FYI, many on the Left believe that Obama is in the wrong here and has unjustly misrepresented his own positions and those of Krugman, and diminished himself in the process:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/8/21620/0620/385/419630

Personally, I put a lot more stock into Krugman than Obama, who in my opinion is hardly more of a leader than Hillary-- both seem to calculate every move, every vote in terms of how it postures them politically, instead of what is the progressive position or what will benefit our country.

There have been far, far too many instances in this past year when Obama (and Hillary) have left us asking "Where are they?" when we need true leadership to guide us out of this morass, and I see Obama trying to stake out a nebulous middleground on this too.

When will politicians learn that people respond to courage and leadership, not what their advisors tell them is "politically safe?"

So far, I have no reason to believe that Obama (or Hillary) has the courage to take on the powerful stakeholders who benefit from our corrupt healthcare system, i.e. the insurance companies and hospitals, and keep us from achieving any semblance of a just and equity health-care delivery system.

Perhaps they're just trying to no piss off any powerful forces that might get in their way to getting elected, and once in office they'll do the right thing, but so far we have to take that as a matter of faith, and I see no reason to trust them to do so when they haven't had the courage to speak out on issues that the majority of Americans support (but the powerful industries do not).

While I understand the need to back your candidate, I would suggest knowing more about your subject before trying to take down a PHD economist on a economist policy. And tying to slander Krugman by calling him a liberal as opposed to a progressive, is just silly. Here's some reading to catch you up on why Obama is wrong, why Krugman is upset with Obama (because he makes it less likely that universal healthcare will happen), and why Obama should change his rhetoric if not his actual policy.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_12/012664.php

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/oy-obama/

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/12/obama-goes-afte.html

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/12/8/8541/82851

Sorry, forgot one. Probably the most important one too.

From Jonathan Cohn

I like Obama, but his campaign is making a tactical error by launching a coordinated attack against Paul Krugman. First, no one particularly noticed the minor reference to Obama in Krugman's column. Launching a full-scale attack against him just draws attention to it. Second, it looks weird for a Presidential campaign to get their panties in a bunch over the opinions of a single columnist. And finally, Paul Krugman is pretty well-liked among the activist class. If Obama forces people to choose between liking Krugman and liking Obama, a lot of people are going to side with Krugman.

Bert, I haven't been following this too closesly, but didn't Krugman basically just say "Obama's plan is bad," so Obama quoted him saying "Obama's plan is good?" Is this really dirty campaigning?

TA,

Has Krugman written anything that puts him in the Hillary or Edwards camp, as you suggest?

Moreover, your attempt to slam "liberals" is fairly silly, considering that a "progressive" is just a liberal who lets conservative bullies control the language.

Bert, there has been no attack on Krugman from the Obama campaign and I've been following it pretty closely.

Stop spreading misinformation:

Obama does NOT oppose a mandate, he has repeatedly said he would consider a mandate in the following scenario:

1) he makes healthcare affordable

2) people who can afford to buy insurance do not.

He just thinks that people don't have healthcare not because some armchair bureaucracy-loving liberal hasn't forced them to, but because they don't have the money to. That's his priority.

We've had enough of narcissistic north easterners turn off people.

The whole question of mandate enforcement is an interesting one. The auto insurance parallel is not really an apt model. It is tied to ownership of a vehicle and proof must be presented every time registration is renewed. The carrot here is the highly desirable driving privilege and the stick is the risk of arrest for invalid license plates.

Is there a similar carrot/stick for medical coverage? I have my doubts. My daughter (early twenties) would be unlikely to buy insurance, even though at her age it is not particularly expensive. She simply thinks she won't need it. My son ($11/hr) and his family would have trouble affording it.

The alternative is to "mandate" it the same way that you mandate taxes--payroll deductions. It's already being done for medicare and for most people whose employers offer health insurance coverage. For students, universities could require proof of coverage and offer insurance as part of their fees. For the poor and unemployed, there is the Oregon Health Plan.

So the real issue is not the "mandate": it's the "taxes" needed to fund it, which could be a combination of private insurance coverage payroll deductions and universal medicare deductions. It's not clear that major employers or employees would object, since they pay already. However, the rabid, rightwing noise machine would have a conniption fit, and are reay to pounce. The Presidential candidates are all doing an elaborate dance to avoid having to state the obvious. And none are willing to fall on their swords for real health care reform.

I now suspect that Krugman's opinions is bought and paid for by the Hillary Clinton campaign. Why else would he stoop down to the level of personal attack that was so much fun for Hillary Clinton? I know several other Phds in economics that believe that mandates don't and won't work on Healthcare unless the insurance is affordable in the first place. The America that rid itself of "free loaders" like Krugman would want is not the United States of America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.

This is the same reason why Hillary failed in 1993, because then, she, like Krugman now went straight into demonizing everyone that disagreed with their opinion. Thank God that Obama is currently inching up in the polls to save the democrats from another embarrassment on Healthcare from Hillary Clinton and her paid and semi-paid advisers.

I agree with verasoie above - Krugman over Obama, "Obama trying to stake out a nebulous middleground on this too" and "no reason to believe that Obama (or Hillary) has the courage to take on the powerful stakeholders who benefit from our corrupt healthcare system."

I might vote for Obama but only because I'm in the anybody-but-Hillary camp, but I have no illusions about Obama being that much better. He has style, but check beyond that and he comes across as an emperor/senator down to his skivvies. Has anyone asked who is behind Obama? The Daley machine?

As for mandates all the Western European countries with national health care systems that rate better than ours, according to the WHO report for 2000, have some sort of mandatory component.

a "progressive" is just a liberal who lets conservative bullies control the language. Wo! That is harsh. Harsher even than my observation that "libertarians" are but conservatives on pot.

Clearly, I agree... name calling is silly.

Has anyone noticed that their plans collectively bear a striking resemblance to a health care plan proposed a) recently by Ron Wyden, and b) by the late President Richard M. Nixon in 1974?

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

I think in the course of debating the issue of Universal Heathcare neither side wants to base their arguments on our own history, or even that we have one.

I collect debt for a living. My job for 15 years in Las Vegas, Phoenix, and San Diego was as an expert on disputed claims resolution with these very same insurance companies. My job was to stay one step ahead of the Claims Nurses and Adjusters whom prime concern was saving the HMO or PPO from paying the claim.

I started in Las Vegas in 1984 about the sametime Sierra Health Services began it's HMO, and PPO plans to compete with the strong union plans in Southern Nevada. Much of the reason for the consolidation of insurance companies & health providers & hospitals/clinics was sold as a progressive way to keep health INSURANCE affordable for the consumer.

In the final analysis it was a consolidation for the same reason any corporation consolidates, PROFITS! Though Kaiser & Sierra was founded by doctors, it was the insurance companies that took the idea to it's final perversion.

Not that a non-union member could get Culinary Union coverage, but only that after a terribly long strike that brought the casinos to sign 'me too contracts' that were comparable to the Culinary Union's contracts which essentially put the burden on employers for similar plans through out the county.

The fact that a substantial portion of employees in Las Vegas had a comprehensive healthcare plan heaped pressure on all business in Nevada to compete for the same labor. Why work for an employer if you are a family man/woman that has a lame healthcare plan, and leaves you holding the bag if you can recieve comparable wages and a good plan working for the many other employers in the county?

This labor nirvana ended in a short time as the insurance companies, medical providers, and employers of Clark County grew at a historical rate through the 80's with the invention of the video poker machine, and the huge investments into gaming from Wall Street.

Medicare introduced at about the same time the incremental evolution of medical billing with coding, and uniform billing forms that became the new Witchcraft for exploding medical costs to patients. The price gouging of insurance companies though HMO's meant to spread the cost while rationing of that same healthcare simultaneously. Pitting the patient and the doctor against one another, and sticking it to both at the same time.

Put simply, the Insurance Companies ended up owning healthcare outright and took thier profits from both ends of the equation. The very issue that is flogged to deprive us of a real solution to healthcare delivery in America was to claim Universal Healthcare, or Medicare for everyone would end up with RATIONED HEALTCARE. This was while they were already rationing care across the board.

Fact is the HMO's and PPO's along with the Pharma Industry have already implemented RATIONING since the mid '80s incrementally until it has become among the worse and assuredly the most expensive healthcare system in the world. Thats right, we ration healthcare today based on your ability to pay, or the expense of your illness as it effects the insurance companies bottom line!

I would submit that the issue of Mandates in the argument of Universal Healthcare is the Big Lie!

The simple truth is that as long as a profit is made insuring people's health only those who can afford healthcare, or have an inexpensive illness will recieve care at all.

Capitiation drove me out of the industry. Capitation is the ultimate end game for healthcare rationing for the insurance companies. The insurance companies paid providers in advance of the services ever being provided. The insurance company pays the hospital, medical group/clinic or doctor quarterly inadvance of any patients being seen based on what the insurance companies think the provider would have billed, thus any services provided over the advanced payment is an added expense to the medical provider that he will not recoup. This way the providers have to ration their care voluntarily and the insurance companies no longer have to explain why they denied a medical procedure, and or service since they have the doctors doing that dirty work for them.

If we have any chance of pulling our economy out of it's spiral backwards to Liaise-faire days with a Great Depression end game we need to take the PROFITS OUT OF HEALTHCARE COVERAGE.

It is true that Medicare and Champus have but 3% adminstrative costs compared to 30-40% costs of the private insurance sector, and that is a good argument, but not enough. I believe that if we are to stay a civilized,and remain a truly representative form of democracy, we will have to implement Universal Healthcare Coverage so as to deliver care based on the need for that care as seen by the doctor and patient, not the profits of the insurance company!

Happy Thoughts;

Dan Grady

Mother Jones has an article Obama's Health Care Problem.

Also, it should be emphasized that none of the major candidates have health care plans. They have health insurance plans. And what we're debating is whether we should be forced or merely coerced into paying the insurance companies.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

Posted by: James X. | Dec 9, 2007 10:16:28 AM

Le me be more specific, I support Medicare Single Payor Coverage for everyone. Mandatory to the extent that if you can not show proof of coverage, then you must pay into the Medicare plan.

The Insurance industry would be left with coverage tailored for the super rich; gourmet meals, first class hotel like accomidations, ect...

Happy Thoughts

Dan Grady

James X: "Bert, I haven't been following this too closesly, but didn't Krugman basically just say "Obama's plan is bad," so Obama quoted him saying "Obama's plan is good?" Is this really dirty campaigning?"

Krugman hasn't said Obama's plan is bad (he just lightly criticized it for being insufficient). What he did criticize is Obama's rhetoric with respect to Clinton and Edward's plan. Specifically on the issue of mandates.

Once again: Krugman said Obama's rhetoric was bad. Not that his plan was bad.

This column was written by T.A. and in no way coordinated with Obama's campaign.

Uh huh. He just happens to have chosen the same talking points.

Frankly, Krugman is right. Obama's plan does not provide universal coverage. You can debate whether that is good policy. But his attacks on other candidates plans have used the kinds of terms like "force" that identify with very specific values. Those values are the same ones Republicans and others will use against any program that provides universal health care.

In effect, Obama has gone from being a proponent of expanded health care coverage to an opponent of universal health care. He is making a general case against any program that is universal. And Krugman is right to call him on it.

Bogdanski calling for dirt on Obama? I had to see that, and in your second link this is the comment that caught my eye:"He doesn't have to "win me over." If he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him." Jack Bog. Yeah, I doubt Edwards would claim responsiblility for that sentiment.

No matter what the candidates say, if there is a national health insurance plan the major insurance companies will write it for their benefit as long as the party oligarchies are bought by corporations. We just get to choose their agents.

"In this day and age, when it is difficult to tell the difference between a Cadillac and a Chevrolet, no one would propose ensuring a mode of transportation by offering a Chevrolet with its engine and transmission removed. Except maybe the leading Democratic candidates.
After all, the shell of a Chevrolet is politically feasible, even if their owners are not able to show up at work." http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

What you "market-driven" Democrats rarely acknowledge is that there has been a long-term attempt by right-wingers of both parties to increase the costs of all non-privatized programs so that those programs could be more easily removed during economic "shocks" (like now). The top Democrat challengers all are adding to this pressure.

Only single-payer, non-corporate health care can both reduce costs and increase care. Krugman, who used to push for this, has sold out with the rest of his "liberal" collaborators, Clinton, Obama and Edwards.

SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!

Yeah, right!!

I just realized that TA didn't post the source for his post here. I had read it in so many other places, I assumed that TA would have linked to it, since it is the very basis of his "non-coordinated" post. If you want to know where TA got his "facts" on Krugman and mandates/Obama, then read this: from the Obama Campaign.

And if you want to read the actual facts on the issue, check out some of the earlier links I placed in this thread.
The issue here is that Krugman was consistent in his critique of Obama's plan. Essentially he said, "It's a good plan, but would be better with mandates." Then Obama decided that mandates were bad, so he criticized the other plans for including them. Krugman wrote that mandates were good, and that anti-mandate attacks are exactly what the rightwing will/has/will continue to use against any and all progressive healthcare reform. Obama's campaign then attempted to quote Krugman as contradicting himself, because he said "It's a good plan..." This is silly. This is why Krugman was livid that Obama, a fellow liberal, was misquoting him in an attempt to score some kind of cheap points. So Krugman made the obvious point that Obama's attacks on mandates are a bad idea and bad rhetoric, since they will be used in 2009 against any and all progressive healthcare proposals. If you look over the facts of why mandates are needed, and not just the silly rhetoric about "forcing people to buy insurance," you'll agree that they are either unnecessary, or are necessary. Many people have looked it over and say they are necessary; Jon Cohn explains why in the piece I referenced above. But mandates do not hurt the plans for healthcare reform, nor hurt their universality as Obama contends.

