Obama Goes after Krugman

Krugman has clearly gotten to the Barack Obama campaign, to the point where they have released an attack on him to try to defend their (indefensible) position on health care mandates. This is based upon misinterpreting what Krugman said, then acting like there's a contradiction in his statements.

If this is how they are going to proceed, the name of this web page on the Obama campaign site should not be "Fact Check", "Fact Distortion" is more like it:

Fact Check: "I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth,"
~ Barack Obama, 11/08/07

Fact Check: ''Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan'' December 07, 2007

"Krugman Didn't Always Think So Poorly Of Obama's Plan." First Read reported, "No Democratic-leaning pundit, it seems, has been more passionate or serious on the need for health-care reform than the New York Times' Paul Krugman. As a result, people took notice when his column today blasted Obama's health-care plan, as well as the candidate's recent statements on it...But, channeling the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus, Krugman didn't always think so poorly of Obama's plan. Almost six months ago, in a June 4 column, he mostly praised it -- although he did criticize its lack of a mandate. The substance of Krugman's two columns is essentially the same. The tone, however, is not." [First Read, 11/30/07]

And why might the tone have changed? Could it be that the campaign has adopted right-wing talking points on health care and Social Security in between the two statements?

THE PLAN

KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Health Care Plan "Is Smart And Serious, Put Together By People Who Know What They're Doing." Paul Krugman wrote, "The Obama plan is smart and serious, put together by people who know what they're doing...So there's a lot to commend the Obama plan." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "The Fundamental Weakness Of The Obama Plan Was Apparent From The Beginning." Paul Krugman wrote, "The fundamental weakness of the Obama plan was apparent from the beginning." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

This is misleading - Krugman noted the lack of a mandate in the plan from the very start as is noted in the quote above this one: "although he did criticize its lack of a mandate."

COURAGE AND TOUGHNESS VS. WEAKNESS AND CAUTION

KRUGMAN THEN: Obama's Plan Passes A "Basic Test of Courage" And Gets "Points For Toughness." Paul Krugman wrote, "It also passes one basic test of courage. You can't be serious about health care without proposing an injection of federal funds to help lower-income families pay for insurance, and that means advocating some kind of tax increase. Well, Mr. Obama is now on record calling for a partial rollback of the Bush tax cuts. Also, in the Obama plan, insurance companies won't be allowed to deny people coverage or charge them higher premiums based on their medical history. Again, points for toughness. Best of all, the Obama plan contains the same feature that makes the Edwards plan superior to, say, the Schwarzenegger proposal in California: it lets people choose between private plans and buying into a Medicare-type plan offered by the government." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Obama's Caution...Led Him To Propose A Relatively Weak, Incomplete Health Care Plan." Paul Krugman wrote, "What seems to have happened is that Mr. Obama's caution, his reluctance to stake out a clearly partisan position, led him to propose a relatively weak, incomplete health care plan." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

Yes, once Obama decided to raise mandates as a campaign issue, and to criticize the Clinton and Edwards' plans on this basis, the tone changed and it became necessary to focus on the weakness of Obama's plan rather than the strength. But there's nothing new in Krugman's position, he has criticized this part of the plan from the start.

MANDATES AND ENFORCEMENT

KRUGMAN THEN: Krugman Talked To An Architect Of Obama's Plan Who Said "Obama Is Reluctant To Impose A Mandate That Might Not Be Enforceable." Paul Krugman wrote, "I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes -- based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others -- that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate." [New York Times, 6/4/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Most Troubling, Mr. Obama Accuses His Rivals Of Not Explaining How They Would Enforce Mandates" And Said He Was Implying That The Plans Would Require "Nasty, Punitive Enforcement." Paul Krugman wrote, "Third, and most troubling, Mr. Obama accuses his rivals of not explaining how they would enforce mandates, and suggests that the mandate would require some kind of nasty, punitive enforcement." [New York Times, 11/30/07]

KRUGMAN NOW: "Obama Is Storing Up Trouble For Health Reformers" By Criticizing Mandates. Paul Krugman wrote, "Finally, Mr. Obama is storing up trouble for health reformers by suggesting that there is something nasty about plans that 'force every American to buy health care.'" [New York Times, 12/7/07]

I don't see any contradiction in the last set of statements.

