why is HRC stooping So Low?

I’m becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I’m as hard-boiled as they come about what’s said in campaigns, I just don’t think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn’t need a whole lot to keep it going – it’s in far better shape than Medicare – but everyone who’s looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it’s indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn’t have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent – maybe to $115,00. That’s a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that’s what Greenspan’s Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama’s plan would “raise taxes” and her plan wouldn’t, she’s simply not telling the truth.

I’m equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I’ve compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama’s would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC’s. That’s because Obama’s puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who’s likely to need help – including all children and young adults up to 25 years old.Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance – and we’re learning from what’s happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated – that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can’t afford to insure themselves even when they’re required to do so. HRC doesn’t indicate how she’d enforce her mandate, and I can’t find enough money in HRC’s plan to help all those who won’t be able to afford to buy it. I’m also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O’s plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They’re both advances, but O’s is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O’s would leave out 15 million people.

more...

http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2007/12/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-low.html

[BootinUp]

108. This one is better though

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-sperling/correcting-the-record-on-_b_75602.html

Correcting the Record on Robert Reich's Statement about Hillary Clinton's Economic Policies

Posted December 6, 2007 | 10:41 AM (EST)

While I have had a long and close relationship with Robert Reich--and I have a great deal of respect for Senator Obama--Reich's recent blog post about Senator Clinton's economic policies was so unfair and personal in its critique, and had so much incorrect information, I feel compelled to set the record straight.


1. Reich's suggestion that Senator Obama's Healthcare plan, which does not include an individual requirement, would actually cover more people than Senator Clinton's plan--and that Senator Clinton is "stooping low" to suggest otherwise--is neither logical nor plausible.

While I can understand a political rationale for not having an individual requirement for health insurance, I cannot possibly see how Bob - or anyone else - can make the statement that without such a requirement you might somehow cover more Americans than with one. Senator Clinton put forward a healthcare plan based on shared responsibility, including an individual requirement, after she and her advisors were convinced by the fact that every - and I mean every - independent expert we spoke to was unanimous in their view that without an individual requirement, her plan would fail to cover a large chunk of the uninsured. We knew that including an individual requirement would mean tougher attacks from most Republicans. But Senator Clinton chose to bear that risk because without such a requirement, she would not only be unable to achieve coverage for all Americans, but would be less able to combat insurance company discrimination and to end the hidden tax that comes from health costs being shifted from those without insurance to those who are covered.

Bob Reich makes the illogical leap that since individual requirements - like auto insurance - do not always lead to perfect compliance, programs without a requirement will cover the same or more people. Really? If one believed that, then they must believe that states would be better off getting rid of their apparently silly requirements for drivers to have auto insurance since as many or more people would be covered without. Requiring parents to educate their children does not have 100 percent compliance, but does anyone think it is a bad idea to require education for all children in the United States? Senator Obama made a choice to have a health insurance requirement for children because he knew that millions more children would be covered with that requirement than without. Whatever case the Obama campaign wants to make for its decision not to include a requirement for adults as well, suggesting that you can cover the same or more people is just not plausible.

I encourage Bob or anyone else interested in this issue to review the overwhelming consensus of credible independent experts who have found that an individual requirement is a necessary component of any plan designed to cover all Americans. .

much more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gene-sperling/correcting-the-record-on-_b_75602.html

[Marbury]

109. Let's Stay Calm and Take It Down a Notch, Folks

Everyone who reads the New York Times has already decided who they'll vote for. Krugman is doing nothing but preaching to the Clinton Choir (yes, c'mon folks, let's be serious, the guy is a Clinton supporter, but so what? He's a columnist) and rangling with the Obama folk who would already walk on thier lips through busted glass for him. There are NO undecideds reading the Times! The other 90+ (or more!) percent of people in this country with whom you should concern yourselves.

[Cameron27]

110. No you stay calm,

Krugman isn't shilling for Clinton. He simply finds fault with Obama's healthcare plan and gave the reasons why.

[cuke]

118. They make ridiculous statements, devoid of facts, and think they are the calm ones

If they were as calm as they tried to appear, they would actually post something factual, instead of emotional

[incapsulated]

116. lol, good luck with that

Really.

[autorank]

119. Well, at least he reads Krugman. Paul Krugman was THERE since day 1, he's a hero and excellent

analyst. What the heck is this about. I agree with Armstrong's analysis. And, yes why not go after the Savages, the Glen Becks and the corrupt corporate entities that go out of their way to broadcast this filth.

This is an outlier on Obama but may be very significant. Whose next? Oh, yeah, he'll go after DU pretty soon;)

[Renew Deal]

120. I think Krugman made himself fair game.

Krugman has been more than critical of Obama. It's fair for Obama to come back at him.

[BootinUp]

123. This is a great excuse for

the unfounded slime that has been hurled. I think I've heard that same excuse from Rove before.

[Renew Deal]

127. So you agree?

:shrug:

[cuke]

126. Isn't that what Rove said about Valerie Plame?

[Renew Deal]

128. That's the game of politics.

The difference between Obama's campaign and Rove is that Rove did something illegal.

[Cha]

130. I like Paul Krugman a lot!

He's been carrying heavy water for us for how long now?

Great interviews with Paul Krugman in the 40th Anniversary Issue of Rolling Stone.. as well as Gore, Clooney, Jon Stewart, Eli Pariser, Billie Joe Armstrong and some other great ones.

[KaptBunnyPants]

131. Several bad moves on the part of Obama lately.

Obama/Edwards used to be pretty evenly in second place behind Kucinich for me. Now he's talking about "fixing" social security, hanging out with "ex-gay" spokesmen, and running against universal healthcare. Even Hillary is starting to look like a more attractive candidate in comparison.

[zulchzulu]

133. Krugman has to do a column about how mandated healthcare insurance will be done

It will be greeted with open arms...flowers...candy...puppies running in cute little circles...ah, the sky will be so, so blue!

Edwards has said that if you don't sign up, the government will sign you up and your wages will be garnished and you'll be fined. Hillary says that a "blue ribbon committee" will tell her how it will happen after her Coronation Ball... gee, I can't fucking wait!

Hey Krugman, let's see your scenario for how successful mandated healthcare coverage will be. Heck, make it a musical! We already have a song..."The Impossible Dream".

[Time for change]

134. Why on earth is he attacking Krugman?

Did Krugman say something bad about him or something?