Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Krugman on Mandates
I appreciate differing points of view, but it seems Krugman does not.
Obama used an analogy to explain his view that a full mandate is not
going to work, because it's too expensive. Krugman considers this ugly
and unscrupulous. But, it's a fair discussion point and seems to be
backed up by what's happened at the state level (read below). I want
universal healthcare eventually, but I prefer Obama's approach. I am
happy to read Krugman's opinion on mandates, but he seems unreasonable
on this issue. What do you think?
http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0131-04.htm
"The failure of the mandate model in the six states that have tried it
(and currently in Massachusetts) can be directly attributed to the
private insurance industry. Each of these state reform efforts promised
cost savings, but none included real cost controls. As the cost of
health care soared, legislators backed off from enforcing the mandates
or from financing new coverage for the poor. Just last month,
Massachusetts projected that its costs for subsidized coverage may run
$147 million over budget.
...
The “mandate model” for reform rests on political surrender: avoid
challenging insurance firms’ stranglehold on health care while coercing
the uninsured to purchase costly insufficient insurance policies. But
it is economic nonsense. The reliance on private insurers makes
universal coverage unaffordable."
Advertisement
Comments (2)
Hm, I voted for Obama this morning, and I really, really want him to win, but I think that Dr Krugman is essentially correct about mandates and that Obama is wrong on this point. I would really love for Krugman to be wrong and Obama to be right, but nothing I have read has managed to convince me that Obama is on the wrong side of this argument. Where I think that Krugman goes wrong, however, is in the belief that we would end up at a better place with Clinton than with Obama. I think that Clinton's proposal is better, but the actual legislation which will be achieved will not (in all likelihood) be exactly like anyone's proposal, and I think that Obama will be able to achieve a better real-live outcome than will Clinton, saddled as she is with the baggage of her previous failure.
February 5, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said Greg, thanks for the comments!
Dean Baker had a good reply on Krugman's recent comments.
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/beat_the_press_archive?month=02&year=2008&base_name=krugman_wrong_on_obama_and_man
My thinking is that both plans will fail unless they are able to control and bring down health care costs. To start they will be extremely expensive and have limited appeal except to the poor and those with pre-existing conditions.
Many of us would be willing to pay more for the good of all. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of our population would not.
So, yes my belief that Obama's plan will be easier to pass is important. But, we also clearly need some time to move forward with policies like direct price negotiation and prescription drug importation to make insurance more affordable and attractive.
If Hillary gets the nomination I will vote for her. If she gets elected I will encourage my representatives to support her health care plan. But, I have little hope that she'll get it passed and if she does that it will prove the victory we all hope for...
February 5, 2008 5:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment