Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
Group Lobbies for Reform of Funeral Industry
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Analysis: Obama's centrist emphasis gives GOP ammo
 
 
expand

Why Krugman Is Wrong

Why Obama's approach to health care isn't naive.

By Jonathan Alter | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Dec 19, 2007

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: Yobachi @ 01/20/2008 10:11:18 PM

    Comment: You say that no populist have won the presidency in the last century, which actually proves the point. No populist win, and everthing stays the same. No populist have won, and in the last 80 years, the rich have gotten richer as the poor have gotten poorer. No populist win, and the working class keeps taking a beating. No populist win, and labour unions diminish, real wages diminish, and CEO salaries sky rocket.

    Now doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't that tell you that the "big table" politics as usual that you favor clearly don't work?

    Even the programs that you trumpet that you claim were as a result of this big table approach, what did they really accomplish? The trajectory of power and wealth has continuted in one direction, into the hands of the few. Why, because super rich corperate interest were always protected at your touted big table.

  • Posted By: Yobachi @ 01/20/2008 10:10:49 PM

    Comment: You say that no populist have won the presidency in the last century, which actually proves the point. No populist win, and everthing stays the same. No populist have won, and in the last 80 years, the rich have gotten richer as the poor have gotten poorer. No populist win, and the working class keeps taking a beating. No populist win, and labour unions diminish, real wages diminish, and CEO salaries sky rocket.

    Now doesn't that tell you something? Doesn't that tell you that the "big table" politics as usual that you favor clearly don't work?

    Even the programs that you trumpet that you claim were as a result of this big table approach, what did they really accomplish? The trajectory of power and wealth has continuted in one direction, into the hands of the few. Why, because super rich corperate interest were always protected at your touted big table.

  • Posted By: mary13L @ 01/18/2008 11:07:46 PM

    Comment: "Ideally, health insurance companies should be eliminated altogether. ... The only option is to curb their power and expand coverage through more regulation. ... The answer to price-gouging is to force these companies to negotiate drug prices with the government ..."

    Elimination is less confrontational? Curbing their power, forcing expanded coverage, and forcing drug companies to negotiate drug prices would be less confrontational than not including them in discussions on health CARE reform?

  • Posted By: mary13L @ 01/18/2008 11:06:59 PM

    Comment: "Ideally, health insurance companies should be eliminated altogether. ... The only option is to curb their power and expand coverage through more regulation. ... The answer to price-gouging is to force these companies to negotiate drug prices with the government ..."

    Elimination is less confrontational? Curbing their power, forcing expanded coverage, and forcing drug companies to negotiate drug prices would be less confrontational than not including them in discussions on health CARE reform?

  • Posted By: lex_rex_1215 @ 01/04/2008 5:47:18 PM

    Comment: This analysis makes no sense. Alter says that "[l]eadership requires... [allowing] room for the loser to save face." By this measure, Edwards's proposal for a complete mandate is better because it creates more room to compromise and for the losers (ostensibly insurance companies and pharmas) to save face. To put it another way, never negotiate with yourself by proposing a half-measure, such as the partial mandate offered by Obama, unless of course you expect to give up even more.

  • Posted By: I vote @ 01/04/2008 1:29:47 PM

    Comment: Obama, to me represents real change. His grass roots support and recent success in Iowa demonstrates that some are beating back the media jungle of special interests and seeing the uglyness of US politics and policy. I am counting on Obama to begin the process of moving this country back toward its real strength, its people. TJD

  • Posted By: Papa Bear @ 01/04/2008 9:22:45 AM

    Comment: Health insurers are unlikely to participate in good faith.Any fool realizes that corporations tend to act in ways that make them money. As a result, they will either not seriously participate or will propose seeming reforms that lower the quality of care, like "tort reform." To the extent our government relies on their input we will find ourselves in a worse situation. Inviting them to the table is thus either pretext or dangerous; take your pick.

  • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 12/27/2007 4:19:37 PM

    Comment: I would vote for a schnauzer if I thought he would fix things, but then someone would give him a *** and some Gaines Burgers, and my beloved Schnauzer would turn on me. Corruption is so rampant that nothing short of violence will change a damn thing!

    This group makes me yearn for politics Pakistani style!

  • Posted By: Tiesenga @ 12/27/2007 12:45:29 AM

    Comment: George Bush is not a total disaster. This unexamined assumption dogs your credibility and mars any conclusion you seem to think you are drawing. It's too bad this fills in for "journalism" atop the heap of words you have wasted in this valuable space.

  • Posted By: Craigsgy @ 12/23/2007 1:59:31 AM

    Comment: With all due respect to Paul Krugman, we live in a world that cannot be retained by model mentality. Players must be able to represent themselves, even if their positions are predicable and self-serving. His marginal utility in economics is a very high plus. Stick to it.

  • Posted By: George Nassar @ 12/22/2007 9:02:29 PM

    Comment: "When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings?"

    The lowlight in an otherwise as-usual solid, well-reasoned piece. It rings a bit hollow after speaking to how Krugman got FDR wrong, and how he was much more willing to compromise than some claim. That is, of course, true -- to a point. But FDR only brought people to the table to adopt policies the Brain Trust had predetermined, and even so, he compromised with Republicans in Congress (setting them against Norris and Wagner as bulldogs), *not* with corporations themselves. He met with "Hoover Treasury officials," as you state, but I wouldn't call that "working" with them -- he decidedly rejected Hoover's own request to come up with a joint economic program in favor of the New Deal. It doesn't seem to me that these were "let's agree on a compromise" meetings. These were "come to Jesus" meetings.

    Surely there's a point there where one has to have the major players in this sort of thing across the table, but whether that's to determine what policy should be or to explain what policy will be is a distinction that needs to be made. You say that the "heat" should be applied up close -- that's the latter, and I doubt Edwards would be opposed to that. What I hear from Obama is the former, and that's something that I think neither FDR nor LBJ would have kowtowed to.

    • Posted By: Johnny1967 @ 12/23/2007 02:04:15

      Comment: George brings up a very interesting point. That is, what is the role of the member at the Presidents table? The answer is that regardless of who is brought to the table (whether players in the health care industry or member of Congress who represent the industry) the table members are only going to legitimatize the candidates plan. That is, Obama or Edwards, if one of them is elected, will act more like Georges description of FDR.

      First, the main goal is to get Congress to pass the desired health care bill the President can sign into law. Consensus of the table members has no legal effect. The consensus only has potential influence on Congress.

      Second, both Obama and Edwards already know what information and arguments will be presented at the table. The debate has already been made at nauseam.

      Third, the President has enormous power to influence industry and its lobbyists. Unlike previous administration, both Obama and Edwards will have pleasure in using that power to get his health care plan passed.

      Fourth, both Obama and Edwards already know that their health care plans are within the acceptability range. Once the arguments are formally rehashed at the table, the President only needs to sell his health care plan as the compromise.

      Therefore, there is really only one logical reason to convene such a group: to legitimatize the candidates plan.

  • Posted By: George Nassar @ 12/22/2007 9:00:04 PM

    Comment: "When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings?"

    The lowlight in an otherwise as-usual solid, well-reasoned piece. It rings a bit hollow after speaking to how Krugman got FDR wrong, and how he was much more willing to compromise than some claim. That is, of course, true -- to a point. But FDR only brought people to the table to adopt policies the Brain Trust had predetermined, and even so, he compromised with Republicans in Congress (setting them against Norris and Wagner as bulldogs), *not* with corporations themselves. He met with "Hoover Treasury officials," as you state, but I wouldn't call that "working" with them -- he decidedly rejected Hoover's own request to come up with a joint economic program in favor of the New Deal. It doesn't seem to me that these were "let's agree on a compromise" meetings. These were "come to Jesus" meetings.

    Surely there's a point there where one has to have the major players in this sort of thing across the table, but whether that's to determine what policy should be or to explain what policy will be is a distinction that needs to be made. You say that the "heat" should be applied up close -- that's the latter, and I doubt Edwards would be opposed to that. What I hear from Obama is the former, and that's something that I think neither FDR nor LBJ would have kowtowed to.

  • Posted By: George Nassar @ 12/22/2007 8:59:01 PM

    Comment: "When I asked Edwards how any agreement could be reached without at least talking to these players in the system, he said he would offer a seat at the table to members of Congress who represent their interests. In other words, it's OK to have the congressional stooges there, but not the interests that pull their strings?"

    The lowlight in an otherwise as-usual solid, well-reasoned piece. It rings a bit hollow after speaking to how Krugman got FDR wrong, and how he was much more willing to compromise than some claim. That is, of course, true -- to a point. But FDR only brought people to the table to adopt policies the Brain Trust had predetermined, and even so, he compromised with Republicans in Congress (setting them against Norris and Wagner as bulldogs), *not* with corporations themselves. He met with "Hoover Treasury officials," as you state, but I wouldn't call that "working" with them -- he decidedly rejected Hoover's own request to come up with a joint economic program in favor of the New Deal. It doesn't seem to me that these were "let's agree on a compromise" meetings. These were "come to Jesus" meetings.

    Surely there's a point there where one has to have the major players in this sort of thing across the table, but whether that's to determine what policy should be or to explain what policy will be is a distinction that needs to be made. You say that the "heat" should be applied up close -- that's the latter, and I doubt Edwards would be opposed to that. What I hear from Obama is the former, and that's something that I think neither FDR nor LBJ would have kowtowed to.

  • Posted By: Donmeaker @ 12/22/2007 8:54:31 PM

    Comment: When comparing national health systems, you have to keep in mind : about half the US health care system goes into the pockets of trial lawyers.

    Also, a few years ago in France, their vaunted health care system murdered thousands as their care takers went off on vacation, as mandated by their health care bureaucracy.

    US health care should be expensive, as US workers are very close to the world's most productive. You should be glad to pay more to have us quickly returned to work.

  • Posted By: Donmeaker @ 12/22/2007 8:47:42 PM

    Comment: I would rather have insurance companies (who are, it must be admitted, very aware of cost and risk associated with medical procedures) than our wonderful Rent-A-Congres, or the I-Get-Half Trial Lawyers.

    As for socialized medicine: We have that. If you want to use it, you can go sit in line with all the illegal aliens at the emergency room. They will eventually treat you, for a limited list of treatments, and a limited list of problems.

    If you don't want to wait, then pony up for the Capitalist Medical system, and pay as much as you want for any procedure you want, with what ever priority you choose and can afford.

  • Posted By: Mikd @ 12/20/2007 9:41:54 PM

    Comment: Wow! How long did you study FDR?
    Let's see, on being electied he continued the failed big government policies of his other party predecessor. That's really good and non-confrantational, but certainly ineffective!
    FDR believed, and governed domestically, as if industrial over capacity was the problem and it was governments role to protect "workers" from the economic ups and downs.
    Hoovers policies, adopted by FDR, were the primary cause of the length of the "depression".
    Krugman is an idiot and Obama needs the entire weight of the MSM to keep from floating off the planet. He's not only naive, but gutless!
    For FDR, read left of center David Kennedy's great book "Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 (Oxford History of the United States) "

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/20/2007 8:09:03 PM

    Comment: At the turn of the last century we battled the monopolization threat. This threat lead to the implementation of Anti-Trust laws. At the turn of this century we face a similar threat; however it involves new "industries", led by the drug and insurance companies. Their special interest lobbying organizations have so much power that they have extraordinary influence with law makers on both sides(Democrat and Republican). Saying you will TAME this lobby and actually "doing it" are two different stories. I think OBAMA is a realist and understand that you have to include as much entities as possible even if you disagree with them. People respect you when you talk to them personally as opposed to ignoring them.

  • Posted By: p_e_s_t11 @ 12/20/2007 8:08:05 PM

    Comment: OBAMA DOESN'T HAVE A CHANCE....Americans will not vote for anyone who has even the slightest hint of ISLAM in him....forget OSAMA, he's toast.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/20/2007 8:02:27 PM

    Comment: At the turn of the last century we battled the monopolization threat. This threat lead to the implementation of Anti-Trust laws. At the turn of this century we face a similar threat; however it involves new "industries", led by the drug and

  • Posted By: Art A Layman @ 12/20/2007 4:46:56 PM

    Comment: pmorlan is right on.

    Jonathon you are too much of a political analyst to have not considered motivations. Edwards could be running as another centrist change agent, pitting him against a charismatic new kid and an experienced old hand. As promising as he might be he likely loses in that scenario. His hope and he believes in it, is to run as a strong populist with an anti-corporate/lobbyist bent and rally enough support to ride to victory with a mandate from the people. It may or may not work but it was likely the only venue left to him.

    Should he be victorious he has set the stage, and to pmorlan's point, he will have put the fear of exclusion in the minds of the insurance industry. They will be pondering ways to be a part of the program, rather than walking away from it.