Here's what happened. When Obama's plan came out, it was praised by Paul Krugman, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Cohn, and others - it is a big step forward - but they all noted the lack of mandates. Many believed that he would eventually realize mandates were necessary, but in any case, they chose to praise the good parts of the plan while noting the bad parts such as the lack of mandates, and assumed much of that could be fixed later.

However, when Obama decided to go after the other candidates for imposing mandates, and claimed his plan was superior on this basis (and coming on top of his misguided position on Social Security), the rhetoric changed and the focus turned to this part of the plan. With the focus on mandates and his attack on other candidates, of course the tone changed - this is a weakness of his plan whether he sees it or not, at least that's the view of most experts - and to compare statements after his attack on other candidates to statements that came before doesn't tell us a whole lot about the "facts." I can't figure out what Obama's camp thinks they are accomplishing. [Update: Ezra Klein comments.]

Comments

[Carolyn Kay]

Big mistake, Mr. Obama. Krugman is REVERED.

Carolyn Kay
MakeThemAccountable.com

[Bruce Webb]

Obama is getting bad advice both on a policy basis and on the politics. Hillary is vulnerable to attacks from the Left, but she hogs the Center of the road. Osama is trying to pass on the right shoulder when what he really needs to do is pull out into the left lane and gun it. Taking shots at Krugman out of the side of the car is not going to get him where he needs to be, which is to say out in front of Hillary.

[anne]

Big mistake; I was not pleased by Barack Obama's delay in developing a health care plan, not pleased by the failure to understand the need for a health care for all, not pleased by the absurd attack on Social Security, and attacking Paul Krugman when Krugman is completely right on the Social Security and health care issues shows the worst of arrogance and lack on understanding.

[anne]

Candidates make mistakes, an a willingness to learn from mistakes is critical to understanding how the candidate will react to mistakes made in office. I am still concerned by the willingness Barack Obama expressed to intervene militarily in Pakistan. But, I assumed that was just a foolish failure to understand what such a military intervention would mean to America's moral being. Now, lack of understanding of Social Security stability and health care needs, and an absurd attack on Paul Krugman.

I am not the least pleased.

[William Smith]

Sen. Obama, for one of two reasons, avoid confrontation except when directly confronted. This has lead to him accepting right-wing talking points and then elaborating on them and how to solve them instead of confronting the lies. Either Obama does not have the policy depth to understand that the talking points are false or he is personally adverse to confrontation, which I take as a bad sign given the opposition he will face.

[robertdfeinman]

One of the reasons I stay away from discussions of candidates is that it is so pointless. In this instance there is no realistic chance that Obama will get the nomination, so what his plan is, matters not.

Let's take a leap of faith and assume that despite what I think he does get the nomination, I then claim he'll lose. OK, so I'm wrong again and he gets elected. Finally we get to real point there is no way that a plan like his will get enacted.

So why discuss hypotheticals built on more hypotheticals? Health journalist Maggie Mahar has started a blog where she discusses both the substance of such plans as well as the political realities. Take a look:
http://www.healthbeatblog.org/

I don't see any discussion of the settlement today by the former head of United Health Care where he has returned $618 million to the firm as ill-gotten compensation. He does get to keep another $800 million, however. As long as we have private health care insurance and an overhead of 30%, and as long as the pols are owned by this industry nothing is going to change, no matter how good or bad the new plans are.

Let's see the candidates discuss how they are going to lessen the influence of institutionalized health care. Even if they do, you are unlikely to see it reported by the broadcast and print media which get a good part of their revenue from drug ads and related services.

[techinvestor]

Lets see who's supporting Obama...Oprah, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the founders and CEO of Google, George Soros, Many of the smartest venture capital investors from all over North America, John Kennedy's former speech writer, and the list goes on and on...These folks know how to identify top talent and it's becoming clear that Obama's the best candidate for President in 2008.

