So said Pyrrhus, of the Pyrrhic Victory. And Professor Krugman:
So the odds now are that the [health care reform] thing hangs together, and reform is indeed enacted this year. It will be a highly flawed product; we’ll probably spend much of the next decade trying to fix it.
But it does look as if it’s going to happen. And that will be a huge victory for ["]progressives["].
In what universe does a policy that we know going in will take 10 years to fix get declared a victory?
Well, in the "progressive," universe, I imagine. The real point of Krugman's post is, I imagine, to license a bout of "progressive" triumphalism at having produced a "reform" that isn't universal, doesn't regard health care as a right, bails out the insurance companies and reinforces the role and values of for-profit health care, sets up a system of health exchanges that FAIL everywhere they're tried, and is likely to force people to buy junk insurance with the IRS acting as the collection agent, which is quite likely to provoke and legitimize tax resistance on the populist right.
And, oh yeah, doesn't kick in 'til 2013 so brave Sir Obama doesn't have to run on it, showing that all that bushwa from "progressives" about lives being at stake doesn't mean, and never did mean, jack squat. Yay!
Hail poetry!Hail, Poetry, thou heaven-born maid! / Thou gildest e'en the pirate's trade: /Hail, flowing fount of sentiment! / All hail, Divine Emollient!
"And everybody praised the Duke
Who this great fight did win."
"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin.
"Why, that I cannot tell," said he,
"But 'twas a famous victory."
[Reach me that bucket, wouldja, hon?]
NOTE Everything old is new again, isn't it? "I used to like Paul Krugman when he stuck to writing about economics...". Or at least up until Krugman had dinner with Obama, when he seemed to lose the shrill.
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
It has been clear for some
It has been clear for some time that Professor Krugman sees the only choice at this point as between Obama and the far Right, and given that he will ultimately always try to make lemonade out of Obama's lemons. He is not going to play the role that we (I think I can use "we" here) would like him to play as a critic of the administration. That's unfortunate, but no one is perfect.
Btw, did you notice the Washington Post is having a contest for a 13 week pundit gig? I'm entering, without any remote hope of winning, but if hell freezes over (or thaws if you prefer Dante) I'll be happy to take up Krugman's fallen shrill standard.
Tdraicer
I was pretty flabbergasted to
I was pretty flabbergasted to see that Krugman comment too. It's so unlike him to be stupid that I almost think I must be missing something. And then I look at the Health Insurance Welfare Act, and it's just the same -- or worse -- as the last time I looked.
I just don't get where he's coming from on all this. Half a loaf may be better than none, but a fingernail-sized crumb is not. And pretending it's even half a loaf is just delusional. I don't get it.
I with you all on this
Your second paragraph, quixote, is exactly, word-for-word, what I would have said.
Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism.—Sidney Wolin
all hail, divine emolument!
adding to the list of wkpk ---
4. chris bowers. proof: the wording about progressives hanging together, and about victory for progressives.
ok, having said that, i'll go to bat for the good perfesser here [just tiny bit].
hr3200 outlaws rescission [except in cases of clear fraud] beginning oct 1 2010 [section 162] by adding a few sentences here. i don't see any actual teeth in there for actually enforcing that provision though.
beginning jan 1 2011, insurers will have to adhere to some as yet unspecified medical loss ratio [section 161] that will presumably make premiums more affordable. this mlr is to be determined by the hhs secretary, using some formula to be determined by the hhs secretary. there are weasel words in them thar bills:
special circumstances of smaller plans = b-b-b-but we need that 40% overhead to administer them! they're special! not to mention that to ensure adequate participation by issuers [read: we can't operate with anything less! we're already only making 3% profit as it is!], oh, and look for the proliferation of 'newer' plans too, because financial innovation will save us all.
but everybody is only going to hear new, lower premiums! no more rescission! these would both be very good to have, but there's no need for all the rest of the 1000+ pages just to get these two additions to existing insurance law.
imnsho the bulk of those 1000+ pages is all about [1] beginning the process of 'entitlement reform' and [2] transferring tax dollars from the treasury to the pockets of insurance company fatcats.
Well…
yeah, but we all agree that all that doesn't constitute a "huge victory" for progressives. At most, one might say that's a "small victory" for progressives and we'd be gnashing our teeth at that!
Your info, as always, is invaluable and much appreciated.
Oh, out of 57 comments on Krugman's blog, at least half were critical of his favorable assessment, I'd say. A few channeled lambert, never a bad idea when it comes to these things. Still, the more the merrier, I say, if you're so inclined.
Every apathetic citizen is a silent enlistee in the cause of inverted totalitarianism.—Sidney Wolin
He's...
He's been bad on health care from the beginning of this administration, so this isn't a surprise.
But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...