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.
