home

Krugman's Absurd Column On the Baucus Bill

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:54:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Coming from Krugman, this is shockingly absurd (as opposed to Robert Reich, who gets it exactly right, as does Booman):

There’s enough wrong with the Baucus proposal as it stands to make it unworkable and unacceptable. But that said, Senator Baucus’s mark is better than many of us expected. If it serves as a basis for negotiation, and the result of those negotiations is a plan that’s stronger, not weaker, reformers are going to have to make some hard choices about the degree of disappointment they’re willing to live with.

(Emphasis supplied.) After writing so well on the stupidity of the political bargaining on the stimulus bill, it is shocking to read this ridiculous column from Krugman. Indeed, Krugman writes:

So this plan has to change. What matters now is the direction in which it changes. It would be disastrous if health care goes the way of the economic stimulus plan, earlier this year. As you may recall, that plan — which was clearly too weak even as originally proposed — was made even weaker to win the support of three Republican senators. If the same thing happens to health reform, progressives should and will walk away.
Is there any doubt which way this will go IF BaucusCare is treated as the basis of negotiation, as Krugman endorses? Of course it will get worse, not better. Krugman must know this.

Krugman does health care reform a grave disservice with his column today. He should know better. What a disappointment.

Speaking for me only

< Another Full Day of FBI Questioning for Najibullah Zazi, More Friday | BaucusCare Will Never Include Public Competition >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Krugman's Absurd Column On the Baucus Bill | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I just finished reading his column (5.00 / 5) (#1)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 07:17:08 AM EST
    and could not agree with you more.

    I seriously do not understand why anyone would think that health care will not be handled exactly as the stimulus was, with all the negotiating going in a downward direction; I thought Krugman was smarter than that.

    And I have to say - you know I do - that it ticks me off to see Krugman co-opting Obama's starting-from-scratch argument against single-payer, and it doesn't get better when he throws in Massachusetts and the European countries - some cursory research would have had him casting a more jaundiced eye on the success of those systems, and cautioned people not to automatically buy into the hype.

    And, do we really think that the Baucus Plan is better then we expected it to be?  Isn't that a little like saying, "gosh, thanks for just punching me in the gut - I was expecting you to shove a sharp stick in my eye!"

    Krugman is dangerously close to advocating the "Hey, It's Better Than Nothing!" attitude that seems to be seeping into the whole mess.

    What pi**es me off about Krugman's column (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 07:36:10 AM EST
    is when the inevitable crappy bill develops from Bacusu Care, THEN Krugmsan will say vote NO and then it will be too late.

    Bacus Care must be buried and was on its way to being buried.

    Krugman, an influential opinion maker, breathes new life into it today with his stupid column.

    He failed miserably on this. And with a serious consequence.

    I am not sure I can read him the same way after today. This was as awful a column as I have read from anybody, precisely because it was Krugman today, after BaucusCare was on its way to being DOA.

    What a terrible terrible job he did today.

    At this point, it makes his writings on the stimulus bill a bad joke.

    Parent

    What BTD said (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:39:48 AM EST
    BaucusCare was DOA. Even Ezra Klein thought so. Now, perhaps, new life.

    It's still more likely than not to die:  Jay Rockefeller really hates it.  

    Parent

    Your patronizing attitude notwithstanding, (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 01:26:30 PM EST
    in fact I do understand legislative process. I also have some understanding of how you treat an unacceptable offer in negotiation.

    And if you think Krugman isn't acting as an advocate, I suggest you read his column again.

    Parent

    It is a bit frightening how many people (none / 0) (#4)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:03:20 AM EST
    are saying that the Baucus bill is a "good" jumping off point.  Good if you're talking about jumping off a cliff maybe, but good as in doing something meaningful to enact healthcare insurance reforms - not at all good imo.

    Parent
    Frightening and disappointing (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:13:00 AM EST
    and stupid of them, especially Krugman.

    He makes his columns on the stimulus bill bargaining look absolutely stupid.

    Parent

    Lawrence O'Donnell was on MSNBC (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:31:55 AM EST
    last night saying that the Baucus bill was it and that that is what we have to work from.  That bill sets the goal posts so far away from meaningful reform and has so many very real political traps for Democrats that it is amazing that anyone would agree to it as a starting point.

    I really believe that it needs to be killed in committee because given the Senate process, I see exchanges and madates to pay private insurers sans public option and regulation coming out of that bill - which will be political suicide - not to mention terrible for the American people.

    Parent

    And O'Donnell matters why? (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:36:34 AM EST
    Lawrence O'Donnell, I must remind people, worked for Moynihan when Moynhihan destroyed HCR in the 90s.

    Parent
    I am not at all saying that he matters (none / 0) (#28)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:51:45 AM EST
    except he gets air time and he is a regular on what are called the "liberal" shows which unfortunately gives him some sway - but he was just one of many, many people yesterday who basically proclaimed the Baucus bill to the "the one" which was the point of my comment - to note that a lot of people are sayingt that it is better to go with this bill than to press for a better one.  

    President Snowe along with Ben Nelson, Lieberman and McCaskill put out a statement praising the bill last night.  Signals to me that Obama might well have his bipartisan wishes come true in this so-called HRC effort, but also indicates to me that there will be little reform and potentially a lot of damage done.  It's all good - she said sarcastically.

    Parent

    Krugman matters (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:54:28 AM EST
    O'Donnell does not.

    Parent
    Well, since O'Donnell does command (none / 0) (#44)
    by inclusiveheart on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    a segment of the liberal audience out there, I'm going to have to disagree with you about his importance.  I was accused of being an alarmist yesterday when I advocated for killing this bill in committee.  Lots of people - not just Krugman - are under the misimpression that the mark-up, the floor debate and the conference committee hold promise even though they are starting with Baucus' pos bill.  I think they're smokin' something if they think that the Baucus bill is a reasonable place to start the debate.

    I can see a coalition forming of moderates, center-right and gullible Democrats who will believe the others when they promise to "fix" or tweak the legislation's flaws at a later date - that could easily give life to the Baucus bill.  Add to that Obama's desperate quest for bipartisanship and I think we have very real potential for disaster here.

    Parent

    O'Donnelll commands nothing (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:45:02 AM EST


    Parent
    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:37:08 AM EST
    Has to be killed in committee now.

    Parent
    All health care policy goes through the (none / 0) (#37)
    by masslib on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:57:16 AM EST
    Senate finance committee.  Just a fact.  I didn't really understand the idea that somehow the Baucus plan wouldn't be the start point, but whatever.

    Frankly, Krugman is wrong when he says those who support medicare for All will never accept anything less.  I say if we are not serious about public insurance, and clearly Congress is not, let's give up the hobbled PO for actual regulations.  Krugman likes to say the Swiss do UHC through private insurance.  He omits the fact that the Swiss set prices on all medical transactions.  Let's regulate insurance and medical transactions like we do public utilities.  

    Parent

    All health care legislation goes thorugh HELP (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:01:17 AM EST
    also.

    I do not understand how you do not understand that the HELP bill could have been the basis for negotiation.

    Some of you who like to snipe at those of us who think the "camel's nose under the tent" public option is worth fighting for like to just attack those who do not agree with you on this.

    Now you do it with BS. It is getting very tired.

    corrente is just a click away and you can go hate on us there in peace.

    Parent

    Because Medicare and Medicaid are (none / 0) (#46)
    by masslib on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:08:44 AM EST
    the purview of finance, NOT the health committee.  They plan to pay for the plan via cuts to Medicare and Medicaid, the committee of jurisdiction is Finance.

    LOL, I'm not "attacking" you.  I'm agreeing with Krugman that this is the start point because that committee has jurisdiction.  Further, I'm suggesting that if we are going toward reform as a federal regulatory role, why not give up the meager public option for stronger regulations?

    Parent

    And this has what to do with my point (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:20:01 AM EST
    ab out HEALTH CARE REFORM? I.e. - mandates, public option?

    The jurisdiction is shared and you miss the point. the Senate leadership decides what the bill looks like that comes to the floor. Just because Finance passes a bill out of committee does not mean that the Finance  bill is the template.

    Never has meant it and it need not now.

    You are just wrong.

    Parent

    I am not wrong. (none / 0) (#56)
    by masslib on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:31:26 AM EST
    The committee of jurisdiction on financing health care is the finance committee.  I didn't say the health committee can not bill can not be merged with the finance proposal.  However, note that the first HELP bill did not include the financing of Medicaid and Medicare.  It's because they do not have jurisdiction.