    Do you really think that they would be willing to sit there and let Obama, "expose them in public"? The better approach, rather than offering them a seat, is to make them request a seat. Get them to the table with ideas of salvaging as much as they can rather than from a position of strength to attempt to dominate the discussion.

    pmorlan is right again, in that many of us who have worked for corporations throughout our careers and lived with our 3 - 4% annual merit increases, while the execs are awarded bonuses and 5 - 15% annual salary increases, have been melting down for many years. It is time for corporations to realize they are also a part of this cultural fabric and while profits and stock appreciation are important, our long term economic welfare and societal stability depend on them acting fairly and wisely.

    JinxB; the only corporations at risk ,as regards this issue, are insurance companies. They ain't goin anywhere. Any improvement to escalating insurance costs will be welcomed by most of the non-insurance industry corporations. The ideal solution is single payer health insurance and if the industry wants out we will have to default to that. Win, win.

    I know there are many nuances to negotiations and we all know that usually compromise rules the day but I have always understood that if you can start negotiations from a position of strength, you begin with a leg up on the competition. Even if Edwards were to win without a clear mandate he will still hold the most powerful position in the world, and would have been elected to that office with a promise of holding firm against the corporate/lobby interests. I wouldn't mind being in that position as talks commence.

  • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/20/2007 3:20:18 PM

    Comment: Let see, Edwards made his milions using phoney science to convict doctors of malpractice. How chummy are they going to be with him if he is elected? Also, I have yet to hear what Obama will actually do if and when he gets everyone around his big table. As everyone should know, the president does not write legislation, and if those who do (Congressmen) are already in the pockets of the evil healthcare industry, what kind of legislation do you think they will write? Considering the newly empowered just pushed through 9,000 lines of pork spending totalling billions of dollars, I would not hold my breath. Did Pelosie say they were going to clean up the budget?

  • Posted By: Tunnelista @ 12/20/2007 1:57:28 PM

    Comment: Great article, Jonathan. It has been obvious to me that Krugman is anti-Obama. Much as I agree with Krugman on many issues, his stand on health care is wrong, as you illuminate. This talk of fighting the special interests to the exclusion of all else is hollow and will not be effective. Anyone who has served in local government realizes what it takes to build consensus to get things done. John Edwards was happy to go along with the powers that be when he was a senator, only to later repudiate many of the votes he took. Casting himself in the role of angry crusader now is just not believable.

  • Posted By: Tunnelista @ 12/20/2007 1:56:07 PM

    Comment: Great article, Jonathan. It has been obvious to me that Krugman is anti-Obama. Much as I agree with Krugman on many issues, his stand on health care is wrong, as you illuminate. This talk of fighting the special interests to the exclusion of all else is hollow and will not be effective. Anyone who has served in local government realizes what it takes to build consensus to get things done. John Edwards was happy to go along with the powers that be when he was a senator, only to later repudiate many of the votes he took. Casting himself in the role of angry crusader now is just not believable.

  • Posted By: jmarkiles @ 12/20/2007 1:55:30 PM

    Comment: Nice comment by Chaotician - so many of the leftists posting on web sites these days sound so far out that it can almost be assumed they want a civil war. They denigrate the oppostion to a point you would think they want to commit mass murder and genocide against them. While I am no evangelical, all of the deeply religious people I know are peace loving and just want to be left alone to worship and raise their families.

  • Posted By: Tunnelista @ 12/20/2007 1:54:05 PM

    Comment: Great article, Jonathan. It has been obvious to me that Krugman is anti-Obama. Much as I agree with Krugman on many issues, his stand on health care is wrong, as you illuminate. This talk of fighting the special interests to the exclusion of all else is hollow and will not be effective. Anyone who has served in local government realizes what it takes to build consensus to get things done. John Edwards was happy to go along with the powers that be when he was a senator, only to later repudiate many of the votes he took. Casting himself in the role of angry crusader now is just not believable.

  • Posted By: monicalewinsky69 @ 12/20/2007 1:40:00 PM

    Comment: BRAVO JONATHAN.

  • Posted By: Chaotician @ 12/20/2007 1:03:08 PM

    Comment: I'm with Paul, for 2 reasons.

    1) The Christian Right, the Corporatism Neo-Cons, the Fascist "Social" Conservatives do not compromise. If you will note, in all "deals" they first take there "final" position and demand that be the starting point for negotiations towards giving them more and then after the slaughter, they call that a compromise. Who needs that???

    2) I hate and despise everything that even has a peripherally connection to ???der decider??? and his GOP enablers; I do not want to get along with these people. I want them to crawl back into their Churches, their caves, and their board rooms...and never see the light of day again. They are a collection of reactionary forces destroying the country in some misguided misogyny that conflates their corrupted beliefs with some reality beyond their demented minds. The preferred action is to purge them from the genetic pool!

    • Posted By: p_e_s_t11 @ 12/20/2007 20:11:47

      Comment: Yes, we atheists can lead the country......right down that short road to hell.....lol......I love how the atheists condemn the "fundies" as those who are destroying our country. The way I see it, the liberals (losers) are the guilty......

      • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 12/27/2007 16:11:33

        Comment: Athiests are not always liberal. Some of us are quite willing to pack your lot into cattle cars if that is what is needed to save this nation from your imaginary gods and the destruction you seek. As for your children, we can either deprogram them, or place them in your graves at your side.

  • Posted By: dbaciocco @ 12/20/2007 12:08:29 PM

    Comment: I guess what I have a problem with, as you correctly noted, that corporate America is bad -- but many Americans work for large corporations and depend upon them for their livelihood. Also to lump all corporate CEO's as "greedy" is both true AND false -- they themselves are incentivized by their boards and stockholders to make money for the corporation, raise the stock price(s), and grow the company. The EMPLOYEES and the STOCKHOLDERS (either of which are you and me) benefit from this. So what is John Edwards missing?

  • Posted By: jlaporteny @ 12/20/2007 12:01:12 PM

    Comment: Sir, Paul Krugman is not brilliant. He, like you, is a left wing fanatic, so blinded by his "religion" of liberal politics that he cannot use whatever common sense he may still have. George Bush has not been a "total disaster" as President. Quite the opposite. He has pumped the economy and is successfully keeping the nation safe. History will prove him out, as it did Reagan., While you, Mr. Krugman, your biased publication and your discredited philosophy will thakfully end up in the ash heap of history listening to whatever is left of Air America radio.

  • Posted By: Valdez @ 12/20/2007 11:51:29 AM

    Comment: To perpetuate the idea that John Edwards is saying that greedy corporations will have "no say" going forward is laughable Jonathan. What he is saying is that the people have "listened" for too long w/o real action on their part and need a leader who will, from the very beginning, establish the understanding to said entities that business as usual is over. I won't get into whether Krugman's interpretation of Obama is extreme, but I will say that a populist message if projected correctly is the scariest approach to the establishment and that is why Edwards continues to stay in the Iowa race, and to a lesser degree the national race, despite not having the celebrity and money of Barack and Hillary.

