Paul Krugman Admits Political Strategy Underlying ObamaCare (Video)
Morgen on July 8, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I debated whether to even bother posting this video, because I doubt there are any readers of this blog who aren’t already aware that the public plan “option” was conceived by Democrats as a backdoor strategy to move the country towards government run healthcare. However, Krugman took it upon himself to attack our friends at the Heritage Foundation earlier this week, accusing them of citing false information and flatly calling them a “propaganda shop”. Karl over at Patterico does a superb job refuting Krugman’s post, and exposes another important myth of ObamaCare in the process. Check it out. (I’ll just add that if you have to cite Jacob Hacker in support of your position, as Krugman does, you’ve already lost all credibility.)
And speaking of propaganda, conservatives are not the ones who have crafted and promoted a strategy for health reform based on lies and deceit. Here’s Krugman in a column published in the NY Times on June 5, 2009:
The “public option”, if it materializes, will be just that — an option Americans can choose. And the reason for providing this option was clearly laid out in Mr. Obama’s letter: It will give Americans “a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep the insurance companies honest.”
And now here is Krugman, just 2 weeks later, speaking to a small audience of progressive activists in NJ:
“…the only reason not to do [single-payer] is that politically it’s hard to do in one step…You’d have to convince people to completely give up the insurance they have, whereas something that let’s people keep the insurance they have but then offers the option of a public plan, that may evolve into single-payer, but you can do it politically…”
There it is in a nutshell. Thank you Paul Krugman, economic adviser to the President, and eminent columnist for the New York Times, for filling us in on what’s really going on. Maybe one of these days someone in the mainstream media will enlighten the public on what so many prominent Democrats seem to have no problem admitting behind closed doors.
In the meantime, I have to admit a degree of frustration with Republicans in Congress for not doing more to highlight and expose the Democrats’ underhanded strategy with this. It seems like a pretty straight-forward point for them to make: why should we trust any version of the public plan given the Democrats’ transparent intent to deceive the public with this? If Republicans don’t do more to go on the offensive with this I fear that the Democrats along with their willing partners in the media may have success portraying Republicans as obstructionists as we get closer to the final legislation being drafted.
If anyone has any GOP contacts, or other ideas for getting more visibility on this, I welcome your input and suggestions.
Update: Forgot to link to an insightful piece by Will Wilkinson at the Cato Institute, where he cites some of our material to further expose the public plan for the ruse that it is. Also, be sure to check out his column at The Week where he makes a compelling case that the Democrats’ deceit over the public plan is masking the real debate we should be having over liberty and fundamental rights.
Category: Health & Education, Politics |
Thanks!
July 8, 2009 @ 11:21 pmI hadn’t seen this, although I had seen clips of Jacob Hacker and Rahm Emanuel.
I think we have the weight of opinion against “public option”, thankfully, and I think more people are beginning to see the “trojan horse” nature of the public option.
Fundamentally, though, surely access to healthcare should be determined on the basis of need rather than on the basis of ability to pay? In a first world country, at least. The current American system seems a bit of an aberration.
Books could be written about what’s wrong with the British NHS, and it should not be a model for any other country, BUT everyone over here gets the treatment they need based on clinical assesment alone. And we do have the private sector, too, for those willing and able to pay.
July 9, 2009 @ 3:35 amKeith, the point of the Wilkinson article I linked at the end is that this is the debate/discussion we should be having in America. But we aren’t because our current batch of leaders have chosen a strategy which intentionally obfuscates their real agenda. It’s dishonorable and because it’s so transparent, it’s more likely to just foul up the final legislation based on compromises that will have to be made to get moderate (Democrat) votes in the Senate.
The point of insurance is to spread out risk (and costs) over a broad pool of the population. Many of the oft cited number of people in the U.S. who do not have insurance could easily afford it, but choose not to for whatever reason.
I have not heard a single conservative of any significance (or at all, for that matter) argue that the indigent should be denied medical care. If we could only address this issue on an honest and truly cooperative basis I think a much better solution would be forthcoming.
