NYT: Krugman - "Pass The Bill"

[stopbush]

Pass the Bill

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 17, 2009

A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

Yes, the filibuster-imposed need to get votes from “centrist” senators has led to a bill that falls a long way short of ideal. Worse, some of those senators seem motivated largely by a desire to protect the interests of insurance companies — with the possible exception of Mr. Lieberman, who seems motivated by sheer spite.

But let’s all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago. With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?hp

[Egnever]

1. But but but

Obama betrayed us! WAAAAAAAAAA! I am no longer a democrat ! WAAAAAAA


It's nice to agree with krugman for a change.

[tishaLA]

2. Krugman supported the mandate during the primaries

and he supports it now...although what we will be getting for the mandate is uncertain. Reproductive rights? Doubtful. Lower costs? Unlikely. Increases in insurance company profits? Almost undeniable.

[pnwmom]

4. As an economist, he understands that universal insurance cannot function

without a mandate. If you could wait to buy insurance till you were facing an expensive illness, that's what any sensible person would do. But in that case, the premiums would be too high for anyone to afford.

[enlightenment]

6. If what was being proposed was universal, I'd agree.

It's not.

[pnwmom]

7. Why isn't it universal? n/t

[AllyCat]

8. Universal mandate to buy expensive insurance with no service is not exactly

universal care. The insurance industry still doesn't have to provide the care. So we spend our hard earned dollars on their crummy product, they don't cover the care we need, they keep the money, and we die or get sicker. Sounds pretty fair to me. Krugman must have a LOT more money than the rest of us.

[pnwmom]

12. "expensive insurance with no service"

We have expensive insurance -- through my husband's employer -- but I have no complaints about the service. And my daughter, with different insurance, is pleased with hers too.

[AllyCat]

25. Employer based insurance tends to be much better than that available on the private market

People out there purchasing on their own don't get as a good a deal due to reduced "purchasing power" and are much more likely to be declined for services/payments. That's great that yours is good. Mine is reasonably decent. However, too many people out there are dealing with companies that have no competition or just do the usual deny, deny, deny after you pay your premiums religiously. BC/BS this week announced it would cancel coverage for anyone who missed a premium payment. They pulled it back after media attention, but if that attention weren't there, these people would have had to decide if they should eat or pay the health care lottery.

[TwilightGardener]

28. Why wouldn't they cover the care you need? Who says there's "no service"?

Why would the nature of private policies change?

[enlightenment]

10. Universal implies that everyone will be covered.

That is not the case with either bill under consideration. The number being bandied about currently is 93% (that is total - both currently insured and new arrivals under the plan). Seven percent of the roughly 304 million people in the US is a pretty staggering number . . . and that's not taking into consideration that they 93% is probably 'perfect world' figuring.

It is simply not a universal plan if they are planning on having over 22 million still uninsured after it is implemented.

[pnwmom]

11. It won't be universal because some people would choose to pay a penalty

over buying the insurance.

[enlightenment]

21. So, nothing I said about percentages covered matters?

The only reason you'll accept it wouldn't be universal is personal failure to comply? If that were the only reason, it would be universal 'coverage' - since the option to be covered would exist. The point is that it won't exist, so it won't be universal coverage.

[ProSense]

3. Well,

I'm distraught. The party no longer loves me. The corporate masters have won. Save me Howard Dean.

There is no hope. If this bill passes we are doomed.

Obama has lost me.

Obama is incompetent. Impeach him.

The Democrats are sellouts.

I will no longer support Obama and the party.

I thought things were getting bad, but now I'm convinced we're doomed.


:rofl:

[KittyWampus]

18. Doomed... DOOMED... .DOOOOOOOOOOMED!

[pnwmom]

5. Krugman's not a politician and he's not paid by the insurance industry,

so he's got no axe to grind. On top of that, he's an economist, so he understands the financial issues, and he's a progressive.

So I think his opinion deserves serious consideration.

[AllyCat]

9. Yes, 30M more "covered", but living on the streets with their kids because

they can't afford their homes or food anymore. Do these economists and politicians have a CLUE what insurance costs?

[Unvanguard]

15. There are subsidies. There is a hardship exemption.

Even the mandate penalty is fairly lenient.

I'm increasingly unconvinced that the people complaining about how much it will cost have taken any of these facts seriously.

[AllyCat]

24. Can you define hardship?

I seriously doubt most people who are underwater in their houses, losing their jobs or taking part time stuff to keep food on the table are going to qualify. A subsidy would have to be pretty substantial to help these people and I bet the insurance industry, unregulated as it will be under this bill, will just raise their rates as much as the subsidy happens to be. It's just like when the tax credits were announced for energy-saving home improvements: the estimate we'd had for an energy-star furnace just a few months before at about $3300 was suddenly $4700. Amazing how those tax credits just don't seem to help. Neither will subsidies.

[Warren DeMontague]

13. It's been made abundantly clear that none of it is up to us.

So who is Krugman talking to? Not me. The United States government, particularly the United States Corporate Lobbyist Dollars Senate of America, doesn't give a shit what I have to say on the matter. What I do, what I believe, what I want, is completely irrelevant.

"The Left" has been declared totally ineffectual. It seems, increasingly, that the outcome -along with the "perils of Pauline" (thanks to another DU'er for the metaphor) state of the Public Option, was all a foregone conclusion from the get-go. So, the end is already written.

Seriously. I like the guy... but who is Krugman talking to?

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. He's talking to senators and representatives

We're just anonymous internet posters; he's a Nobel prize-winning economist with a column on the New York Times, and they will think about his opinion. And they're the ones who will decied whether to pass the bill without a public option.

[Warren DeMontague]

30. So, how much has he got on him?

I mean, in cash.

Because the people who are going to decide the fate of this thing not only don't give a shit about "anonymous internet posters", they don't give a shit about Nobel prizes for economics, either.

(That's who he is?... Really? Wow. Thanks for filling me in. And all this time I thought Paul Krugman was that one armed drummer from Def Leppard)

They're in it for The Benjamins. And I don't mean Ben Folds.

As I've said; the folks holding this thing in their hands are the people who have clearly been bought and sold by the In$urance Industry. Look, I'm no hard-line SPHC or bust'er. I've been willing to compromise the shit out of this thing. But NO Public Option, NO Medicare buy-in, NO nothin'... I'm sorry, but this sucker is starting to stink.

[ellie]

16. +1!

[sendero]

17. I used to like Krugman.

.... but as of the end of 2008 he went off the rails. Maybe I only like him because he challenged Bush.

In any event, he's wrong here just as most of his economic prognostications lately have missed the mark.

Dean or Krugman? A doctor or a talking head economist? I'm staying with Dean.

[el_bryanto]

20. Yeah I know what you mean. I agree with anybody who agrees with me.

Krugman was great back when he agreed with me, but now that he doesn't he's just a talking head economist.

Bryant

[Richardo]

22. !

:rofl:

[stray cat]

19. Krugman is a DLCer and corporate shill!

:sarcasm:

[joeybee12]

23. I usually agree with Krugman, but not on this...we need to let them

know that ignoring us has its consequences, because if we buy into this, they'll just shit on us again.

[HuckleB]

26. K & R.

[Umbral]

27. Yes, pass the bill and see just how truely ungovernable this country can get.

The Republicans don't need that many seats, a few in the House and one more in the Senate. Total gridlock - at least until the Democrats roll over, then were back on the Republican agenda.

[HuckleB]

32. What are you talking about?

WOW!

:rofl:

[JHB]

29. I think Krugman isn't accounting enough for the "rabid attack dog" factor

How long will it last if the Republicans can reduce it to something that will force people to pay more out of pocket with no cost containment? They'll highlight all the bad points in the version they created and hold it up as an example of "Democratic health care", and redirect peoples' anger at the Democrats.

Making a tactical withdrawl stinks, but it beats letting the enemy rip your arm off and beat you into submission with your own bloody stump.

[laughingliberal]

31. Yesterday's news. My response is the same. Won't fly nt