And for the one or two of you who think that the liberals are selling out by not pushing for universal healthcare, I would suggest reading this: from Krugman's Blog

T.A. is not speaking on behalf of the campaign

No one said he was.

he Obama campaign isn't responsible for what Todd writes

No one said they were.

But are you really making the case here that campaigns don't encourage their supporters to write? That they don't work very hard to get their talking points out there and encourage their supporters to use them? Or that the experienced political people here don't pick up their candidate's talking points and amplify them?

In the case of Sam Chase, I had not contact with his campaign. Hadn't even read his literature. I just worked with Sam when he was on the board of the Coalition for a Livable Future. So whatever I said, and I don't remember what it was, was entirely my own invention.

As was the statement that Obama has, in effect, become an opponent of universal health care. If I was following his opponents' campaign talking points, I would probably portray his being in this pickle as an indication of his inexperience ... :)

Anyone who thinks the only people who don't buy health insurance are healthy 20 somethings is missing the point--there are unemployed/underemployed people over 50 without health insurance.

And this stuff about a mandate. If someone is working at less than $10, perhaps in a job where the hours vary from week to week, are they supposed to be able to buy "affordable" health insurance out of that income? Should they budget less for food, housing, etc. because they have to pay for health care insurance?

To some extent, "everyone must buy health insurance" sounds echoes of "how come those poor people in New Orleans didn't have enough money to flee the city at the end of the month" unreality of some observers who had good incomes, steady jobs, good health care coverage.

Democrats are supposed to be the party which remembers such underemployed/ low paid people exist and are the backbone of society (hospitality, retail, and other occupations).

The #1 cause of injury, disability, and DEATH in America is, Health Care. More people die now from contact with the American Medical Health Care system than from any other cause of death. More than from Cancer, Heart disease, or Stroke. More than any other country in the world. Many times more than any other people in the world. This fact is a catastrophic indictment of the entire US Health Care System.

Driven by greed. And a rush to profit. Thousands of Americans are killed, and injured daily in America. By compromised health care. Cutting corners. Over, and under treatments. And poisonings with all manor of toxic, poisonous pharmaceuticals. Especially the children. America only makes up 2-4% of the world population. But Americans buy, and consume 50% of all pharmaceuticals world wide.

But the tide has turned. I can see it. Hear it. And feel it. The message is getting out. And taking hold about the fact that we have a very serious, and major health care crisis going on in America. Hurting everyone. Especially our precious little children. Rich, and poor alike. And most all Americans seem to understand now that "HR 676 Not For Profit Single Payer Universal National Health Care For All (Medicare For All)" is the way to go. Like all the other developed countries have done. I have seen numbers as high as 90% of Americans want government managed health care Now. Medicare for all. Like other developed countries have. And like older Americans have now.

BRAVO!!! America. YOU GET IT! YOU REALLY GET IT! See sickocure.org, http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

It's NOW TIME to bring out the BIG GUNS!! The BIG GUNS!! are you. The American people. And anyone else that wants to help. From now until HR 676 is passed into law. I want every person to reach out and touch their fellow Americans every day if you can. I want you to take a phone book. And call at least one of your fellow Americans every day. And ask them to pickup the sword of HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care For All (Medicare For All).

Call more than one each day if you can. And ask them to do the same as you are doing if they can. And also to put maximum pressure on their politicians to get HR 676 done. And to make sure their politicians support HR 676. Accept no substitute. HR 676 is a no-brainer. It's the best way to go on health care. It's the only moral, and ethical way to go. That is why every other developed country has done it. Most did it years ago.

I know that many of you have been doing a fabulous job of spreading the word by talking it up with family, friends, and co-workers. And putting pressure on the politicians to get HR 676 done ASAP. The phone calls to your fellow Americans will increase the pressure. And grow the movement at an astonishing, and exponential rate. And I know many of you have been wanting to do something more to help. The phone calls to your fellow Americans is something you can do every day to help.

Trust me. It will be something to see. But you have to keep the focus, and pressure on getting HR 676 passed pronto. They will try to distract you. With all manor of other crises, and catastrophes. And other plans. Don't be distracted. HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care is the #1 concern of the American people. Thousands of Americans are dieing daily now. And you or your loved ones could be next.

There is no good reason HR 676 cannot be passed into law well before the coming elections. Do not tolerate delays. If it is not passed before the coming elections. All America will know which politicians are on the side of the American people. And which are not when they vote. Well before the elections.

Everyone can do this. Most of you are well informed about HR 676. This truly is one of those no-brainers. Be considerate of your fellow Americans when you call. But be comfortable about calling. These are your fellow Americans. Some will be receptive. And some will not be. Some maybe rude, and mean. Just thank them, and move on to the next. Most will be with you. And if you get a call from one of your fellow Americans about HR 676. Let them know you are already on board. And thank them for calling. Build them up. And keep them strong. They are fighting for all of us.

I will try to make a second post with just a few of the reasons everyone with 2 working brain cells agrees HR 676 is the best way to go. But you can also look them up for your-self. And read some of the positive informed post on many of the message boards too.

Lastly, I am sick and tired of hearing how the candidates, and politicians health care plans are going to protect, and preserve the private for profit health insurance companies that have been killing, and ripping off the American people. And now the politicians want to mandate (require) that every American has to support the private for profit insurance company's that have been killing, and ripping you off. Or you will be fined, and PENALIZED. Thats right. PENALIZED. Ridiculous! The politicians really think you are all detached idiots. CASH COWS! To lead to the slaughter. Don't put up with that.

So get on it America. Get those phones going. Chat it up! Save some lives. You want all of America talking about HR 676 becoming law, Now! Before more die needlessly. Make it happen. And to my fellow cyber warriors. You have been doing great! I see it! Keep it up. 1 of 2 post...

Below are a few reasons why "HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care For All (Medicare For All) is a no-brainer. And some reasons why private for profit health insurance is a stupid idea, and injuring, and killing you and your loved ones.

Medicare cost 2-3% to administer. Private insurance cost 30% to administer.

Under HR 676 everyone would be covered from birth to death. No co-pays. No-deductible. No out of pocket cost. Plus Dental. And Vision. For less cost than we pay now under private health insurance.

With private insurance. You have 47 million Americans with no insurance.

And 89 million Americans that had no insurance part of the time from 2006-2007.

And over a 100 million that are under insured.

18-30 thousand Americans that die each year from lack of health care.

Health Care bills as the #1 cause of personal bankruptcy. And loss of homes.

Under HR 676 health care is moral, and ethical.

Private for profit insurance is immoral. And unethical.

Profit is the primary motive of the private insurance companies.

They make profit by charging needy, vulnerable, sick Americans as much as they can charge them.

Then they make more profit by denying them care when they most need it. And are most vulnerable and unable to fight back. When they are sick. Or trying to recover from major illness.

Yep! I know you are getting angry. I'm sorry. But I have to continue.

Under HR 676: we will save 300 billion dollars in administrative cost each year.

