Paul Krugman's Health Care Sell-Out

[Vinnie From Indy]

Paul Krugman, one of the few liberal columnists writing for the New York Times, claims that at some point in the hoary past when he "began writing a lot about health care," he was in favor of a Canadian-style single-payer health care system. He adds that even today if he thought there was "any chance of creating Medicare for All any time in the next decade," he would be "pushing for single-payer now."

But on Christmas, Krugman threw in the towel, calling on progressives to support the Senate's version of health care legislation. Suggesting that the so-called Senate Health Reform Bill, if it had been the law back in Dickens' time in England, would have saved Tiny Tim without any need for the belated charitable intervention of Ebenezer Scrooge, Krugman says progressives should recognize that the Senate bill is the best they can hope for, and that they need to accept that politics is "the art of the possible."

Certainly the Senate bill, and the only slightly less cruddy House version, with which it must be reconciled (let's be clear here that the ultimate act, when passed, will much more closely hew to the Senate version than the House version, given the number of conservative Democrats in the Senate), does a few good things, such as increasing funding for community health clinics, expanding Medicaid, the health insurance system for the poor, and banning the current insurance industry practice of denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions. But these small positive steps pale in comparison to the truly noxious things this bill does, and the things it fails to do.

The most outrageous thing the health "reform" bill does is further consolidate the death grip that the insurance industry has over health care access and delivery in America. It does this by mandating that everyone buy health insurance, on pain of being slapped with a heavy fine by the IRS. Since most of the 47 million Americans without health insurance are younger and healthier than average, what this measure does is hand the private insurance industry a huge captive customer population who will be stuck with high-cost, low-benefit insurance that will generate huge profits for the industry. The industry will be further enriched by nearly half a trillion dollars in subsidies needed to help low-income people or small businesses buy their mandated health insurance--subsidies which will end up going directly to insurance companies, which will be offering in return wretched bare-bones plans that will only cover some 60% of actual medical costs.

more at:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/25810

[Teaser]

1. clearly, Paul has been paid off

it's the only explanation.

[Captain Hilts]

3. I think he's decided it's better to fix a bad bill than to start from scratch again.

I don't think it's about being paid off. I've made a similar transition. I know, it sucks.

[sharp_stick]

9. Yeah that's it

the "only" explanation, it's all a massive conspiracy against the average moron who's too stupid to take advantage of it. They keep you stupid with the chemicals they spray from jetliners flying over your house. These same chemicals are the ones that keep you thinking that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, we landed on the moon, JFK was killed by a nutjob and countless other things carried out by the Masons and Illuminati.

:sarcasm: sheesh

[Teaser]

25. "landed on the moon"...HA!

some people are so gullible. I know a sound stage when I see one. You can't even see any stars in those pics!

[chimpymustgo]

12. He's bowed to the enormous pressure to support this steaming pile. Sanders, Boxer, Weiner

all the progressives are being pistol whipped to fall in line. If they don't, it will be "such a horrible failure for the President and the party!!"

Obama brilliantly backed them into a corner to eat this corporate handout shit - or else... They gave up all the good options, till nothing but the awful was left.

I am praying for some brave legislators to do the right thing. KILL THIS BILL.

[Aviation Pro]

18. Didn't realize that Krugman has a vote in the Senate or the House....

...my bad.

Needless :sarcasm: tag.

[chimpymustgo]

54. He's just got that huge megaphone of the NYT Op-Ed page. Stupid.

[Captain Hilts]

2. I understand the writer's frustration. And, I too, prefer single payer...

but I think we have to hold our noses and support this bill, as bad as it is.

[Junkdrawer]

4. K&R

[frazzled]

5. You love him, you hate him, you love him, you hate him

Some disagree that what the bill primarily does is "further consolidate the death grip that the insurance industry has over health care access and delivery in America."

From James Surowiecki at the New Yorker (via WaPo's EK):

Congress’s support for community rating and universal access doesn’t fit well with its insistence that health-care reform must rely on private insurance companies. After all, measuring risk, and setting prices accordingly, is the raison d’être of a health-insurance company. The way individual insurance works now, risk and price are linked. If you’re a triathlete with no history of cancer in your family, you’re a reasonably good risk, and so you can get an affordable policy that will protect you against unforeseen disaster; if you’re overweight with high blood pressure and a history of heart problems, your risk of becoming seriously ill is substantial, and therefore private insurers will either charge you high premiums or not offer you coverage at all.

This kind of risk evaluation -- what’s called “medical underwriting” -- is fundamental to the insurance business. But it is precisely what all the new reform plans will ban. Congress is effectively making private insurers unnecessary, yet continuing to insist that we can’t do without them ... Instead of replacing private insurance companies, the proposed reforms would, in theory, turn them into something like public utilities.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/making_private_insurers_into_p.html

[NJmaverick]

6. I fail to see how not agreeing with you makes Krugman a sell out

[Vinnie From Indy]

7. I guess if you read the article

you would know that it is David Lindorff that is calling Krugman a sellout. I merely posted his article here for discussion.

[NJmaverick]

8. You post article you don't agree with, without comment?

how are we, the readers, suppose to know where you stand?

[eilen]

10. I see your point, however the OP could just be posting it to stimulate

discussion. I don't know that there are any hard and fast rules. I do usually like a comment from the OP myself, however sharing is nice too.

[Vinnie From Indy]

11. Well, since you asked

I agree with Lindorff in regard to this bill being a con job and much worse than the status quo. I, however, simply think that Krugman is making a mistake. I have respect for Krugman's opinion on many matters. In this case, I think he is just wrong.

On edit: I will also add that I think Lindorff makes a mistake by characterizing Krugman's support as a "sellout". It was a bad choice of words by Lindorff. Nowhere in his article does he offer that Krugman has been bought off or is corrupt. Since Lindorff does not accuse Krugman of these things, he should have chosen a different word for his headline.

[Hello_Kitty]

13. One doesn't have to be bought off or corrupt to be a sellout

Sometimes just going along with the conventional wisdom qualifies, and I think that's what Krugman is doing.

[GreenArrow]

17. Is Krugman going along with the conventional wisdom?

Or is he helping to create it?

[Hello_Kitty]

20. Good point

He is part of an echo chamber of pundits and "experts" who quote each other regularly.

[laughingliberal]

14. It is a little unnerving to see Krugman's comments on this bill

I know he's not stupid. I know he can't fail to see the downward pressure this bill puts on working and middle class wages. I know he understands the ramifications of downward pressure on the wages of the masses. I know he understands that getting unemployment down and wages on track to start increasing is crucial if this country is ever to return to anything resembling the country we had before Reagan. I am simply aghast that he ignores the far reaching damage this bill does to the economy. I am baffled at his support for a bill that is a huge victory in the class wars waged by the ruling class against workers and middle class Americans. Unless Krugman has resigned himself that we can not stop the increased disparity of wealth in this country and he feels we might as well have health insurance on our ride to the bottom, I can see no logical reason for his position.

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Well, consider that he's a free trader too.

He is still convinced that offshoring jobs to low wage countries with no environmental regulations will create a rising tide that lifts all boats, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[laughingliberal]

23. I did not know that. This is much clearer, now. nt

[KittyWampus]

28. Hello-Kitty doesn't know what she's talking about when it comes to Krugman. Her statement is wrong.

[Hello_Kitty]

35. You don't know what you are talking about

Paul Krugman wrote an essay called "In Praise of Cheap Labor" about 10 years ago and has never retracted anything in it.

[KittyWampus]

47. I've been reading him for many years. Again, he isn't for just outsourcing jobs. But if you get off

deliberately misrepresenting what he has said on the subject by editing out important aspects like the need for job creation and investments in new technologies go right ahead. It just doesn't say much about you or your capacity to present an argument.

And the fact is, the US has indeed had periods of job creation and technological investment.

Sadly, Bush just didn't bother pushing it.

[Hello_Kitty]

49. Krugman is shockingly naive on this issue.

As are you. Globalization is kleptocracy. Deal with what IS, not what should be.

[KittyWampus]

27. You obviously haven't either read Krugman fully or edit what he actually says

therefore, your opinion is totally irrelevant to any discussion where he's involved.

Krugman has simply said he's supportive of outsourcing. He's pointed out that doing so does indeed build better economic circumstances world wide. He has ALSO said in the same breath that the US has to create NEW jobs while this is happening.

You left out that last part.

So, you are either intellectually dishonest or simply not well read.

[laughingliberal]

31. Would be very interested in his ideas on how we create new, well paid jobs here

if companies can outsource with impunity.

[KittyWampus]

36. You realize that's the whole thinking behind the Apollo Project? The problem with Bush is he

did nothing at all to create new jobs.

No new technology, innovation.

In fact he stifled it in some areas. Like medicine and auto engineering.

