I was prepared to leave it at that — Obama’s plan was weaker than his rivals’ because it wasn’t universal, but I hoped that he would fix that in practice.
But then Obama started attacking his rivals from the right, denouncing their proposals using exactly the same false claims that conservatives will use to try to derail reform in the future.
And now, having been caught out on the facts, the Obama people respond with a personal attack, lifting quotes out of context to pretend that I never had problems with the plan. Something is very wrong here.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
Krugman Responds to Obama's Attacks
Krugman responds via his blog.
Obama Disappoints
Jerome Armstrong at MyDD is not what you'd call an Obama booster, but he's got 2 pieces on MyDD right now which I endorse whole-heartedly.
Piece #1 on Oprah's politics:
But the more substantive piece is the one that resonates with me most. Obama is bashing Krugman. Paul Krugman, one of the only honest and courageous voices in the traditional media.
Let's review: Krugman took Obama to task for his healthcare plan. Obama's Healthcare plan does not provide universal coverage, and is deeply flawed in that it doesn't require enrollment, but neither can it deny anyone enrollment, thereby basically encouraging people to opt out when they're healthy, and then opt in when they're sick thus defeating the entire premise of a plan that bases cost savings on economies of scale. When everyone pays in, it's cheaper for everyone. Under Obama's plan, the chronically sick opt in immediately, and then because the pool is smaller, they pay more. Then a some healthy people get sick and opt in, and because they enlarge the pool, it all gets cheaper. Then, some people get better, and opt out again, without penalty, and the cost goes up again because the pool is smaller. Basically, you'd have the sickest people, those most in need of affordable health care subsidizing the healthy Johnny-Come-Latelys. Like I said. Deeply Flawed.
Krugman's also taken Obama to task (rightly so) for embracing the Norquist dog-whistle "Social Security Crisis" meme.
Well, now it seems that Obama is going after Krugman's credibility. Bad move. Krugman's one of the most credible columnists we've got. It's worth going to the NYT's archive of his columns to check out exactly how prescient he's been. Here's a piece published just 3 months after the Iraq invasion, at a time when most of the rest of the media were celebrating "Mission Accomplished."
So now, because Krugman spoke a little truth about Obama's shortcomings, Obama is attacking Krugman. Mr. Obama, maybe you should hire him as a policy advisor instead.
Armstrong notes what's troubling about Obama's statements and raises some worthy questions:
Amen to that.
Obama has great potential, but it sure looks like he's mistaking 'compromise' for leadership, and capitulation for 'bipartisanship.'
Piece #1 on Oprah's politics:
Back during the end of September 2000, when Gore had Bush on the mat following the bounce from the LA convention and the RATS ad, it was Oprah that picked Bush up off the ground. "My pleasure," he purred when she thanked him for the kiss. The establishment media went gaga after Oprah embraced Bush.
That's what I know about Oprah and her politics.
But the more substantive piece is the one that resonates with me most. Obama is bashing Krugman. Paul Krugman, one of the only honest and courageous voices in the traditional media.
Let's review: Krugman took Obama to task for his healthcare plan. Obama's Healthcare plan does not provide universal coverage, and is deeply flawed in that it doesn't require enrollment, but neither can it deny anyone enrollment, thereby basically encouraging people to opt out when they're healthy, and then opt in when they're sick thus defeating the entire premise of a plan that bases cost savings on economies of scale. When everyone pays in, it's cheaper for everyone. Under Obama's plan, the chronically sick opt in immediately, and then because the pool is smaller, they pay more. Then a some healthy people get sick and opt in, and because they enlarge the pool, it all gets cheaper. Then, some people get better, and opt out again, without penalty, and the cost goes up again because the pool is smaller. Basically, you'd have the sickest people, those most in need of affordable health care subsidizing the healthy Johnny-Come-Latelys. Like I said. Deeply Flawed.
Krugman's also taken Obama to task (rightly so) for embracing the Norquist dog-whistle "Social Security Crisis" meme.
Well, now it seems that Obama is going after Krugman's credibility. Bad move. Krugman's one of the most credible columnists we've got. It's worth going to the NYT's archive of his columns to check out exactly how prescient he's been. Here's a piece published just 3 months after the Iraq invasion, at a time when most of the rest of the media were celebrating "Mission Accomplished."
So now, because Krugman spoke a little truth about Obama's shortcomings, Obama is attacking Krugman. Mr. Obama, maybe you should hire him as a policy advisor instead.
Armstrong notes what's troubling about Obama's statements and raises some worthy questions:
Is Obama is just plain ignorant of the fight we've faced this decade in going after Krugman? Why is he going after the Clinton and Edwards plans to push forward the idea of universal coverage? Does he really have no clue that using the term 'crisis' to describe Social Security is Rovian?
It's mistakes like these that make me think that if Obama gets the nomination, it's going to be disgusting to watch as he turns against progressives in his bid for the middle, and as he says, that's the way he'd govern too.
Amen to that.
Obama has great potential, but it sure looks like he's mistaking 'compromise' for leadership, and capitulation for 'bipartisanship.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