With private insurance: we spent more per capita on health care than any other country in the world. Over twice as much as most other developed country's. Yet we have 47 million with no health care.

We rank at the bottom in quality of health care #37.

Americans have a shorter life expectancy than people from all other developed countries. We rank # 42 in life expectancy. Down from #1.

For the first time in American history. The life expectancy of American children is less than that of their parents. American children are dieing at a record rate. And are in terrible health generally.

People from other country's enjoy a much higher level of general health than the best privately insured Americans.

Americans are also shrinking. We used to be the tallest people in the world. Now we are down to # 10.

People from other country's never have to worry about going bankrupt, or loosing their homes over medical bills if they get sick.

Maybe you should go take a break for a while before I go on. I know this must be upsetting. But this is just a small part of the sad truth about private health insurance that HR 676 can fix.

Under HR 676: Health care will be based on need. Not on profit. And high standards, and quality will be enforced, and patients protected by the Government through a dedicated civil service. With the power, and resources to rain in abuses of patient care. Like they do with Medicare now.

With private insurance: Medical care is base on ability to pay. And profit. Tens of thousands of patient are killed, and millions are injure, crippled, and mutilated each year under private for profit health care, and insurance.

By insurance companies denying needed care to increase their profits.

By hospitals cutting corners. And using the cheapest least experienced personnel, equipment, and standards they can get away with.

By doctors that over treat, and under treat. Who injure, mutilate, and kill patients with unnecessary test, procedures, surgery, and invasive diagnostic test for profit. Who poison, kill, and injure millions of Americans with all manor of unnecessary pharmaceuticals for profit. Men, Women, Children, and babies.

Americans makeup 2-4 % of the world population. But Americans buy, and consume 50% of all pharmaceuticals world wide. This is a monstrous evil. And immorality.

And lastly, by politicians that take blood money from all these despicable groups and turn blind eye's to this slaughter of the American people. And the slaughter of their own loved ones. And them-self.

Well I could go on. And on. But I think this is enough to get you started making your daily phone calls to your fellow Americans to support HR 676. And to help them understand how important it is that each of them join the fight. And bring the MAXIMUM pressure to bear on all individuals, parties, and especially your politicians, and Representatives. To get HR 676 passed into law immediately.

This is an emergency. America is in a crisis. More Americans have died from this health care crisis than have died in all the wars in US history. Do your best. Millions of Americans lives are counting on each of you. Including your own life. Remember, you are Americans. You know how to fight for your country when you have too. The whole world is in your blood. I'm with you.

All the best... 2 of 2

whatever

i still adore Krugman a voice in the dark for all of these years

i kiss you mr. krugman

T.A. Your cop-out that you don't 'work' for the Obama campaign is silly. My point is that you obviously simply read the Obama press release about Krugman, and then decided to post your own version of that piece without doing any actual research of your own. Then you didn't even acknowledge where you got the basis of your post! This is silly.

Krugman says that attacking mandates because they are "big government telling you what to do," is rightwing rhetoric straight from a Republican campaign, and also lately from Obama. Yet you claim that you can't figure out the basis of why Krugman is saying that Obama is using rightwing framing in his critique of mandates. I give up. If you don't see why Krugman is upset, then I guess you never will.

Agree or disagree about the necessity of mandates in the otherwise similar proposals from the three leading Democrats, fine. But rightwing style attacks to scare people about "big government" are wrong. It's wrong when Guiliani, or Romney, Thompson, Bush, Clinton, Richardson, or Obama uses it. And if Clinton, Edwards, Gravel, or Richardson were to use rightwing framing (like, "vote against the war funding and you hurt the troops") and everybody in the liberal blogosphere will join Obama in condemning that kind of rhetoric.

I just wish that Obama's supporters would see the circular-firing-squad result of this unfortunate lapse of judgment by Obama and his campaign. I can imagine the GOP ads in 2009 about how President Clinton/Edwards/whomever's plan to reform healthcare is just "big government telling you what to do, and that's wrong," so said liberal Barack Obama back in 2007. Oh what fun that'll be.

I copied this from a post I read. It shows just how stupid we look.

And the politicians need to stop calling mandates, and private insurance Universal Health Care. It is not. Only single payer is Universal Health Care.

"I am a Brit, and regularly loose my rag on this site over this issue. It really is a "COME ON, JUST GET IT" issue .

First, the USA standing in the world stage is not as great as I think Americans assume. Not being able to get it together as a society to provide healthcare to all your people as a right really paints the country in a bad light. It is not all about the money. Who feels safe in that environment. (Don't compare yourself to Afghanistan please. Yes, we do know life is better in the USA compared to Afghanistan. We do. Compare yourself to a Canada and to Europe). A great place work, sure, not a great place to live. And that needs to change.

Second, those shouting "like that would work" sound silly. It does, as we are doing it. Europe is doing it. Canada is doing it. Come take a look. Everyone gets treated, and we have strong economic democracies working well within the capitalist framework. Every one is covered. We make sure our people know they are looked after. Yes, there are problems, but in the UK for example, I think it is 15% of the population work for the Health Service, indirectly. We are in the middle of a technology boom, with changing demographics on a huge scale. Off course there are problems. There are problems in any organization that size. And that is the thing. As everyone needs the service at some point, it has differing market forces that make group action on a national scale produce economies of scale that in time result in true benefits on a national level. Roads for example. You can't just go around building roads where you want. It needs planning on a national level with huge govt involvement. That works well, so why not the infra structure of public health.

Three. Health providers get shook up. It can't be avoided. Insurance companies fold up. Litigators will be removed from the process, and reduced in size. And drug companies get to tender for the provider accounts. There is a limited fund. Deal with it.

Four. If you want private healthcare, you can get it still. But we all have a standard fee to pay out of tax, and everyone is covered at the point of delivery. All Americans can come to Europe, and if, as a guest and as a human, you fall ill, we will make sure your health is looked after, and not demand you sell your home before you leave hospital. It doesn't make America look like such a civilised, advanced and friendly country, knowing you don't have the ability to do that. It seems strange to want to sell the US system to the world over and above any other when you can't care for own. Americans are better people than this situation speaks, and the world wants them to grab this occasion, get control of it, and develop a health service for all which is the envy of the world, as that is where the world leaders should be.

Five. It's a universal system, so you can't add up the individual contribution cost. In reality, young people work and do not use the service, and old people don't work, and do use the service, on the whole. So, expect it to function like that.

Six. It is still an internally free market, but centrally organized. The problem is that those who want the status quo to remain, are A. legal people who add so much to premiums, B. Insurers who basically act as the middle man with stupid differing ideas on what cancers qualify and what do not etc etc and taking the money and not treating the patient, and C. A pharmaceutical industry really writing themselves blank checks and paying off congressmen who represent them and not the people who elected him to represent them.