[Jay]

"In this instance there is no realistic chance that Obama will get the nomination"

Robert would you mind directing me towards the calculated roll back equilibrium that brings you to this conclusion. Also what is defined as "realistic chance"? Less than 1%? 5%? 10%?
Do have some insight into future events that others are not privy too? Because if you have proof that there is less than a 27% chance of Obama getting the democratic nomination let me know, and in a few clicks I can enter into miss priced contract in my favor.

Also I don't get why the mandate is a big deal? If universal health care is the greatest thing since sliced bread, why do you need to coerce people into the program?

[Patricia Shannon]

Obama using right-wing talking points should not be surprising. The fact that the establishment, including the MSM, is going relatively easy on Clinton and Obama show that they don't consider either a big threat to their interests. Contrast that with their treatment of Edwards.

[Devang]

I don't get it, he said he would raise the income cap on social security to make those earning above ~$98k pay more when no other front runner has been as specific in this area. His health care plan offers no less incentives to get health care than any other plan and will address the root of the problem albeit over some time (just like the other plans, save Kucinich's). Mandating taxes is one thing, but mandating health care is like saying you must buy a gun because the government said so. His plan is also the most politically viable for the same reason. If a person doesn't want to be covered, and pay the bill be it at a Wal-Mart clinic or a hospital emergency room, who is to stop him? So, how is his position not defensible?

[anne]

"Lets see who's supporting Obama... ----- Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the founders and CEO of Google, George Soros...."

Please show evidence that this is true, because I find no evidence that this is true and lying bothers me.

[anne]

"I don't get it, he said he would raise the income cap on social security to make those earning above ~$98k pay more when no other front runner has been as specific in this area."

The reason you don't get it and everyone else does is that there is nothing wrong with Social Security which has a massive and growing surplus, and a needless regressive tax would be stupid and offensive.

[F.Igwealor]

I agree with Devang, mandate is just simply un-American.
You can't force me to buy Healthcare if I can't afford it.

Obama's plan is still the best in the eyes of most Americans because it offers all the good things without calling Americans "stupid", which what mandate is.

Make Healthcare Insurance affordable, and most people will buy it. Force people to buy they'll see you as interfering in their lives. This is America.

[anne]

"Mandating taxes is one thing, but mandating health care is like saying you must buy a gun because the government said so."

The analogy of a lunatic, and an offensive lunatic at that.

[F.Igwealor]

For Anne's information, lifting the tax cap is not regressive, it's progressive and equitable.
You don't dump the burden of financing of well-deserving seniors of the poor and middle class alone. Share the burden more equitably by lifting the cap.

[anne]

Social Security has a massive and growing surplus, and the idea of regressively taxing middle class persons to pay for a program that is already paid for and paid for decades from now would be idiotic and destructive.

[Andrew]

"Lets see who's supporting Obama... ----- Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, the founders and CEO of Google, George Soros...."

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=90&ItemID=14448

Obama’s presidential campaign has received nearly $5 million dollars from securities and investment firms and $866,000 from commercial banks through October of 2007. Obama’s top contributor so far is Goldman Sachs (provider of $369,078 to Obama), identified by Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) investigators as “a major proponent of privatizing Social Security as well as legislation that would essentially deregulate the investment banking/securities industry.” Eight of Obama’s top twenty election investors are securities and investment firms: Goldman Sachs, Lehman Bros. (number 2 at $229,090), J.P. Morgan Chase and Co. (# 4 at $216,759), Citadel Investment Group (#7 at 4166,608), UBS AG ($146,150), UBS-America ($106,680), Morgan Stanley ($104,421), and Credit Suisse Group ($92,300). The last two firms are also known to be leading privatization advocates (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Meanwhile, Obama’s presidential run has been “assisted” by more than $2 million from the health care sector and nearly $400,000 from the insurance industry through October of 2007 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007b). Obama received $708,000 from medical and insurance interests between 2001 and 2006 (Center for Responsive Politics 2007c). His wife Michelle, a fellow Harvard Law graduate, was until a recently a Vice President for Community and External Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals, a position that paid her $273, 618 in 2006 (Sweet 2007).

And Obama’s sixth largest contributor is Exelon, the proud Chicago-based owner and operator of more nuclear power plants than any entity on earth (Center for Responsive Politics 2007a).