    Parent
    The mandate question (none / 0) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:44:40 AM EST
    is not under the purview of the Finance Committee.

    This is a shared jurisdiction initiative and to pretend otherwise as you do is wrong.

    Moreover, you are wrong to frame this as "can the HELP bill be merged with the Finance bill."

    the Finance bill can be thrown in the dustbin by the leadership and the HELP bill can be offered in its entirety and presented as a merged bill.

    To believe you, the HELP committee has nothing to do with the subject.

    you are wrong.

    Parent

    Foot in mouth (none / 0) (#55)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:31:04 AM EST
    He should have stopped with his comment regarding the Baucus Plan:

    "The insurance industry loves it, need we say more".

    That alone should be cause to scrap the bill. BP and Exon loved the energy bill too.

    Parent

    Yes, and that "starting from scratch" (none / 0) (#65)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:23:44 AM EST
    argument seems to cut both ways. We have in place for a large portion of Americans universal coverage integrated with social security (those over 65, along with a 'sliver' for those of any age for disease-specific coverage--end-stage kidney disease and the primary causes) but  a crazy quilt for all others under age 65--such as no insurance, employee-specific insurance, emergency room reliance, group and individual) coverage).  Putting that crazy quilt into something that even approaches Medicare or provides assurances for insurance through this or that, is really starting from scratch, since we are developing something that does not now exist.  Oh, I know what about all those poor insurance companies.  Well, it seem that there would be plenty of room for private, supplemental insurance (a big market for those already on Medicare), and one that would be ripe for business if anything like the Baucus proposal is settled upon.

    Parent
    Maybe it's time for me to take a trip overseas. (none / 0) (#73)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    I found the Krugman article conciliatory in tone to the Baucus plan.  However, I think Krugman laid out changes to the Baucus plan that would nullify the main tenets of BaucusCare.  Quite a brilliant piece of "look at my left hand, while my right hand has the magic", if you ask me (not that anyone did).

    Parent
    And the insanity continues... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Anne on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:06:05 AM EST
    From Think Progress this morning (emphasis in the original):

    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) has said he expects to make adjustments to the health plan he recently released in order to mollify critics. Many of Baucus' colleagues have charged that his bill doesn't do enough to help low and middle-income Americans. ""We're going to have to work all that out," the senator replied in response to criticism.

    In an interview with Bloomberg, former President Bill Clinton predicted that Senate Republicans will end up supporting the Baucus bill. "I believe he'll get Snowe and he could get Collins and he might get three or four others," Clinton said. "If they believe a bill is going to pass, some of them will vote for it."

    Oy.

    Stupid of Clinton (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:12:03 AM EST
    He's been rather stupid on this for a while now.

    Parent
    Snowe is clealry making sounds that she will vote (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by masslib on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:59:56 AM EST
    yes.  I'd say the way the bill is headed that's a realistic assessment.  He didn't say this is the best reform evah, he said he expects if the Republicans think the bill is going to pass, a few will vote for it.  Seems pretty realistic to me.

    Parent
    Thanks for the clear thinking (none / 0) (#58)
    by SGITR on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:34:23 AM EST


    Parent
    Both Clintons (2.00 / 2) (#66)
    by star on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    Have been disappointing with regard to health care debate.. maybe they have been told to hush up their own opinions and fall in line ..or they are worried about being labled 'racist' once again..


    Parent
    I believe the whole point (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:50:03 AM EST
    of hiring Clinton at state was to stifle the Clintons, esp on this (very lucrative) health care issue.

    The fact that she's doing well is a side point.  Many individuals would do well at the job.

    But yeah, Clintons can't defy their own boss and say what they want.  That's by design.

    Parent

    Yes, President Clinton said as much (none / 0) (#77)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 06:55:13 PM EST
    during his interview by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show.  Of course, it was said in jest.

    Parent
    Both? (none / 0) (#71)
    by Romberry on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 12:06:56 PM EST
    I don't think that the Secretary of State would be expected to be involved in the health care debate. Even if Hillary wanted to jump in (and I would bet that she kind of does), I doubt that it would be permitted. The SoS is charged with the handling of foreign affairs, not domestic policy.

    Bill Clinton? He's made the right noises when asked to make them. But Bill Clinton is also probably not someone that Barack Obama wants drawing a lot of attention either.

