Krugman: Rejecting the Senate bill is "The Underpants Gnomes Theory Of Reform"

[johan helge]

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/the-underpants-gnomes-theory-of-reform/):

"Watching some liberal members of the House explain why they won’t do what’s necessary, and pass the Senate bill, I was wondering what they imagine will happen. Then the answer came to me: it’s the Underpants Gnomes business plan. In its original form this was:

(Phase) 1. Collect underpants.
(Phase) 2. ?????
(Phase) 3. Profit!

The current version is:

(Phase) 1. Reject the only bill that can be enacted any time soon.
(Phase) 2. ?????
(Phase) 3. Universal coverage!

Sigh."

[belpejic]

1. I agree with Krugman

I'm hugely disappointed with this bill. But a perfectly legal process was set in motion, and I really think the House needs to finish the it, even if many of them are unhappy with it. Otherwise we'll get nothing. Do Dems really believe Repubs in the Senate will go along with anything at this point (i.e., passing smaller, more digestable chunks)? Repubs think they have a winning strategy--obstruct--and they aren't going to budge from it, especially in an election year.

I say stick it to them (do you think Chimp/Cheney/Rove would have even hesitated in an analogous situation?), pass the bill (which actually does a lot of good things, despite its flaws), move on, and hammer them over financial reform. Go ahead Repubs, try to publicly defend the banks. You and the Chimp got us into this mess, and you should be forced to defend it or admit your absolute failure.

[johan helge]

2. Well said, belpejic

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/plan-b/): "Imperfect as it is, the Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives, save many Americans from financial catastrophe, and partially redeem us from the shame of being the only advanced nation without some kind of universal care."

[Vinnie From Indy]

4. He may be right but

why settle for the bullshit Senate bill? It is no secret that GW Bush got EVERYTHING he wanted with a smaller majority by simply ramming it through. His legislative victories were made possible by busting heads, playing fast and loose with the rules of the House and Senate, political blackmail, threats and a host of other hard-nosed political tactics.

It is my view that if Democrats are going to be forced to deal with an opposition party that will say no regardless of the effort being discussed, they should simply pass the progressive, expansive version of HCR.

[johan helge]

6. But the Dems managed to stop Bush from

destroying Social Security?

[Vinnie From Indy]

10. The exception proves the rule!

:) I would offer that it was precisely because GW Bush and his cronies were so wildly successful in passing other legislation that they figured why not take a stab at killing the 800 pound gorilla of national politics. In short, they bit off more than even they could chew with SS reform. It seems their biggest mistake in the SS initiatives under Smirky was not being able to tie the "War on Terror" and Osama Bin Laden to Social Security. If they had been successful at that, who knows what might have happened.

My point is this, Krugman is right about getting SOMETHING passed. I simply believe that he is aiming way too low. If we are going to ram through legislation using reconciliation, why not make it worth the trouble and pass a progressive, expansive HCR. At the very least, Democrats would re-introduce into the game penalties for the GOP for not engaging in bi-partisanship. As it stands now, the natural order of negotiating is skewed and unworkable. The GOP simply obstructs and there is no penalties whatsoever for their conduct.

[johan helge]

12. I think I read somewhere that

the Dems can pass the Senate bill, and then try to make it better using reconciliation.

[LooseWilly]

37. What "parts" did you read that reconciliation could "make better"?

Since the Senate bill includes no public option, reconciliation would not be able to "make it better" by improving on the public option. I haven't heard of any real cost control measures in the Senate version (which was one of the big points of the public option).

The idea of passing the Senate version, then going through the entire process of reconciliation in order to "fix" the cadillac insurance plan tax in the Senate version... strikes me as ludicrous. Better by far to let the House have its say, then let the new Senate kill the bill... then turn around and use reconciliation to expand the buy in availability of Medicare. The left will be happier, something will have "gotten done", the Republican "win" will be hollow since the medicare buy in will be bigger reform even than the public option would have been (and their corporate masters will actually have lost ground), and- judging by even the teabaggers' opposition to the government "touching my Medicare", the public will quickly become attached to the new Medicare options... which the Democrats could take credit for... and which could pave the way for further expansions of Medicare.

Why bother with the Senate bill with its onerous mandates (and equally unpopular subsidies to go with the mandates) and its union-poisonous cadillac health plan tax? It makes no sense, unless one is simply thinking so stubbornly that one can't change objectives no matter the cost.

[johan helge]

45. I don't know what could be made better using reconciliation

after passing the Senate bill, but perhaps expansion of Medicare?

[quantass]

9. But that would be too logical for Dems to understand....No Chance. nt

[Cosmocat]

44. They need to cool off and do what is in ALL of our best interests ...

I get that this thing falls WELL short of what it should, but as noted, it was constructed as law is constructed ...

You are also right that NO FRIGGEN WAY the senate plays ball on this in any way now ...

AND, not passing the bill is a MAJOR political hit for both the president and the party, they ALL will wear the HEAVY anvil of Rs portraying BO and the party as a failure ...

[Jennicut]

3. The best idea on how to fix the health care mess is this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=140078&mesg_id=140078

[Larkspur]

5. There's a better plan...

Expand Medicare to the unemployed and those 55-64. that can be done via Reconciliation. Then in a seperate bill put that health insurance companies can not reject people due to pre-existing conditions and other things that HELP people and dare the Republicans to filibuster it.

[Teaser]

14. They won't do this either.

Either action requires balls. They won't do it.

fuckers. fuckers. fuckers.

I want my goddamn money back.

[Hello_Kitty]

7. Great double standard. Only liberals in Congress get criticized for holding up passage of a bill

Where was Krugman when Lieberman was stalling the bill so he could strip popular provisions out of it and ones that would bend that precious "cost curve" a helluva lot more than that dumbass excise tax?

Where was Krugman when forced birthers Stupak and Nelson were holding things ups because they wanted to make sure the bill would let them sniff women's panties?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. Where was Krugman? Blogging every day.

It's not like he hasn't been condemning Lieberman and Stupak and other menaces.

[Hello_Kitty]

18. I've seen Krugman criticize centrists for the stimulus but not for HCR.

It's similar to how Krugman wrote scads of columns and posts excoriating then-candidate Obama for his opposition to mandates but only one criticizing then-candidate McCain for his plan.

[johan helge]

19. See this one

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/opinion/22krugman.html?_r=1

And he's written more about "centrists" and health care, oh yes.

He hasn't criticized liberals in Congress before now, as far as i remember. But he does now, because he is afraid they will stop "a bill that, for all its flaws, is the biggest piece of progressive legislation since Medicare" (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/obama-get-me-rewrite/).

[Hello_Kitty]

20. One article, back in June.

And frankly, not anything approaching the disdain he's showing for liberals. "Underwear gnomes", indeed. Jerk.

Please find me one article or blog post from Krugman lambasting Stupak and Nelson for holding up the bill over abortion. Please find the series of posts and articles condemning Lieberman. Here's one post I found about Lieberman and HCR:

Ugh. It grates terribly to have the health care bill seriously weakened out of pure spite — and that’s clearly what’s happening, as Joe Lieberman demands the withdrawal of a feature he himself was advocating just three months ago.

Paul Starr — a veteran of the Clinton attempt — says that we should just pass the thing and try to fix it later. I guess I grudgingly agree — unless Lieberman demands further changes, gutting the bill. And I have a sick feeling that he’ll do just that.

But no more. On the next big challenge, financial reform, I say do it right or not at all. And we really need to talk about changing the way the Senate works; at this rate we’re well on our way to becoming a failed state.

Well gosh, it's just so grating, and he's just sick about it. But let's go ahead and give President Lieberman whatever he wants and then move on to financial reform. Which they need to do right. :eyes:


http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/paying-the-liebergeld/

[johan helge]

23. I think you're right about abortion,

I can't remember Krugman writing about that. But as I've shown, Krugman has criticized the centrists. About the blog post about liberals: I think Krugman is just sick of seeing how the Dems shoot themselves in the foot

- Obama etc., by compromising too much (the stimulus, the bank bailout), and, now
- liberals in the House, by compromising too little (by not wanting to pass the Senate bill).

