April 25, 2008
Krugman's Confusion
Paul Krugman of the New York Times is one of my favorite columnists. And even though I voted for Barack Obama in the Maryland primary, I respect his pro-Hillary Clinton drumbeat of criticism aimed at Illinois' junior senator because I believed, until recent weeks, that spirited intellectual competition would sharpen both candidates for the bruising struggle ahead. I want the Democrats to win back the White House in the fall, a must in my view if we're going to get this country back on track. In the end, I'm a Yellow Dog Democrat. I'll gladly vote for either of them over John McCain, who promises us endless war in the Middle East and, on domestic issues, is a transparently duplicitous character getting a free pass from an infatuated national media.
As was apparent from the earliest days of this campaign, Clinton's greatest strength is among working class voters, educated women and older Democratic voters -- all for obvious reasons. The first constituency is crucial, since the others will go Democratic no matter who gets the nomination. The last time workers got a raise in this country was in the late 1990s. We're heading back into tough economic times. I don't think there's a dime's worth of difference between the two candidates on how they'd manage the economy, but trusting someone clearly associated with the last successful Democratic administration seems like a perfectly reasonable response to me.
But in today's column, Krugman attacks Obama for running ads stressing Clinton's support for making purchasing health insurance mandatory, and then suggests Obama's supporters have to be asking themselves "what is this campaign about?"
I don't want to rehash the wonkish debate over mandates. I know a lot about health care. I don't think they're necessary to get to near universal coverage. I think they're a trap politically. And they could be a trap as a system if they're not structured the right away, which is being proved right now in Massachusetts. Why should either Democratic candidate sign on in advance to this particular aspect of health insurance reform? It's precisely what a wonkish candidate who thinks they have all the answers would propose.
But that said, to suggest that there is no rationale for the Obama candidacy, as Krugman did this morning, begs a single word response: Iraq. Not once did he mention that word in his column. Not once did he mention foreign affairs. He only says that the Democrats need to position themselves as the party of prosperity in the fall, and that Clinton is the best candidate to do that.
What he ignores is going to be the main text of this year's fall campaign: What is America's approach going to be moving forward in its relations with the rest of the world? What face are we going to show a world where resources are increasingly constrained yet expectations are rising in its once-poor and still-poor precincts? Over the next couple of weeks, as these two excellent candidates engage in the final rounds of this long campaign, the debate should turn to who is best suited to turning the page on the failed policies of the recent past.
In November, Americans deserve a clear choice on how this country is going to handle Iraq, terrorism, oil, clean energy, and our relations with the developing world. Then, if they choose McCain, at least we will have walked eyes wide open into a future where there are even greater failures and more deaths and squandered treasure to come.
Posted by gooznews at April 25, 2008 07:07 AMIraq is still not the rationale for the Obama candidacy. His foreign policy advisor had to quit for characterizing Hillary as a monster, but what the foreign policy advisor really was put on the carpet was her telling the foreign press that Obama would not necessarily follow through on his plan of withdrawing from Iraq that he presents as a candidate.
But this wouldn't be the first time Obama presented himself as a candidate, something different in reality. Before the Iowa Caucus, he boasted for votes about his only legislative accomplishment in the U.S. Senate. The legislation never passed.
Posted by: Gregory D. Pawelski at April 25, 2008 12:39 PMAgreed. Immediate withdrawal is not realistic. Obama and Clinton would face the same conundrums in withdrawing from Iraq. But I take them both at their word that they would make it the goal of their policies, and accomplish it far more expeditiously than McCain
If, in every other respect, Clinton's and Obama's foreign policies were identical, I believe Obama would give our foreign a policy a much better image in the world. And in foreign policy, image matters.
Posted by: Merrill at April 25, 2008 03:28 PMIt's not just the image of GWB's foreign policy that has hurt us, it is the substance.
At this point I favor Obama, but it is because I suspect his intentions are better, not because I think he'll look better.
So anyway, if Obama avoids either further self-injury or stepping into the snare of going tit-for-tat with Clinton and manges to take the nomination, will Clinton accept the Number Two position
--under McCain?
Merrill and readers - First off, thanks for saying what many of us already "walking the walk" of individual mandates here in MA already know: THEY DON'T WORK!
What a disappointment that Krugman remains so confused on this point; economic theories on paper (a la Gruber from MIT and his individual mandate recipe for disaster) are not the same as what actually happens when modeled policies are enacted in real life...people are being harmed as they struggle to pay bills and are financially penalized for remaining uninsured.
For GoozNews readers who want to learn more about what's happening in MA r/t the individual mandate disaster, here's a link to a post by our state's House Chair of Ways and Means: "SUCCESS OF HEALTH CARE REFORM HINGES ON COST CONTAINMENT by Richard Tisei"
Posted by NPR's CommonHealth, Thursday, April 24th, 2008:
http://www.wbur.org/weblogs/commonhealth/?p=439#comments
And here's a nurse's comment to Chairman Tisei's post: "The only equitable and affordable solution to achieve cost control, guaranteed coverage and quality oversight is to create a program of social insurance. This is also called improved Medicare-for-all or single-payer health care. Watch the recent Frontline program “Sickness around the world” to see how this is done very effectively in 5 other capitalist democracies. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries
Clearly, a streamlined social insurance plan is the optimal way to spend monies collected for healthcare the most wisely, if financial stewardship is a goal.
Responsible financial stewardship of healthcare dollars is not happening if the current and very large amounts of money continue to be spent paying brokers like Mr. Randell and the Commonwealth Connector sub-Connectors and their sub-Connectors (it’s no joke–this level of wasteful bureaucracy really exists!).
Responsible financial stewardship of healthcare dollars is not happening if we continue to spend over 30% of every dollar on administration and market-driven bureaucracy. It is not happening if we continue to pay the multi-million dollar salaries to the state’s non-profit insurance co. CEO’s like Cleve Killingsworth, James Roosevelt, and Charlie Baker, not to mention their minions of highly paid executives like Andrew Dreyfus and Bruce Bullen.
One can reasonably expect that if you asked taxpayers and most business owners and investors if they would prefer better financial stewardship the answer would be yes. The logical next step is to ask elected officials at all levels of government to step up to the plate and work with the growing number of citizen-activists who support social insurance health reform.
It would do a lot to restore people’s faith in government if a public commitment was made by politicians and public agency leaders to put patients before profits in health reform and enact social insurance on the state level with SB 703 (see http://www.masscare.org ) and ultimately on the federal level with HR 676 (see http://www.healthcare-now "
Posted by: Ann Malone, RN at April 26, 2008 08:58 PM