    Obama and Bill are in a lot of ways alike. Politically, they both seem to be jealous of the limelight...and they'd both be considered conservative Republicans in the 70's. Driftglass put it this way in regard to the Big Dog:

    Once upon a time, there was a President named Bill Clinton, who was, by most historical standards, a typical Centrist Republican, although by a fluke of geography and circumstances he ran for public office with a "(D)" after his name.

    Under his Administration, many Conservative ideas which had long gathered dust on the shelf -- ideas such as welfare reform, a balanced budget, debt reduction, a strict "Pay as You Go" fiscal regime, a boom in technology jobs, budget surpluses, NAFTA, GATT, official bans on gay marriage, etc. -- were finally realized.

    And for all of his good work on behalf of their ideology, Conservatives spent eight, long years treating Bill Clinton -- a Southern, White, Christian man -- as if he were a case of flesh eating nuclear syphilis.

    Because he did not run for office with an "(R)" after his name.



    Parent
    The Baucus bill is a camel's nose under the tent! (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:08:05 AM EST
    Sure, it's got one hump instead of two, but when Krugman writes:

    .... reformers are going to have to make some hard choices about the degree of disappointment they're willing to live with....

    isn't that exactly the excrementalist method that public option folks advocate as a matter of strategery?

    Not the point (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:11:09 AM EST
    How to get Incremental reform is the issue.

    This is about political bargaining strategy.

    What I find hilarious is that the people really dissed in his column is folks like you.

    My disagreement with Krugman is his reading of the political bargaining.

    Krugman basically disses you and you think it is a chance to diss some of us.

    You really are funny about this now.

    Parent

    One hump, or two? (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:47:04 AM EST
    Two different kinds of camels. Both have noses. Whatever, dude!

    As for the table pounding, see below.

    * * *

    Incidentally, if Krugman's dissing me, it's because he feels he has to. That means, to me, to push harder, not to give up. In any case, I think it's ludicrous to focus on "political bargaining" here; it reminds me of nothing so much as rotisserie baseball. Finally, I think that "progressive" precapitulationists who butchered their own strategery by taking single payer off the table have very little standing to lecture others on political strategy. I do grant it's a circulation builder.

    Parent

    Table pounding is NOt your thing (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:49:19 AM EST
    Riiiiight.

    FOS today you are.

    Parent

    Nope (none / 0) (#53)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:25:27 AM EST
    Facts, linky goodness, and arguments that are not responded to -- except with a tu quoque.

    You do notice that I'm not depending on base appeals to tribalism like "people are laughing at you"?

    Parent

    Krugman is laughing at you (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:30:31 AM EST
    I treat you with respect. I applaud your efforts. I never denigrated your views.

    You have done nothing but attack those of us who do not agree with your assessments of HCR strategy this year.

    Nothing makes that clearer than your decision to attack me in this thread while ignoring the fact that Krugman to a direct and express swipe at folks like you.

    Cuz that is what he did. Never have I criticized single payer proponents. NEVER.

    Krugman did. Who do you attack? The big NYTimes columnist? Of course not. You chose to attack me.

    And you pretend you are not pounding the table.

    Of course you are. So happens it is the kiddie table of Talk Left that no one actually pays attention to. the grownups table where Krugman sits remains untouched by you.

    This is as revealing a moment as any you have had.

    Parent

    Good lord! (none / 0) (#78)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 09:31:19 AM EST
    Who wrote the post? You or Krugman?

    I think, also, that you're confusing attacks on your arguments with attacks on you, personally. In any case, a front-pager who's in the habit of calling commenters idiots has little standing to complain about personal attacks, wouldn't you agree? I'm advocating for a policy whose merits are so strong that this style of argumentation is not necessary.


    Parent

    He's an economist (none / 0) (#74)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 01:06:49 PM EST
    You're a lawyer.  Too completely different concepts about what a bargain is composed of :)  This is the second time concerning healthcare that I can remember that the economist in Krugman has overuled the liberal in Krugman about what is most important to our prosperity.