[Hello_Kitty]

40. Meanwhile, Krugman was still for outsourcing. eom

[KittyWampus]

45. Meanwhile, only if there're new jobs being created. eom

[laughingliberal]

52. Okay, so when we see the new jobs...ones that can actually replace what we've lost, I'll buy that

At this point, though, letting companies outsource with impunity has done a lot of damage here. I am not a free marketeer under the conditions we see it at present.

[Hello_Kitty]

39. Oh brother. Put down the corporate Koolaid and look around you.

Krugman has simply said he's supportive of outsourcing. He's pointed out that doing so does indeed build better economic circumstances world wide. He has ALSO said in the same breath that the US has to create NEW jobs while this is happening.

Well shucky wuckies! So we were supposed to create new jobs here too! Hmm...guess the corporations didn't get the memo about that.

Jesus Christ. :eyes:

[KittyWampus]

46. Take your snark and admit defeat. The US has indeed created new jobs but under Bush

job creation has stagnated.

The US has indeed created new technologies.

[Hello_Kitty]

48. Take your head out of your posterior

And realize that slave wages and destruction of the environment are a FEATURE of globalization not a bug. Read the Shock Doctrine and educate yourself.

[KittyWampus]

30. That fact Lindorff chose the word "sellout" tells us something about him and his capacity to truthfu

truthfully present an argument.

But I've noticed in this "debate" a lot of people against the proposal inching through Congress are fairly dishonest and adding absolutely nothing useful to the discussion.

Best recent example that comes to mind:

Someone posts a thread that the bill doesn't have any limits on deductibles, co-pays.

Multiple DU'ers who oppose the Bill rushed in to post nothing but snark.

Eventually some DU'ers start posting the TRUTH that there are deductibles.

DU'ers against the proposals THEN shift to yeah, but it's xxxxx amount.

Eventually some DU'ers start posting the TRUTH that the amounut is really only xxx with subsidies.

[freddie mertz]

22. You are guilty of thought-crime!

Off with his head!

:sarcasm: :fistbump: :yourock: :hide:

[GreenArrow]

15. Krugman

is a propaganda shill for the status quo, long pre-dating his varying opinions on healthcare. His current task is to "convince the liberals it's okay."

[laughingliberal]

19. I hate to admit it but it does seem that way nt

[Moochy]

33. He's a Left Gatekeeper with a club

[spanone]

16. bwahahahahaa

[KittyWampus]

24. Krugman has patiently been explaining the different Health Care systems world wide. He's broken down

benefits/cons of political candidates proposals and explained Swiss model versus various other models.

I think some people can't handle it when a writer doesn't just come out and "cheerlead" for whatever they want in particular.

During the Primary, I may have thought he had too much invested in Hillary's proposal and how far she'd ever actually get, but I NEVER disrespected the man or his capacity to present cold, hard economic facts and figures in a way that is helpful to the Common Good.

[HuckleB]

29. Exactly.

Krugman is an intellectual who gets into the nuts and bolts of the issues, and he understands that politics is messy. Alas, too many would prefer to stay falsely clean in their ivory towers.

[Junkdrawer]

34. Prehaps he could explain this:

[KittyWampus]

38. He's already pointed out we spend more money and get less. What's your point

in posting that graph?

[Junkdrawer]

42. Adding some cold, hard economic facts to the debate. n/t

[KittyWampus]

44. I don't think anyone here, or Krugman, would dispute those facts. They are a given.

Now, about the actual bill wending its way through Congress... most of what's posted here is half-truths and hyperbole.

[Junkdrawer]

50. Everything about this bill attempts to solve the problem by ADDING....

to the amount per capita we spend for health care.

Mandates...Taxes on Cadillac Plans...Government Subsidies

All an effort to save our fee-for-service system from moving out of reach of the general citizenry.

And you know why?

1.) It provides the Best in the World care when money is no object.

2.) It makes a small class of politically powerful people immensely wealthy.

[HuckleB]

26. Krugman actually wants things to improve.

The author of this piece doesn't give a real crap about it. The ivory tower is more important for this author.

[KittyWampus]

32. I agree and think Lindorff quite intentionally chose the word "sellout". It wasn't an unintentional

or poor choice of words.

On this whole issue, I've found the absolute opponents to this Health Care Bill to be fairly dishonest and not particularly able to present FACTS that prove what they say.

At least on this forum, the extremists doing little but snark.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. Awww

Are dey hurting your widdle fee fees by picking on your boyfriend Krugman?

