Krugman: The Phantom Policy Conflict

[ProSense]

The Phantom Policy Conflict

The idea that Obama made a mistake by focusing on health care instead of the economy seems to be catching on on the left as well as on the right. But my question remains: what are we talking about, specifically?

<...>

In my view, there are two defensible hypotheses:

1. Obama was doomed to have a bad economy regardless.

2. He missed a key window, early on, back when some of us were screaming at him to go bigger; but that window closed by the summer of 2009.

Either way, I don’t see how punting on health care would have helped.

[gkhouston]

1. It's not catching on with me, but it's sure as hell being pushed hard by the media. n/t

[themaguffin]

3. and the media didn't get it from the beginning & still don't. NO coverage ever says that

healthcare is polling lower because it's not liberal enough.

[gkhouston]

7. If you ask questions carefully enough, you won't get any answers you don't want to report. n/t

[truedelphi]

2. Krugman has it worng. Obama appointed

And approved of the people who did focus on the economy - and they have given our monies over to the Big Bankster/Fraudster types.

And the Geithenr/Bernanke types gave away the dough without any regulations in place to avoid a further catastrophic implosion anywhere from tomorrow to five years down the road.

Meanwhile Obama's main Love Child, Monsanto, made Forbes' Company of the Year. And Mike Taylor and Velsick set up a nightmare future of Franken food and small family farmer destruction.

[DJ13]

4. Obama's HCR comprised of mandates would have been more accepted

in a good economy.

Its a hard sell to get people to accept being forced to buy insurance when they're currently having trouble making ends meet from week to week.

Thats just commonsense.

[ProSense]

5. "Its a hard sell to get people to accept being forced to buy insurance" Given

that everyone supports the House bill, which includes a mandate, that is not true.

[DJ13]

6. That has the PO

If Obama had been serious about promoting a PO he wouldnt have to worry about the public supporting HCR.

[ProSense]

8. Right, which means

that the whole uproar about the mandate is simply bizarre.

Most people want a public option, but they're also not for killing reform.

[DJ13]

9. Most people** are smart enough to understand that a PO controls costs

** Outside of DC.

No mandates without cost controls is the message the people are trying to tell you guys.

[ProSense]

10. Most people have no clue

that the OPM plan has the potential to be just as effective. It is why Howard Dean stated that he preferred the Senate's version of the exchange.

[DJ13]

12. Compare the polls of HCR without a PO with one that had a PO

It seems the people get it.

A real PO would have been a slam dunk, it polled high across all demographics, even the Republican voters liked it.

Should the voters just accept the compromise that eliminated the one thing the majority favored?

Or do they see those promoting the compromised result as sellouts and vote accordingly in the midterms?

[ProSense]

15. Again, preference for the public option isn't the same

as not wanting reform if it can't pass Congress. People do get it, but do you think Snowe cares that the public option is polling well in Maine?

[GinaMaria]

17. preference for reform isn't the same as the crap bills

currently being pushed. We need reform badly. We don't need an Insurance Company Bailout Bill.

[Joe Chi Minh]

13. Sometimes, 'potential' is potentially a fraudulent word, given the nature of the

circumstances, in this case the demonic avarice and ruthlessness of the insurance industry. In no European county would this 'jam tomorrow' - 'Oh, we'll fix it later', kind of attitude be considered. Unambiguous and decidedly non-negotiable regulations are written into bills at the time of their drafting - not left as a pie-in-the-sky potential.

[ProSense]

18. "In no European county would this"

We're not in a European country. We're dealing with the American political system.

[Joe Chi Minh]

21. You mean 'shadow' system. It's time they joined the big boys and you stopped making excuses for

their making baby-steps towards, after all, just common or garden legislating as legislators and not greenhorns.

[ProSense]

22. No, I mean this isn't a European country.

Do you disagree?

[Joe Chi Minh]

30. Of course not. That is a strawman you introduced. Even you, evidently, perceive

that it is of paramount importance for countries to have their own distinct identities. Have no fear. I do not wish to unsettle your mind by suggesting we engage in a bizarre confusion of national identities. Although I understand that your State Department and military-industrial complex think it's a fine idea, just so long as they absorb foreign countries, and not vice versa.

Apparently, they have a similar morbid terror of being transnationally merged with another country and forced to assume its identity, and they want to pre-empt such imperialist adventures; not least by countries with a brown-skinned population.

No, my issue with you is your defeatism, and general querulousness in the face of any suggestion that your country is a laggard in comparison with politically-developed countries, such as those in Europe, for instance. Continental Europe, I hasten to add.

Shakespeare's school-boy springs to mind:

'Then the whining schoolboy, with his satchel
And shining morning face, creeping like snail
Unwillingly to school.'

It CAN be done!

Ask not what your country can do for you! Leave that to the Republicans, the professional bums. Ask what you can do for your country! I'll tell you. G-o-o-o-o back to sleep. Others more savvy in the ways of the world are on watch, every vigilant to rescue your country.