    Parent
    Your point is well taken. (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by ChiTownDenny on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 01:21:06 PM EST
    Also, let's remember that without the "left" bloggers, those on this site, FDL, OpenLeft, OrangeSatan, and others, we might have lost PO as an part of a bill.  While I feel there is a lot of noise, some of it seems to have worked to keep "feet to the fire" of those in Washington who need the push/support

    Parent
    Pointing and laughing at you (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:14:12 AM EST
    "Of course, those who insist that we must have a single-payer system -- Medicare for all -- won't accept any plan that tries, instead, to cajole and coerce private health insurers into covering everyone. But while many reformers, myself included, would prefer a single-payer system if we were starting from scratch, international experience shows that it's not the only way to go. Several European countries, including Switzerland and the Netherlands, have managed to achieve universal coverage with a mainly private insurance system."

    Parent
    I will say... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Dadler on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:31:01 AM EST
    ...for Krugman, this really seems like the most egregious error of logic.  He must know that there is a huge cultural difference between the private insurers in those heavily regulated european models and our private insurers who would NEVER, not in any lifetime, accept such regulation.

    As for the rest, I think he is engaging in hope against his instincts, dreamily so, which I think he'd also admit.

    One stinker.  We all have them.  I can give him a mulligan here.  His writing on the stimulus was too good to simply trash because of one inferior column.  If that were so, I'd have to stop listening to anything Clinton had to say, since he's been so dim on this.

    Sigh.  You're right, tho, very disappointing and a real head-scratcher.

    Parent

    A stinker on a key issue at a key time (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:34:51 AM EST
    I wish he would have stayed on vacation rather than write this one.

    Unlike most of us, Krugman is an opinion maker. His legitimation of BaucusCare is stunningly stupid and wrong.

    Parent

    the other day (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:40:12 AM EST
    I was pleased he held the #1 spot on the "top 50"
    today I am not so sure.

    Parent
    Wrong in making the case, wrong on the facts (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:38:56 AM EST
    First, let's dispose of the table pounding: The style of argumentation you adopt shows that you know in your mind and your heart that your case is weak. The pointing and laughing isn't coming from Krugman at all; you're the one who wrote a headline like that, not him! In any case, why on earth would you imagine such things matter to me? Do you think I want to go on the teebee? Do you think I want to get hired as a pundit? Do you think I want some kind of reach-around from Versailles? You remember Ghandi's first step, right? "First they laugh at you..." Then they fight you. Then you win. I know what the stress of defending an inferior policy position must be doing to you, but please, can't we do better?

    As far as making the case: You're the one who's on about political feasibility. Krugman's argument is, in the exact sense, academic. There's no grassroots support for the Swiss Model at all. There is for single payer. It's growing, and increasingly successful -- despite a media blackout, administration censorhip, "progressive" dismissal, and no coverage from the A list.

    As far as the facts: Krugman's argument is just wrong. Obviously, we aren't starting from scratch: We have two single payer systems that are proven to do all the things single payer advocates claim: Medicare and VA. The success of Medicare is why the Kennedy solution was simply to lower the age of Medicare eligibility progressively until all were covered.  So the "start from scratch" is a matter of framing, not of the facts.  One might say with more truth that "Building on proven success is the American way. Of course, since Krugman's recyclcing an Obama talking point this is not surprising...

    Parent

    you come to this thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:48:21 AM EST
    to start a fight and now want to stop the table pounding?

    You are full of sh*t today lambert.

    Maybe you will be better tomorrow.

    Parent

    We've got to work on our cliches (none / 0) (#59)
    by lambert on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:35:25 AM EST
    Here's the relevant one, which I had thought any lawyer would know:

    When you've got the facts on your side, pound the facts. When you've got the law on your side, pound the law. When you've got neither the facts nor the law on your side, pound the table.

    I don't have to pound the table because I have the facts on my side; single payer is the only policy on offer, backed by crafted legislation, that can actually be shown to work. That's why I don't have to resort to table-pounding talking points like "people are laughing at you."

    As for picking a fight... Where are my pearls? I've got to head for the fainting couch!

    NOTE Personally, I think "one hump or two" is pretty funny and I hope it propagates. Thanks for stimulating my powers of invention ;-)

    Parent

    You need to start worrying about the issue (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:41:51 AM EST
    as opposed to your personal sniping campaign.

