by pmb, Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 10:57:38 PM EST
Paul Krugman is a respected progressive.
On healthcare, he would want a single payer system.
None of the Leading candidates went there; all of them favor private-public mixture.
Edwards and Clinton have individual mandate for all; obama wants mandates for children.
Throughout this debate, obama has said that he will be in a POSITION to enforce a mandate if there's ample proof that the health insurance provided by the government is cheap for working families.
obama's premise is that enforcing a mandate upfront is unnecessary since folks won't buy it unless it is cheap.
AND SPECIFICALLY OBAMA has said that he'll be open to mandates when he has the leverage to impose it and that he is not against mandates.
Krugman's entire basis for his criticism of obama is that his language provides fodder for rethugs. that's ridiculous. If obama is president he'll have the bully pulpit. AND IN A TRANSPARENT PROCESS rethugs will not be able to distort stuff.
Besides most people will enroll in a reasonable plan if it is cheap.
ANY HEALTH REFORM PLAN that doesn't aknowledge the fact that people will not buy a cheap plan they don't trust is dishonest.
I take exception to Krugman calling obama "not serious" about universal healthcare. What?
Obama tried to make health insurance a constitutional right of every Illinois citizen as a young state senator; he was TOO ambitious about and it didn't work with a republican governor and republican senate majority in the Illinois legislature.
He didn't give up though, in fact he went ahead and did the hard work of forming a group to study it and that group's recommendation formed the basis of the current illinois plan by Governor blagovevich(geez, this name is hard).
Obama must pen and open-editorial in teh new york times to answer krugman.
Here, in an interview with NH Sentinel, he elaborated on his approach to universal healthcare.