PAUL KRUGMAN: Obama in Second Place

[Quixote1818]

One of the lessons journalists should have learned from the 2000 election campaign is that what a candidate says about policy isn’t just a guide to his or her thinking about a specific issue — it’s the best way to get a true sense of the candidate’s character.

Do you remember all the up-close-and-personals about George W. Bush, and what a likeable guy he was? Well, reporters would have had a much better fix on who he was and how he would govern if they had ignored all that, and focused on the raw dishonesty and irresponsibility of his policy proposals.

That’s why I’m not interested in what sports the candidates play or speculation about their marriages. I want to hear about their health care plans — not just for the substance, but to get a sense of what kind of president each would be. Would they hesitate and triangulate, or would they push hard for real change?

Now, back in February John Edwards put his rivals for the Democratic nomination on the spot, by coming out with a full-fledged plan to cover all the uninsured. Suddenly, vague expressions of support for universal health care weren’t enough: candidates were under pressure to present their own specific plans.

And the question was whether those plans would be as bold and comprehensive as the Edwards proposal.

More: http://welcome-to-pottersville.blogspot.com/

[venable]

1. Exactly what Edwards said last night

and people say he was slapped down by the mighty Obama (??)

How about he was right. How about, according to Krugman, Edwards was right that Obama's plan does not provide universal coverage, and if it doesn't why should he call it that?

Edwards strength in the face of this card trick is exactly why I like him.

And you are not 'slapped down' when you look at your opponent and say to the world: He was right and I was wrong.

Talk about strength and honesty.

And what does this man then do? He pushes him further: You were right, Senator Obama, but now you are wrong.

I can't stand this WWF talk of smackdowns and such, but at least get it right.

[Quixote1818]

2. I haven't decided on a candidate but I am now leaning toward Edwards

That is unless Gore gets back in. However, I actually think Edwards is more electable than Gore.

[venable]

6. agree about Gore

He is definitely one of the more beautiful and eloquent transformational voices in the world today, but I also worry a bit about his electability.

He is such a force as a free agent that I wonder why he would want to get back into the game in the old way.

I would love to see a President Edwards give Al some real power: In fact, I wish that Edwards would have had the opportunity to answer the 'what would you do with Bill?' question. A great answer: "I'd make him mideast envoy or roving ambassador...but the pertinent issue is how best to use the powerful voice and mission of Al Gore."

[Blackhatjack]

3. Krugman compares Obama plan to Edwards plan, thus his second place designation...

None of the candidates are going to fix the healthcare problem with one attempt.

Edwards takes the given that over 40 million have no health insurance and 7 million of those are children. Edwards plan means they are all insured, mandatory. It is not the ultimate fix, but it would accomplish the first goal.

Obama's plan would leave a significant percentage of individuals the option to turn down coverage and rely on Emergency Rooms to provide them with care without health insurance to pay. And children would have no say over their parents decision not to insure them.

Obama's plan incorporates a lot of the same measures Edwards was first to present. I am hopeful that Obama would continue to tweak his plan and move to full medical coverage for everyone.

As far as Hillary is concerned, we are still waiting ...

All the Democratic candidates need to get on the same page, full coverage for everyone without exception.

[TahitiNut]

4. "... Medicare for all, which is actually the best solution."

Yes, it is. Kucinich has been ahead of ALL of them. It's not Edwards who's been first out of the gate. It's HR676.

:shrug:

[Blackhatjack]

5. I think Kucinich was first to call for 'single payer universal healthcare coverage' but....

as I pointed out above, it will take several incarnations to move healthcare to 'single payer universal healthcare coverage' as the ultimate fix.

I don't disagree that it is economically feasible, but it cannot be done overnight. WE have a behemoth in the healthcare system, and you have to establish priorities and make changes with multiple fixes. It won't happen any other way.

Does not mean I disagree with DK proposal that 'single payer universal healthcare coverage' would be best.

[SoCalDem]

7. We don;t need health care INSURANCE.. we need natioonal health CARE

there is a big difference..

We HAVE to get the middlemen OUT.. that means the insurors/the HMOs and all the other paper-pushers.

[antigop]

8. Marie Cocco: Edwards' Flawed Health Care Plan

http://www.postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc0208.html

>>
John Edwards is trying to get ahead of the political curve, but he would send us back to the future. To 1993, to be exact.

Edwards would repeat the mistake that was at the heart of Hillary Rodham Clinton's misadventure in trying to fix a health insurance system that was then, and is now, so out of whack that it manages to cover fewer and fewer Americans at higher and higher cost.

Like Clinton did, Edwards seems to believe that you can get the private insurance industry to do something it refuses to do because, in essence, doing what Edwards wants would put the industry out of business. He wants insurers to cover everyone, no matter how sick and expensive they are. He wants employers to continue to carry on their ledgers a cost that is ever more burdensome to them and to their workers, onto whose shoulders more of the health-insurance tab is being shifted.

The 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee and 2008 presidential hopeful knows that no matter how many times our health insurance crazy quilt is ripped up and stitched back together, it still will fail to cover millions of Americans.

So Edwards wants them to be able to buy a new public insurance plan that would be like Medicare, but not exactly. And he wants affluent people to pay more taxes to support coverage of the less fortunate, but not directly.
??

[Blackhatjack]

9. This is a totally disingenuous examination of Edwards' Plan...

Explain to me how you turn the present healthcare system into national healthcare WITHOUT Medical Insurance OVERNIGHT! CAnnot be done.

Edwards never said this was the end all fix. He said his plan would meet the most pressing need, immediately insuring everyone --especially the 47 million uninsured today.

It will take time and many incarnations to arrive at a system of national healthcare, but you can bet anyone proposing we do it overnight is not serious. They know it cannot be done.

[antigop]

10. I guess Sen. Kuehl (SB 840 -- CA) knows it can't be done....

http://www.dist23.casen.govoffice.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={E8682787-AE26-46B2-8252-E528F9D0145E}

[Blackhatjack]

11. Actually her plan tracks Edwards approach since it includes 'an insurance plan' ...See Your Link

"SB 840, the California Universal Healthcare Act, is California’s plan to establish a system of health insurance to cover all residents of the state with comprehensive benefits..."

I am not against single payer healthcare coverage, but to be realistic the present system cannot be changed overnight --just like the link you provided acknowledges.

[antigop]

12. Her plan doesn't track anything -- she submitted it LAST YEAR!

And it passed the California legislature -- but Arnold vetoed it.

[antigop]

13. And her plan isn't anything like Edwards' because it gets the insurance companies out of the picture

n/t