More Krugman vs. Obama

van3672@gmail.com — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:00:13 GMT

Basically, any challenge on Krugman is considered a "negative personal attack" when Obama's campaign was pointing out a shift in tone and rhetoric by Krugman.

All this shrill whining makes me laugh.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Ron, TX — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:02:20 GMT

Clinton obviously contacted Krugman when the need arose to falsely criticize him. Honest journalistic pieces from the NY Times, Washington Post, and many others have all outlined how Hillary is overstating her case, and that mandates could potentially leave MORE people uninsured than Obama's plan.

Hillary's down, so she tried to rely on Krugman to back up her baseless claims that Obama's plan isn't "universal"

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bee — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:03:28 GMT

The liberal bloggers like Krugman & Co are so disillusion about Obama's phenomenon because they don't get it. They will like to derail the train that is on course because Obama did not kiss their A%$$.

How many people listen to these guys again? Sorry, I don’t even know who they are. The last time I checked, they are part of the establishment that are singing “hail the queen”

More Krugman vs. Obama

Steve, Chicago, IL — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:05:29 GMT

I'm willing to believe Krugman's intentions are honest with his pieces, but this whole blog drama seems to come down to several of the blogs that were already anti-obama suddenly rallying to Krugman over something extremely minor.

In other words, no big whoop.

More Krugman vs. Obama

raider dem, maryland — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:05:47 GMT

Yeah, 'Ron, TX', i'm sure that's what happened. I wonder if Obama supporters are just like Obama's campaign manager--you want to see Clinton defeated more then you want to see Obama win.....Why not at least consider Edwards if that's your rationale, at least he has some experience to fall back on.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Lester Smith IL — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:05:50 GMT

In response to Krugman's investigation of Obama's weak health care pan that leaves 15 million behind,
Obama does not answer by defending his policy position, instead Obama personally attacks Krugman implying that there must be some "underlying" reason (race maybe) that Krugman would question his health care plan.

Typical Obama. Go on a personal attack when legitimately questioned about his policy

Obama is very calculating and I'm just beginning to see the real man. obama seems to have forgotten the audacity of hope and come lets reason together thing.

He lives in a personal attack world
This is the Obama we in Illinois know

More Krugman vs. Obama

Nashville_fan — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:07:56 GMT

It's always funny to me how "journalist" can always dish it out so much better than they can take it.

More Krugman vs. Obama

disgusted — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:11:10 GMT

If Hillary points out big holes in Obama's weak health care plan, she is unfairly lying about poor innocent little Obama.

If Obama attacks her character, her personally, it is wonderful fine and it is the way to "heal" us.

To heal our counrty Obama is going to have to deal with his policy weakness and be ready to stand up and say he made a mistake rather than personally attacking others.

Obama says one thing and does another.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Shadow, Hamden, CT — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:11:45 GMT

Mandates with car insurance cover 90% of drivers. That means that mandated health care will leave 30 million uninsured, which is far worse than 15 million uninsured. I don't understand what is the least bit progressive about forcing people to get health insurance, particularly if it leaves less of them insured in the end.

More Krugman vs. Obama

mike, dallas, TX — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:16:20 GMT

Good job Camp Obama!!

I have said it before and I will say it again.
Mr Krugman DOES NOT OWN the "conscience" of liberals and it shouldn't be a blasphemy to disagree with him on some points and to even sometimes think out of the box and improve on some dogmatic views. After all Krugman is not God that we can't deviate from his prescriptions or can't call him out when he shows inconsistencies.

This is obvious: Krugman was nice to Obama in June because the conventional thinking was Obama would fade by the fall and Hillary would be coronated. The facts on the ground show now it ain't so the biggest obstacle to Hillary's coronation is Obama, so Krugman and others are in full force to bring down Obama.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Not for Obama — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:16:30 GMT

Ron do you realize how silly you sound. Just like Obama and his attacks.

If a journalist says anything positive about Hillary or points out the holes in any Obama poilicy like health care, you attack the journalist.

YOU DO NOT DEFEND OBAMA'S POLICY. Obama attacks the messenger not the messsage.

Not real impressive

More Krugman vs. Obama

Marbw — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:18:08 GMT

"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]

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]

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]

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]

ps...The former ENRON employee Paul Krugman vs himself.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Chelse C. — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:18:32 GMT

Thanks mom ! hillaryclinton.com

More Krugman vs. Obama

Sam — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:22:34 GMT

We already have mandated health insurance in this country. If you pay into Social Security you are paying into Medicare. You do not get a choice. It is mandated even if you don't think that you will need it someday. It is taken out of your check each month.
Mandated.

What would happen it you had a choice to pay or not into Medicare. Probably most of us no anywhere near retirement and healthy would opt out of paying. Then what would happen.

We already have mandated insurance in this country.

More Krugman vs. Obama

john Jay — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:28:01 GMT

I'm not seeing any of your Obamaites on here defend his health care policy.

You are just attacking Hillary and Krugman personally and anyone else who questions Obama.

That's exactly what I see in Obama. He levels personal attacks. He does not deal in issues.

Obama preaches hope and change while never telling how he would bring this about with policies. He never gives specifics. He just goes personaly negative on fellow candidates.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Pundit Pundant — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:28:20 GMT

Special interest groups are the bane of the democrat party...we all know how we lost the 2000 and 04 elections. Our possible loss in 2008 is shaping up to be due to the so called bloggers or may I say "pundasts"

More Krugman vs. Obama

Not Bee — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:30:12 GMT

Obama is getting more arrogant each day.

Obama seems to be a petulant narcissist.

Does this sound like Bee in reverse!

More Krugman vs. Obama

Simon — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:17 GMT

The left wing of the Democratic party is being conned by Obama.

They are falling for the cult of personality like immature little kids.

They revel in his lofty rhetoric and fail to examine hard facts and policy.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Joe — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:34:32 GMT

Hey Paul....Yawn

More Krugman vs. Obama

Greg Lewis — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:35:22 GMT

The reason Krugman has changed his tone? Hillary is losing.

