Obama Attacks Krugman But Forgets the Facts

[Progress And Change]

"There is no "then" and "now" with Krugman. Referring to Obama's health care plan as the "timidity of hope" is hardly positive. Krugman has been consistent throughout. However, you sure won't get that from Obama's "Fact Check" page.

Looking further into Obama's "Fact Check" pages, things get worse quickly. This headline isn't exactly tolerant: Obama Has Never Been A Muslim, And Is a Committed Christian. There is nothing wrong with being a Muslim. It's followed by OBAMA IS NOT AND HAS NEVER BEEN A MUSLIM, which is in all caps. I fully understand the necessity of attacking on the radical school angle, the madrassa slur, but this comes off completely paranoid. It's also a slam against honest American Muslim citizens. Hey, but it's a nod to evangelicals and anti Muslims so why not, right? This is the trouble when you start trying to prove your religious purity.

But why is Obama targeting Krugman on his website? Krugman believes mandates are critical in order to get everyone insured. Without mandates, which must include adults to be successful, you simply aren't going to get universal health coverage.

Maybe Obama's worried that the word will get out that his plan falls short of universal coverage. That would be because it does. Or maybe it's because he doesn't believe we can get to universal coverage and isn't even going to try. That would be more trouble for him in the primaries."

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26667

[lostnotforgotten]

1. DK Has The Best Plan Period!

eom

[cloudythescribbler]

2. Krugman did MUCH MORE than merely argue for mandates

Krugman suggested that Obama's non-support for mandates and his insistence that his was the better approach amounted to "mudslinging". And this was the HEADLINE. The issue of mandates apparently was initially and is mainly supported by RWers when they support ANY health coverage, as a replacement for a focus on making health care and health care coverage AFFORDABLE for everyone. I don't have the URL's at my fingertips but ESKOW, at Huffpo, and to a lesser extent Hundt at TPM Cafe have pointed out that the emphasis is FIRST on making health care coverage universally affordable and THEN, if needed, introducing a mandate; making the mandate tactic an issue of principle is perverse.

I resent Krugman using this highly debated among progressives, and highly debatable, point a litmus test of sincere progressivism. And his negative presumption (uncharacteristic for him to be so presumptive) about Obama 'mudslinging' makes his whole crusade on this issue seem like nasty & shallow propaganda.

I am no expert on these arcane policy issues, tho I live in MA and am not at all happy with the policy introduced by Gov Romney (yech).
I favor single payer which many say is politically unrealistic, which in the short run, given the ENORMOUS transformation of the system and costs involved, may indeed be true.


As a candidate, I am backing Obama, and think he is the strongest candidate. Trying to use mandates in the way the HRC campaign and apparently sympathetic press have done is plain wrong, in my arrogant opinion (IMAO)

[Progress And Change]

3. obama supports mandates (for parents) too. he just hides that fact from voters

[cloudythescribbler]

7. No, Obama very upfront about mandate for children

Obama's argument (and my point here is that the issue is ARGUABLE, not that I support or oppose mandates) is about freedom of choice, and in fact apparently is willing to consider mandates for adults if the problems of not having them turn out to be true. I support single payer -- so although I am an Obama supporter, this particular issue is not one I have passion invested in the substance. My point was that Krugman treated the issue as if no honest progressive could support Obama's position, and subsequent press debate about the issue has belied that assumption.

The idea is that children have no choice in whether they can have health coverage, so parents are required to see that their children have coverage. Adults might choose to not be covered themselves, remembering that forcing individual adults to BUY coverage that might be difficult to afford EVEN WITH subsidies means that these individuals will form another 'resistant constituency' to the health reform.

You might check out ESKOW'S piece on Huffpo -- he notes, again, that Obama wants to FIRST make health care as affordable to all as possible, and THEN consider any mandate. (Mandates for adults prove especially problematic once you consider the waiver system). Note that Obama does NOT make a categorical claim that mandates are wrong period in principle.

[Progress And Change]

8. so freedom of choice concerns vanish regarding parents?

Obama is having it both ways on this. If mandates are bad as Obama claims they are why does he advocate them?

[cloudythescribbler]

11. No, parents have wide choice of health coverage -- what you have ...

... is a 'balancing' of rights. Some insist that the rights of a just-conceived fetus outweigh those of the mother who doesn't want to bear the child (anti-choice). In later phases of pregnancy, abortion is SOMETIMES permitted. When I child is born, parents are required not only to refrain from child abuse, but to positively REFRAIN from neglecting the child's basic needs.

Obama would change the system to make healthcare coverage affordable, and then have a requirement that parents including health care coverage in those 'basic needs' of the child that must be met. One might debate as to how far parents' responsibility should go, but it's hardly like a situation of intrinsic hypocrisy.

I wonder why someone who supports HRC (who has a UNIVERSAL mandate) would criticize Obama for having parents required to cover their children. That is why I tried to explain how Obama's approach (and distinction b/t choice for oneself & for one's children) in what might seem this stilted way.

[Progress And Change]

12. not under obama's plan. they are required--"forced" in obama's words--to get HC

I am criticizing his double talk on the issue, not his mandate.

[BootinUp]

4. nonsense, the mudslinging reference

referred to the race in general. He was attempting to go past it with an expert analysis. You should reread the article I think.

Krugman has pointed out the good side of Obamas plan on more than one occasion. His main point on the downside has always been that he believes it will be harder to get to universal health care if the issue is not pushed hard by all the candidates. He immediately touted Edwards plan when it was released and criticized Hillary for not having hers out at the same time. Krugman is doing what he thinks is his part in forming the debate.

[cloudythescribbler]

6. Huh? Krugman CLEARLY implies that Obama is mudslinging

The article is entitled "Mandates and Mudslinging". It is a discussion of mandates, attacking Obama for his position and for his advocacy of that position (including HOW advocated). If that isn't the mudslinging referred to, please QUOTE whatever is the basis of your interpretation.

It almost strikes me as trying to put the least dishonorable spin on Krugman's column; but obviously I cannot claim to put myself in anyone else's shoes. The column seemed to me VERY clear and unambiguous in its reference.

How do others read the column?

[BootinUp]

9. I may have been thinking of the more recent one.

I took a look at and actually he was referring to Obama. Of course supporters of Obama will take issue with that, on the other hand Krugman seems to be concerned with the future of healthcare more than which Democrat is President (to me at least.)

[HughMoran]

5. Yeah, those Republicans - Obama, Clinton - are all wet. I'm voting for a Democrat!

I think the only Democrat is Kucinich as far as I can tell.

You know, I haven't seen one sign, ad or otherwise any presence here in the first-in-the-nation primary state. Is he actually serious about running for President?

[Lerkfish]

10. take a breather

I count at least 7 posts from you today smearing Obama.

and you only have 270 posts total.

pace yourself.

:)

and I notice you conveniently hide your profile.

I guess the Clinton Camp is much desperate.