  • Posted By: pmorlan @ 12/20/2007 11:10:21 AM

    Comment: Jonathan, I disagree with you on this one. I think you, not Krugman, need an injection of common sense.

    You talk about "leadership requiring a mixture of confrontation and compromise, with room for the losers to save face". I agree, but you fail to mention that you have to know when to be confrontational and when to compromise. I think Obama already lost round 1 in this fight by guaranteeing lobbyists a seat at the table. To me that promise sends a signal that he believes their interests are equal in importance to those of the American people. And that kind of thinking is the problem. We don't need lobbyists sitting at the table writing our healthcare legislation. Can they be witnesses? Yes, but they have no business having a seat at the table making decisions that effect our lives.

    He also errs by announcing he is willing to compromise before the talks even start. You should never willingly give up power like this and weaken your own hand before you???ve even begun. I also think both you and Obama are naive to think that all you have to do is "cross examine" them on TV and miraculously they will see the light in some giant Perry Mason moment. Edwards, who made a career out of cross-examining witnesses, certainly doesn???t agree with your position. He knows that while this theory might sound appealing to beginners, in practice it???s a losing strategy.

    Edwards sent a clear signal from the get go that he is no easy mark and that lobbyists better get with the program or risk settling for scraps. The longer they hold out, the less leverage they will have. So instead of having a president focusing on how to get lobbyists to willingly give up some of their power we will have lobbyists scrambling to figure out how to hang onto some of their power. Edwards will also use the American people to back him up, but unlike Obama, he will deal with these lobbyists from a position of strength, not weakness. This will enable him to advance real structural change that actually helps Americans, not just the incremental change that helps few Americans but is often touted by politicians who want to get re-elected.

    You say - " But last time I checked millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser." You've got to be kidding me. Who do you think makes most of the anti-corporate comments? They come from those of us who work for corporations who have seen up close and personal how they manipulate the system and allow short-term greed to guide them. We know better than anyone that we need a president who will rein them in. Quite frankly we can't believe it hasn't been done already. By the way, this disgust at the misbehavior of our corporations crosses party lines. This is not just an issue among Democrats. There are a lot of Republicans and Independents who want corporations to stop using our tax dollars to enrich themselves at our expense

    • Posted By: JinxB @ 12/20/2007 15:09:49

      Comment: pmorlan, you demonstrate a low degree of economic knowledge here. You think people would cheer if corporations were "reined in?" They might, but not after the "reined in" corporations suffer losses and many of those cheering lose their jobs as the corporations either flee overseas, streamline operations or close altogether.
      And, you misread Jonathan's point re: "cross-examining" the health care corporations. He was not insinuating that the corporations would "see the light" a la Perry Mason. He was saying that a president could expose the corporations to the people, embarrass them in front of the world, shaming the corporations to bow to public pressure.

      • Posted By: pmorlan @ 12/21/2007 16:38:46

        Comment: Jinx B - In one part of your comment to me you say we shouldn't rein in corporations because it may cause something bad to happen (lose money, close down, etc.), but then later in your comments you seem to agree with Alter that we should make them "bow to public pressure". Quite frankly I think reining them in and making them bow to public pressure describe the same thing. So I'm really not sure about your position? And by the way corporations are already doing those bad things you describe with or without us reining them in so I think that's more of a fear tactic used by corporations than a real argument. I think Edwards has the solution when it comes to corporate fear tactics. He says that it's high time we showed a little backbone and stopped cowering in the corner letting corporations push us around and trick us into giving up our rights just so they can improve their bottom line

        With regard to Alters point about cross examing, I still stand by my statement. I do think Alter expects corporations to somehow see the light once they are cross examined. Even using your words about embarassing them in front of the world and shaming them to bow to public pressure requires of them to "see the light". Because you can't shame someone unless they recognize and admit the error of their ways. In other words, if they haven't seen the light (the error of their ways) how are they going to feel shame for those errors?

  • Posted By: UnitedWeStand @ 12/20/2007 10:47:30 AM

    Comment: Paul Krugman? Are you serious? Does anyone, besides the usual suspects, ie., New York Times reading, limousine liberals or the newest members of the party, the private Gulfstream jets environmentalists, take anything he says seriously? The last thing anyone should want is for the government to control your medical coverage. Just look at how well medicaid is doing. States are going bankrupt because of the costs. Providing medical coverage for yourself or for your family should be the INDIVIDUAL'S RESPONSIBILITY!!!! If you can't afford to provide for your family, guess what? Don't have a family until you can. I'm been sucked dry by the "Give me, give me" crowd. Enough, grow up, be responsibe. work hard, do the right thing!!!

    • Posted By: slim-trim @ 12/21/2007 03:59:33

      Comment: what if you're paying for your family's insurance, things seem fine, and disaster strikes? you're injured, can't work, your insurance dries up or is just taken away. you've lost income, and you're spending out-of-pocket. you can't afford to insure your spouse and children. are you now a 'give me, give me,' should you have pondered catastrophe before you had a family? it's ironic that you're moniker is unitedwestand--you presume to understand what this means. can you imagine this happening to you, and someone sharing your compassion IQ allowing you to tumble down, alone, united with nothing?

      • Posted By: UnitedWeStand @ 12/21/2007 21:37:37

        Comment: The government (taxpayers) should help when it's needed. There should be a TEMPORARY safety net until the individual can get back on their feet. I have no problem with that. I don't trust the government to be the sole provider. I don't want anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to force me to be part of a universal mandatory program. I want my own medical coverage with the doctor(s) I want, not who some government employee tells me I have to go to. Anything the gov't. touches turns into a huge bureacratic disaster. Freedom of choice that's what I believe in. One more thing, I don't understand something about people on the left. They rant and rave all day long (read any 5 comments on the Huffingtonpost on any subject) about how corrupt and evil the US gov't. is and all the bad it does all over the world, but yet it wants it to control so many aspects of their lives and to inject itself into personal matters that once again I'll repeat and say it all comes down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!! I love America, but America stay the hell out of my life.