    Parent
    You need to respond to issues when they're raised (none / 0) (#79)
    by lambert on Sat Sep 19, 2009 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    Je repete:
    As far as making the case: You're the one who's on about political feasibility. Krugman's argument is, in the exact sense, academic. There's no grassroots support for the Swiss Model at all. There is for single payer. It's growing, and increasingly successful -- despite a media blackout, administration censorhip, "progressive" dismissal, and no coverage from the A list.

    As far as the facts: Krugman's argument is just wrong. Obviously, we aren't starting from scratch: We have two single payer systems that are proven to do all the things single payer advocates claim: Medicare and VA. The success of Medicare is why the Kennedy solution was simply to lower the age of Medicare eligibility progressively until all were covered.  So the "start from scratch" is a matter of framing, not of the facts.  One might say with more truth that "Building on proven success is the American way. Of course, since Krugman's recyclcing an Obama talking point this is not surprising...


    I can only assume that you don't respond, because you can't. Hence the reframing -- and thread hijacking -- to "personal sniping campaign."

    In any case, a front-pager who is in the habit of calling commenter "idiots" has little standing to complain about personal sniping.

    Parent

    fwiw (none / 0) (#27)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:51:10 AM EST
    its "first they ignore you . . . "

    Parent
    Two extremely different models (none / 0) (#38)
    by cawaltz on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    I would continue to go with Medicare because the VA system is FUBAR and as of 2003 means tested. In order to get care at the VA you either need to be indigent or service connected, if you aren't my experience is it isn't a very effective system and embodies exactly what many are afraid of(long waits, red tape, etc).

    Parent
    How much pain can we take? Why us? (5.00 / 4) (#20)
    by Addison on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:43:34 AM EST
    Krugman:

    Reformers are going to have to make some hard choices about the degree of disappointment they're willing to live with

    Why? Because Baucuscare is the new standard (despite being a zombie bill) just because Krugman says so? That makes no sense. We should be talking about the insurance and pharmaceutical companies in this manner, how much disappointment are THEY willing to live with? Stop talking about degrees of disappointment among the majority of Americans and craft good policy already. Sheesh

    Krugman is the pundit Left Flank (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:47:38 AM EST
    this column is quite damaging.

    Parent
    My disdain and questioning was at Krugman... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by Addison on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:54:43 AM EST
    ...not you, in case that wasn't clear.

    Krugman makes it clear that Baucus-care sucks later in his column, but I am just maddened by the initial framework that the debate is now about how screwed reformers will be, instead of how screwed the profit margins of outmoded and inhumane corporations will be.

    That's been the question since day one: how much will we have to compromise? how much will we end up coddling big insurance/big pharma? And the very question itself has had severe consequences. It's insane stuff, which Krugman continues.

    Parent

    Sorry (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:55:38 AM EST
    My mistake.

    Parent
    Well, I think he reads TL (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:49:52 AM EST
    So maybe he'll get the message.

    Parent
    Let's hope so (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by CST on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:52:26 AM EST
    On both counts.

    I agree though with the number of elected officials who have come out against the Baucus plan, I don't see how it could have a life.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:55:00 AM EST
    its DOA no matter what he says

    Parent
    Can't fix it now though (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:50:28 AM EST


    Parent
    He can probably mitigate a little (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:54:52 AM EST
    But I agree that the overall theme: that it's acceptable to start from BaucusCare, is immensely damaging.

    Parent
    I dunno how he can (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    unless he repudiates this column entirely.

    Parent
    He's acting more like he did w/ TARP (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:59:05 AM EST
    than the stimulus. But with something as weighty as this, he should know better than to try and play national Goldilox.

    Parent
    TARP (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:03:21 AM EST
    does not seem on point to me.

    Indeed, I am not sure what he proposed for TARP. I had no idea what to do at the time but I knew we needed to do something.

    I think the issue of housing and receivership/nationalization are different than TARP.

    Parent

    My recollection is (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:07:20 AM EST
    that even though he thought "cash for trash" was stupid, he ended up giving his tepid support to TARP anyway (depending on what day of the week you read him).

    But no need for Krugmanology.

    Parent

    I'm sick of the "Anything Is Better (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:54:29 AM EST
    Than Nothing" crowd. The question of will it work is lost to this group. Anything is nothing if it doesn't provide good quality affordable health care now and in the future for those who need it. Junk insurance that people cannot afford to purchase or use is nothing.

    They, of course, have good health insurance and incomes to accommodate rises in premiums.

    Sure (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:58:42 AM EST
    Unlike Lambert, I am for the "camel's nose under the tent" - which he defines as "anything is better than nothing."

    However, at least as I define what I consider acceptable, I heed a political bargaining course that might create what I deem acceptable.

    Once you accept BaucusCare as an acceptable starting point, as Krugman did today, you are guaranteed a terrible bill.

    IF this becomes the reality, I urge blocking ALL HCR this year.

    First do no harm.

    Parent

    We finally agree on something regarding (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by me only on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:10:22 AM EST
    HCR.  

    Parent
    I don't consider you in the (5.00 / 6) (#52)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:20:10 AM EST
    "Anything is better than nothing" group. Do no harm is a great line in the sand. IMO you have done a fine job of covering this issue.

    My stance is probably somewhere in between Lambert's and yours. I firmly believe that not moving more aggressively towards Medicare for All is financially stupid. It is the most cost effective way to provide universal health care and to keep Medicare viable in the future. That said, I would be willing to accept a "camel's nose under the tent" strategy if it is a real camel. IOW a public option that can compete in the market place against the insurance industry.

    Where we may or may not differ is on the line of demarcation between a real camel and a faux one.

    Parent

    BTD is so right. (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by KeysDan on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:18:05 AM EST
    I started to read Professor Krugman's column with, as usual, expectations for insightful analysis and commentary.  Instead, I became more astonished with each paragraph.  Firstly, he was all over the place... Baucus's proposal maybe was not so bad  after all, if it was just tweaked a little, like lots more money, a public option and eliminate all  those too clever parts.  Essentially, starting from scratch, something that, of course, he says can't be done regarding single payer.  At some ways, it seems that he was getting scared that he may have been too critical in the past and does not want to be pegged as the guy who sunk any chance for health care reform.  But, as BTD and others aptly state, the underlying damage is in his idea of negotiation, and it is real damage.   Professor Krugman, why in the world  did you do this?

    I agree (none / 0) (#3)
    by kmblue on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 07:39:19 AM EST
    and judging from the comments for the column, so do many others.

    Yeah, it's the cruddy negotiation skill (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 08:34:52 AM EST
    Everything that's wrong is right there in the text.

    Krugman did say this (none / 0) (#47)
    by Spamlet on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:10:02 AM EST
    If the same thing happens to health reform, progressives should and will walk away.

    From a certain angle, this looked (momentarily) like a bright spot in Krugman's column, but it's fool's gold. As Reich says, Snowe's support would push the House to the right, which means that the House Progressive Caucus would cave. So Krugman's saying that progressives "should and will walk away" is, in the context of the whole column, just a way of underlining his point that progressives do not matter in these negotiations.

    My first thought about Krugman's column was that it is incoherent. Then I saw that it's coherent enough, just argued from a very wrong premise. Really unfortunate. WKPK?

    looks like the WSJ (none / 0) (#49)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:13:38 AM EST
    has it closer to the mark.

    Congress Veers Left on Health Care
    The Baucus bill has been rejected by Democrats.

    Article is definitely written with (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by MO Blue on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:42:40 AM EST
    a strong right wing bias. But then again, this is a WSJ article so that is not a surprise. I did like the beginning sentence.

    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus unveiled his long-awaited health-care compromise this week to the sound of one hand clapping.


    Parent
    So wonderfully sums it (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:45:23 AM EST
    up, doesn't it?  When was the last time a politician introduced such an important piece of legislation with nobody standing beside him?

    I'd laugh if I didn't want to cry.

    Parent

    It's a WSJ op-ed, not a news article (none / 0) (#68)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 10:59:33 AM EST
    Their straight news is usually pretty good (or at least it was pre-Murdoch).  Their op-eds are usually insane.

    Parent
    you mean (none / 0) (#70)
    by Capt Howdy on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 11:14:42 AM EST
    like this:

    Mandatory Insurance Is Unconstitutional

    Parent
    Talex sock puppet (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    Not today.

    Do not post in my threads today.

    I have no stomach for you today.

    I'll post an Open Thread and you can write in there today.

    Never write while on vacation (none / 0) (#69)
    by FreakyBeaky on Fri Sep 18, 2009 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    Paul Krugman, this means you.  

    Krugman's Absurd Column On the Baucus Bill | 78 comments (78 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment