The money quote:
If you combine the economic analysis with these political realities, here’s what I think it says: If Mrs. Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance — nobody knows how big — that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Mr. Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.
Read the whole thing here.
Technorati Tags: Hillary Clinton
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Krugman really has it in for Sen. Obama, doesn’t he?
Actually, I don’t think so. I think he’s trying to give folks the information to make an informed decision.
I don´t know. Sometimes I think that the best thing of Krugman´s column is that it means he can´t be hired by a Democratic Administration… 😉
I’ll be voting for Obama!
Vivian,
Take a look through Krugman’s columns from the last few months and the Obama campaign’s responses. Quite a feud they’ve got going. Good information tends to be difficult to come by in most of Krugman’s columns.
Krugman is not simiply “trying to give folks the information to make an informed decision.” (I’m sorry but thats pretty lame)
The tone and tenor of his article have been out right attacks accusing Obama of being a Krugman is not simply “trying to give folks the information to make an informed decision.” (I’m sorry but thats pretty lame)
The tone and tenor of his article have been out right attacks accusing Obama of being a Reagan worshiping right winger. worshiping right winger.
Here is some counter to Krugman (but I doubt Hillary supporters will actually read these)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-pollack/an-open-letter-to-paul-kr_b_84952.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/healthcare-demogoguery_b_85531.html
But more importantly I want to know why some Democrats want to run Hillary Clinton, the Senator with largest amount of earmarks last year, against the man who personifies pork busting!!!
And not only that, but:
“Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-earmarks10dec10,1,6720618.story?track=rss&ctrack=2&cset=true
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notion?pid=205270
for some crazy reason some Democrats think it is a good idea to run the one Senator with the largest amount of earmarks last year against the man who personifies pork busting!!! Its crazy. And get this Clinton takes campaign contributions FROM THE ENTITIES FOR WHOM SHE GETS THE EARMARKS:
“Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.”
I wondered how long it would take for the Hillary haters to show up. Instead of discussing the health care plans, y’all would rather talk about other stuff.
The Super Tuesday exit polls identified the economy as the number 1 issue among voters and health care as #2.
See, that’s the problem I have with the Obama folks. Instead of telling folks why their guy is better on the issues that matter to the voters, y’all want to attack.
Well, Clinton’s sure going to have to go on the attack against McCain — she loses on issues and experience.
MB,
Anyone who reads Krugman’s columns objectively realizes that when he strays from his bailiwick, he can be borderline incoherent. Heck, even when sticking to economics he predicted six or seven recessions that didn’t happen since 2001.
The main difference between the two plans as I understand it is that Clinton puts mandates on the front-end of her proposal, whereas Obama puts affordability first and leaves the door open to instituting mandates on the back-end.
Politically, it is much easier to require that 3-5% of the population buy health care, than it is to mandate that 18% of the population to buy health care (especially if costs are not reduced in the first place — in Massachusetts for example, even after mandates where instituted costs went up 12% in the first year — half of the uninsured still remain uninsured).
Realistically, I think Obama’s plan will be a much easier sell than Clinton’s plan. I think his analysis is right too. The issue isn’t that uninsured Americans don’t want health care, the issue is that people can’t afford coverage (which is why a person would get a health care policy with a $10,000 deductible).
If the focus is first on getting costs down — something that can be done through investments in technology and streamlining the approvals process, as well as having the government assume some responsibility for catastrophic health-care costs — then health insurance will be at a place where those who want it can purchase it. His proposal also doesn’t put money into enforcement costs on the front end, which would be a necessary part of any true mandated system. It’s a lot cheaper to have an enforcement infrastructure in place for 3-5% of the population than it is for the approximately 18% who do not currently carry insurance.
I agree with Krugman on many things — especially on the goal of universal health care — but I think he is absolutely wrong on this one. I think he is also misreading the reasons underlying the high rate of uninsured Americans (e.g. his assumption seems to be that people don’t want it, so they aren’t buying it, which drives up premiums for those who really need insurance. I think there’s probably a large part of the population who really need and want insurance, but who simply can’t afford it at the current levels).
Looks like the Obama people can’t see the forest for the trees ; both seasoned astute ex-senator adn senator Edwards and Clinton want Universal Healthcare. The upstart who maybe doesn’t know as much…after all Obama was oinly sworn into the US senate Jan of 2005.