July 9, 2009 @ 7:28 am[...] Unfortunate slip of Mr Krugman’s. [...]
July 9, 2009 @ 7:53 am[...] Unfortunate slip of Mr Krugman’s. [...]
July 9, 2009 @ 7:54 amMy bad, i didn’t read the linked article.
but your care stops when your cover runs out, though, right?
This is one of the few areas where I am a big government liberal. In the UK everyone who earns pays for infrastructure, defence, state education and public healthcare. We pay for other stuff, too, but those are the biggies, and those are the ones I would describe as the bare minimum.
But isn’t that the status quo, though? Not trying to pin it on conservatives, liberals or anyone, but if it is the case, it needs fixing. Forgive my ignorance, my main source of knowledge about current affairs in the states is VS, and I haven’t been keeping up with all this healthcare stuff.
July 9, 2009 @ 8:44 amOh, but it’s not. Our hospitals do not turn away those needing urgent care. This is in fact one of the liberal arguments for health care reform, that we are all paying for these costs anyway in the form of higher insurance premiums or taxes. (To make up for the care hospitals provide to those that are not able to pay). And that by changing the system to provide more preventative care for all, rather than just urgent care, these systemic costs will be lowered.
A reasonable argument to make, and not one I have a big issue with. In fact, this issue is why I have come to favor the idea of an individual mandate for health insurance.
But of course this is entirely separate from the question of whether ultimately the government should be the entity that manages care for the population at large. This is the debate we are not having because of the Democrats’ decision to continue surreptitiously with the incrementalist approach they have been engaged in since the 1960′s.
July 9, 2009 @ 9:39 amThis is sort of a weird statement – I don’t think the Democrats have been “surreptitious.” Rather I think that they have been ineffectual in advancing any kind of populous agenda (like healthcare). I blame this on campaign financing laws and bad party leadership, but 40+ years of “surreptitious” looks a lot like 40+ years of not doing squat in my book.
I heard a guest on NPR yesterday who was talking about how Conservatives don’t want a public plan because they believe that it will lead to a single payer system. He then went on to say that liberals and progressives want a public plan for the exact same reasons.
I think that sums this argument up pretty well – both sides believe that a public plan will lead toward single payer (I’m not that sure personally), but they have different opinions about whether or not that’s a good thing.
This statement is naive. It’s the business of politicians to use rhetoric, compromise and incremental strategies to pass laws and to attain policy goals. This is not the “transparent intent to deceive the public,” this is just the way the game is played. The reason the republican’s don’t make this point is because it would be ham-handed strategy for them to do so – after all they do it all the time themselves.
Honestly guys, if the best argument you can make against the Democratic position is “they are using propaganda” then you really have a problem. All institutions use propaganda – it’s called “PR,” “advertising,” “Rhetoric,” or “scripture” depending on who’s throwing it around, but it’s hardly a sign of Machiavellian intent.
July 9, 2009 @ 12:36 pmPaul, I think there is a clear line between effective PR and advertising and basing an entire political strategy that will impact 20% of the economy on an outright deception.
The guest on NPR was correct in terms of the reasons why liberals are demanding the public plan and why conservatives are so opposed to is. Since we’ve all figured it out anyway, why can’t our leaders in government conduct this debate in an open and transparent manner?
Could it be that there is a large contingent of the electorate that is not so well-informed, and were they to be so informed, they would probably be against the idea of the government running the health care industry?
My position may be a little naive, but at least it’s honorable. And look no further than my most recent post to see that we have actually been very effective in impacting the broader media discussion on this topic. The truth resonates. Period.
July 9, 2009 @ 1:28 pmAlso, the incrementalist strategy I am referring to is the Democrat’s approach to nationalizing health care for smaller segments of the population at a time. It started with Medicare for the elderly, then Medicaid for the poor. The latest phase has been the massive expansion of the Children’s Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP).
The plan was/is to tip the scales in favor of the numbers of Americans covered by a government funded health plan. With the expectation that this would ultimately crowd out most if not all private insurance.