America it seems, has sold its soul. This is a democracy, and over 50%, way way way over 50% of the population believe in universal health care, and want it. "

I stand by my previous post. The Obama campaign is coordinating the attack on Krugman. You need to split hairs ridiculously to come up with a definition of "coordinating" that doesn't apply.

Personally, I like Obama. I think his campaign is making a mistake by treating Krugman's article like it's a majpor threat. The smart thing would be to let this issue die quietly. It's a small mis-step. Don't compound it by stubbornly refusing to let it go.

It ought to be clear that Obama has started a debate over whether we really need universal health care coverage. He says no and he has couched his opposition in terms that resonate with the same values the Republicans use to attack it.

And LT has added the crocodile tears for the poor. Nice touch:

If someone is working at less than $10, perhaps in a job where the hours vary from week to week, are they supposed to be able to buy "affordable" health insurance out of that income? Should they budget less for food, housing, etc. because they have to pay for health care insurance?

Are they going to need health care? How are they going to pay for that? Mandates for health insurance make as much sense as mandates that people pay for retirement. Except we do that. Its called Social Security.

But whoever is elected president will set the agenda for what finally gets passed. None of the likely candidates for President are proposing single payer system. Under Obama's plan, the debate in congress will begin with a President uncommitted to universal coverage. The discussion will proceed from there of how many people will end up excluded and without any health insurance. Not a great starting point for getting to universal coverage.

For anyone who wants to see health care for all, Obama has become an opponent. And he has started using the rhetoric of the Republicans to appeal to the values that are most likely to wreck any effort to provide universal health care. On that, the discussion here clearly demonstrates Krugman was correct.

Yes, there are problems, but in the UK for example, I think it is 15% of the population work for the Health Service, indirectly. We are in the middle of a technology boom, with changing demographics on a huge scale. Off course there are problems. There are problems in any organization that size.

If the National Health Service in the UK spent the same amount per capita on health care that we in the United States spend their only problem, beside finding cures, would be how to spend all that money.

In reference to Wyden's health care plan, Kari says:

"Where would the money come from for all these subsidies? That's easy: Wyden would eliminate the tax break that employers get for providing health care - freeing up about $200 billion for health care subsidies for middle-income and lower-income people."

Thats easy????? Nice magic wand. But two points.

Its true that the employer can save maybe 7% of the cost of the health insurance because no payroll taxes are imposed on that expense, but the employee saves somewhere between 22% and 45%, depending on their tax bracket. As an employer I consider this tax break mainly the employees, not the employers. Don't believe me? see what happens when I inform my employers that my conscience has gotten the better of me and I can't take advantage of the taxpayers any longer so decided to convert their health care costs into salary.

Also, I'd sure like someone to explain to me exactly where that $200 billion is going to come from and why we need to pump billions more money into the health insurers pockets.

Also, I'd sure like someone to explain to me exactly where that $200 billion is going to come from and why we need to pump billions more money into the health insurers pockets.

There are many better arguments for pumping billions into health care than into an illegal and immoral war on Iraq or any other country that doesn't do our bidding. On the other hand if we cut the insurance corporations out of the picture except for taking care of those wishing to pay a premium for extra care, then perhaps we wouldn't need so much money. Unfortunately, inhumanity prevails in the minds of too many of our fellow citizens. No problem getting money for prisons and long sentences for prisoners, but the taxpayers choke when it comes to schools and health care for children.

This debate about the candidates and health care is like the debates prior to 2006 about ending the war on Iraq. The Democratic Party essentially put itself forward as the party to end the war. The party got its majority and yet again has told its constituents to get lost because the oligarchs will do what is best for them and not the people. Obama, Clinton, Edwards and all the others can advance health care plans until the Second Coming, but unless the people elect senators and representative who will represent the people and not be agents for the oligarchs and the corporations that are allied with them, nothing will change.

Kari, What I'd like to know is mechanically how the Wyden proposal works to raise the $200 bil. I'm not questioning that the plan envisions raising that much in revenue.

For instance....

Is the health care coverage considered like wage income so that the employer pays 7% Payroll tax and the employee pays their 7% payroll tax plus their income tax on the value of this benefit? Thats a large income tax increase for employees, and the part the employer pays wouldn't go to health care anyway because its social security and medicare taxes

Is the entire health care cost simply not an allowable deduction to employers but also not included as income to employee? If so then few employers will voluntarily continue health care coverage without a corresponding decrease in salary to cover the extraordinary taxes the employer will have to pay. Otherwise the employer will in effect be paying the income taxes of the employee, and at the employers marginal rate.

Its easy to say that we should get rid of business "tax breaks" (though again its actually a real expense, not made up, and its the employees who get the biggest benefit here, not the employers) but we really need to know the mechanics to know how this really works.

So where does the $200 billion come from?

Re Tim: "And for the one or two of you who think that the liberals are selling out by not pushing for universal healthcare":

"The one or two of us" who support single-payer are joined by hundreds of millions world-wide, the real political center. Those of you who, like Krugman, consider this "politically unfeasible" have demonstrated a profound contempt for democracy:

CNN Poll Opinion Research Corporation May 9, 2007

1. Do you think the government should provide a national health
   insurance program for all Americans, even if this would require
   higher taxes?

64% - Yes 35% - No 2% - No opinion

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/05/09/rel6e.pdf

And...

Catholic Healthcare West Health Security in America May 9, 2007

72% - The time has come for universal healthcare in America.

63% - We need universal healthcare in America, even if it means
increasing taxes.

http://www.chwhealth.org/stellent/groups/public/@xinternet_con_sys/ documents/webcontent/msys_m068169.pdf

"Why would you subsidize inefficient private plans for the majority of individuals when a single publicly-funded program would be much more efficient and more equitable?

The primary flaw in most reform proposals is that they begin with the assumption that we must include private insurance plans in any system of universal coverage, no matter how much is wasted in administrative excesses. Not only is it the most expensive model of administering health care funds, private plans also diminish our choice of providers, limit benefits, and shift more costs to those with health care needs. Talk about flawed assumptions. All objective criteria would indicate that we should begin with the assumption that private plans must be eliminated in order to recover much of the profound administrative waste of our fragmented system of financing health care.

By transferring the affordability concern from individuals to the administrators of a national health insurance program, we could begin to address seriously the real cost drivers of excessive health care spending. Nothing short of structural reform will work.", http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/quote-of-the-day

Those of you who, like Krugman, consider this "politically unfeasible" have demonstrated a profound contempt for democracy:

The preceding demonstrates too much faith in people living in a democracy, especially in the American version. Polls may show 60 and 70 percent of the people say they are in favor of a single-payer system and are willing to pay for it, but in our democracy for decades we have only had around 50 percent turnouts for votes, sometimes less. Get a campaign going for a single-payer system and Harry and Louise will reprise their earlier act and half of those 60 and 70 percent groups will very likely change sides falling for the insurance industry's con job. The other perennial aspect is that leaders from both parties on behalf of Wall Street and insurance companies will tell their satraps in Congress to ensure that such a plan goes nowhere. Just as they screwed over African-Americans struggling for their just civil rights - and still do in some instances. If I recall correctly a majority sympathized with African-Americans in their struggles, but the politicians, Democrats included, in Congress took care of the minority that wanted to maintain segregation.