Go figure.

[DJM]

"...like saying you must buy a gun because the government said so." Ummm, I believe the government does currently make us all buy guns, bullets, bombs etc...they choose the targets, but we pay for it. That is a mandate I disagree totally with.

[LJM]

Obama lost me when he started making it a generational war and seeming to think older boomers are has beens. As for Krugman, I'm reading his latest book. I heart Krugman.

[jeff hoffman]

"If a person doesn't want to be covered, and pay the bill be it at a Wal-Mart clinic or a hospital emergency room, who is to stop him?" Please point me to that uninsured person in the emergency room who can/will pay his bill or even a fraction of it. Because I've seen and written off hundreds of them, and I'm sure I missed that guy. But rest assured that the $1k/day bed he gets admitted to is paid for by somebody. Wager who?

[Devang]

I should have qualified my statement on Social Security by first saying "Insofar as there is a real problem..." because I'll be a happy 67 year old if I start getting checks of the "full" amount 45 years from now with the income cap and retirement age staying the same. I don't think there is a real problem either.

"The analogy of a lunatic, and an offensive lunatic at that."

On the contrary, it should be offered as a political gimmick in this country, those in blue states must buy guns and admit maybe the Swiss have it right here too, and those in red states must buy health care and admit they're not really being forced to buy inferior socialized medicine. I think I'm on to something! :) To the point, you're forcing me to buy something in perpetuity when I'm perfectly willing to pay myself instead when the time comes. This is a perfectly rational argument any plan will have to face, like it or not. Not anymore offensive or lunatic than forcing people to buy most products. It's mainly because health care prices in this country are so exorbitant for the most mundane tasks that mandating it and checking whether you're subscribed to a plan it while you file your tax-return is even an issue. I do think this is a case of letting inadequacies of the current system be the basis for future policy. It would be great if our government had its priorities right, but until a better system can see the light of day there will need to be choice in this regard, dare I say it, even in the long term. Any middle-class family in this country ought to just be able to afford access to good health care as needed, like say, an upper-middle class family in a developing/developed country can. The amount of resources going into health care is bound to be limited either way and if there's not going to be a fully government run and/or funded system, it is better to not mandate if only for the political fight.

"...Because I've seen and written off hundreds of them..."

That's not the point, if Krugman is worried about people not fairly paying into the system by buying mandated health care yet still using health care services, is he going to make all hospital and clinic visits free or deny those who aren't enrolled in a plan? I doubt either. Why isn't Clinton being forced to answer this? Any plan will have to make having insurance seem more affordable than paying the $1k/day for a bed in case something happens. Ultimately, there will still be write-offs under any plan unless there is a single payer or a wholly government operated system.

If we're considering health care to be rational choice where people do go for annual checkups yet not become over-prescribed to drugs and hospital visits, I'm not convinced Obama's plan wouldn't work. Single payer not-for-profit would be better, but that isn't exactly politically feasible. A half-hearted mandate like Clinton, or Edwards (with wage garnishing) won't do much when the problem at hand everyone admits is to make the system accessible and affordable, yet not totally free at the consumer-level.

[jeff hoffman]

"It's mainly because health care prices in this country are so exorbitant for the most mundane tasks" Oh really. I just finished extracting a piece of meat from some guy's esophagus at 3 AM in an emergency room. The medicare reimbursement for this work is roughly on the order of $200; that includes the part about getting up at 2:15 and driving 20 minutes there, and back. In a world in which I pay my dentist more than a grand for a crown, and a plumber with a high school degree an equivalent amount (circa $200) to show up urgently at my house during the day, how much do you think I can fairly charge for the service of allowing you to be able to swallow your own saliva at 3AM? If you think, by the way, that expanding the supply of physicians is going to have them beating down their doors in competition to be the first one to the hospital to do that kind of work, you're unlikely to be correct.

says...

Incidentally, regarding the complaint that undersupply of MDs drives up costs: any other professional examples of such? Do we need more lawyers in order to lower their fees, or dentists to get that crown of mine at a reasonable price?

[ilsm]

I am opposed to raising the income cap on SS today. Maybe in 2017...............