      • Posted By: UnitedWeStand @ 12/21/2007 21:37:33

        Comment: The government (taxpayers) should help when it's needed. There should be a TEMPORARY safety net until the individual can get back on their feet. I have no problem with that. I don't trust the government to be the sole provider. I don't want anyone, at anytime, for any reason, to force me to be part of a universal mandatory program. I want my own medical coverage with the doctor(s) I want, not who some government employee tells me I have to go to. Anything the gov't. touches turns into a huge bureacratic disaster. Freedom of choice that's what I believe in. One more thing, I don't understand something about people on the left. They rant and rave all day long (read any 5 comments on the Huffingtonpost on any subject) about how corrupt and evil the US gov't. is and all the bad it does all over the world, but yet it wants it to control so many aspects of their lives and to inject itself into personal matters that once again I'll repeat and say it all comes down to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY!!!! I love America, but America stay the hell out of my life.

        • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/21/2007 22:09:14

          Comment: In a National Healthcare system all doctors and institutions are part of the same system so you have the freedom of choice. You also have the option to pay for proceudres and treatments not considered mandatory (cosmetic, etc.) and you get the immediate care you need. The point is not to let the government take control so much as it is to give them the power to negotiate the best price for everyone by becoming 'the only payer' as it were. Fair price for fair service is all that people want and deserve when it comes to their health.

          • Posted By: William.Demuth @ 12/27/2007 16:14:47

            Comment: And when they buy influence with the single payer? Single payers who can raise taxes to support their agenda? Governments steal just like industry, and trading one thief for another is no solution.

  • Posted By: Ecomaven @ 12/20/2007 9:58:44 AM

    Comment: Comment: Alter got it right. Even if Edwards were not a phoney, any comprehensive health care reform would need the particpation of all the interests. There are simply too many moving parts. Inevitably the details will get in the way . What sounds great on the campaign trail, will more often than not, end up on the cutting room floor.What the full mooners on the left don't understand, is that good ideas every now and then do come from the drug and insurance industries.

  • Posted By: Ecomaven @ 12/20/2007 9:52:08 AM

    Comment: Comment; Alter has got it right. Even if Edwards were not a phoney, there is no way a steam roller approach on health care would work. There are simply too many moving parts. Although Krugman would never admit it, sometime good ideas do come from the drug and insurance companies. With the devil in the details, the practicalities inevitably get in the way of the politically correct..

  • Posted By: aefadden @ 12/20/2007 9:38:49 AM

    Comment: Paul Krugrman is not a brilliant economist and fine columnist. He is wrong in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. He is almost always wrong on his assesment of the economy. His knowledge of history is pathetic, including the history he has personnal experienced. Why would anyone assume that he knows what he is talking about when it comes to Obama or any other candidate.

  • Posted By: gbkarr87 @ 12/20/2007 9:37:33 AM

    Comment: I think that "gommy gommy" needs to pay more attention to the column itself before focussing on his opinions on the economist at hand. If he had done so, he would not have stated at the end of his comment that Paul Krugman supports Barrack Obama. He also needs to stick to the column and his opinions of it, and to leave out the useless personal jabs at the columnist, i.e. suggesting hair plugs.

  • Posted By: araymond @ 12/20/2007 9:32:48 AM

    Comment: Ironically, populists not incredibly popular don't win many elections at the national level. Just ask William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, George Wallace and George McGovern. An Edwards nomination might be able to break the losing streak due to the favorable conditions for Democrats, but he's not going to become a "popular" president with his policies, especially in the wake of Reaganism. No way in hell.

  • Posted By: aefadden @ 12/20/2007 9:32:33 AM

    Comment: Paul Krugman is not a brilliant Princeton economist and fine columnist. He is completely wrong in asserting that George W. Bush is a total disaster as president. He is a complete disaster on economic reporting. Why would anyone assume he knows what he is talking about as far as Obama is concerned

  • Posted By: araymond @ 12/20/2007 9:31:33 AM

    Comment: Ironically, populists not incredibly popular don't win many elections at the national level. Just ask William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, George Wallace and George McGovern. An Edwards nomination might be able to break the losing streak due to the favorable conditions for Democrats, but he's not going to become a "popular" president with his policies, especially in the wake of Reaganism. No way in hell.

  • Posted By: rcglad @ 12/20/2007 9:20:46 AM

    Comment: I whole heartedly disagree. You're kind of health care "reform" will come over our cold, dead, conservative bodies. In other words, you're going to have to beat us into the ground before we give you socialized medicine.

  • Posted By: gommy goomy @ 12/20/2007 8:51:44 AM

    Comment: Don't you love it when one idiot starts criticizing another idiot for being an idiot? For one thing, Johnnie, Paul Krugman isn't a "brilliant" anything. Can ANYBODY explain to me when he's been RIGHT about ANYTHING? He's one of those "experts" that are quoted as being "surprised" when 150,000 new jobs are created because he predicted a "downturn. Or when GDP goes way up instead of way down, like he said it would. His "economics" answer to everything is the same as every other pie in the sky liberal... RAISE TAXES. GREATER REGULATIONS. MORE GOV'T. This isn't economics, it's ideology. He's not a "populist". Populist conotates that what he espouses is "POPULAR". Maybe in the Newsweek break room, but not out here in the REAL world. Krugman is a Command Structure economist. And I use the word, "economist", lightly. He believes, as the Soviets did, that it's the State that offers the best way foreward. Not the low-brows out in the hinterlands, who actually DO all the work. This is why he works,-let me re-phrase that-this is why he's AT the New York Times. He's a perfect fit. Just one more broken cog in a broken wheel. Soltzberger, who's running it in to the toilet at break-neck speed. Thomas Freidman, who never saw a foreign policy matter he couldn't be wrong on. And of course, Paulie Krugman. The perfect fit. The three blind mice on a sinking ship. As for Alterboy; I'm sure there's a place for him at the NYT. God knows, he's got all of the qualifications. Oh, and you're not fooling anyone Johnnie. The only reason for this column is because the first idiot-Paulie- is backing Obambi and the other idiot-In dire need of some hair plugs, you-is on HillBillys' payroll. Methinks a sissy boy slap fight is right around the corner. Don't you?

  • Posted By: abfabinri @ 12/20/2007 8:39:14 AM

    Comment: Obama has criticized Clinton for being politically calculating when in fact it is his record that is full of so called 'compromise" over 130 times in Illinois he voted "present" rather than face the political fallout of a yes or no vote. I don't see this as compromise but rather calculated political butt covering and political cowardice. When faced with controversial issues he would rather cover his ass than vote his true beliefs.

  • Posted By: yamgrand @ 12/20/2007 8:38:08 AM

    Comment: It figures that MSNBC's link to a negative Newsweek story on Romney lies about Huckabee is wrong. The correct link is http://www.newsweek.com/id/80949

  • Posted By: abfabinri @ 12/20/2007 8:26:27 AM

    Comment: Well Obama is definitely a man of compromise. He has compromised his integrity and values by voting 'present' over 130 times in Illinois Senate....rather than losing political points in future, he 'compromised' and voted present. While bashing Clinton's vote on Iran, he never even showed up to vote. Now if this is what you mean by compromise than Obama is your guy. I am not going to compromise by voting for Obama!
    OObamaObaObama.

  • Posted By: neoconx @ 12/20/2007 8:18:15 AM

    Comment: I love socialists criticizing socialists about idiotic socialist beliefs. bravo, alter, you fool.

  • Posted By: Mwalimu @ 12/20/2007 1:04:52 AM

    Comment:
    I really like Obama, but in regards to his approach to the health insurance industry, he???s way too nice. As Michael Moore???s Sicko revealed, health insurance companies are not in the business of health care because they love Jesus. It???s all about the benjamins. As corporations, they are competing with other corporations, not to bring better products to the consumer, but to bring a bigger return to the stock holder - and the going rate of acceptable return right now is about 30%. (I know. I own a nickel-and-dime portfolio.) I live in Los Angeles. It seems like every month, the Los Angeles Times carries an article about a new health insurance company scandal. All the heavy weights are involved, including Blue Cross, Blue Shield, and Kaiser. . Furthermore, health insurance companies squander huge sums of money on lobbyists, political campaigns and commercials. All these expenses add on to the cost of health care. Furthermore, you article does not consider the Roberts Supreme Court which is nothing more than a kangaroo court for business interests. Should disputes arise between consumers and health insurance companies, the consumer will lose. If the government tries to regulate the predatory practices of health insurance companies, the Roberts Court will strike those regulations down as unconstitutional. You also need to study the statistics released by the WHO. Our country is 37th place in terms of quality health care. Cuba, which occupies 39th place, has a lower rate of infant mortality than the United States.We are also the world???s most expensive medical delivery system. The medical delivery system of France, which occupies 1st place, is cheaper than our system. Obama???s health care proposals might be a beginning, but ultimately, in order for us to have quality medical care, we may need to eliminate the corrupt middle man. (Incidentally, agreed many Americans work for corporations, but many of these Americans are screwed by the corporations they work for. Read Nickel and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich to see what I mean..

  • Posted By: tb1 @ 12/19/2007 10:42:23 PM

    Comment: Installment #1: The free-market healthcare non-system
    http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/cia/index.html

    • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/21/2007 22:17:03

      Comment: Appreciate the resource but not sure what it is supposed to prove?...lol

  • Posted By: ducdebrabant @ 12/19/2007 8:44:58 PM

    Comment: By the way, have you noticed that as far as tough rhetoric is concerned, Obama is far more likely to use it on people on the left -- columnists, blogges, activists, intellectuals -- than on his right wing opponents? He espouses a non-confrontational, consensus-building approach to the Mitch McConnells of this world, but he doesn't have any of that for the people who are supposedly on HIS side. If they aren't lined up behind him, he'll speak of them as if they were Tom DeLay. Any Democrat who isn't an Obama supporter is part of "business as usual" to Obama, but strangely enough, Orrin Hatch and and Dick Boehner are not. And neither are any of the leading Republican presidential candidates. By the time he finishes explaining to America how bad the Democratic Party is -- except for Barack Obama -- America may have decided to vote for Mitt Romney.

    • Posted By: zackisaiah @ 12/19/2007 22:49:41

      Comment: Let's be real here. The whole point of a primary is to learn about the candidates and identify their differences. If a candidate can't point out the differences between himself and the others, what else should he be doing?

  • Posted By: zhiyi @ 12/19/2007 8:16:34 PM

    Comment: Why Alter is wrong?

    But first, I agree with Alter on a more conciliatory approach and I admit Krugman is a bit over ideological and confrontational. The health care industry and the conservative movement are often in the same boat, but they're not the same. It's possible that when the wind blows left, the industry follows for its own interest. Discussion with the industry is possible and necessary. (They're already talking to and donating money to Clinton.) The key of the discussion is on whose term.

    However, I don't think Jonathan Alter gets why Krugman goes after Krugman. First, Krugman sees Obama as a deviation from the progressive movement, as Obama oscillates between left and right on social security and health care mandate. Secondly, Krugman rates Obama least among the three as the one who can deliver the universal health care, the center battleground between left and right. For one thing, Obama hasn't shown political commitmemnt to deliver the universal health care. Edwards showed his commitment by coming up with a comprehensive plan first when everyone was a bit hesitant, and Clinton, if only for revenge, would love to get it done the second time. For another, charisma means nothing to Krugman. I agree with Krugman's overall assessment on Obama.

    It's wrong for Alter to call Krugman wrong on Obama.

    • Posted By: zackisaiah @ 12/19/2007 22:43:43

      Comment: The plans proposed by Edwards and Clinton amount to little more than whitewashing. Is our goal to say we've implemented "universal health care" or is it to FIX the problems so that we may all receive health care?

      We don't need to be told to get health insurance. We need to be able to afford it.

  • Posted By: ducdebrabant @ 12/19/2007 7:57:03 PM

    Comment: Krugman called Obama on his false claim that his health insurance plan covers everybody. Obama's response, without naming Krugman, basically lumped him in with all those bad, lying people Saint Barack is trying to wrest the country from, and left it at that. The New York Times already has one columnist (Thomas Friedman) who says everything will be all right if we just sprinkle pixie dust on ourselves and think lovely thoughts, and I'm glad Krugman isn't another. If he seems a bit harsher than Obama, hey, who doesn't? But what has Obama really accomplished in his extremely short career other than getting some hearts racing? Democrats have spent decades dealing with take-no-prisoners Republicans by throwing good will down a bottomless well. We've never even heard the splash. I'm glad Alter is so obtimistic about people with $300 million Golden Parachute contracts rolling up their sleeves for the common man, but I am not.

  • Posted By: jade7243 @ 12/19/2007 7:41:53 PM

    Comment: Bravo, Jonathan... an excellent rebuttal to Paul Krugman that explains exactly what so many of us have been trying to say for so long.

  • Posted By: mydogismukluks @ 12/19/2007 7:36:59 PM

    Comment: you must have missed the whole Ron Suskind-Karl Rove "we make reality now" story. It is embarassing but true that the corporate heads will lie for money, on television, in Congress, to their wives and mistresses both. Obama is simply trying to avoid having to actually do anything while he romances the rubes with sweet talk and lies, lies he bought used from the GOP like the Social Security Crisis. Krugman and Edwards are right and Hilary Clingtton is the proof.

  • Posted By: South Carolina Joe @ 12/19/2007 7:14:06 PM

    Comment: WHY THE MIS-LEADING LINE ABOUT ROMNEY'S COMMENTS TOWARD HUCKABEE? DID CHUCK DODD WRITE THIS OR SOMETHING? HE'S CLEARLY TRYING TO DOWNGRADE ROMNEY - BUT IT WON'T WORK. MAYBE CHUCK CAN RUN AS VP FOR HUCKABEE IN THE "PITA" RACE FOR ANIMAL ABUSE.

  • Posted By: hark a lark @ 12/19/2007 6:54:12 PM

    Comment: So the link I clicked on (then double checked) said this was going to be an article about Romney making false attacks on Huckabee. May I ask why the link is incorrect? My taste has already been declining as to the legitimacy and accurism of these presidential campaigns, and now I'm really not trusting anything. Could you please get your ducks lined up in a row? Thank you! :-)

  • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/19/2007 6:21:06 PM

    Comment: Coming from a society where national health care is the norm, I have quite the skewed view of this particular topic. Especially when considering all 3 of my children had to spend time in the hospital for a week or more on several occasions and then receive the appropriate treatment afterwards. There is only one reason why Single Payee health plans don't work in the USA and that is the people who make moeny from providing these services. This includes Big Pharm, HMO's, Insurance companies, Hospitals amongst many others and to a lesser degree the doctors themselves.

    I do not agree with current proposals to 'force' everyone to get health insurance as this is not the point of National Healthcare. The point is that if you take the financial aspect out of the equation when someone is deciding to being treated for illness or injury, they will do what is necessary and we will have a healthier society all around. The advantages of a healthy population are too numerous to mention, but should be the ultimate goal of anyone seeking office or my vote will go elsewhere or nowhere if the situation warrants.

    Anyone who says it won't work, hasn't lived it. People can say they don't want to foot someone else's medical bill all they want, but when their turn comes around to be treated for something they can't afford, I'm guessing they will be singing a different tune.

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/20/2007 07:48:03

      Comment: And I bet most of the doctor's who treated your children were trained in the US. Of course, we can talk about the waiting lists for surgeries in national healthcare systems, the man in Canada who died from appendicitis while waiting for his surgery date (the only option to save his life was for him to pay out of pocket). And lets not forget the groing number of private hospitals that are being developed in socialized countries because the national system is subpar.

      • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/20/2007 21:14:35

        Comment: You would be wrong...not educated in the USA. I wonder how many people die in the USA everyday because they can't afford to even get a diagnosis. I'm sure the numbers there would tell the true story of why national health care works. There will always be isolated examples that can be exploited to justify an incorrect view. I certainly don't wish anyone any illness, and you will bold face lie to me in your response to this I'm sure, but if you were in a position of having an illness you could not afford to have treated, AND suffered the consequences of that situation as I have in THIS country, your position would most certainly change. People who think someone else's illness is not there problem are just plain mistaken. I would gladly pay more taxes to have the luxury of having my family treated when they need it....end of story

        • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/21/2007 09:43:10

          Comment: If someone dies in the US because they can't 'afford' a diagnosis, it would be their own fault. In the US, it is illegal for a hospital to refuse service to anyone. That is how all of the illegals have their babies, surgeries and treatment without health insurance. Show up and you will be seen. This is why I repeateddly say, in the US we already have universal coverage.

          • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/21/2007 21:42:11

            Comment: Nope...no socialized medicine for me....no sir...the current system works just fine....good grief!

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22357873/

          • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/21/2007 18:30:54

            Comment: SO Mr Cooper...you then contradict your previous statement where you reference a man who died from appendicitis while waiting for surgery in Canada. This would be the hospital and/or doctor's fault for not pushing him ahead if it was that serious, but not the system paying for his treatment. If he had been in the US and his symptoms did not show to be serious enough for immediate operation the same result could easily have occurred anyway and so your point of reference is really not a great example at all.

            Your 'illegal babies' reference shows exactly which side of the political fence you are on and explains much of your point of view. I can't believe you would even suggest that someone with no insurance should be told their baby is going to have to die because they can't pay, legally here or not. In any event, if you haven't been through both sides as I have, you really can't say it works or doesn't work with any authority, but thanks for your point of view.

  • Posted By: hallihunt @ 12/19/2007 5:23:14 PM

    Comment: I disagree with Mr. Alter's criticism of Krugman's assessment. Although compelling and seemingly earnest Obama is naive. What happened the last time American's were coming out of a period of war at the same time we were experiencing an energy crisis and a recession? Remember Carter. A good man, a great ex-President - but he came into office with a naive outlook that didn't translate well for the American public. We then had to endure 12 more years of Republican rule. Let's not make the same mistake.





    on top the

  • Posted By: De Thorn @ 12/19/2007 4:57:02 PM

    Comment: As for the previous commenter that said "Anything is worth with the consumer is willing to pay..", Let's go fishing. Once I throw you in the shark infested gulf of mexico, I'm sure you'll find my $100,000 life jacket and can of shark repellent package to be quite the bargain.

    We need single-payee health care. The sick and injured are in no shape to shop-around for health services. Nor are they in any shape to fight their health insurance company to provide the coverage they have been paying for. The fact that the government gives free healthcare to prisoners and prisoners of police-actions would seem to validate that access to a reasonable amount of healthcare (without being sued for everything you have to cover the bill) is a basic human right. If we can afford $800 billion to wage war on a verb, we can find the money to save our citizens from our healthcare industry.

    Universal Mandate will not work. It only will accelerate the exodus of jobs to foreign soil. American manufacturing can not compete with foreign manufacturing that does not have to deal with OSHA, the EPA, minimum wage, unions, and employee health insurance premiums.

    Hillary lost my vote when she supported Universal Health Mandate. Forcing people to buy the products of a for-profit health care system is akin to "throwing us under the bus".

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/20/2007 07:54:17

      Comment: Let me toss you into shark infested waters, pull you out and give you the option of a county hospital or a private one. Ibet you come up with the money.

      The government does not give out anything for free. We all pay above and beyond what it costs to deliver. If you think you can't afford $400 a month premiums now, what until the government is taking $500 a month from your check (after taxes of course) to pay for single-payee health coverage and you still have to fight with the governemnt on what is and isn't covered (see Medicaid, Medicare and the VA for examples).

      Politicians like us to think that only they can make everything perfect. When has this EVER happened?

  • Posted By: navel007 @ 12/19/2007 4:40:31 PM

    Comment: So, the Krugman article is great when he calls Bush a terrible President but he is wrong when he calls Obama niave. If the health care proposed by Obama is such a great idea, why didn't he propose it before he decided to run for President? Or do these great ideas only happen when a person decides to run for President. It would seem like that Newsweeks' Obama editorial committee is steaming up their glasses and prospectives.