The #1 problem with health care in America is that there has been a conspiracy among the doctors, hospitals, government, and the insurance companies to hide the cost of health care from the patients.

Example: I recently received a call from my internist's office, telling me it was time for my every 5 year colonoscopy. Since I carry a large deductible, if I do it this year, it will be largely out-of-pocket. When I asked how much it would cost, the answer was "I wouldn't know that." What other industry makes recommendations to its customers without a clue or a care about the expense?

Example #2: Have you ever asked your hospital for a detailed bill? I have, and I was told that they only send detailed bills to the insurance company and it's not their policy to send a detailed bill to the patient. I told them it wasn't my policy to pay the bill unless I have a detailed statement. The hospital sent a detailed statement.

Example #3: When I received the detailed statement, I discovered that my son had been billed for a pregnancy test. So much for the insurance company looking out for my interest.

Example #4: My daughter was recently diagnosed with Lyme Disease and has one of the nasty co-infections that requires 4 months of medicine that runs $300 per week. Being the responsible type, she has insurance that "reduces" the cost to $135 per week. She's currently unemployed, having just dropped out of graduate school. She tried to sign up for the Oregon Health Plan, which would reduce the cost of her medicine to $3 per week, but was told she wasn't eligible because she had insurance!

Example #5: My 90 year old father was recently hospitalized with 2 broken vertibrae. The hospital recommended a procedure using the equivalent of surgical "super-glue." However, when the hospital found out that the insurance (which is run by the same entity that owns the hospital) wouldn't pay the bill, they changed their recommendation and decided to let the vertibrae heal on its own. He was never told what the cost would be if he wanted to pay for it himself.

Example #6 - My 87-year old mother was diagnosed 2 months ago with pancreatic cancer and her diagnosis was that she has less than six months to live, which makes her eligible for hospice care. Fortunately, she has experienced no pain yet, but Medicare (i.e., you and me) is paying $150 a day for twice a week hospice visits, just in case.

Unless and until we have a health care system that includes patients in the cost/benefit analysis of alternative treatments, we will continue to have a bloated, inefficient healthcare delivery system. All of the single-payer, universal coverage proposals fail miserably in this regard.

I just want to drop a note on you Oregonians from the Big Apple on the East Coast.

I cannot believe the high level of disourse in both the generating article and the comments that followed! You guys&gals put the NYT's blogs to SHAME.

Wow! Oregon ROCKS!

Hillary has garnered visceral searing hate from even moderates on the right for some reason I simply can't understand;

Some reasons: Hillary will do anything that is to her advantage without regard to moral or ethical considerations. She signed Bush's blank check to go to war for political expediency in agreement with the pro-war faction of the Democratic party. We have been informed that Kerry's and Edwards's political strategists told their clients they would have to vote for war if they wanted to be elected president. It is a good bet Hillary got the same advice and took it. Signing that blank check for Bush to go to war was a violation of senators' and representatives' oath to defend the Constitution. If she had to sacrifice lives for her political gain, so be it. Gephardt and Lieberman had presidential ambitions and they too signed on to the war. She tried to fudge her reasons for voting for this war instead of telling the truth. She said she was lied to. Millions of people were told the same lies but saw through them, which suggests she was pro-war in the first place and was happy to accept the lies for justification or she was incompetent. She was co-president when the United States was enforcing sanctions on Iraq that cost an estimated half million children their lives. Madeline Albright, the Clintons' secretary of state, said of this crime against humanity, "We (which must have included Bill and Hillary) thought it was worth it." To make a buck anyway, she accepted a position on Wal-Mart's board which meant she was helping a corporation that made part of its money off cheap labor and getting government to write favorable tax laws for its benefit.

How are those for openers? Need more reasons?

The thing about Hillary that causes me more concern than Hillary is the large number of people who support her.

For the record, I'm an independent with lots of contempt for both major parties.

Steve, I think one of the most interesting things about this topic is that it ignores questions like the health care status of the people of NW Oregon who lost their homes and in some cases their livelihood (esp. if their employer was flooded out, roof came off, etc.). What if those folks got their health care through their employers? Is there any candidate today of any party dealing with that sort of situation, or just talking grand themes? (Say what you will about single payer or ideas even close to that like lowering the Medicare age to 55, if one's place of employment is destroyed by wind, fire or flood, that wouldn't affect their health care situation.)

For that matter, which candidate is discussing how many Katrina survivors have health insurance today? Trent Lott lost his home but not his health insurance. But what about the folks who were lucky to escape with more than the clothes on their backs? What about those who Katrina made homeless? Are we not supposed to discuss them because this is just about how a columnist review's a candidate's plan and the real world doesn't matter?

Which brings me to this:

All that said, I still absolutely love Krugman. I just wish that he'd get some perspective. It's painful to see people you like do things like this. (Much like how Mitch Greenlick lost it and attacked Mr. Novick over a relatively minor campaign tactic. Not Mitch's best day, and I say this as a strong Jeff-is-most-electable leaner.)

With all due respect, if the calendar says 2008 but there are those still talking about that "relatively minor campaign tactic" rather than current events and why they are backing their particular candidate, both Jeff and Steve run the risk of people following the presidential or AG or Sec. of State primaries and ignoring them as not relevant to their lives---and if that is the case, no action by STOP GORDON SMITH can convince them otherwise.

Happened to run into a reporter friend who had been over to the flood areas with politicians visiting the storm damaged areas. One thing we talked about was the similarity between Katrina and similar but obviously smaller scale tragedy in Vernonia--people with their homes on blocks who still had water or wind damage, people who had real difficulty escaping the storm and then had little or nothing to come back to (except soggy belongings if they were lucky), roads impassible, power outages, etc.

Do Blue Oregonians really think anyone who spent time in a Red Cross shelter gives a rip about whether Krugman and Obama have an argument about health care?

My friend and I talked about where Jeff and Steve were in all this. With all the people they know, neither of them had connections in Astoria or Tillamoook or Vernonia?

What have they been doing--raising money, writing issue statements, and collecting endorsements because nothing else matters? The reporter said Smith and Wyden had the power of incumbency to get on TV. I said that shouldn't prevent the candidates from doing volunteer work in the storm damaged area, that it was like they were running their campaigns according to a textbook which didn't allow for natural disasters as part of the campaign plan. And that smart teachers throw away the lesson in the textbook if life intervenes, and deal with the current situation.

Also, I said the storm hit what was Les AuCoin's old Congressional district. He represented that area for a long time in Congress and before that he was a legislator. But he no longer has any contacts in that area to allow Steve to connect with volunteer efforts to help flood victims?

There was a story on TV news about the Vernonia basketball team being able to play a game at some other high school gym and it helped the players and community forget about the storm damage for awhile. What Democrats have to decide is whether the folks at that game are their target audience or not. If they are part of the target audience, then Democrats should organize volunteers to help with cleanup, food, etc.

There have been reports about church groups as well as others doing such things. Churches across the country put together backpacks with things like hairbrush, tooth brush, toothpaste, washcloth for Katrina victims. Why can't our US Senate candidates do something similar---lack of imagination?

As I recall, shortly after Jefferson Smith announced for state rep., he announced a fundraiser --- for some good cause other than himself. That is what used to be the spirit of the Democratic Party. But like Purple said on another topic, if all the current US Senate candidates care about is their issues (which sound good to me but then I'm more politically aware than most) and not what is going on in the lives of ordinary citizens, they may not win next November.

History is full of candidates who stepped out of the role of political insiders--from "workdays" where they job shadowed ordinary citizens, to John Edwards declaring for President from New Orleans, to someone being the only candidate who accepted a debate invitation, to just showing up at a pancake breakfast or spaghetti feed.

In 1975, local pancake breakfast here had a soon-to-be famous guest. There were people who went to the event and had their picture taken with the visitor, then had the picture framed. In 1976, people who had never heard of Jimmy Carter learned from the folks who had the framed picture in their living room that he'd been to Salem in 1975.

In 1995, I was a guest of someone at the head table at a Rotary meeting, because my friend was introducing the guest speaker from out of town and I had helped him write his introduction. As we walked up the stairs to the meeting room, the guest speaker remarked that he had been in this meeting room before---Bill Clinton had done a speaking tour in Oregon in 1991 and had spoken to Democrats in that room.

My point is this--next year is an election year, which should involve those who are not political insiders. If even a fraction of those who saw Oprah and Obama in person over the weekend were attending the first political speech of their lives, that is an asset to all of politics because such people generally tell at least a few friends about their experience at such an event.

Similarly, the winner of the US Senate primary and general elections are likely to be the candidate benefitting from those not normally interested in politics who have engaged in conversation with friends about the candidate they decided to support.

Steve, there was a shampoo commercial many years ago which showed squares dividing on the screen until the screen was filled--each with the picture of a woman. The slogan was something like 2 women saying they liked the shampoo and so, "we told two friends, and they told 2 friends, and so on and so on" exponentially.

That tactic has been used in the past to build "buzz" for a candidate and end up with large groups of people. But it takes organizers who know about more than fundraising, endorsements, and issue papers. It was a skill which was dying out in the early 1990s. I recall a conversation with someone who had come to Oregon to work on a major campaign--she was complaining that she believed crowd building should be a major skill practiced by all campaigns but others considered it passe'.

I suspect those who organized the Oprah-Obama rallies this weekend are skilled in that art (and it is an art, not a science).

There have been times in little ol' Salem where a candidate has attracted more than 40 people to someone's home for a coffee or other such event.

But it takes people with that skill, and with an exciting candidate and a message which resonates with ordinary people.

What I am saying is that I think so far Kroger and Macpherson have that sort of message and excitement, but Jeff and Steve have yet to find it. Where are the press conferences (or at least press releases) doing rapid response to current events? Is it just that the skill atrophied in all the years of "money is all that matters and only professionals know how the game is played"?

When Paul Evans had his campaign kickoff party for State Senate, and again when he hosted Max Cleland in the same venue, there was quite a crowd.

The month in 1996 when he was winning the US Senate seat, Ron Wyden got large crowds (often not people whose faces were familiar to the old political hands, which was a great sight!) to ice cream socials in January. In that case, wording like "if you have never met him and are undecided, come hear him next Tuesday night at..." was added to the phone bank script.

That is the real answer to engaging the public, but it is not about the sort of consultant Steve is, or the sort of thing Jon Isaacs did with Future Pac. It is about understanding ordinary people who do not move in political circles.

In some cases it is about printing invitations on an 8.5 x 11 piece of paper so people have something to put on their refrigerator or other space as a reminder. It is about sending out reminder to RSVP emails like Marion Demoforum does (and they generally have a pretty good audience for the candidate speaking).

It is about what the Oregon Bus Project does better than the "we know who will win and who will lose by looking at statistics" technicians who claim to "know" districts they have never visited.

Basically, it is about a paradigm shift where local volunteers know their communities better than "professional staffers". Is it foolproof? Of course not. I have been to events where few people showed up. But I have been involved in lots of successful events as well.

As far as I'm concerned no one who refuses to embrace single payer gets any "points for toughness."

And progressives should be concerned with minimizing gaming of the system because they support justice and equality. That does not have to mean scapegoating the unfortunate, as it often does in conservative critique. It should mean that progressives care about effectiveness and efficiency.

I do agree with T.A. that Krugman is better considered liberal than progressive. His suggestions are seldom about systemic reform to enhance equality of opportunity, but are often about social programs to compensate the losers. Progressives understand that radical change is sometimes more effective, more efficient, and kinder to the human soul than are government handouts.

No, Bill. Those are reasons why you hate Hillary.

I would suggest that because Hillary is such a polarizing figure and the fact that more Democrats prefer other candidates to her my opinions are not unique. I don't hate Hillary, but I do despise many of the things she has done - like reneging on her oath to defend the Constitution to transfer the power to wage war from Congress to the president, which I assume you, Steve, have no problem with.

This - "The media with whom the first tier Democratic candidates seem to be triangulating have an immense stake in who becomes president and even in how campaigns are conducted. The major media profit from health insurance and prescription drug ads, corporate trade deals that protect “intellectual property” but not their workers rights, and relaxation of rules on media consolidation. Any candidate with the least challenge to these norms can easily be labeled “extreme,” a label too easily taken seriously even by citizens who often distrust the same media that hurl such labels." - is from a Common Dreams article which has interesting comments on Democrats and Kucinich.

It amazes me that politically sophisticated folks like BO readers can understand the problems discussed in that Common Dreams article by John Buell, then discuss political campaigns as though we have a properly functioning democratic system. There is good reason that the candidates portrayed as serious, sensible, and in-the-running are the same ones who reassure big business interests that their boat will not be rocked. Candidates who reflect reality and genuine Democratic values, like Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich, are always marginalized and characterized as either dangerous or comical.

Don't folks gets tired of repeating, year in and year out, the political propaganda of the ruling elites like so many parrots? Dare to imagine reality based politics. It could do wonders for this nation.

Another relevant piece on Common Dreams: Piano Wire Puppeteers: The Constitution, Media & Dennis Kucinich

Kari, you miss my point. My point was that there are venues outside of Portland, where more than 20 people at an event can be a big deal.

But my question is, when did Jeff or Steve most recently have an event more than an hour drive from their home or campaign office which attracted even 10 people who are not already friends or political insiders? Did either of them appear at a Democratic potluck which got more than 20 people (as Kroger and Macpherson did in a mid-Willamette valley Democratic potluck)?

Have they done any sort of Portland events which were not fundraisers and which attracted at least 20 people? Or is there some kind of timetable, "in late 2007 we will construct infrastructure, and in early 2008 we will go public with the campaign" which does not allow deviation?