The SS surplus does not one thing for SS today, and possibly in the future.

All the SS surplus does is reduce the revenue versus outflow deficit of the federal treasury.

Increasing the surplus is a con.

Raise income taxes do not raid payroll taxes.

[ilsm]

jeff Hoffman,

When I was a kid I spent a lot of time, in some real shoddy places, cold, hot long hours making no money at all keeping the Reds from plundering your worthless...

Of course, you do not have any social worth.

[anne]

What I would wish would be much encouragement of students in all biological studies, as well as medical studies, not for the sake of cost change but for the social gains to be made. I would as well like a move to free or minimal cost public college and university education whether for study of literature or philosophy, let alone for study of the the natural sciences. Lowering the cost of higher education at public schools is a critical need.

[Denis Drew]

Mandate, shmandate! Weren't you progressives disappointed when governors Romney and Schwarzenegger went for mandated plans instead of tax supported. So why do you (I'm talking to the columnists/bloggers: Paul Krugman/Ezra Klien variety) now all go full blast for mandates?

Why do you go along with Hillary and friends -- the Clintons who according to Joe Stigler screwed up on 7 out of 10 domestic economic issues (I cannot think of them all now, but read Joe's Roaring Nineties) and just about all foreign (forcing nations from South East Asia to Argentina into depressions in order to pay domestic bankers); the Clintons who brought you a minimum wage that was one dollar an hour short of Eisenhower's, three years into their administration, one week before the renomination convention with only 70% public support. The current minimum wage hike will top out at about fifty cents below Eisenhower's by the time inflation takes its 2009 bite.

When are you progressives going to stop pushing intellectual chess pieces of the automatically-doable (you often mistakenly think) around -- and start FIGHTING for what is merely possible but also truly desirable?

The Republicans (one thinks of Newt Grinch-rich) are stupid but they fight like hell which is why they get what they want. Try FIGHTING (okay, advocating) for what you really want for once. Truly desperate American workers await you -- or somebody.

[robertdfeinman]

Notice that one of the underlying themes is whether Obama (or Clinton, etc) is supporting policies because they favor them or because their backers do.

Why does this come up? Because the cost of running for office makes all candidates prostitutes. They sell themselves to the highest bidder.

The solution is to reform the campaign process. If candidates could afford to run for office without the backing of wealthy interests we would see more of them expressing honest opinions. We would also see people of modest means running for office and not just the wealthy.

Why don't we get election reform? Follow the money and the influence.
1. Big Media gets advertising revenue
2. Campaign consultants, pollsters, media buyers, etc. make a living off the process
3. Big contributors buy influence
4. Populists and others supporting the common people are excluded from the process.

Fix the electoral process and we will stop having discussions about who is funding Obama's campaign. Fix the process and we will see real idealists entering politics and not just opportunists.

[hari]

Clearly a good majority (here) are complaining about the right-wing influence on Obam's economic policy.

I've looked carefully at the CVs of his team of advisors,
and I also don't like their background, etc.

But you're forgetting a very dicey issue here; namely, his
intellectual accumen!

I've a feeling Obama is adequately self-sufficient intellectually to know he's capable to giving Hillary a very difficult and challenging race to the finish...

My son (in Sweden!) is rooting for him. I told him Obama will not make to the finish line for all sorts of reasons.

And one of the reason, as we shall see/find out in SCarolina, is RACE!

[anne]

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/oy-obama/

December 7, 2007

Oy, Obama
By Paul Krugman

OK, a bit more.

Here’s * what I said about the Obama plan when it first came out:

"So there’s a lot to commend the Obama plan. In fact, it would have been considered daring if it had been announced last year.

"Now for the bad news. Although Mr. Obama says he has a plan for universal health care, he actually doesn’t — a point Mr. Edwards made in last night’s debate. The Obama plan doesn’t mandate insurance for adults. So some people would take their chances — and then end up receiving treatment at other people’s expense when they ended up in emergency rooms. In that regard it’s actually weaker than the Schwarzenegger plan.