[ProSense]

32. Um

Even you, evidently, perceive that it is of paramount importance for countries to have their own distinct identities...Apparently, they have a similar morbid terror of being transnationally merged with another country and forced to assume its identity, and they want to pre-empt such imperialist adventures; not least by countries with a brown-skinned population.

What utter bullshit.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

35. Meltdown alert. n/t

[GinaMaria]

14. Haven't heard anyone talk about killing reform

kill the bill... yes, but not reform. The bill and reform are not the same things. The bill is a health insurance company bailout. People will stand up for actual reform. Take the time to do it right and don't ram this crap through. The only reason this crap bill is being rushed and pushed is that the dems owe the insurance companies. They put themselves in a tough place especially with the SCOTUS decision this week. Elected Dem officials can screw their financial masters and those same masters can swift boat them or elected officials can ram this bill through and face their constituents. It comes down to who they fear most.... my gut tells me they fear the insurance lobby way more than us. Which tells us everything we need to know about this bill passing.

[ProSense]

19. This is so disingenuous.

There are people who have been fighting for a strong public option who realize that killing reform isn't an option, and then there are those who if the public option isn't included would rather kill reform. Call it starting over or whatever, there are people advocating just that.

[GinaMaria]

20. The only thing disingenuous here is you

Killing the bill does not equate to killing reform. Reform is something most of us agree upon. This bill is not something most of agree on. Just because people do not support this dog of a bill, does not mean they do not want reform. Just the opposite. But don't worry about being accurate. United or Cigna have a big bonus for you for all you do to help the cause.

on edit:
Killing the bill is not the same as killing reform. It needs repeating.

[ProSense]

23. If the bill doesn't include a public option, do you want it to pass? n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

25. If the bill does not have a public option, it can't be called 'reform'. nt

[ProSense]

26. That's not what I asked. n/t

[GinaMaria]

28. The bills as they stand are crap

We can and should do better. The only reason there's a rush to push this crap through is that the dems owe the insurance industry and the pressure is on for them to deliver. Take all the compromised shit out of it. Anything they compromised on with someone who will not vote for it anyway, should be removed. Adding financial burden to the middle class during this economy cannot be tolerated. Promoting a plan that results in less health care for people is not reform it's rationing. This is an insurance company bailout. There is no reason, not to take a step back and re-assess reform. Many things are possible to the willing. I suspect there's not a whole lot of will to make this a bill that isn't an insurance company bailout.

We need some sort of option(s). We need choices. This doesn't give us more choice and there have got to be better choices than the ones outlined in this garbage bill. Clean it up and fix it. The only fix that's in it is the one for the insurance companies.

[ProSense]

29. You are not answering the question. n/t

[GinaMaria]

31. I think it's clear what I want

The bills in their current state should be killed. I want reform not rationing, better health care not less health care, more choice for consumers, something simple and affordable for everyone. We need option(s) not mandates. If a bill is written that can address these things without a public option, I will consider it, read it and work to fully understand it. I think PO is the easiest way to accomplish these things but maybe not. I will always consider a new way. I will bend but I will not break. I want a way that works for everyone and that excludes no one. The Health Insurance Bailout Bills are garbage and need to be tossed out as such. This is an opportunity to re-assess the content of the bills, rethink reform and do some rewrites/revisions.

Now it's your turn:
If the bill contained a PO would you want it killed? and Do you absolutely love every line of both these bills, or are there parts you would like to see removed or altered?

Mass. is an opportunity. It's an opportunity to get it right. It is not excuse to ram through bad bills.

[ProSense]

34. "The bills in their current state should be killed." Interesting that you

said "bills."

Regardless of your attempts to contrast the "bills" with your version of "reform," killing the bills is killing reform.

[GinaMaria]

36. Nope. Killing the bills kills rationing

Don't know why 'bills' is so interesting. As I understand it, there's a house version and senate version. Did they merge the two? If they did I missed that. This garbage needs to be tossed out so we can have reform.

You didn't anwer the questions.

On Edit:
Killing the bills does not mean killing reform.

[GinaMaria]

37. These bills do not offer reform

They are bailouts for the insurance industry. They match current insurance company strategy. There's no way to pretty that up. You can declare that anyone against the bills is against reform but it sounds an awful lot like, if you're not with us you're against us. This crap is not reform. DC needs to take the time to write a bill with real reform. We deserve so much better from our employees.

[RaleighNCDUer]

24. It is the mandate WITHOUT the public option that is the killer.

The public option is the control mechanism, and without it the mandate is nothing but a giveaway to the insurance industry.

It's like saying, everybody likes to drive - let's give them ALL cars without brakes.

[johan helge]

11. Well said, Krugman

Those on the right want people to think unemployment is high because Obama "focused" on health reform instead of the economy.

Those on the left are dissatisfied with Obama, and are not critical enough of criticism of him.

[Skink]

16. The Republicans did a great job of delaying the seating of Franken.

I thought he could have gotten everything he wanted if we had had the magic # right away. Now Republicans have seen how effective the threat of the filibuster can be. I think it's better now that it is not an option and he has to proceed with reconciliation.

[ShortnFiery]

27. Krugman is one "chatty cathy" lately ... I wonder what the pay-off is?