[johan helge]

17. It goes without saying

that Krugman disagrees with Lieberman etc.

And he has criticized both Lieberman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/15/same-old-joe/) (several times, I think) and Nelson (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/opinion/22krugman.html).

[Hello_Kitty]

21. Goes without saying?

Yeah, I guess that's an accurate observation. Because Krugman really hasn't had much to say about Lieberman, Nelson, Stupak, et al.

[treestar]

28. Lieberman got criticized

And the House progressives are only doing what you wanted.

Are they too wimpy to take the heat? I thought this was courageous on their part?

You won't have the bill you hate. So quit crying.

The House Progressives are "gutsy" to do this, no? They can take the heat.

[Hello_Kitty]

33. Were Nelson, Stupak, and Lieberman being courageous too?

You'd have had your precious wondrous historic-on-a-par-with-Medicare bill long ago if they hadn't been obstructionist assholes and taken everything out that progressives and the public liked, while inserting odious anti-choice language.

Why are we supposed to "work together" yet liberals are expected to make all the sacrifices?

[treestar]

40. They were courageous

They did take the stand they wanted to take and took the consequences.

If the liberals had said no and the bill had failed, I can conclude then that you'd say the liberals/Dems had balls and courage.

If the Dems had all told Stupak no, no bill with his restrictions, that would have been courageous, right? And they'd have to take all the heat for getting no bill. But it would not be coming from DU progressives.

Are you saying there is no way Stupak compromised anything? Is there proof there is nothing he gave up in order to get his provision?

[Hello_Kitty]

41. Yeah, Stupak did have to compromise

He wanted exceptions for rape but only in the case of "forcible rape". So if you didn't fight off your attacker or he drugged you or raped you while you were asleep, no abortion coverage for you. They made him agree to take the "forcible" language off. What a sacrifice. What a guy. :eyes:

[Scarsdale Vibe]

36. Hopefully progressives will wake up some day soon and realize they killed their own agenda.

Kennedy realized later on that he was wrong to reject Nixon's overtures towards health care reform and as the years pass and 45,000 people still die each year from having no insurance, and hundreds of thousands still file bankruptcy due to medical costs, progressives who opposed the Senate bill will realize their mistake too. Or at least the handful of honest ones will.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. by nominating Obama

If you want to blame progressives go the whole way.

[Hello_Kitty]

50. But Lieberman, Nelson, and Stupak will sleep like babies. eom

[GoCubsGo]

8. I'm just trying to wrap my head around...

...that someone like Krugman would know what Underpants Gnomes are. He never struck me as the type who would watch "South Park."

[Hippo_Tron]

31. He probably doesn't frequently watch it, but it's a good analogy

Which means he's probably not the first one to use it. I know people frequently use the "Chewbacca defense" as an analogy for bullshitting.

[centristgrandpa]

11. mandate trillions to the...

insurance industry, this type of change is asinine no matter how anyone spins it, seriously wrong. Would you buy anything that is sold as "something is better than nothing", i think not...

[Phx_Dem]

13. Tell that to the progreessive caucus in the House, Paul.

If the progressives want to kill HCR, let them. I'm sick to death of hearing about it. Kill it and move on to a jobs bill. I'm sick to death of progressive whining and I just don't give a shit anymore.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

15. The House conservadems are also against it

They now want no bill. They're scared.

[treestar]

29. Exactly

Let them be "gutsy."

[Spazito]

22. I agree, it is bizarre...

If anyone should know that the history of healthcare reform attempts failing means it will not be raised again for many years it is the Liberal members of the House and yet they are prepared to have that happen. I honestly don't get it.

[PHIMG]

24. Krugman is really drinking the cool-aid

I guess he really wants those White House party invites.