"I asked David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped put together the Obama plan, about this omission. His answer was that Mr. Obama is reluctant to impose a mandate that might not be enforceable, and that he hopes — based, to be fair, on some estimates by Mr. Cutler and others — that a combination of subsidies and outreach can get all but a tiny fraction of the population insured without a mandate. Call it the timidity of hope.

"On the whole, the Obama plan is better than I feared but not as comprehensive as I would have liked. It doesn’t quell my worries that Mr. Obama’s dislike of 'bitter and partisan' politics makes him too cautious. But at least he’s come out with a plan."

And I was prepared to leave it at that — Obama’s plan was weaker than his rivals’ because it wasn’t universal, but I hoped that he would fix that in practice.

But then Obama started attacking his rivals from the right, denouncing their proposals using exactly the same false claims that conservatives will use to try to derail reform in the future.

And now, having been caught out on the facts, the Obama people respond with a personal attack, lifting quotes out of context to pretend that I never had problems with the plan. Something is very wrong here.

* http://select.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/opinion/04krugman.html

[Barkley Rosser]

Obama is clearly playing to the ignorance of youth on social security, with more of them thinking that they will see a UFO than will receive social security.

The problem with lifting income cap is not that proposal, per se. It is if there is a move to do anything with social security, it will not be just that, as Republicans will filibuster it and will have to be brought on board. Of course they will push the benefits cuts and privatization that they have pushed in the past. The only way to avoid that is to do nothing, leave the system as it is.

As it is, this is perfectly reasonable. The Trustees projections have been ridiculously pessmistic, and the probability is very high that the system will never even run a deficit. In any case, there is plenty of time to see if the more pessimistic projections come true or not. So far they have not. The system ain't broke and don't need fixing. It is unfortunate that Obama has been getting such bad advice.

And, he is ahead in the polls in Iowa right now. He most certainly can get the nomination and even the presidency. So, this is serious.

[Ben Stein the Hack]

1) Obama is extremely inexperienced in national policy and politics, and so necessarily will have to rely more upon his advisors than Hillary and Edwards, who've had more time (and snafus) to think about major policy issues. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, until you see who Obama's advisors and top donors (the ones who have access to him) are. I have been saying for about six months that I think this combination is problematic, and I think we're now seeing evidence of the more conservative nature of the Obama team.

2) Re lifting the caps on social security- not a terrible idea, in principle, but I think the pro-Obama folks are missing the point here. a) It would impact the middle class (80k - 150k or so for a household) pretty harshly, and b) it's not necessary! The "social security" problem that Obama and the GOP are talking about is not a problem with social security- it's a problem with the fact that social security surpluses have been used to fund the general budget. When social security starts needing to run a deficit, which all analysts know will happen, then SS will need to cash in that paper surplus it has, and the govt will need to find new sources of revenue, both to fund its current obligations (war, war, war, domestic programs, war, war, war, interest on the debt, war, war) and to fund the SS shortfall. If SS were simply a dedicated program, and those IOUs the govt has been issuing in exchange for using dedicated SS tax receipts (the payroll tax) were actually good paper, SS would not be in any danger. The issue folks had with Obama's statement is that in trying to talk about his payroll cap lifting proposal, he was adopting the GOP point that SS is somehow in need of a fix. It's not SS that needs fixing, it's the federal budget that needs fixing. And the easiest way to fix this is to: 1) reverse the Bush tax cuts, and 2) bring our troops home. These 2 action items would eliminate most of the Bush budget deficit.

3) On health care, I again find Obama's position to be disingenuous. It is not unreasonable for Krugman to say taht he likes Obama's plan, albeit maybe not as much as a plan with a mandate, and then to criticize Obama for adopting Republican talking points in trying to argue against a mandate. It would be similar, in fact, to saying that you liked Obama's plan to reverse part of the Bush tax cuts, but then criticizing him if he then used Bush talking points to defend the portion of the Bush tax cuts you proposed keeping.

4) Despite all of the above, and my reservations about his "faith" rhetoric, Obama was the guy I was going to support (after Edwards dropped out, assuming that that happened). I now think I prefer Hillary. At least with Hillary you know what you'll get: a cautious centrist. With Obama, I am now concerned that his inexperience combined with the various influences that the right-center has on him might mean that his "post-partisanship" is too easily coopted. There is very little I think Obama can do at this point to change my opinion that he's not a liberal candidate.

[hari]

I agree - compared to HRC - he's NOT really a Liberal.

But if you take HRCs most recent policy statement on trade, there's very little to argue that she's definitely moving protectionist - on globalization and its current impact on labour in US.

She's also against Doha Round and WTO.

SO, my understanding of her position tells me she's positioning herself simply to win - in +4wks!

[Icarus]

F. Igwealor,

Of course we can mandate every citizen/worker to have health insurance. The roughly analagous idea is car insurance. You could (theoretically) argue that "I" will pay any damages at the time of the incident, and hence don't need insurance. But, as social policy, we don't accept it.
The same must be true for Health Insurance.

I don't believe the stats regarding its affordability. People are still at the malls buying crap they don't need. Hec, the decemeber retail season is an homage to useless crap. This is about priorities. If health care is truly the most important service in a person's life, then, the $1-2/hour it requires is well worth it. We need to mandate it as law. If you want to work, you must have health care. If you want a child, you must have health care. If you want any basic service, etc, etc. We need to build the expectation of the cost of healthcare into people's calculus. It will be difficult, and there are those on the uber-left who still expect someone else to pay for everything (the "rich", usually)...but, the answer is a private market, with requirements.

The difficulty is the cost of insurance for people with previous illnesses. Ideally, one should never have the option of opting out of a health care plan. But, it's difficult.

What do we do with a new immigrant, who requires high cost health care? Do we, as a society, accept the obligation (and cost) to treat them?
If so, who's money pays for this?

[calmo]

Said like a troopa Barkley (a scholar, people)The system ain't broke and don't need fixing. turned officer with the following lineIt is unfortunate that Obama has been getting such bad advice.for effect, right? Right? Am I RIGHT goldarnitall? You fellow non-scholars feel that Bump?

Back to The spear-chucker, (ok, maybe pitch-forker) Bruce Webb: those advisors...so far to the right in the Dem spectrum...what happened?
Back to the dissecting, neva too slanted for your objective eyes, rdf:Notice that one of the underlying themes is whether Obama (or Clinton, etc) is supporting policies because they favor them or because their backers do.

Why does this come up? Because the cost of running for office makes all candidates prostitutes. They sell themselves to the highest bidder. Dang if this doesn't sound like the familiar "all politicians are corrupt" bleat that we heard in the 06 elections as the voters turned with their revulsion on Republicans only.
That bleat was the desperado Repugs wanting to share their stink, yes rdf?
Do exercise care here so I don't put you in that smelly camp...and go hunting up Webb for pitch-forking lessons.

[anne]

There is a critical need for requiring that people have health care insurance, the need is to avoid having otherwise healthy people who can afford insurance choose to go without insurance until they become ill. By not participating in an insurance program when well, the costs of the program will be significantly higher both before people enroll and after as late enrollees immediately use the insurance. People for whom the cost of insurance is too much of a burden will be enrolled with various subsidies.

Similarly, willing participation of almost all Americans in Social Security or Medicare insures the health of the programs. Increasing the tax for Social Security on middle income people for no reason will undermine support for Social Security, especially since the additional taxes will not be used to increase benefits.

[anne]

Barack Obama has made several serious mistakes on domestic policy, and there is need for clarifying stances on foreign policy both with regard to leaving Iraq and rejecting the disastrous beyond self-defense military intervention policy of George Bush.

[Don]

Anne, either you don't know what "regressive" means or you don't know how social security/FICA taxes work. Under the current system, the first 98K earned is taxed for Social Security (the ceiling for medicare taxes is higher), So a burger flipper at McDonalds pays a higher percentage of their income in FICA taxes than the CEO of McDonalds (pretty darn regressive). Making the CEO pay the FICA tax on his entire income (or on more of his income) may or may not be good policy but it actually makes the FICA tax *less* regressive.

