The public option as a signal by Paul Krugman

Look, it is possible to have universal care without a public option; Switzerland does. But there are some good reasons for the prominence of the public option in our debate.

One is substantive: to have a workable system without the public option, you need to have effective regulation of the insurers. Given the realities of our money-dominated politics, you really have to worry whether that can be done — which is a reason to have a more or less automatic mechanism for disciplining the industry.

The second is what the option debate says about Obama.

If progressives had real trust in Obama’s commitment to doing the right thing, the administration would have broad leeway to do deals. But the president doesn’t command that kind of trust.

Partly it’s a matter of style — as many people have noted, he has been weirdly reluctant to make the moral case for universal care, weirdly unable to show passion on the issue, weirdly diffident even about the blatant lies from the right. Partly it’s a spillover from his other policies: by appointing an economic team that’s Rubin redux, by taking such a kindly attitude to the banks, he has squandered a lot of progressive enthusiasm.

Add in the dealmaking as part of the health care process itself, and progressives can be forgiven for having the impression that Obama (a) takes them for granted (b) is way too easily rolled by the other side.

So progressives have their backs up over one provision in health care reform that’s easy to monitor. The public option has become not so much a symbol as a signal, a test of whether Obama is really the progressive activists thought they were backing.

And the bizarre thing is that the administration doesn’t seem to get that.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/the-public-option-as-a-signal/

Instad of giving us the constant drone that if Obama does it then it must be good for us.

:wtf:

The minute I see the word "apologist" I think of other words designed to engender a negative response.

It just makes you look like a trouble-making ass hole.

is really the progressive activists thought they were backing.

And the bizarre thing is that the administration doesn’t seem to get that."

I think they DO get it, but anyone who thinks Rahm Emanuel, Mr. DLC, is going to let the Progressives influence his prejudices is simply mistaken.

Thanks for posting this, Joanne98.

think any politician (well, a minimal amount) have real, solid progressive beliefs, but I do care that he listens and knows which side his bread is buttered on...you are right in that the Rahm-filter might be keeping Obama in the dark about how people really feel about this issue.

I am sincerely hoping that Obama is doing his rope-a-dope routine again. I'm one of those who gives a politician enough rope to hang themselves with. It's put up or shut up time.

We shall see what Obama is made of... Can he allow true confrontation, or will he side-step it?

So, that was legit. I'm allowed to have an opinion with some fuck-nut trying to poke a stick in peoples eyes just for fun.

annoyance? or whatever it was inside you that prompted your attack.

watch Frontline's "Sick Around the World". Switzerland, Taiwan, etc are included.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/


If I remember correctly, the Swiss pay something like $750/month for their healthcare, and Swiss private insurances are true non-profits according to the 2008 show.