    • Posted By: zackisaiah @ 12/19/2007 22:52:33

      Comment: Obama did propose it before running for president. Read "The Audacity of Hope" -- he's got a whole chapter on health care.

  • Posted By: George Adams @ 12/19/2007 4:37:43 PM

    Comment: Universal Healthcare is Socialism at the root and at the fruit. We have given our government too much authority over us and we are no longer a nation run by the people. If we allow universal healthcare to become a reality in our country we will be opening the door for the government to control even more of our own life. Bad things happen to people. We have people with hospital bills they can't pay and that is a bad state. But Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death." We would do well to take this to heart. Because that is what is happening in our own country today. The government is taking away our liberties; our God-given right to of free speech, of free religion, of free thought. We are being told that if we don't conform to a certain idealology that we are bigots, who are closed-minded, whether it be in religion, education, economics, ethics, or morals. The government controls our education system (which has steadily digressed in recent years) our retirement (Social Security will go bankrupt if nothing is done about it ) among other things. Do we really want to give so much power to our central government. Power that will give them the ability to control us in every state of our life? That is just a little food for thought from "Publius."

  • Posted By: "Publius" @ 12/19/2007 4:35:55 PM

    Comment: Universal Healthcare is Socialism at the root and at the fruit. We have given our government too much authority over us and we are no longer a nation run by the people. If we allow universal healthcare to become a reality in our country we will be opening the door for the government to control even more of our own life. Bad things happen to people. We have people with hospital bills they can't pay and that is a bad state. But Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death." We would do well to take this to heart. Because that is what is happening in our own country today. The government is taking away our liberties; our God-given right to of free speech, of free religion, of free thought. We are being told that if we don't conform to a certain idealology that we are bigots, who are closed-minded, whether it be in religion, education, economics, ethics, or morals. The government controls our education system (which has steadily digressed in recent years) our retirement (Social Security will go bankrupt if nothing is done about it ) among other things. Do we really want to give so much power to our central government. Power that will give them the ability to control us in every state of our life? That is just a little food for thought from "Publius."

    • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/21/2007 20:19:08

      Comment: Definition of Socialism as per Dictionary.com...You can decide if it fits or not...lol

      1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
      2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
      3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

    • Posted By: Johnny1967 @ 12/21/2007 13:41:53

      Comment: Obama???s health care plan is Capitalism at the root and the fruit! (Note, the misguided use of the word Capitalism is consistent with Publius and JinxB???s use of Socialism). First, under Obama???s plan, the U.S. government will not be taking over health care and medicine companies. These companies will still be owned by corporate shareholders and competing for profit. Second, Obama???s plan will increase competition within the health industry by enforcing anti-trust laws. Accordingly, price fixing and monopoly type tactics (established through mergers and lobbying for protectionist laws) will be removed to lower health care prices based on competition and efficiency. Third, Obama???s plan will provide governmental incentives to create efficient information technology, which would not otherwise be established in a competitive market by individual companies due to costs and other externalities. Fourth, in order to reduce premiums, the government will be is used to absorb the risk of catastrophic individual cases to allocate such risks efficiently among a greater number of people. Notice, Obama???s health care plan is based on microeconomic principles and the roll government has traditionally played in our market economy. Of course, we won???t know if it will work until we try it. However, calling the program socialism (or even capitalism) is not correct.

    • Posted By: Johnny1967 @ 12/20/2007 11:03:50

      Comment: A view that universal healthcare is socialism is fundamentally misguided. True, the government will be used to direct money to pay for health insurance. But, if it happens, it is the will of the people. Don't forget that the medical industry companies also use the government by by lobbying for laws which protectecting their own interests too. Government and industry is not separated in our nation. They work together. Establishing a universal health care system is a far from socialism because its what the people want. Later, if it's not so popular, then we can vote someone in that will get rid of it. We only get socialism if we change our Constitution and political structure.

      • Posted By: JinxB @ 12/20/2007 15:18:55

        Comment: You demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of what socialism is. It is not the opposite of democracy. It ??? and its more extreme philosophical cousin, communism ??? is the opposite of capitalism. Just because the people can vote, does not mean socialism has been enacted. Socialism is quite simply the government taking over certain industries, such as health care and medicine, and removing the incentive for profit from private business. So, you see, universal health care IS socialism. It is you that is fundamentally misguided. Civics 101 lesson now over.

        • Posted By: Johnny1967 @ 12/20/2007 22:38:53

          Comment: Granted, you are correct on your definition of socialism. However, universal health care is a governmental program. Socialism is an economic system. I don't think civics 101 teaches you that universal health care equals socialism. If so, every individual U.S. governmental program is socialism. I don't think that's the common usage of the word Socialism.

    • Posted By: bigjohn1687 @ 12/20/2007 04:15:52

      Comment: I don't see how national health care tramples our liberties. All we want to help paying exorbitant health costs. How does that threaten our liberties? On the other hand, not being able to afford health care seems to me to be a major infringement of my liberty: I'm not free to get the care I need to be healthy.

      • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/20/2007 07:31:31

        Comment: When the government takes control of health care, much like Social Security and Welfare, they have yet another thing to overtax you on. This takes away not only the quality of healthcare but how much income you have, what you can purchase, where you can live, etc. That is a direct affect on life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...

        • Posted By: bigjohn1687 @ 12/20/2007 09:11:29

          Comment: So is not being able to afford exorbitant health care cost. In fact, that is a much more direct threat to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than merely having government help pay for health care.

          • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/20/2007 09:37:09

            Comment: The government does not PAY for anything. The tax payers do. If you were taxedd less, you could afford more. It is that simple.

            • Posted By: bigjohn1687 @ 12/21/2007 15:00:35

              Comment: It's not that simple. The amount that I individually would pay in the taxes needed for universal health care are a pittance compared with today's exorbitant health care costs. Being free from such a tax now isn't enough to make expensive procedures or long hospital stays, so the idea that being from that tax would enable us to afford such health care doesn't fly.

              • Posted By: CorbinB2 @ 12/21/2007 18:35:21

                Comment: Nice to see I am not an island here bigjohn....the other side of this of course is the ability for the government to effectively negotiate reasonable prices for care from the people in the entire health care chain. Us being taxed less will not stop the exhorbitant pricing policies of the current 'private' system.

  • Posted By: navel007 @ 12/19/2007 4:30:18 PM

    Comment: So, the Krugman article is correct when he calls Bush a terrible President. But when the same brillant person says that Obama is niave he is all wrong. It would sound l