I don’t see or hear many Democrats in Congress openly stating that this is the strategy, so it is absolutely surreptitious. Have the Republicans engaged in this type of tactic themselves? I suppose they have. Just as I suppose that Democrats aggressively called them out for it when they did.
It is part of the game. We just don’t have the deck as well-stacked in our favor.
July 9, 2009 @ 1:50 pmGosh, there’s lots here,
Every major policy NEEDS PR/Propaganda/Rhetoric etc. This is because the role of leaders is to motivate people and these forms of communication are tools for doing just that. Every leader HAS TO make choices about what to tell the followers and what to leave out. Partly may be because they don’t want to confuse things, or because they need control over the process, or simply due to time constraints.
There is literally NO public policy decision that was ever made that didn’t involve SOME form of PR. Take the free-way system. This was “sold” to the American public as a national security measure (for moving troops around), at the same time, it was a huge policy decision that was deliberately calculated to base our economy on the automobile (for both good and ill).
It’s a form of salesmanship, and really, what could be more American than that?
Well part of the point of this “compromise position” of a public heathcare option is that no one actually KNOWS what will happen. The fact that they are allowing doubt (and market forces) into the process is a tactic that is being used to push forward this bill.
As I said, this is how the game is played, in effect they ARE being transparent.
I forget who said “anyone who likes laws and sausages should not watch either being made.”
Everyone who plays this game takes advantage of the fact that most people don’t know what is going on. The real question is “how do we inform them?”
If I were to say, “hey dude, you’re going to get more taxes, but don’t worry the guy down the street is getting free health-care.” You would be up in arms. But if I were to say “We need to raise your taxes, but your insurance premium will go down at the same time, and while your coverage won’t change, you will never have to worry about losing your insurance again,” You might say “Heck yeah! Sign me up!”
As I said, salesmanship.
See, I think that this statement is where you are mistaken. I’m not sure what you mean by “truth” but when you are dealing with social policy, social processes and other complex systems, the “truth” is that NO ONE KNOWS the whole picture. It’s just too complicated for any one human being to make sense of completely.
That’s why two economists or two doctors or two social scientists can look at the same data and come up with totally different conclusions. Complex systems are just like that.
So when you say “The truth resonates. Period.” You are ignoring that there are layers of complexity and uncertainty. One of the great criticisms I have for conservatives is not that you have bad intentions, but simply that you tend to ignore this fact. You guys have a bad habit of believing in a specific authority, and then believing that their take on reality is the “truth.”
Take the whole idea that “if the government ran the healthcare system that would be bad.” Well you don’t KNOW that. You might have good reasons to believe it, but you can’t really predict the future. What we DO know is that healthcare costs are growing much faster than inflation, that we are #1 in healthcare expenses, but #28 in healthcare outcomes and that millions of americans are uninsured, and that buisnesses have trouble competing because they pay for employee healthcare under our system. These are known problmes, but no one knows what solutions are going to work to fix them.
I think that this is what you are doing here. You are saying “I know what is going to happen if this bill is passed and it’s bad.” No. You don’t. There is LOTS of room for reasonable and honorable and well-intentioned people to disagree.
That’s why we liberals (and we non-Christians) can view the world in a very different way than you do, and still be good people. It is also why evil people can be evil and still be conservative Christians. The world is too complex for simple categories to be used to make too much sense of human systems.
Politicians take advantage of this fact to craft their rhetoric and to win friends and influence people.
That’s politics.
July 9, 2009 @ 2:07 pmPaul, you are expanding my argument, and then attacking it on the basis of things I did not say or imply. (Unfairly I might add).
My comment about truth resonating was solely in relation to what the intended strategy was with the public plan. There is no hidden complexity here. No nuance that I or other conservatives are missing. It was plainly an attempt to deceive, and if you don’t know this by now I’m hurt, because it means you haven’t been reading my posts. ; )
Frankly, I’d much rather have a debate on the merits of a free market health system versus single-payer. But that’s not the debate we are having because the President and his allies would have us believe that the public plan is only intended to provide more choice and competition in the market. They want to build on what we already have. If we like the insurance we have, we can keep it.
