I like Krugman.  He's been consistent and forthright for years, defending the citadel when the right was at high tide, keeping the lamps lit, so to speak, in gloomy darkness.

But he's just doing his job and that doesn't include running for political office.  He's got his gig, and his bully pulpit, and he is having an intellectual hissy-fit with Obama just as he would with another tenured academic.  He doesn't have to worry about getting elected and is merely applying his own criteria of virtue to someone who does.  Maybe he should give that some thought.

If he was running for president he would be standing at the podium to the left of Dennis.

Apologies posted elsewhere but seemed relevant.

mislead the American people about Universal Heathcare.

He's totally irrelevant. Krugman's just some run-of-the-mill economist who's studied these issues in detail where Obama's our new best hope out to attack anyone who criticizes his plan for failure.

Then why this weird focus on making Krugman out to be a liar?  And why the selective use of quotes that is beyond the pale?  If you read the piece referenced, it is clear that Krugman has not changed his position AT ALL.  Yet, by quoting just one segment the Obama camp is trying to create that appearance, which is highly disingenious.   If he is insignificant, why go to the lengths to employ such shady techniques?   It makes Obama look terrible in the process, as the selective and therefore falsified quoting in this case amounts to an attack on Krugman's character, truthfulness and motives.  They made it highly personal and look petty and crooked in the process.   How would YOU like it if your quotes were completely taken out of context and your opinions falsified into a caricature of reality?  How about this quote from you, then:   "Krugman... for President. His opinions about..healthcare..is..RELEVANT."

".. and, no, having a debate .."

Has a pretty effective enforcement mechanism. You have to report your insurance status on your tax return and any time you use anything in the health care system. So unless you are a regular tax dodger who is confident you will never need stiches or have your ankle x-rayed, over a relatively short period of time you should get pretty comprehensive results.

Which by the way is the word Krugman used.

Mandates are being used by pretty much every UHC system in the world that is not single-payer.  Enforcing them works in those countries, so why should it not here?  Can't we just follow the same recipes countries like Germany and Holland have employed to enforce the mandates?  

"Obama's plan offers the fewest choices because it does not include a public plan."

That's patently false.

Whom are you trying to kid/fool by saying Obama has no public plan?

Obama's plan will provide affordable, comprehensive and portable health coverage for all Americans by:
  * Making available a new national health program that will allow individuals and small businesses to buy affordable health care similar to that available to federal employees. No one will be turned away or charged more due to illness, and everyone who needs it will receive a subsidy for their premiums.
  * Making available a National Health Insurance Exchange to reform the private insurance market. Any American could enroll in participating private plans, which would have to provide comprehensive benefits, issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable premiums.
  * Ensuring all of the 9 million currently uninsured children have affordable, high-quality health coverage
  * Expanding Medicaid and SCHIP and ensuring they continue to serve their critical safety net function.
  * Requiring employers to make a meaningful contribution to the health coverage of their employees.
  * Requiring that insurance plans accept all applicants and do not charge different prices based on
     pre-existing conditions.
From page 1 of Obama's HC overview (pdf)
Obama's details HC plan (pdf)

Are you under the impression that her plan won't entail new bureaucracies just because it extends the Federal Employees Health Benefits? How many people does the Federal Employees plan cover now? How many will it cover if she gets her plan passed? Voila! Plenty of new bureaucracy to go around. All of their plans will have to be administered and will require lots of new bureaucracy.

In addition to the public plan quote above,

Page 4 of HC plan details

(2) NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE. To provide Americans with
additional options, the Obama plan will make available a National
Health Insurance Exchange to help individuals who wish to purchase a
private insurance plan.

The Exchange will act as a watchdog and help reform the private
insurance market by creating rules and standards for participating
insurance plans to ensure fairness and to make individual coverage
more affordable and accessible. Through the Exchange, any American
will have the opportunity to enroll in the new public plan or purchase
an approved private plan, and income-based sliding scale subsidies
will be provided for people and families who need it. Insurers would
have to issue every applicant a policy, and charge fair and stable
premiums that will not depend upon health status.

The Exchange will require that all the plans offered are at least as
generous as the new public plan and meet the same standards for
quality and efficiency. Insurers would be required to justify an
above-average premium increase to the Exchange. The Exchange would
evaluate plans and make the differences among the plans, including
cost of services, transparent.  

