Paul Krugman Continues to Beat the (Trojan) Horse
Morgen on September 9, 2009 at 12:25 am
Paul Krugman continued his ongoing campaign for the public option in the New York Times yesterday. Here’s how he closed his piece (emphasis added):
Let me add a sort of larger point: aside from the essentially circular political arguments — centrist Democrats insisting that the public option must be dropped to get the votes of centrist Democrats — the argument against the public option boils down to the fact that it’s bad because it is, horrors, a government program. And sooner or later Democrats have to take a stand against Reaganism — against the presumption that if the government does it, it’s bad.
Krugman knows full well that liberals intend the public option to be a little more than just your run of the mill “government program”. From inception, the public option was designed as a politically viable strategy to move the nation towards a government-run, single-payer system. I’ve posted this video before, but since the public option is a liberal horror which just won’t die, let’s have Paul Krugman explain once again what the REAL goal of the public option is:
(1:40) Krugman: These plans are interesting. They’re not single-payer but they can evolve into single-payer…
(2:12) Krugman: These plans…they build on the existing private insurance system, but crucially they also allow people to buy into a publicly run plan, which would compete and I believe actually in the end would kill the private plans in the competition. So it’s a route that can lead to single-payer but the main thing is it gets you universal coverage, it gets it right away, and it doesn’t require any legislation that doesn’t look like something you could actually pass if you give me 55 Democrats in the Senate and 240 in the House.
So let’s see, there are currently 60 Democrats in the Senate and 256 in the House. And yet, depending on who you believe the public option may be on the verge of being dropped entirely. (No wonder Krugman is so disappointed in Obama.)
But really, the reason the public option is in so much jeopardy is quite simple. Anyone paying attention knows that the Administration’s spin about “choice and competition” is ludicrous. Too many ObamaCare proponents have admitted the truth about the public option. Republicans in Congress know this as do the moderate “Blue Dog” Democrats in the House. This genie is not going back in the bottle.
Category: Health & Education, Politics |
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Wacko Jacko PR . Wacko Jacko PR said: Paul Krugman Continues to Beat the (Trojan) Horse | Verum Serum: Paul Krugman Continues to Beat the (Trojan) Hor.. http://tinyurl.com/nehmah [...]
September 9, 2009 @ 2:27 amI don’t know if pointing to what one side ultimately really wants in a compromise as evidence that there can be no compromise makes much sense. Of course there are some liberals who see the public option as a stepping stone to universal coverage.
But that doesn’t mean that it has to be, or that by agreeing to a public option that it has to be structured in such a way that they will get their wish. Every step of the way is going to be fought: if going from public option to universal coverage is a bad idea, then fight that step when we come to it.
Otherwise, it’s like arguing that we can’t cut federal education funding because what the right REALLY wants is to destroy public education. Maybe some of them do. But that’s not really a strong argument against whether or not it makes sense to cut federal education funding by the particular amount under discussion.
September 9, 2009 @ 5:25 amDrew, you make a good point except for one simple fact. The public option was designed to inevitably lead to single payer. It’s a terminal cancer for those of us who value the real freedom of choice in how we obtain and pay for healthcare for our families.
And frankly, yours would be a more compelling argument if the proponents of the public option had been more honest about their ultimate (or ideal) intentions. But by continually lying and misleading about this – except when caught on tape while speaking to friendly audiences – I don’t see why conservatives should even consider compromising on the public option.
A public option is wholly unnecessary…and we shouldn’t cut deals with liars.
September 9, 2009 @ 7:09 am@Drew: “I don’t know if pointing to what one side ultimately really wants in a compromise as evidence that there can be no compromise makes much sense.”
But a compromise that is really a bait-and-switch is a problem. When many of the powerful Dems are on record saying this will lead to single-payer, that’s cause for concern.
September 9, 2009 @ 7:34 amI just heard about this on Andrew Wilkows XM Radio show and it literally brought tears to my eyes ( my wife is due with baby #3 Oct. 5).
This is what the Statist Obama wants to bring to the US. My stomach id physically sickened.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html
September 9, 2009 @ 9:20 am