Are they silent on storm damage, Congressional budget negotiations, etc. because in the time table that sort of speaking out publicly is not supposed to come until next year? Will the people who live in Portland or are willing to drive there to "have a tap with Tester" learn that Tester's road to succcess included not speaking out publicly on any current events, and not holding advertised public gathererings which are not fundraisers until the election year itself? Or was the Tester campaign more resilient than that?

Is either campaign adaptable to current events, or are they slaves to a campaign plan and worried any deviation from the plan will cause them to lose the election?

And Kari, how does this: There have been times in little ol' Salem where a candidate has attracted more than 40 people to someone's home for a coffee or other such event. translate into an expectation that anytime Jeff or Steve appear in public there should be 100 or more people?

When was the last time either appeared in front of an audience in a county other than Multnomah, Washington or Clackamas?

Do you KNOW there was a big crowd at the Evans events because you were there? If so, too bad I didn't see you there---always wanted to meet you in person.

My point is that there is a whole wide world out there, and no matter how many people "stand strong with Steve" or buy tickets to "have a tap with Tester", how does that win the attention of people outside of Portlanders and political insiders?

I mean the sort of people who would wear a Merkley or Novick button, or tell their friends why they are supporting a candidate.

So the right wing hates Hillary because she'd (sic) despised by the hard left? That assertion is so mind boggling I really can't formulate a proper response.

I never said a word about the right wing. Nor did I say anything about the hard left. I referred to the Democrats supporting candidates other than Hillary. That would include Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden and Dodd, hardly what you would call "hard left." Perhaps the reason you find the assertion you attributed to me so mind boggling is that your imagination keeps conjuring up statements you believe people said but never did.

So let's just say that I generally disagree with both your assessment of Senator Clinton, your speculative and unsupported theories regarding Constitutional Law,...

Senator Byrd, regarded as the senate's authority on the Constitution, warned his fellow senators that if they voted to give Bush authorization to use military force against Iraq they would not be living up to their Constitutional responsibilities.

And, Steve, please don't be so pathetic to use Senator Byrd's former membership in the KKK as a counter-argument.

The reason Hillary Clinton energizes the right wing is that they spent eight years learning to hate her as the uppity liberal activist first lady of Bill Clinton, who they despised for usurping the office of the permanent Republican Presidency. At least Bill had a bit of a southern accent, but Hillary, she's a real liberal - at least in their eyes.

"The reason Hillary Clinton energizes the right wing is that they spent eight years learning to hate her as the uppity liberal activist first lady of Bill Clinton"

which could be why they don't want Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson or Dodd to do well in Iowa or NH because, as someone said recently, the right wing "has a vocabulary to run against Hillary". One gets the feeling some of these people have never come to grips with how Webb and others won last year.

T.A.:"Tim, pointless as it is to repeat this (i can't help myself), if you read my post on my website, you'll learn that i wrote my posts on the subject before other people did. i almost never read official dispatches; not much to learn that way. i do my own research, draw my own conclusions. feel free to continue to demean me in your own mind."

Obama campaign post on Krugman: 12/7/07 T.A. post about Obama and Krugman: 12/8/07

But, please T.A. put down the shovel and stop digging. I may have implied plagiarism, but what I meant to imply was simply dittoheadism.
I suggested the links to other people's stories in order to provide more info in regards to mandates and the healthcare plans, and also to educate people about what Krugman actually said, and not what Obama's campaign claimed he said.

Actually, Dr. Feelgood is right (and I didn't mean to imply only one or two people in the US want single-payer, I meant one or two in the thread. Being without insurance right now, I want single-payer). Someone else on this thread (I can't find it now, too many posts) said this already, but when the Edwards plan was announced, it was regarded as a silly liberal pipedream. Now that Obama and Clinton have followed suit, and SiCKO raised public awareness, suddenly it seems more and more likely that a plan will be put forward by any Democratic President if one is elected. That makes me quite glad, and I can only hope that a more ambitious plan is put forward by either the President or Congress. A medicare-for-all plan would be great. If that got rejected (as it likely would), then the less scary liberal plan like Edwards or Clinton put forward would be the next best thing.

Then, as the Edwards plan implies will happen and also tries to encourage, the US will move away from employer-based coverage and also the private insurers will lose people to the public insurance system, the second round of reforms can happen where we could switch to a single payer system along the lines of France or the many other countries with functioning systems. We'll never get a British NHS-style system in the US, which is probably a good thing since the NHS is really screwed up, since we don't need government administered healthcare in order to correct the inequities and failures of the current system. Government financed healthcare, paid through progressive taxation, is the goal; and these quasi-universal plans put forward by Clinton and Edwards are a good start.

Which brings me back to why Obama (and his supporters) pissed me off by attacking mandates. Mandates are part of the plan to get to single-payer systems. Without them, not only do you get the free-rider problem and the others outlined by Krugman and the other people I linked to, you also lose a component needed to turn these quasi-universal plans into real single-payer: namely, the universal part. We need everybody signed up in the system before we can switch to a simple single-payer system. The subsides to individuals are there so that the mandate will not be a burden to those who cannot afford it.

Unlike our European counterparts, we were lucky enough to avoid being decimated by WWII, thus we didn't re-build our national healthcare systems in the aftermath of the war (also, racist Americans wanted to avoid integrated Hospitals). So instead of being able to just switch to a nice simple system, we need to attack this problem with some semblance of strategy. Again, this is why Krugman and others were ticked at Obama, Republicans will use his attacks on mandates to attack any and all plans put forward to fix our healthcare problem in America.

Tim,

Yep.

We'll never get a British NHS-style system in the US, which is probably a good thing since the NHS is really screwed up, since we don't need government administered healthcare in order to correct the inequities and failures of the current system.

If the British NHS received more per capita but much less than the amount spent per capita in the U.S. it would be in much better shape. There is also the possibility that Blair and, perhaps, Brown have been maneuvering by some degree of neglect for conversion of the NHS to be run by private corporations.

Thanks to Tom C for his elegant statement of difference between progressive and liberal orientations.

That this progressive orientation is the center of not only the Democratic Party but the nation as a whole is indicative of the democracy deficit in America, the difference between what the people overwhelmingly want and what their governing institutions are willing to allow them to have.

We political activists should be concerned with working for what's right and just and let the corporate-run politicians worry about the triangulation. If we do the triangulation at the start, it moves the whole dialogue even further to the right than it already is.

In case you haven't tired of this thread, here's the NYT op ed by Himmelstein and Woolhandler on 12/15. It has now been proven repeatedly that the “mandate model” for reform is economic nonsense. The reliance on private insurers makes universal coverage unaffordable.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/15/opinion/15woolhandler.html

Harry K. wrote:

"We political activists should be concerned with working for what's right and just and let the corporate-run politicians worry about the triangulation. If we do the triangulation at the start, it moves the whole dialogue even further to the right than it already is."

<h2>Great point!</h2>