:nopity: :eyes:

[HuckleB]

53. Wow!

Speaking of the purveyors of dishonesty on this matter!

You couldn't have popped up in a better place!

:rofl:

[WI_DEM]

37. oh, how the mighty have fallen. He was a hero here when he was critical of Obama's economic program

and now that he is in favor of passing the HCR bill he's a typical media whore.

[freddie mertz]

41. And of course, neither characterization was or is true.

Krugman is a brilliant economist and a fine editorialist.

Disagreement with him, on any issue, is neither a crime or a proof of superior virtue.

[bvar22]

43. Worth repeating:

"The most outrageous thing the health "reform" bill does is further consolidate the death grip that the insurance industry has over health care access and delivery in America.

It does this by mandating that everyone buy health insurance, on pain of being slapped with a heavy fine by the IRS.

Since most of the 47 million Americans without health insurance are younger and healthier than average, what this measure does is hand the private insurance industry a huge captive customer population who will be stuck with high-cost, low-benefit insurance that will generate huge profits for the industry.

The industry will be further enriched by nearly half a trillion dollars in subsidies needed to help low-income people or small businesses buy their mandated health insurance--subsidies which will end up going directly to insurance companies, which will be offering in return wretched bare-bones plans that will only cover some 60% of actual medical costs."

I don't need Krugman to tell me what to believe.
I can NOT support this bill.
It is NOT a "step in the right direction".

K&R

[PATRICK]

55. I don't know

but that won't stop me from making a guess> Winning the Nobel Prize and being a critic of Obama from the primaries on maybe he didn't like the role being assigned to him(enthusiastically) by the rest of media as a permanent curmudgeon on the left to hamper ALL Dem goals and policies. There seemed to be a shift when he realized that like everyone else talking down economic policy in his position could become a self-fulfilling prophecy that only aids the crooks- at least how it is spun.

If you think that makes him compromised or confused beyond any value check out the liberal blogs going through the same angst in the need not be simply turned into a dumb tool of the right. The continued absense of a real progressive leadership or "power bloc" movement makes it easier to be a an outraged critic of the Bush regime than actually having to accomplish something in a fairly outrageous DLC style restoration.

The progressives are not working to kill the health care bill yet must vote against it somehow and less than commensurate clout as ANY other bloc to influence the outcome. This is part of the long way we really have to go to restore first base democracy and reform in government, something that has always been apparent.

[pampango]

56. I love him/her/them until I don't agree with them, then they become a "sell-outs".

How many times have we heard that around here?

True there are some here that will say "I respect and usually agree with "so-and-so", but I have to respectfully disagree with him/her on this issue." More common seems to be the quick trip from "true progressive" to "sell-out". Someone can be the former for most of a lifetime and become the latter with one position that we don't agree with.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

57. I don't think Krugman thinks very carefully, unless he's paid to.

Or maybe if he really, really wants to.
In this case, he seems to lack both incentives.
He also lacks an adequate background.
So he jumps to the ideas that support the beliefs
of his friends at Yale/Princeton/Berkeley, that's all.

It's sad because he does have such a big megaphone.
And he has communicated a little that some people don't know.
But very little, all things considered,
because he doesn't care.
He's had no incentive to look hard enough
at the situation to understand how much
injustice and suffering the "reform" will cause,
and how much it will do to increase inequality.

[tabasco]

58. I guess Ol' Paul is on the shit list unti he starts badmouthing Obama.

Then he'll be a hero again, here in the cesspool.

[johnaries]

59. When I was part of the annual budget-request program for my

former department at work, we had a saying when it came to budget requests: "Ask for the moon and you may get a star". We would ask for everything we could possibly want and justify it very way we could, knowing that the reality was we would only get a portion of what we requested.

Krugman has read the bill, and he knows that although it doesn't have "the moon" in it it does have some very bright stars. Including many restrictions on Private Health Insurance companies that belie any such "strangle-hold" that the author of this disseminating piece speaks of.

Krugman has been honest and reasonable in both his criticism and praise of this legislation and this administration.

I salute Paul Krugman!

[LouKneeLib]

60. I think this title was in error, it should read......

DLC Puppet shows up for work.

[johan helge]

61. I agree with Krugman

Krugman (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1):

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.

(..)

The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically.

(..)

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

(..)

Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

62. How to fail at debating, 101:

Accuse anybody who disagrees with you of being a sell-out.