More Krugman vs. Obama

MK, Los Angeles, California — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:36:32 GMT

Senator Clinton's campaign is becoming increasingly sad to watch. After this past weeks' events, they dug up an interview of fmr. ambassador Andrew Young (done back in early Sept, 2007, that's right three months ago) where he said now was not Senator Obama's time and then tried to wrap it up for the press as breaking news. Now there bringing up the Krugman thing as somehow being relevant to the upcoming election. And today we hear that another Clinton "vounteer" in Iowa was sending out the vile email against Senator Obama back in early October. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that Senator Clinton's campaign has run into a ditch and is simply slamming the gas pedal causing its wheels to spin and throw mud all over the place, but doing nothing to move itself forward.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Nashville_fan — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:40:24 GMT

John Jay,

Nobody is defending Obama's healthcare policy because it doesn't need defending. Health insurance mandates don't work and punish the people they are supposed to be helping. Obama's plan does not include them. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

More Krugman vs. Obama

MK, Los Angeles, California — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:41:19 GMT

I'm not seeing any of your Obamaites on here defend his health care policy.
john Jay

Perhaps you should read Robert Reich's (that's right President Clinton's Labor Secretary and college friend) blog which sets forth in great details why Senator Obama's health plan is better than Senator Clinton's plan. Or for that matter read the NY Times editorial from two weeks ago (that's right the paper Krugman writes op-eds for) wherein they note that the problem with lack of coverage in this country is cost (people seeking specialist when no real need and for extra lab tests (CT scans & MRIs) when they also do not really affect health outcome). This is what Senator Obama has been saying all along --- its high costs not people's lack of desire for insurance --- that is the source of the health care problem in this country.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Mike — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:41:25 GMT

Who the heck is Krugman???

More Krugman vs. Obama

disgusted — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:45:55 GMT

Typical Republican talking points.

If anyone points out discrepencies in your plan just dig up some old old statement to twist it to say

The other guys are , Oh, my GOD, doing the worse thing ever Flip Flopping.

Flip flopping according to Rep talking points is worse than murder, rape.

So in training to be a good little Republican repeat after me
1. Attack the opponent PERSONALLY
2. Accuse the Dems of FLIP FLOPPING (then-now)
It's a winner every time. Just ask Karl.

Obama and his supporters have just taken a play right straight out of the Rep playbook

Case closed.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Aidyn, NY — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:48:01 GMT

Obama is not the man everyone things he is.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Joe Smoot, NY — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:53:16 GMT

>> Obama is not the man everyone thin[k]s he is. <<

Neither is Hillary.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Freeman Female, Dallas, TX — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:54:01 GMT

Obama response to Krugman is a valid question. He asks Krugman " Please provide specific points and issues that makes u do a 180 degree turn from praising this plan highly to all of sudden crucifing the plan?"

How is that personal and how is that negative?

The liberal bloggers and Clinton supporters are calling a false foul. You cannot call something negative if the only type of question is How and Why.

All Obama's camp did is quote what was said first to what is being said now. Obama did not change his plan HOWEVER Krugman did change his response.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Needs a health care program — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:56:22 GMT

To each of you who defend Obama's ill advised health care plan and to those of you who blindly follow Obama with seriously studying his policies and previous voting behavior, I just hope you do not get a serious illiness during the Obama Presidency.

We will never have health care. The Republicans who have never wanted help or health care for us much less our children, will use Obama's weak health care plan that leaves out millions and his attacks with your support on mandates.

you guys are going to make this a cake walk for the Rep because you are using their ideas against health care NOW. The Rep will LOVE throwing your attacks on mandates right back in your faces.

If Obama is elected he will be a very weak president.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bee — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:57:00 GMT

john Jay,

Please cut the talking point and read this article

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/05/us/politics/05truth.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/O/Obama,%20Barack

More Krugman vs. Obama

disgusted — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:59:43 GMT

You are right, Aidyn NY. Obama is not the hope filled man he presents to us.

As the days go by,he shows a bit more of his arrogance and weakness.

He will not be there when you need him.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bee, NH — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:59:45 GMT

By the way John, the key to health care coverage is "Affordability" not "Mandate"

Enough of Paul Krugman's crap; is it not the same guy that told us that social security is not broken? I wonder how much he is getting paid by Clinton's machine.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Yiannis, Baltimore — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:01:17 GMT

Individual mandates are a conservative idea, here is what Hillary said about them:

"The individual mandates create some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system."

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bee — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:02:05 GMT

As an Independent leaning towards Democratic Party, I dislike the idea of mandate. Mandate without lowering the cost is going to make peoples live miserable. I think you guys forgot that this is United States of America.

More Krugman vs. Obama

John Jay — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:03:15 GMT

Obama is calculating with his negative attacks on his opponents and anyone who dares to disagree or question him.

Obama shows a lot of sizzle but very little steak.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:13:49 GMT

MK from LA wrote, "the problem with lack of coverage in this country is cost (people seeking specialist when no real need and for extra lab tests (CT scans & MRIs) when they also do not really affect health outcome)."

They are only unnecessary until you need them MK. What about all that unnecessary insurance paperwork?

More Krugman vs. Obama

Felix Littleton CO — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:18:43 GMT

Edwards has the best healthcare plan. Edwards has the most experience dealing with the healthcare industry as an advocate for ordinary people (and yes I know he made lots of money that way but tell me which of the candidates hasn't managed to make piles of money) against the for profit insurers.

Obama, not so much and Hillary Clinton is getting tons of money in contributions from the health insurance corporations who aren't in the habit of supporting people they can't count on to serve their interests.

Edwards plan lets people keep private insurance but makes an extended medicare option so attractive for average Americans, it basically creates single payer for those for whom that's the best deal which includes most of us, who have no portability even if we like our present employer based plans.

Hillary Clinton wants a cosmetic tweak or two to business as usual. Obama's isn't as coherent but he would probably be a better bet to move in the right direction than Clinton. Of all the candidates, none is more invested in business as usual than Clinton on the war, healthcare and trade agreements.

For all those who like things the way they are but would appreciate a little more competence, she's your girl. for those who want fundamental change, a fresh approach AND competence, not so much. Go Edwards.

More Krugman vs. Obama

JStipich, Perry, OH — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:20:37 GMT

The average American voter is common sense and centrist, and if they weren't currently too busy working to afford day care and bills and Xmas gifts and health care they might be reading this blogger and saying "Whose Paul Krugman ?" What matters to most people is education, health care, jobs, and safety for our kids. The Progressives are as out of touch with the average voter as the far right. The Progressive bloggers are AFRAID to support any candidate because they were disappointed last time with Howard Dean. Move on and get over it. We have problems that need to be solved and Obama has the common sense, the judgement and the vision to help us solve them.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bee — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:21:10 GMT

Obama is calculating with his negative attacks on his opponents and anyone who dares to disagree or question him.

Obama shows a lot of sizzle but very little steak.

John Jay
----------------------------------------------
You are not a regular on this blog, thus, i won't take your comment about Obama seriously.