[robertdfeinman]

Calmo:
Here's a web site which tracks contributions, knock yourself out.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

One example: Contributions from health professionals:
Clinton - $1.7 million
Obama - $1.3 million
Romney - $1 million
Giuliani - $1 million

If you don't think this type of money influences candidates behavior then you live in a different world than I do.

If you want to see politicians who better represent the public then reform the campaign process.

[anne]

Yes; if the idea is to have no limit on the amount of wage or salary income that is taxed for Social Security, then there would be a proportional tax on wage or salary income. But, there has been no candidate proposal to extend Social Security taxes to all such income. The idea of raising the cap is needless and will be destructive of support for the program. Extending a regressive tax over several thousand dollars in income will still leave the tax regressive.

Also, the higher the cap is extended the less the resultant benefits will make sense for wealthier persons and the more the program becomes a welfare rather than insurance program.

[calmo -hunter and gatherer]

robert, lining hisself up for my BBQ skewer, presents statistics indicating that "health professionals" have made contributions to all the front runners (so sad to throw good money like that on the Repugs, no? esp on Giuliani...seriously, how demented is that?...a moment of silence while we pray for more intelligence in the chronically duped field covered by that name "health professionals").
Do you, about-to-be-skewered robert, believe that by "advisors" we mean providers of campaign funds? [calmo appeals to robert's insistence that the terms be agreed on beforehand and hopes he doesn't believe that the reason Obama is doing so poorly (wrt Hillary for sure) is that he has several million advisors each with their $5 bits of advice.]
I do think the donations influence the candidates behavior, and in the case of Obama, I hope the drying up of those $5 donations tells him he has attacked the wrong guy in Krugman. We'll see if there is some rapproachment soon enough.
I certainly agree with you about reform of campaign process...it's just a couple of hurdles: the existing politicians are great jumpers and the media is not about to hear how somebody should pull that lucrative plug.

But that skewer: the enlargement from suspect Obama advisors (as per Bruce Webb) to all candidates and their suspect advisors, is not warranted (and the thorough rdf failing to assemble a list of all front runners' advisors, frankly surprises me)[the health care professionals are not advisors...influence peddlers and political interests with vested interests...somewhat. But the difference between advisor and contributor is huge and you know it.]
That you can half believe (I believe we are making progress with you...at least half way now.) your own argument disturbs me and encourages me to bring it to your attention once again: the Republican response to the Hastert fiasco was to point to Jefferson and say that both parties were not free of corruption. [The media thought this was fair and balanced...and were surprised that the Dems won on the Iraq war as there was plenty of progress...not too many words about corruption in the post mortem.]
Do see (calmo runs to cupboard for clothes pegs to pinch robert's eyes to his brows) the error of your ways and repent now...or foreva live in the shadows of knowing you have adopted that repugnant argument of trashing all the apples since you have noticed that one or two are "off".
Seriously rdf, I am not a happy camper having to revise you down from AAA, you know? After all my hard work...following your example, I am more than depressed.

[Barkley Rosser]

BTW, for those paying attention, Edwards has now also joined Obama in the gang of those wanting to lift the income cap on social security and ranting and raving about it. Has been accusing Hillary of "lack of leadership" for not presenting her ideas about what to do about social security. Get a haircut, buddy. Gag.

[Jeff Hoffman]

ilsm: Thanks for saving me from the Reds (post 12/8 at 0423). I wondered what all that commotion was in my driveway. Live your myth- have fun with it. My original post here and the ones following it referred to one in which it was suggested that cash payments would be an appropriate integral component to our healthcare system. Roughly one in five of those people I see in the hospital do not have resources. They get care that they do not pay for. This trend will continue to get worse with the economic downturn.Roughly half of the medicine practiced in the US is socialized. The other half needs to be. Re: Calmo/Robert: Eliminating a few million dollars of campaign contributions is a start to reform. but what happens after elections is the real problem. For example, check out the career of Billy Tauzin (ex R-LA), who shortly after shaking GWB's hand publicly over Medicare part IV announced his retirement from politics. You can now drop him a postcard addressed President, PHARMA. There are apparently no rules against lobbying before leaving office. When the business community decides that the current approach to healthcare no longer works, and I think that will occur, then we'll see change.