[Zynx]

25. I guess you didn't see what he has also said about Obama recently.

[PHIMG]

35. I did actually which makes it all the more weird.

Krugman has lost all his liberal cred he had in my mind. He's the NYTimes "House Liberal"... he's a slave to the insider beltway conventional wisdom.

I'm so sick of hearing that passing a bill that was basically written by and for big insurance and big pharma, which mandates the purchase of a defective financial product from one of the most loathesome industries in all history, and taxes people with adequate healthcare plans is worse than passing no bill. In the same breath these people tell you that this is 20 year opportunity. Ok so it takes 20 years to open this window but yet we'll squandor it by passing a bad bill?

this bill will really hurt the democratic party. it will cement the impression that Democrats are just republicans who don't hate gays, women, and minorities.

NADER WAS RIGHT.

I'm pissed we got sold a progressive who turned out to be a Rockefeller Republican. Not going to get fooled again.

[johan helge]

38. Oh, yes you are

Liberals that vote for the Greens (or don't vote), will always be fooled. They make the Repubs smile.

This does not make Repubs smile: Liberals that vote for the best candidate that can win. If the best candidate that can win, wins, then:

1 The worst candidate loses.
2 To put it this way: If the best candidates (among those who can win) win all elections, the candidates will get better over time - because the losing party this time must get better to win the next time.

[PHIMG]

42. Yes...yes yes....where are you going to go?

Meanwhile the party moves farther and farther to the right wing and we just have to suck it up and accept our corporate slavery.

I'm not going to accept right-wing democrat after right wing democrat. Sorry. My vote is too sacred.

[johan helge]

46. Your vote is your only weapon against the Repubs

- don't waste it! Never forget, Nader makes them smile!

[PHIMG]

48. what a bunch of bullshit

open up a history book. change never happens at the ballot box. it happens when people get in the streets and make the elite nervous that they'll be showing up at the gated community with pitchforks.

[johan helge]

51. Change happens in so many ways, but

the only change Liberals voting Green, blacks not voting etc., has achieved, is to make it easier for the Repubs.

[freddie mertz]

26. I am beginning to feel sorry for Krugman. nt.

[johan helge]

30. He understands these things a lot better than the people in charge,

and has to sit and see them mess it all up. I think he is just sick of seeing how the Dems shoot themselves in the foot

- Obama etc., by compromising too much (the stimulus, the bank bailout), and, now
- liberals in the House, by compromising too little (by not wanting to pass the Senate bill).

Krugman for President!

[freddie mertz]

32. He still wants them to force through the Senate bill.

Which is not going to happen.

[johan helge]

34. You're probably right.

The Dems were so close to achieve "a bill that, for all its flaws, is the biggest piece of progressive legislation since Medicare" (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/obama-get-me-rewrite/). But it seems like they will mess it up.

[freddie mertz]

59. The Senate bill had a lot of problems, and was a political poison pill.

Best idea now is to extend Medicare, and pass popular restrictions on insurance companies.

[johan helge]

60. Do you mean that the Senate bill is worse

than the situation today? Why not both pass the Senate bill and extend Medicare? What's "popular restrictions"?

[freddie mertz]

62. It is a bad, bad bill. And it is dead, apparently.

As for restrictions, I refer to banning pre-existing conditions and regulating costs.

[johan helge]

63. Two Krugman quotes

About pre-existing conditions (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/21/one-legged-stools/):

"As I’ve written before, the pieces of reform are interdependent. You can’t do one or two pieces on their own. Ban discrimination based on medical history, and you get an adverse-selection death spiral, in which healthy people opt out and premiums soar. You can’t solve that without both requiring that healthy people buy insurance and helping those with lower incomes afford the premiums. In short, you basically end up with the Senate bill."

Better than the situation now (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/plan-b/):

"Imperfect as it is, the Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives, save many Americans from financial catastrophe, and partially redeem us from the shame of being the only advanced nation without some kind of universal care."

[treestar]

27. Good point

[Citizen Kang]

43. As opposed to Krugman's theory

Eat this shit sandwich of a Senate Bill and hope you poop out gold!

[johan helge]

47. That's not so dumb as it sounds, actually

Social Security is "gold" now, but it hasn't always been like that:

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

"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."

[TheKentuckian]

49. 1. Pass bad toxic bill. 2. Suffer the consequences for a generation

or

1. Refuse to make bad worse be willing to suffer those consequences

2. Keep fighting.

[johan helge]

52. I don't understand

Krugman (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/19/plan-b/): "Imperfect as it is, the Senate bill would save tens of thousands of lives, save many Americans from financial catastrophe, and partially redeem us from the shame of being the only advanced nation without some kind of universal care."

What's the problem with passing the Senate bill? It's better than the situation now (almost anything is)? The Dems will of course "Keep fighting" even after passing the bill?

[SanchoPanza]

53. People are easily distracted by shiny objects.

Just peruse a handful of threads on the Senate bill and you'll see every kind of distortion being promoted for no other reason than that those doing it didn't get single payer, a public option, or medicare expansion.

The first two were never in the cards, and it's high time people admit it. After trying to whip up vote for a PO, the Senate got 43 yays. It wouldn't have even passed under a simple majority. Single payer would have gotten even less, and they knew it, so it was never considered.

Medicare expansion is a slightly different story. Reid thought he had the votes, but Lieberman turned on him at the last minute. It's perfectly reasonable to be out for Lieberman's blood as a result. But people should also consider that, in drumming up support for the expansion, it came at a cost. The excise tax was increased, the anti-trust exemptions for insurance companies were kept, etc. That's really the kind of thing you pass through reconciliation.

It's perfectly understandable to be upset, but that's the way politics is. You rarely ever get 100% what you want.

But here's the reality. If the House Progressive Caucus thumbs their collective noses at the largest increase in health care affordability and access since 1965, then they have absolutely no right to call themselves Progressives. The word would become utterly meaningless.

[johan helge]

56. Ah, someone who actually knows something about this,

and is not part of the single-payer-or-nothing (which means nothing, but never mind) group!

[TheKentuckian]

61. Nope, that would not be representative of my biggest concerns

and I've written about them over and over, while no one has ever refuted the drastic systemic design issues in the Senate abortion.

You and others like you need to give up the blame the liberals game here because this is well beyond plug in a public option and the bill is quality.

[SanchoPanza]

65. I'm not blaming liberals.

Would be difficult, considering that I am one. I won't blame anyone unless the reform effort completely collapses, in which case it will likely be the first group that gives up. We're not there quite yet, but the Progressive Caucus and the Blue Dogs seem to be in a race to see who can do it first.

If you have specific criticisms of the Senate bill that don't fall under the above categories, please list them or link to another post. The only other systemic differences are financing and the number of exchanges that each bill would establish. In those cases, the House bill is better, but not to such a degree that the Senate bill should be considered garbage. Both bills have individual and employer mandates. Both bills have similar insurance reforms. The difference in subsidies is one of degree and not kind.

This really is a case of people having a choice between 80% of what they want and nothing, and opting for nothing out of spite.

[ShortnFiery]

54. Krugman has had diarrhea of the mouth lately ...

:thumbsdown:

[johan helge]

57. I don't agree with you

but you made me laugh! Not bad!

[MadHound]

55. Sorry Paul, but you're wrong on this one

The Senate bill is worse than nothing, it is actually going to do grave harm to large swathes of people, myself included. It is best off dead and gone, so that we can start this process again and get something that is actually helpful and decent on the table.

[johan helge]

58. Why does the Senate bill harm you? (nt)

[Bluenorthwest]

64. The people hate the Bill. The Reps will not vote their jobs away

Krugman's political theory is that of the magical voter elf, whom you can anger, but will still vote for you. He thinks a Rep can flip off his people and still win, due to some charm or spell or chant that is repeated along with Rick Warren and Tim Kaine, but this is not how the real world is. House Reps will not vote their jobs away to please a majority that can not find support for the crap that it wants, when the people want something else entirely. Krugman is dreaming of a world without voters, but with magic loyalty elves and the like.
He's dreaming.