I think both this site and Krugman are way off base on this.
Almost everyone on our left side of the aisle agrees that single payer would be a better system, but to suggest that Obama's proposal is pathetic compared to Hillary's because of this one stupid issue of mandates is ridiculous.
Krugman is off his rocker when he keeps saying that Obama will never pass his version but Hillay will pass hers. Umm, no. Hillary's will be torn to shreds by Republicans running Harry and Louise ads. If she can't properly rebut Obama's questions about how she'll fine or garnish wages to enforce mandates in a democratic debate, in a setting where both sides agree we need universal healthcare, how is she going to do it against Republicans running fear mongering campaigns saying she's going to take your healthcare away?
They have the same damned plans. His is just more likely to be passed because it's much harder to slander and attack. And guess what, if his plan works, then in a few years you can gradually start to carrot and stick your way toward mandates and it'll be far less controversial because everyone will be used to the idea of government healthcare not being evil.
Obama is not a right wing guy and he's not the less progressive candidate. Hillary's plan is a general election loser. I'll happily vote for if she's chosen and happily support her plan if she then get elected president, but it's just so damned silly for Democrats to be tearing each other apart over this miniscule distinction about healthcare when we've failed to get healthcare passed since Truman.
You start with some seriously distorted facts. One, no one seriously claims that Obama's plan is "pathetic" without mandates. Go read the post again. Go read Krugman again. Go read the comments again. Two, Krugman never said Obama will never pass his version but Clinton will pass hers. That's not the argument. The argument is, Clinton's plan is better. Three, the post does not claim that Obama is less progressive than Hillary. Few people would make that argument. The criticism is directed at Obama's HEALTHCARE proposal.
As for your argument, it seems that you support disseminating dishonest arguments about healthcare proposals. You admit that Obama's Harry and Louise ads are taking a page out of the Republican playbook. Come time for the general election, the Republican Harry and Louise ads will only be ever more effective because they also came from Obama. The ads are dishonest. They also position Obama in such a way that he can not propose mandates, ever, if he were President.
And no, the candidates DO NOT have the "same damned plans." That's the whole point here. Mandates v. No Mandates is a very, very big difference.
Finally, do you really think Republicans will find it impossible to slander Obama's plan? That's ridiculous. Republicans are the masters of smear.
Krugman has done everything but call Obama Karl Rove ... oh wait, I forgot, MyDD just did that.
This is Krugman's fifth or six article about their healthcare plans. He's ended the last two stating that under an Obama presidency, healthcare will never happen. The real difference between the plans is miniscule. Mandates are a sideshow, especially because Hillary hasn't explained how she'll enforce them. Krugman's analysis depends on the assumption that Hillary's plan equals full coverage for everyone and Obama's means twenty five million people not covered. This isn't an argument being run in reality, it's being run in a fantasy land where Democrats are the only people who exist and the rest of the country won't have a say in healthcare.
In my personal opinion, and I don't claim it's anything more than that, Obama's plan is much more passable and that makes it a better plan. I do not claim that the Republicans will not slander Obama's healthcare, but that doesn't mean you need to make things easy for them. Hillary has failed to respond to the garnishing wages charge, in fact she basically confirmed it. Now to you and I, passionate democrats, that's not a big deal, but it's really a horrible thing to say for the general election. It's a tailor made campaign, and frankly, I don't have confidence in either of their plans to actually reduce healthcare costs fast enough to make a mandate reasonable. We absolutely can't get national healthcare off on the wrong foot, and people terrified that they're going to lose all their money by being forced to get healthcare they can't afford is exactly the wrong foot.
Obama's plan is well set up to survive a Harry and Louise attack for the same reasons everyone here is crapping on it. He's saying "I'm not going to do anything to you if you like your healthcare. I'm not going to force you to do anything." Now we all now that in the long term that's not realistic, but in the short term, it's absolutely the only way we're gonna get people behind healthcare. It's just like Congress. You ask people about congress and they say it sucks. You ask them about their congressman and they say s/he's great. People hate healthcare, but not their healthcare. At least that's true of a lot of middle class people who get their healthcare through their work and are sympathetic to poorer people who can't get coverage but don't actually want anything to happen to them.
Three initial matters. One, the post is comparing the anti-government rhetoric coming out of Obama's website to something that would come from Karl Rove. Honestly, if you look at it, it seems an apt comparison. That doesn't mean they equated Obama with Karl Rove. By those standards, you just admitted that Obama is a Republican Party operative, because he criticizes Clinton's healthcare with Republican talking points. I don't think any of us here think such things.
Two, as for what Krugman wrote, the last line in the linked article says, "If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance -- nobody knows how big -- that we'll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won't happen." Krugman didn't say "healthcare won't happen," he said "universal healthcare won't happen." That's true almost by definition with Obama's plan.
Three, Krugman passionately believes in Universal Healthcare. I think his criticisms come from that perspective, not from some dislike of Obama.
For your argument, we should separate passability from what is a "better plan." You make good arguments on passability, within the given context. I simply disagree on whether the plan itself is better. I also think it's a strategic mistake to compromise before the sh*t hits the fan. Ask for a lot, then compromise later. Honestly, Obama should simply go for the brass ring. He can negotiate down later, if forced to.
Now, incidentally, I think this is especially tragic because I bet Obama would bring in bigger majorities in both houses of Congress at the top of the ticket. I also think Obama will do better in terms of leading the nation towards a more liberal / progressive agenda. I also think Obama is simply better at oratory and communication. It's tragic because I think, if Obama would just embrace mandates, he will have a far better chance of bringing in universal healthcare than Clinton does, due to all of the above.
