Weren't progressives disappointed when governors Romney and Schwarzenegger went for mandated plans instead of tax supported. So why do they (I'm talking columnists/bloggers of the Krugman/Klein variety) now all go full blast for mandates?

Mandated purchase of private health insurance could cost nearly 45% more than Medicare for all:
Private insurance is supposed to add 30% costs (20% insurance provider paperwork and procedure denial machinery and 10% doctors dealing with multiple plans paperwork and fending of denial). 30 is 42.8% of 70: nearly 45%.

Poverty line multiples used for imposing mandates in Massachusetts (and presumably in our heroes' versions) need to be cut in half (adjusted for reality if you will) before discussion of income levels even begins — because the federal poverty line is based on the grossly understated measure of three times (3X) the price of the cheapest possible emergency diet (dried beans only, no canned beans please! -- the 2002 book, Raise the Floor has a professionally worked out poverty line which comes to twice the official federal line).

Whatever multiples of poverty a person’s wages may be, some individuals will not be in a position to purchase insurance because of their personal situations, making for potentially tragic situations in a programs supposedly trying to help those most in need. We equally need to take into account the tragic state of wages on the low end in this country thanks to the race to the bottom that began in the early 70s. Our standards for what people should be paid are way off what they would be, in an adequately unionized country for instance — potentially leading to more misjudgment on the impact of mandates on people who really cannot afford them.

Why do our progressives tag along with Hillary and friends -- the Clintons who according to Joe Stigler screwed up on 7 out of 10 domestic economic issues (I cannot think of them all now, but read Joe's Roaring Nineties) and just about all foreign issues (forcing nations from South East Asia to Argentina into depressions in order to pay domestic bankers); the same Clintons who brought you a minimum wage one dollar an hour short of Eisenhower's, three years into their administration, one week before the renomination convention with "only" 70% public support. The current "progressive" minimum wage hike may top out at about fifty cents below Eisenhower's by the time inflation takes its 2009 bite.

When are progressives going to stop pushing around intellectual chess pieces of the automatically-doable (they often mistakenly think) -- and start FIGHTING for what is actually desirable (and actually possible just because it is ACTUALLY desirable)?

The Republicans (one thinks of Newt "the Grinch" Gingrich) are stupid as hell but they fight like hell which is why they get what they want. Try FIGHTING (okay, advocating) for what you really want for once. Truly desperate American workers await you -- or somebody.

I really think this is shameful behavior on the part of Senator Obama.

Does he want to win so badly that he would compromise his own honesty?

This is upsetting on so many levels and I believe we Democrats need to keep the pressure on Obama to back off and open up a real dialogue about his healthcare plan instead of behaving like a selfish five year old who cannot tolerate being called "wrong" about anything.

basically this is Obama's Sister Souljah moment. The question you have to ask is what does it serve him to put distance between himself and PK.

The Obama stuff is so reminiscent of the type of attacks against Krugman that I've seen over at The Corner, that I have to seriously consider that Krugman's criticism of Obama is, like most of his criticisms of Bush, right on the money.

Till now I've tended to think of Obama as a major change from the Bush era, but if he is going to borrow the worst from the Bush play-book I'll have to rethink that. Seriously.

I've said it before in other venues, but some of Obama's tactics carrying the lingering stench of Harold Ford Jr.'s failed Tennessee Senate campaign. Ford went out of his way to attack the very people most likely to vote him into office while courting those who were least likely to ever vote for him.

That Ford now leads the DLC makes me wonder if that's not where this is coming from. Not that I've ever had much love for the DLC, but hiring a loser who mostly lost due to his poor campaign strategy possibly wasn't the smartest move on their part. And any candidate listening to the DLC's campaign advice at this point isn't making the smartest move.

I may be naïve, but I am at a loss as to why the solid left that represents Krugman and Klein are so uncomfortable with Obama’s language. I don’t believe he is “adopting rightwing talking points” or language identified with the Bushies. What he does do to a refreshing extent is avoid the left wing language that has dominated over the past several years and has become increasingly shrill.

At the risk of sounding a bit like Rodney King, I think if everyone settles down and looks at this with a bit less passion, we would all find things to agree on here.

Obama’s plan should perhaps have mandates. Or not. In my mind as a rank and file voter, it makes no difference. The plan that gets passed is the one I care about. Obviously, I want it to have the right elements to offer the most universality. I think both Krugman and Obama would agree on that. Where the waters get muddy is when you talk about what will end up in a final bill. Well, excuse me for stating the obvious, but that depends a lot on what Congress looks like in ’08, how the legislation is crafted, who is seated at the table and how skilled the negotiator is.

After watching him closely over the past several months, I believe he will get passed what he can, as would any of his competitors. I believe he is more likely to get something done than Edwards or Clinton by virtue of his skills. I don’t believe he is less liberal—just less polarizing. Isn’t that what it comes down to?

You all seem to want to call him out on his liberal cred. Well, I think he’s got it. He certainly has more credibility as a liberal than Clinton or Edwards does in my mind. On the environment, he’s rated at 100 for the past two years by the League of Conservation Voters. The National Journal rates him more liberal than either Clinton now or Edwards when he was in the Senate.

More importantly, he’s been transparent—more so than any other candidate. He’s proposed the most sweeping ethics reform of any of the candidates, including the beloved John Edwards. He has disclosed his income tax returns for 2006. He’s disclosed his earmarks in Congress to date.

He doesn’t deserve this kick in the ass that you all are giving him. If he’s getting a bit peevish about it, I frankly don’t blame him. He’s one of us and just because he’s able to talk to the conservative half of Americans, he’s accused of being a centrist or a rightie. Thank god someone can talk to them. Let’s hope by talking to them, he doesn’t lose his ability to get you folks to listen to him.

I have been following the mandate v. no mandate argument for a while now, and one thing really sticks out at me. While mandates would make sense if we were talking about a single-payer, government funded system, when they are attached to private insurance systems they just seem like wealth redistribution from people to private entities. I'm not sure what is so progressive about that.

I don't see how it's more irresponsible to slip and use the word "crisis" once when talking about finding money to pay SS benefits once we need to than running an entire campaign without any mention of how you'll ever increase revenues to deal with just about any funding shortfall. Bill Clinton and Al Gore both used the "crisis" lingo (Gore actually used the word a few times) to push putting the 90s surplus into buttressing the trust fund. It's not really a crisis, and certainly not the biggest funding shortfall on the horizon, but there is an "actuarial gap" as Obama put it, and it's pretty responsible to start talking about raising revenue to deal with it. Of course it's a problem if Obama were to raise SS taxes one way or another and he and congress went and spent the money raised elsewhere instead of paying down the debt/paying into the trust fund, but I'm quite certain his proposals are nearly identical to Gore's when he ran in 2000. Here was Gore's plan to keep SS solvent in 2000:

"Devote all Social Security Surpluses to Social Security and debt reduction. Social Security should not be undermined by a large risky tax cut or other government spending that wastes Social Security surpluses."

Now we're 8 years past that with all the surplus spent in that time. Implementing Gore's plan w/ an increased ceiling to make up for lost time is a plan that inspires more faith than Clinton's Blue Ribbon Commission.

Obama's oppo piece isn't really that harsh if you read it. A far cry from the Corner.

zh,
When S.S. outgo begins to exceed payroll tax (FICA) income, the only significance of the Trust Fund will be to raise the income tax to cash the "government owned" bonds -- instead of raising the FICA.

Without the Trust Fund bonds to cash (w/income tax) we would be forced to raise the payroll tax (FICA) about 1/10 of a point a year instead (as overall income grew 1 1/2 percent a year!; "big sacrifice") to maintain benefits at the same level -- until somewhere near mid-century when the relative retired population will stop increasing.

Whatever system we use to cover pay-as-you-go retirement benefits - and the present clunky one looks clunkier and clunkier as the time to invoke it's split personality approaches -- we will be forced to raise SOME tax to keep paying-as-we-go.

PS. There is the possibility, on or about 2017 or whenever cashing Trust Fund bonds kicks off, that we may collectively opt to run an income tax deficit (sell gov' bonds to private owners) to service the S.S. deficit -- leaving our great, great, great, great grandchildren to pay for the retirement of their long deceased great, great, grandparents. :-) That's the other significance of the Trust Fund.

I don’t believe he is “adopting rightwing talking points” or language identified with the Bushies. What he does do to a refreshing extent is avoid the left wing language that has dominated over the past several years and has become increasingly shrill.

Katie = concern troll.

I like Krugman. I like Obama.

This post is an overwrought mess.

What changed? A bunch of folks have decided Obama owes them an apology.

Get over yourselves.

Spencer, what exactly is a "concern troll"? Name-calling is always a mature and effective means of discourse...

I don't get it.

Krugman pens a column that combines both a fair substantive critique (though it elides the fact that even under Edwards' proposal, premiums will be collected through wage garnishment - certainly a "penalty" by any meaningful definition of that word) with all kinds of extraneous and unsubstantiated jabs at Obama's leadership style - suggesting that he has "adopted" right-wing talking points, is proposing this plan because he is too politically cautious, etc.

Obama responds in kind, and he is tarred by the liberal blogosphere for attacking a progressive - never mind that this is exactly what Krugman was doing when he wrote his column.

Moreover, the whole idea of liberals "adopting right-wing talking points" only makes sense if you have a simplistic, dichotomous view of the policy world. Any Democrat who calibrates his views around so-called right-wing talking points is not sufficiently independent-minded to deserve to be President. (Which is not to say that Obama's proposals should not be discussed on the merits.)

I agree with Chino Blanco. Enough already; this whole blogger's flap is silly and self-indulgent.

دردشة

While mandates would make sense if we were talking about a single-payer, government funded system, when they are attached to private insurance systems they just seem like wealth redistribution from people to private entities. I'm not sure what is so progressive about that.