It’s all bullshit and I will continue to call them on it.
July 9, 2009 @ 2:26 pmAMERICA’S NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY!
It’s official. America and the World are now in a GLOBAL PANDEMIC. A World EPIDEMIC with potential catastrophic consequences for ALL of the American people. The first PANDEMIC in 41 years. And WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES will have to face this PANDEMIC with the 37th worst quality of healthcare in the developed World.
STAND READY AMERICA TO SEIZE CONTROL OF YOUR NATIONAL HEALTHCARE SYSTEM.
We spend over twice as much of our GDP on healthcare as any other country in the World. And Individual American spend about ten times as much out of pocket on healthcare as any other people in the World. All because of GREED! And the PRIVATE FOR PROFIT healthcare system in America.
And while all this is going on, some members of congress seem mostly concern about how to protect the corporate PROFITS! of our GREED DRIVEN, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT NATIONAL DISGRACE. A PRIVATE FOR PROFIT DISGRACE that is in fact, totally valueless to the public health. And a detriment to national security, public safety, and the public health.
Progressive democrats the Tri-Caucus and others should stand firm in their demand for a robust public option for all Americans, with all of the minimum requirements progressive democrats demanded. If congress can not pass a robust public option with at least 51 votes and all robust minimum requirements, congress should immediately move to scrap healthcare reform and request that President Obama declare a state of NATIONAL HEALTHCARE EMERGENCY! Seizing and replacing all PRIVATE FOR PROFIT health insurance plans with the immediate implementation of National Healthcare for all Americans under the provisions of HR676 (A Single-payer National Healthcare Plan For All).
Coverage can begin immediately through our current medicare system. With immediate expansion through recruitment of displaced workers from the canceled private sector insurance industry. Funding can also begin immediately by substitution of payroll deductions for private insurance plans with payroll deductions for the national healthcare plan. This is what the vast majority of the American people want. And this is what all objective experts unanimously agree would be the best, and most cost effective for the American people and our economy.
In Mexico on average people who received medical care for A-H1N1 (Swine Flu) with in 3 days survived. People who did not receive medical care until 7 days or more died. This has been the same results in the US. But 50 million Americans don’t even have any healthcare coverage. And at least 200 million of you with insurance could not get in to see your private insurance plans doctors in 2 or 3 days, even if your life depended on it. WHICH IT DOES!
If President Obama has to declare a NATIONAL STATE OF EMERGENCY to rescue the American people from our healthcare crisis, he will need all the sustained support you can give him. STICK WITH HIM! He’s doing a brilliant job.
THIS IS THE BIG ONE!
THE BATTLE OF GOOD Vs EVIL!
Join the fight.
Contact congress and your representatives NOW! AND SPREAD THE WORD!
God Bless You
Jacksmith – WORKING CLASS
July 9, 2009 @ 2:52 pmJack,
I realize its in your parties interest to continually inflate the number of ininsured. The number currently in use is 47 million. Of those, nearly 10 million are illegal immigrants and therefore not “Americans.” Of the remaining 38 million or so, a large number (over 10 million) are people who could afford coverage but have chosen not to buy it. This is a choice these individuals (mostly young and healthy) made, not necessarily a flaw in the system.
The crisis in health care is financial. Universal coverage is a laudable goal, but it will not by itself do anything to reduce costs. On the contrary, it will further stretch the already scarce resources, making care more expensive.
July 9, 2009 @ 3:02 pmThat’s cool man, do what you gotta do. Like I said. There is plenty of room for well-meaning, good people to disagree.
I disagree.
How do you know this John?
July 9, 2009 @ 3:10 pmImitation is the sincerest form of flattery…I have a good laugh at every one of your bong comments.
July 9, 2009 @ 8:18 pmKim Streassel wrote an excellent column in today’s Wall Street Journal about the politics of the issue:
July 9, 2009 @ 10:36 pmhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB124718217595120225.html