All the documents that I am quoting here can be found at: Obama's healthcare page.

All three candidates' plans offer a menu of private insurer
options. Obama and Edwards offer these private menu options through
new bureaucracies -- regional exchanges -- much like Clinton's 1993
plan.

Obama's exchange appears to be national, not regional.

This "new bureaucracies" line can be thrown at any healthcare plan put
forth by the Democrats. As such that is the overarching faulty
rightwing attack line (I am not going to Krugmanize you on it though)
against healthcare reform.

She makes Congress' plan available to everyone.

Obama's plan says the following about his national public plan (excerpted here).

Comprehensive benefits. The benefit package will be similar to that
offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP),
the program through which Members of Congress get their own health
care.

The new public plan will include coverage of all essential
medical services, including preventive, maternity and mental health
care. Coverage will include disease management programs, self
management training and care coordination for appropriate individuals.

Both Clinton and Edwards are also proposing a Medicare-like public insurance plan that will also be available to everyone. In effect, this is setting up a "single-payer" type program to compete for customers with the private insurer menus. Obama's plan offers the fewest choices because it does not include a public plan.

Please respond to my response above where I blockquoted aboue Obama's "public plan", and whose wording clear contradicts your claims.

Riighht. You need to study the issue more then because a lot of your statements on the candidates health care plans are false.

i suggest you visit it and read bobs comments on obama and the media...and krugman.

----

The Daily Howler
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Daily Howler is a liberal American political blog written by Bob Somerby. It was perhaps the first major political blog, started in 1998. The style is at once earnest and sarcastic. Somerby criticizes what he considers the media's frequently biased or lazy coverage. In his view, the media frequently latch on to a generally agreed "script" with little regard for facts that contradict the script. For instance, in the runup to the US 2000 election it was frequently said or assumed that Gore was untruthful, but much of what supposedly underlay that script was in fact untrue, misrepresented or greatly exaggerated. He also argues that the media frequently ignore substantive issues and concentrate on trivial ones instead (in the 2000 presidential election, for example, professing bewilderment in response to the candidates' budget proposals while writing repeatedly and at length about irrelevant issues such as Gore's choice of clothes, or in 2006 writing articles about Barack Obama's middle name).

The Daily Howler is probably the best known 'media monitoring' blog that has an extensive track record of criticizing bias on both sides of the political divide.

Bob Somerby is also a professional stand up comic. He has appeared on Larry King Live, with Bill Maher, Bill O' Reilly and with Brian Lamb on C-Span. In college at Harvard, he was roommates with the actor Tommy Lee Jones and former Vice President Al Gore.

[edit] Commentary

   * From a Columbia Journalism Review article[1]: Bob Somerby needs no introduction, of course, unless your days are spent solely in the brick-and-mortar world...
    * Paul Krugman opened one of his op-eds[2] for the New York Times as follows:

"     A message to my fellow journalists: check out media watch sites like campaigndesk.org, mediamatters.org and dailyhowler.com. It's good to see ourselves as others see us. I've been finding The Daily Howler's concept of a media "script," a story line that shapes coverage, often in the teeth of the evidence, particularly helpful in understanding cable news.     "

[edit] External links

At this point. The whole question is whether the various plans have their carrots and sticks in the right places to maximize coverage and that question is to this point theoretical. The argument is not really between Obama and Krugman, it is between Obama's Economic Team (Goulsbee, Leibman, and Cutler) and Krugman. While the latter two have limited policy backgrounds, each working briefly in the Clinton Administration, all four men are currently academics.

And by the way that has always been the oddest critique about Krugman. Somehow knowing a lot about something disqualifies you from commenting on anything else, yet there seems to be no test for entry for anyone else. Why do Frank Rich and George will have the right to comment on all things political and otherwise and Krugman not? George talks about everything from baseball to foreign policy, nobody tries to confine him to one topic, yet having PhD after your name means you can't comment on anything outside your specialty. Which would be okay if anyone pointed out a sustained series of mistakes (on say the war) but mostly Paul is blamed for being shrill mainly on the basis that he got Bush right early while all around were swooning.