Did you read the Nytimes article I posted above? The answer to your question is inside that article. I'll take "Hope" to "Nixonian" attitude.

Perhaps, I should ask you this question, got hope?

More Krugman vs. Obama

Barclay KY — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:28:29 GMT

Bee,
I'll help out John Jay. I had read your stated article last week in the NY TImes.
I got a good laugh out of Ms. Seelye's statement that American Enterprise Institute is a non partisan group. Got a good laugh out of that one. Check that group out Bee.
The other quoted source about Mr. Obama's health plan was from Austin Goolsbee who is a senior economic advisor for the Obama campaign, hardly a non partisan person.
I'm not sure I understand what your point is. Are you using these sources to prove that Obama's ill advised health care plan is strong?
If so, please "convince" us with better sources than Obama's inside men.

More Krugman vs. Obama

MK, Los Angeles, California — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:29:08 GMT

"They are only unnecessary until you need them MK"
Peter

Peter please read the NY Times editorial from two weeks ago. It explains, perhaps better than I can, that use of CAT scans and MRIs do not result in net health benefit outcomes than other procedures (and no I'm not saying that they are always unnecessary). Our system, however, is geared toward people seeking what they want rather than perhaps what they need (I will confess that I myself would choose to take an MRI over some other less costly diagnostic tool that would serve the same purpose). Basically the point of the editorial is that you cannot have your cake (allowing use of sophisticated, costly procedures in situations when they will provide little net health outcome benefit) and eat it too (low cost health care).

More Krugman vs. Obama

John Jay — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:32:07 GMT

Sorry it took so long, Bee, I was reading your "source" in the NY Times. I sent back a comment but do not know if it got through. If not I'll resend it.

Since I'm not a regular on this post you will not take me seriously. Is this your own little personal playground and decenting opinions are not welcomed?

Very democratic of you Bee (Obama supporter)

More Krugman vs. Obama

jose, new york, ny — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:32:51 GMT

Anytime someone questions Obama's potions, Obama takes a Bush-like approach. Obama acts as if he is above criticism and reprimands the person for daring to question is holiness.

More Krugman vs. Obama

John Jay — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:39:54 GMT

In case my comment did not get posted.

Bee,
I read your article in the NY TIMES back on December 5.
First of all I have read articles by Seelye. No one could ever accuse her of being non partisan.
Second, she quotes Joseph Antos of AMERICAN ENTERPRISE GROUP...A NON PARTISIN GROUP. Bee, have you actually checked out this group. Non Partisan my foot.
Third, Austin Goolsbee is as stated in the article, A SENIOR ADVISOR FOR ECONOMICS FOR THE OBAMA CAMPAIGN. Hardly non partisan
When I saw your sources, I discounted any real truthfulness in their comments. If this is your biggie source for showing that Obama's health care plan is not weak, you got to do better than that, Bee.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Jack, Cambridge, MA — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:41:28 GMT

Oh, goodness me, not the bloggers!

Considering they've never elected anyone (Dean, Hackett, Lamont, anyone? And spare me on Tester - he won because Burns was nuts), Obama shouldn't care a lick.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Dickie Flatts, Charlotte, NC — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:46:56 GMT

Obama better play nice with Krugman. Obama base - the limo libs, Ivy League grads, and the Camry crowd on campus - love Krugman.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Yiannis, Baltimore — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:50:53 GMT

Hillary Clinton Said That An Individual Mandate For Health Insurance Coverage Would "Create Additional Problems," Lead to Arbitrary Cut-Offs for Eligibility, And Require the IRS to Oversee Our Health Care System. In a speech to the Group Health Association of America, Clinton said that "The individual mandate...create[s] some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system." [Speech to the Group Health Association of America, 2/15/94]

More Krugman vs. Obama

MK, Baltimore, Maryland — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:52:34 GMT

It's okay, Bee - John Jay's other comments indicate he's here to attack Obama, not to have a real discussion. People like John Jay and Paul Krugman do not want to acknowledge that there are no "quick fixes" to anything because that would require their actual, long-term participation in our democracy.

Apparently (and quite sadly), even after 8 years of Bush lies, they'd rather accept sugar-coated promises from folks like Hillary who have not explained how their mandates actually could be enforced 100% (because they can't be). I'd rather have a plan like Obama's that can continue to be tailored to eventually fit 100% of people, rather than a plan that will never ever fit 100% of people.

Let's be realistic - no plan will provide a simple "fix" to health care. That would require that we recognize that most problems in America are interdependent on one another, requiring us to have a multi-faceted approach to problem-solving. This is why Obama is the only one who can claim the term "universal" because his approach is indeed "universal" in the sense that he recognizes this interdependency of issues and that progress on education or employment rights or immigration also will have an effect on our ability to "fix" health care. Moreover, his plans actively take into account this interdependency, and do not simply give lip-service to them.

The worst part of this is that Paul Krugman, as others here have said, thinks he has a monopoly on progressive thought. But, in fact, I don't think Paul realizes what it actually means to be a progressive: to create common sense policies that can be carried out practically to serve MOST people. Or, rather, to see that change is necessary to get something DONE.

According to Krugman, Obama's honest acknowledgement that there is no "quick fix" to a problem and thus his refusal to appease people with plans that won't actually work makes Obama a "right winger." There are so many problems with that statement that it's probably not worth addressing.

But, Krugman's ease with such accusations says something about the sad state of what America in general considers leadership. People like Krugman have argued since Bush got elected that all they want is someone with some integrity, and then when they get him, they don't know how not to nit-pick and make a mess of someone who overall is a great candidate. If we elect another self-serving, superficial liar, then we have no one to blame but ourselves, and those among us like Krugman who use their infotainment status to project lies onto others and ruin the integrity of our entire political discourse.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bee, NH — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:59:26 GMT

John Jay,

Since you are too lazy to do your own due diligence, I guess I’ll have to do it for you. Pay attention to Hillary's record since 1993 and the tone she is taking now.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Individual Mandate Hillary Clinton Opposed in 1993 Is the Same Individual Mandate She Supports Now. "Hillary Clinton has now introduced Health Care 2.0, and - lo and behold! - it is a direct descendant of the plan she chose not to support in 1993...[In an interview] Clinton said the models for her current proposal were the 1993 Republican plan and the individual-mandate plan passed in Massachusetts by former Governor Mitt Romney. She said one of her top health care advisers, Laurie Rubiner, worked on both the Chafee and Massachusetts plans." The article noted that supporting an individual mandate is "a big change for the Clintonistas," since in 1993, Clinton "railed" against individual mandates. [Time, 9/20/07]

FLASHBACK: 1993
Hillary Clinton Said That An Individual Mandate For Health Insurance Coverage Would "Create Additional Problems," Lead to Arbitrary Cut-Offs for Eligibility, And Require the IRS to Oversee Our Health Care System. In a speech to the Group Health Association of America, Clinton said that "The individual mandate...create[s] some additional problems, at least as we analyze them. It makes it very difficult to determine and monitor who is in the system and who is out. It would require tracking individuals as they move in and out of jobs, as they move in and out of the insurance market. And it would mean, if you provided a subsidy scheme to support low-wage individuals, a determination as to when their income reached some arbitrary level as to what kind of subsidy they would still be entitled to. It would require, in our view, the IRS to engage in an enormous administrative oversight of our health care system." [Speech to the Group Health Association of America, 2/15/94]

Clinton Said An Individual Mandate Might Not Work; Pointed to Example of Mandatory Auto Insurance. In her speech to the Group Health Association of America, Clinton pointed to mandatory auto insurance requirements as a reason why the individual mandate might not work. She said, "[T]he only examples we have of individual mandates are those like auto insurance requirements in many states where, in spite of the fact that the state has access to all drivers through the licensing process, literally thousands and even hundreds of thousands of drivers remain uninsured in states with such an individual mandate." [Speech to the Group Health Association of America, 2/15/94]

Hillary Clinton Said She Opposed an Individual Mandate Because It Would Disrupt Employment Patterns. Clinton said, "We concluded that amongst the alternatives that are available, which include either a very large tax that would replace private sector investment, or an individual mandate which would put the entire responsibility on the individual, and we are concerned disrupt employment patterns now, particularly those that provide insurance, that therefore the best way is to take what we know, what Americans are familiar with, and make it better, make it fairer and make everyone within it responsible." [CNN, 9/29/93]

Hillary Clinton Said She Opposed an Individual Mandate Because Employers Would Stop Insuring, Knowing That People Would Fall Into the Subsidy Pool. Clinton said, "Although we very much applaud the Senate Republican approach of making sure we reach universal coverage and choosing an individual mandate as the route to get there, we have several worries that we will be working with the Senate Republicans on to make sure we fully understand their approach over the next several weeks. Among those worries are that if we have a legislatively required individual mandate, we worry that the numbers of people who currently are insured through their employment will decrease, because there will no longer be any reason for many employers who have struggled to ensure their workers, particularly those whose incomes are not significant, to feel that responsibility, because by failing to insure, the individuals will be mandated to have insurance, and individuals below a certain level of income will become the government's responsibility. They will fall into the subsidy pool. It's very to predict how many or at what rate that would possibly increase the number of uninsured, but we worry that that would be one of the unintended consequences." [Hearing Of The Senate Finance Committee, 9/30/93]

Hillary Clinton Said She Opposed an Individual Mandate Because It would be Difficult to Administer the Bureaucratic System. Clinton said, "Unlike the existing employer-employee system, we have great concerns about how the administrative structure to track the individual contribution, to collect it, and to then connect it with health insurance would be set up. In our efforts to try to work with Treasury, and OMB and others to create that individual subsidy system, it struck us as extremely complicated and bureaucratic, and also maybe more intrusive, because instead of the employer-employee transaction, with the money coming in, individuals would have to perhaps show their income tax returns, they'd have to have their income tracked because they would either be up or below the subsidy level at certain periods or certain years. So we believe it would be much more difficult to administer the individual mandate system." [Hearing Of The Senate Finance Committee, 9/30/93]

NPR: Clinton White House Opposed Individual Mandate Because of "Overwhelming Public Distaste." Mara Liasson reported, "The White House is betting that if universal coverage can be established as non-negotiable by all parties, then the debate becomes which mandate- individual or employer, can best achieve it. Then the White House figures the overwhelming public distaste for an individual mandate will help it win the argument. To that end, the first lady has declared another plan, the one proposed by conservative Democrat Jim Cooper, unacceptable. As Cooper explains, his plan doesn't require individuals or employers to buy health care and it sees universal coverage as something that will have to wait." [NPR, 11/20/93]

Bottom line, I trust Obama on healthcare coverage compare to Hillary Clinton.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bee — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:06:26 GMT

I'm not sure I understand what your point is. Are you using these sources to prove that Obama's ill advised health care plan is strong?
If so, please "convince" us with better sources than Obama's inside men

----------------------------------------------------

I don't need to convince you any further because folks like you and John Jay think you own the monopoly of ideas. Another loosing proposition from the democrats; I wonder when they’re going to learn.

I hope real democrats are not thinking this way; our way or no other way.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Ron, TX — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:07:04 GMT

All this spin coming from the Clinton factions on this blog is just absolutely disgusting. How can someone have absolutely zero respect for truth and policy and yet still be following the primaries so closely? It's vile and sickening how far Clinton and her followers are willing to go. All of this hatred and bickering has GOT to end. Look at what Clinton inspires in people! Hate! Rediculous arguments! Lies! Deception! Sick.

"Whatever it takes" really is Clinton's secret slogan.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:11:55 GMT

More Krugman vs. Obama

Worried — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:12:14 GMT

You may think this is racist, but it isn't it is the TRUTH. You know when the Jena six were defended by the black leaders with no regard to the WHITE VICTIM who was beaten. The White women who was beaten in Maryland by the black teenagers. Nothing heard about this swept under the rug. Do we really want a Black President who will not represent all Americans only those of his race. What will happen when we object to any of his policies or any decisions we don't like are we going to be called Racist.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:12:41 GMT

Ron

The hatred and bickering I see most often come from people AGAINST Hillary, not people supporting Hillary. Look in the mirror sometime.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:18:57 GMT

Obama is weak on healthcare, his plan only benefits insurance companies anyways.

So far I like Ron Paul's plan the best.
This is it, if anyone is interested.

The federal government decided long ago that it knew how to manage your health care better than you and replaced personal responsibility and accountability with a system that puts corporate interests first. Our free market health care system that was once the envy of the world became a federally-managed disaster.

Few people realize that Congress forced Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) on us. HMOs rose to prominence through federal legislation, incentives, and coercion.

Now, the Food and Drug Administration's bias toward large pharmaceutical companies enlarges their power, limits treatment options, and drives consumers to seek Canadian medicines. Regulations from D.C. make it virtually impossible for small business owners to cover their employees. The unemployed often cannot afford insurance, meaning those who need basic medical attention overcrowd emergency rooms and drive up premiums.

The federal government will not suddenly become efficient managers if universal health care is instituted. Government health care only means long waiting periods, lack of choice, poor quality, and frustration. Many Canadians, fed up with socialized medicine, come to the U.S. in order to obtain care. Socialized medicine will not magically work here.

Health care should not be left up to HMOs, big drug companies, and government bureaucrats.

It is time to take back our health care. This is why I support:

Making all medical expenses tax deductible.
Eliminating federal regulations that discourage small businesses from providing coverage.
Giving doctors the freedom to collectively negotiate with insurance companies and drive down the cost of medical care.
Making every American eligible for a Health Savings Account (HSA), and removing the requirement that individuals must obtain a high-deductible insurance policy before opening an HSA.
Reform licensure requirements so that pharmacists and nurses can perform some basic functions to increase access to care and lower costs.

By removing federal regulations, encouraging competition, and presenting real choices, we can make our health care system the envy of the world once again.

More Krugman vs. Obama

jerry/corpus christi texas — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:19:35 GMT

Ron

The hatred and bickering I see most often come from people AGAINST Hillary, not people supporting Hillary. Look in the mirror sometime.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, December 10, 2007 2:12 PM)

That's because with every misstep she makes....
she opens herself up to more problems.......

More Krugman vs. Obama

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:24:32 GMT

MK from LA wrote, "Basically the point of the editorial is that you cannot have your cake (allowing use of sophisticated, costly procedures in situations when they will provide little net health outcome benefit) and eat it too (low cost health care)."

Yeah, and all of the ethical drug ads only compound this problem; not to mention using antibiotics on viral diseases. The question to me about these tests is, who decides? Should it be the doctor or the insurance company?

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bee — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:25:26 GMT

Ah yes...yet another day of Obama can do no wrong and should not be questioned. It's like the Post Office - no matter what the weather, you can always depend on First Read to provide a hearty dose of hypocrisy.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa

---------------------------------------------------
You don't have a proof and quit using the talking point. Obama is not immune from criticism but stop denting his character when in fact there is none.

It is okay for candidates to point out the difference in policy but to call his character questionable is baloney in my opinion.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Wayne, Silver Spring, MD — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:25:27 GMT

Krugman is being either intelectually dishonest or biased!

The fact is: In 1993, Republicans wanted individual mandates. They wanted to ensure that if every American was receiving universal healthcare, that the insurance companies were getting a piece of the pie. In 1993, Democrats were attacking individual mandates from the left by saying that, wait for it, the government would be forcing you to buy healthcare insurance that you may not be able to afford.

Who was leading that charge? Hillary Rodham Clinton. From the left.

------

He's using the very right wing talk point to attack Obama, which I find extremely unfortunate.

More Info: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/10/116/99540

More Krugman vs. Obama

Steve Daytona Beach — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:34:23 GMT

Congratulations to all those that are finally starting to wake up and question this "Obama-mania"! There was a time when you would come to this Obama Daily Press Release site (AKA FirstRead) and you would find nothing of substance, just people attacking Hillary. Today we find things to be a little different, and oh my!, have you got the Obamaniacs up in arms! True to their typical behavior, which I can only assume is learned from their idol, they do not attack the message, they attack the messenger, they do not defend, with any substance, their position on issues, they attack those opposing the issues. Through all of the attacks, mudslinging, PHONY and biased media, and republican playbook tactics, only one candidate has stood strong and defended every position she stood for...Hillary Clinton! Now if we can only get the rest of these Obama supporters to wake up from their drug-induced fog, the world will become a better place and America will once again be at the forefront.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:34:44 GMT

The Obama campaign's response to the Krugman criticism is fair. Shouldn't they do every thing in their power to defend their candidate? What did cause his change in opinion?? Doesn't anyone else find that the least bit odd? Carrie, I also see a lot of hate and bickering coming from the anti-Obama faction on this blog. Also, you're incorrect Obama can and will make mistakes. He's only human. There's absolutely noting wrong in wanting a president who makes you believe in the process again. I think that's what Obama does for a lot of people. That's what Bill Clinton did for people at one time as well, but he squandered it on a lot of silliness. Hillary is no Bill and while I think she's capable in smart--she doesn't exactly inspire people. You almost get the impression that she does somehow feel that she is owed the presidence or at least the democratic nomination. Back in 2000---she knew she would be running probably in 2008. Obama didn't. Although I'm sure he's had presidenital aspriations, I truly believe he didn't expect to be running now. There's been a tremendous amount of support for him and in politics you often have to strke while the iron is hot.

More Krugman vs. Obama

CitizenJ — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:47:12 GMT

Carrie,

I know you have problems with a lot of Obama supporters, but what do you think of Obama the candidate? Or Clinton the candidate?

More Krugman vs. Obama

betty in baltimore — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:58:50 GMT

Krugman lost me on this one. I don't think he's being intellectually serious or fair. Maybe this is how the GOP feels with his usual comments.

Obama's plan is a good plan and heads in the right direction.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Sierra, SF — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:04:10 GMT

Bee: '...How many people listen to these guys again? Sorry, I don’t even know who they are. The last time I checked, they are part of the establishment that are singing “hail the queen”...'

Actually, Bee Paul Krugman has been a LION on economics.
He's been real outspokken against Bush's economic policies.

But, this seems like a tea pot tempest...
It's almost like the 'Big Endians' and the 'Little Endians' in Gulliver's Travels
(Which side do we open an egg from?)
It seems like obscure technical differences in the Health Care packages.

Do we need manadates ?
I don't know...
Is there a REAL difference in the plans ?
Clinton, Obama or Edwards ?
I'd guess that Edwards' plan is probably the best..
But, I really don't know

Do any of these posters know ?
It's doubtful....
Must be a close race, huh ?

More Krugman vs. Obama

Chuck, San D — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:07:06 GMT

FR, could you be more biased for obama...you all hopoing for a republican president?

More Krugman vs. Obama

Sierra, SF — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:18:44 GMT

Steve Daytona Beach: '... Now if we can only get the rest of these Obama supporters to wake up from their drug-induced fog, the world will become a better place...'

Thanks for that insight Steve...
You make a lot of sense
Have you considered a career in Philosophy ?

...someone to rule us,
someone to fool us,
We want you Hillary

Someone to beat us,
Someone to cheat us,
We want you Hillary ....

The cuckolded wife of a doshonest mediocre President
Now, that's experience !!

More Krugman vs. Obama

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:21:00 GMT

When did simply reporting how things happen become Pro-Obama?? For the most part First Read is quite fair and balanced--to steal a catch phrase from another network. People, let's stop with the Pro-Obama and Anti-Hillary stuff!! First Read is neither!!

More Krugman vs. Obama

Mark, NC — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:31:16 GMT

The hatred and bickering I see most often come from people AGAINST Hillary, not people supporting Hillary. Look in the mirror sometime.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Monday, December 10, 2007 2:12 PM)

I've noticed any time Hillary is injected into a conversation or blog, the hate meter is off the charts. Look at blogs that do not have Hillary in it and the negative talk is very tolerable. Hmmmm....

More Krugman vs. Obama

jo, LA, CA — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:33:06 GMT

As an economist, i know that Paul Krugman owned his reputation in economics circles to his work on trade and monetary economics. On Health Economics, i wouldn't based my judgment on what he says.
Professor Krugman is doing a disservice to economic sciences when he becomes an ideologist. In economics we have therotical evidences and empirical evidences. You build a theory, but your theory is only validated if it has been confronted to facts. We have an empirical case in MA which shows the difficulty to impose a mandate and worse the fact that it doesn't guarantee any lowering of the costs. The Hillary plan is based on the German system, just as in MA they have exempted millions of people from the mandate. So when i hear all the mandate cheerleaders, saying that without the mandate free-riders will rush to E-rooms and past their costs to the taxpayers, i want to know who will have to pay for the 20% exempted from the mandate in MA. I will like also to do a little bit of Economics history here. True left liberals have never been advocates of mandating people to buy private insurance. This idea was first developed in theory by Milton Friedman, who is hardly a leftist. It is amazing today to see progressives championing Milton Friedman ideas. Real left leaning economists have always been for a single payer system. If you want real universality, then it has to be a single payer system, this has been confirmed by empirical evidences (statistics). The Journal of Health affairs has done a tremendous job by publishing studies on the rate of compliance of mandates. The conclusion says that the rate of compliance is around 85% average even with large subsidies. For the free rider problem. It can be solved without a mandate. The claim that a mandate is necessary to prevent free riding under a policy of community rating and must-issue is false. The free rider problem could be addressed by imposing a penalty on those who fail to purchase insurance if they purchase it later in order to make a claim. That would preserve the right of individuals to choose for themselves whether to buy insurance without giving them a free ride if they subsequently decide to buy it because they get sick. You can say here that this penalty has the same effect as a mandate, however there is difference here. the penalty would only be imposed on those individuals who would otherwise receive the free rider benefit from making a claim. A mandate, in contrast, imposes a cost regardless of claims.
Here is another inconvenient truth. In the 47 millions uninsured, 12 millions are undocumented. No mandate will cover these people. It will cripple our public budget and our homeland security resources if we allocate our financial and human resources to round them and send them home. It is much more realist to put these people on a path to citizenship, make them come out from the shadows. They'll pay taxes by that paying their share on the public goods spent on them

More Krugman vs. Obama

ace p washington, d.c. — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:51:43 GMT

like to make a point. hillary says that obama's plan leaves 15 million uncovered. let's look at this without bias. first of all krugman did have good things to say originally. a candidate should be able to include a complete statement not a partial.

so many say the media needs to be fair. krugman wasn't being fair.

next how many obama's plan may not cover has no basis of proof. it so far is hillary's statements backed by people that served her husband and those that have contributed to her campaign that are a part of the oh so powerful health lobby.

hillary won't say what her health plan is. she has said she would put together a bipartisan commision to solve that problem. is this a plan to compare to obama's. absolutely not. she is not giving the clinton supporters one piece of substance on this issue.

next. hillary and john say they will mandate insurance and obama's won't cover everyone because it is not mandated.

let's take a look at this. if a 55 to 70 year old person or a moderate income family is forced by law (mandating)to pay insurance and they have something occur that lessens their income for a short period of time, what happens to them?

1)do they pay the mandated insurance or the keep the lights on?
2)do they buy less groceries or pay the mandated insurance?
3)do they tell their child to stay in college or skip a semester so they can pay the mandated insurance?
4)do they repair the car or take the bus to work so they can pay the mandated insurance?
5)more importantly. if they can't afford the premium, do they get a $250., $500. or $1000. fine, a summons to court with a possible misdemeanor going on their record?
6)are they now a criminal because they have to go to court because of a mandate that guarantees a definite source of profit to the health industry?

there are people that can't afford mandated health insurance. they will be forced not to pay at times because of financial burdens.

the only way the health insurance will accept amandated federally sponsored national health insurance plan is if the goverment secure the forced coverage. when someone can't pay that premium the health lobby will get paid no matter what. it will be your tax dollar covering that federal security blanket on healthcare.

mandating is an idea of the health lobby not hillary's or john's. if you go back far enough and check you can find out where the concept for mandating originated. it wasn't a light bulbb that went of in john's or hillary's head. this idea originated in the last clnton administration. it didn't work because republicans didn't want to add to the national budget the cost to insure the health industry's mandate.

the health lobby is one of hillary's longest and biggest contributor's don't take my word for it. research it yourself.

what obama is proposing is making insurance companies provide affordable insurance based upon income and federal subsidies through negotiations with the health, pharmacuetical and insurance companies.

question is this: is a individual or family more likely to pay an insurance if they can afford it or is legally mandated to do so?

i will give you a hint.

automotive insurance is legally mandated by every state in the nation. their are millions that don't pay that insurance because they can't afford it 12 months of the year or not at all. each state has a fund that will reimburse a driver that has been a victim of an accident with an uninsured driver. this fund is funded through taxes. thus the growing increases or the want to increase taxes to cover such little known funds.

imagine the tax increases natioally as person's and families can't afford mandated insurance, but are still visiting emergency rooms. hold on to your pockets. you have not begun to realize what you are supporting when you think mandated heathcare is doing you justice.

the only one's smiling and jumping for joy at the possibility of mandated insurance is the complete health industry as a whole.

i'm sorry. don't pee down my back and tell me it is raining.

do your research.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Yiannis, Baltimore — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:54:10 GMT

Carrie in case you missed it, Clinton sent people in Indonesia to search whether Obama is a Muslim and was royally debunked.

Still two Iowa volunteers have been sending hate mail that Obama is muslim.

And you call Obama divisive?

More Krugman vs. Obama

Rick, WS, NC — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:54:29 GMT

The problem with the healthcare system is that you guys who have employer or gooberment paid insurance are not real consumers...you are welfare queens paying a small fraction of your total cost and you don't want any changes because then you might have to pay more or god forbid take responsibility...welfare queens

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bob, NY, NY — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:57:04 GMT

Funny how the Obama people don't see this as an attack but when the Edwards people questioned what Oprah's endorsement would do for South Carolina the Obama supporters flipped out.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bailey Grant, Iowa — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:03:50 GMT

<start>

Carrie in case you missed it, Clinton sent people in Indonesia to search whether Obama is a Muslim and was royally debunked.

Still two Iowa volunteers have been sending hate mail that Obama is muslim.

And you call Obama divisive?

<end>

Recall the Clintons had "something" in thier back pocket regarding Obama's "sorid" background. Turns out it was his kindergarden essay. But the Clinton's in an effort to continue their trend of making things up, came up with the Muslim story. Of course, it's campaign volunteers that send out the e-mail, but we kind of know who is really behind the idea.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Marbw — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:21:47 GMT

Why is HRC stooping So Low?
By Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor during President Bill Clinton's Administration)

I'm becoming increasingly concerned about the stridency and inaccuracy of charges in Iowa -- especially coming from my old friend. While I'm as hard-boiled as they come about what's said in campaigns, I just don't think Dems should stoop to this. First, HRC attacked O's plan for keep Social Security solvent. Social Security doesn't need a whole lot to keep it going - it's in far better shape than Medicare - but everyone who's looked at it agrees it will need bolstering (I was a trustee of the Social Security Trust Fund ten years ago, and I can vouch for this). Obama wants to do it by lifting the cap on the percent of income subject to Social Security payroll taxes, which strikes me as sensible. That cap is now close to $98,000 (it's indexed), and the result is highly regressive. (Bill Gates satisfies his yearly Social Security obligations a few minutes past midnight on January 1 every year.) The cap doesn't have to be lifted all that much to keep Social Security solvent - maybe to $115,00. That's a progressive solution to the problem. HRC wants to refer Social Security to a commission. That's avoiding the issue, and it's irresponsible: A commission will likely call either for raising the retirement age (that's what Greenspan's Social Security commission came up with in the 1980s) or increasing the payroll tax on all Americans. So when HRC charges that Obama's plan would "raise taxes" and her plan wouldn't, she's simply not telling the truth.

I'm equally concerned about her attack on his health care plan. She says his would insure fewer people than hers. I've compared the two plans in detail. Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help - including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance - and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated - that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so. HRC doesn't indicate how she'd enforce her mandate, and I can't find enough money in HRC's plan to help all those who won't be able to afford to buy it. I'm also impressed by the up-front investments in information technology in O's plan, and the reinsurance mechanism for coping with the costs of catastrophic illness. HRC is far less specific on both counts. In short: They're both advances, but O's is the better of the two. HRC has no grounds for alleging that O's would leave out 15 million people.

Yesterday, HRC suggested O lacks courage. 'There's a big difference between our courage and our convictions, what we believe and what we're willing to fight for,' she told reporters in Iowa, saying Iowa voters will have a choice 'between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who's walked the walk.' Then asked whether she intended to raise questions about O's character, she said: 'It's beginning to look a lot like that.'

I just don't get it. If there's anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it's Barack Obama. HRC's campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she's been doing.

All is fair in love, war, and politics. But this series of slurs doesn't serve HRC well. It will turn off voters in Iowa, as in the rest of the country. If she's worried her polls are dropping, this is not the way to build them back up."

More Krugman vs. Obama

Marbw — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:26:10 GMT

Fact Check: Why The Obama Health Insurance Plan Covers More People More Rapidly Than The Clinton Plan Does
November 30, 2007

TO: Interested Parties FR: Austan Goolsbee, Jeffrey Liebman DA: November 29, 2007 RE: Why the Obama health insurance plan covers more people more rapidly than the Clinton plan does As we get closer to the Iowa Caucuses, the first casualty... Read More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fact Check: Clinton's False Attack on Obama's Health Care Plan
November 28, 2007

CLINTON ATTACK: "He has called his plan universal, then he called it 'virtually universal,' but it simply does not deserve the label," said the New York senator. "When it comes to truth in labeling, his plan simply flunks the test."... Read More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fact Check: Clinton Opposed an Individual Mandate in 1993
November 28, 2007

The Individual Mandate Hillary Clinton Opposed in 1993 Is the Same Individual Mandate She Supports Now. "Hillary Clinton has now introduced Health Care 2.0, and - lo and behold! - it is a direct descendant of the plan she chose... Read More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fact Check: Without An Enforcement Mechanism, Clinton's 'Mandate' is Optional
November 25, 2007

Obama's Health Care Plan Saves Families and the Health Care System More 'The American people are looking for a President who's honest about the challenges we face, and that's why it's unfortunate that Senator Clinton continues to misrepresent Senator Obama's... Read More
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fact Check: Clinton's False Claim that She Provides Universal Health Care Coverage
November 20, 2007

RHETORIC: "Any health care plan that leaves 15 million Americans uninsured cannot be considered universal. And that's a very big difference," said Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elleithee. [Des Moines Register, 11/20/07] REALITY: "MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber, one of Clinton's... Read More

click here for info:
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/category/

More Krugman vs. Obama

jo, LA, CA — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 21:30:43 GMT

To Rick,

I'm no that young but i care about imposing a regressive tax on our younger generation, not those who work at wall street, but those who are coming out from college today with a student loan who takes a toll on their income. when i look at how a mandate was implemented in MA. They exempted 20% of the insured. So those who are paying are paying twice. They pay their premiums and with their taxes are paying for the 20%. I'll add that the 20% were exempted because they couldn't afford health insurance even with a mandate. So a mandate is not solving the main issue which is affordability.
Also, I'll add that in economic circles there is a growing sense of worry because of the generational gap in the finances of our welfare system. We may be the first generation who will leave less to the next one. Not only they will have less benefits from our welfare system than we do, but they will have to pay much more for the public expenses devoted to us than what we've paid for the generation proceeding us. As I've said before, nothing short of single payer will be truly universal. So let's drop the concept universal coverage for universal access, unless we have to courage to introduce a single payer system.

More Krugman vs. Obama

BIGOLDTEXAN — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:12:33 GMT

Obama health care plan rocks..............
You all know that this plan is the best that has come across.

HRC plan would/will hurt a lot of the low-income people.

Just as the mandated insurance plan for autos.
you can`t force someone to buy into something that they can not afford.

With low- income families its either eat, keep a roof over your family head & clothe the children.
As it is some of these families can barle do all threeof these and it is not all their fault.
Everyone can`t be as smart as some people to get the jobs/careers that can support the needs of a working
household. We can`t all be well off so that we don`t have to worry about such issues as health care for our families. Some just do get by, by not getting sick and when they do, well lets just say there is a system for that as well.

Health care should be affordable for everyone, and the insurance compaines are making way too much money off of us, hell half of the time they don`t even cover what you need to stay healthy or what the doctors recommends that you need.
I say stop fatting the insurance companies pocket and make them pay for what you are paying them for.
They just take, take & take and we get nothing but headaches trying to get the money we have put into their companies for our health out which makes each case that much worse.

Its time we changed that system and make the insurance compaines own up to their responsibilities.
and pay for our treatments.
Worse than car insurance where you don`t have an accident for five years and you get nothing back, but you have to have it or go to jail. Who is getting all that money?

It would be something to see if you didn`t have an car accident or get traffic tickets for the year, you would get something back from the insurance companies

Obama plan is a very good start to help those who needs it more.

Obama 08'

More Krugman vs. Obama

Chuck, San D — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:18:04 GMT

YiYi, why are you so childish..but then again you swallow all the muck BO sells you

More Krugman vs. Obama

B. Honest, Portland OR — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:19:09 GMT

If one were to bring in the single payer system, which I think that many of us agree is the only honest way of providing service to everyone fairly, would remove the worry about the guy showing up at the ER only when he badly needs it...he is automatically covered as a citizen with an ID and SS card...Everybody would be so covered, those with Social Security numbers and ID's...And automatically reduce the amount of money pouring out through the ratholes of the insurer's pockets!

More Krugman vs. Obama

CarmanK, Annapolis, MD — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:46:27 GMT

Any universal health plan offered by a democrat will serve far more people, more equitably, than any offered by a Republican candidate. Also, mandated health care does work. My husband has medicare and let met tell you, hospitals and doctors welcome Medicare patients. He will live after receiving a $48,000.00 bill for hospitalization and a pacemaker implant. The cost of which could have wiped out our savings. Any universal plan will change many times during the debate in Congress and the outcome will be very different than the proposal. I am not so worried about the details of the plans at this point, so much as the intent of the candidates to carry the issue into their presidency.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Dot, Illinois — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 23:05:20 GMT

Ron, TX

Come on now, I am not a supporter of Senator Clinton's but they are certainly not the only ones ones spewing forth vile and nasty comments. She has been called a traitor, a liar, her sexual preferences have been questioned, and you say the ugly remarks are coming only from her backers? Please, I have to say I have read far more trash about her on this site than about any other candidate. So, please let's be fair here and admit that some(not all) on both sides are guilty of some nasty stuff. As for me, I think its all unnecessary.

More Krugman vs. Obama

jo, LA, CA — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:06:51 GMT

To Carman,
Medicare is not a mandate. It is a variation of a single payer system. We have a single payer system for some of our citizen (seniors). Mandating people to buy private insurance when the affordability issue has not been solved is equivalent to piling on the poor. In MA to solve the issue of those who can not afford health insurance and therefore are less likely to pay a penalty. The have exempted 20% of the uninsured. Consequently, those who re paying for health insurance are also paying by their taxes for the 20%. This is bad policy, specially for young entrants on the labor market, not only they have to reimburse their college loans, they still have to secure their new job, they'll have to pay much more for social security and are less likely to have the same benefits that we have from the welfare system. It is a regressive tax on our young folks. The best system is not a mandate, it is a gift to insurance companies with no guarantee that prices will go down. A mandate on kids is tolerable and economically much fair than a mandate on adults. If we want universality, i has to be a single payer system. Anything else is just politics and not facts.

More Krugman vs. Obama

, Cape May NJ — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:43:52 GMT

Krugman and Hillary and their cronies are so used to opposition research and hardball, thy're liable to go after anyone. Watch out Barack!

I wonder how many campaign nasties on Democrats that Hillary has ready to launch? If she can't win she's liable to scorch-earth her whole party, like in New York. Andrew Cuomo, etc....

More Krugman vs. Obama

ace p washington, d.c. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:52:55 GMT

worried, can i ask you a question. how is that not being reported obama's fault? i am interested in your rationale as to how come you blame obama for the media reported these incidents.

More Krugman vs. Obama

ace p washington, d.c. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:00:07 GMT

to carrie, can you qualify your accusation please. not one obama supporter has made a racist comment. i have not decided who to support yet, but i am seeing an equal amount of ugliness and poison from both sides. there are some folks in this room that make their views and support for their candidate respectfully as well as tastefully. when it comes to ugliness i see both obama and hillary supporters that have shown the most ugly characteristics of our country.

the hillary supporters do have one top grade for ugliness that i noticed that only they own and that is the racist remarks they continually make. i don't get that. i think that is as mean and ugly as a person can get. i guess i am missing something. can you help me out?

More Krugman vs. Obama

Bloomington, IL. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:14:52 GMT

I have lived in Illinois all of my life. Believe me Obama is not a GOOD SENATOR for Illinois. He refuses to listen to the citizens of Illinois. Illinois has one the highest populations for illegal aliens and he loves them. He is also in love with businesses that hire them. He certainly has not had our interest at heart only his pocketbook and political ambitions.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Jesse, Burnsville, MN — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 02:59:30 GMT

Maybe the reason there is so much implied hatred when Clinton is mentioned is because Hillary IS hated (in fact, by 50% of the country).

Out of all the candidates, Republican or Democrat, Hillary is by far the most divisive. Seems like a great candidate to heal our country. Yeah right!

More Krugman vs. Obama

Denny, Alaska — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 07:39:20 GMT

You know you might be in deep political doo-doo when you're calling upon the likes of Paul Krugman to offer cover for one of your main policy planks.

Sheesh.

More Krugman vs. Obama

ace p washington,d.c. — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:46:04 GMT

medicare and universal healhcare aren't the same thing.

More Krugman vs. Obama

Peter, Pittsburgh, PA — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 14:56:19 GMT

jo of LA wrote, "The best system is not a mandate, it is a gift to insurance companies with no guarantee that prices will go down."

Whether by universal one payer coverage or by mandated multipayer coverage it is most important that everybody be covered. Why? Because of contagious diseases. A person who has a contagious disease and doesn't get prompt treatment because of the lack of insurance is a danger to the rest of the population. Germs don't care if you're rich or poor. It looks, however, like the GOP and a large part of the Democratic Party are opposed to both one payer and mandatory coverage.