Paul Krugman on the Need for Bipartisanship: The Republican Party is Now the Rump on the Right
By Heather Monday Aug 24, 2009 7:00am
Paul Krugman and Robert Reich both made some really great points during the panel discussion on This Week on the reasons for some real reform of the insurance industry, the mistakes made by the President in negotiating with the Senate, and the notion that there is a need for bipartisanship when the Republican party has moved so far out of the mainstream. And this statement by Krugman bears noting:
Krugman: Well, the public option again, this is something, that, there’s a question whether they're for it, or whether, are they willing to actually vote against cloture to stop this really quite modest but helpful piece of the reform being in there? (crosstalk) They have no intellectual basis to stand on, right? The argument against the public option is sheer nonsense. We know that. It's nothing except the insurance lobby.
Exactly. If these conserva-Dems want to block health care reform and getting the insurance industries in check, make them actually have to stand up and filibuster it along with the Republicans and show their true colors.
Transcript below the fold.
Krugman: We’re now at a point where the insurance premiums for typical employer based insurance are on the order of a quarter or more of the earnings of the average worker. This is a situation in which more and more companies are going to drop coverage, which is happening. We had a situation, you know, something unique happened during the period from 2003-2008, which is that for the first time ever, health insurance coverage deteriorated in a time of recovery. This is not supposed to happen. This is a system that’s coming apart at the seems. Once we get the numbers for what’s been happening in this recession it’s going to be horrific. (crosstalk)
Frum: The Republicans should be for health insurance reform. I completely, I think John McCain is right at least in where he was going, although he didn’t take the full step there. The price for health insurance reform should be a jettison, The Democrats’ jettison their attempt to nationalize the health care system or do anything (crosstalk), do anything approaching it. And that is, and that is where I think the President’s put us on the wrong track. I think the, what John McCain was pointing to, one of the last times Congress did something big, 1986, the tax reform that year, essentially the Senate took that proposal away from the President. President Reagan had a proposal. It was not going anywhere in Congress. The Senate and Bob Packwood in particular took it away, rewrote it and produced something that was broadly acceptable and got the better result than the President himself accepted. That’s what should happen now.
Stephanopoulos: Isn’t David getting to the heart of the issue? Now it’s pretty clear if you look at the votes in the House and the Senate, while there are significant pluralities of Democrats for the public option, the majority of Democrats, you can’t get it through either one. Why not give up the public option?
Reich: But George, here’s the problem. In terms of negotiating, a President needs to have a very strong base behind him in order to give him the maximum negotiating strength for the other side. Also, a President cannot engage in preemptive negotiations. That is simply (crosstalk) giving in before he gets anything back from the other side. Yeah, and unfortunately on of these counts the White House is not doing it in a way that actually pushes the ball forward.
Krugman: And can I say something about bipartisanship? There’s this notion that we ought to have bipartisanship. What people usually mean by that you ought to get the center. We ought to get let’s say the middle twenty Senators to agree on something. The middle twenty Senators are now all Democrats. The Republican party is now a rump on the right which thanks to the arcane rules of the Senate (crosstalk).
Stephanopoulos: Does that get to the problem and that not quite twenty, the middle ten Democrats in the Senate are not for the public option?
Krugman: Well, the public option again, this is something, that, there’s a question whether they're for it, or whether, are they willing to actually vote against cloture to stop this really quite modest but helpful piece of the reform being in there? (crosstalk) They have no intellectual basis to stand on, right? The argument against the public option is sheer nonsense. We know that. It's nothing except the insurance lobby.
Login or Register to post comments.
It's the insurance lobby, stupid. The Right-wingers are great at getting common folks to get their gander up with wedge issues.
...not "gander". Just FYI.
you are,of course, correct but the image of the wingers goosing the gullible seems strangely apt.
as if on cue...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/24/gop-...
bringing out McStain today. and cnn adds the LIEberman bullshit to the mix. tell me it isn't coordinated.
Well, the CEO bailout of Wall Street opened alot of new offshore bank accounts and Rove wants to know how pleased the Pugs can be.
Hell, even Bush's Sec. of the Treasury Paulsen got $28 millions in bonuses from failed Goldman Sachs.
Gentlemen... Start your check writing. -Generalissimo Limbaugh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Paulson
WE need single payer and fuck these republicans and pundints!
The republican tallking points today seem to be if the govt can't handle the cash for clunkers program in rapid fashion, how are they going to handle govt. run healthcare. This is all coming from the car dealers not getting their $4500 back from the govt. as fast as they would like. The only problem with the c4c is that it was more successful than anyone thought it could be and faster too. Now dealers are complaining because they have no inventory. Some of them are gonna bitch no matter what happens.
... are no more than dining room tables .....
a dining room table is useful, and actually provides service to its users.
carry on a conversation better than any republican you care to name.
doesn't listen to Fixed News which means it's way better informed than most Republicans.
steadily carried insurance on myself since 1980. My husband and I have carried insurance on our daughter, who was born with a unilateral, incomplete cleft of the lip and a massive bilateral complete cleft of the palate, since 1990. Coverage has grown steadily more expensive to hold (premiums, per se) and more expensive to use, via copays or co-insurance or whatever creative name they concoct to make it sound like we are all in this together. One of the things that no one ever mentions is how much of the actual transaction the insurer picks up and what percentage of the transaction your copay covers. Back in the day, a good/fair cost share was about a max of 15% for the insured, with the remainder being picked up by the insurer. I've noticed now that those have come closer and in some cases changed positions. Not only are we paying more to have access to coverage, in many cases we are also actually bearing more of the cost of the actual transaction.
When Krugman speaks he makes George Will look like he should have a propeller beanie to go with his bow tie.
...can the guy even form a cohesive sentence?
If you do not have a public option, health insurance premiums will only go up. If the reform components of the health insurance reforms are put in place (insurers must accept all applicants, no cancelling policies after claims are made), insurers will just increase premiums to offset these risks.
These higher premiums will cause more people, or employers, to not be able to afford health insurance, and more people will end up without insurance or requiring additional subsidies from the government, increasing the governments cost.
In order to lower costs, you must have additional insurance competition.
... shut down the private side of an insurance company, and using all the same people, but now working for the government (salaries according to government guidelines), cut premiums by 32%, provide all the same coverage, add a provision that no insured will ever be terminated for having claims, and no one will be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions.
Would that be acceptable to repugs?
Note: Overhead in private sector is 35%, government's is 3%, hence the 32% cut.
Would that be acceptable to repugs?
"NO"thing is accaptable to the pubs.
Have you missed the NO part?
you put Neil (sp?) Bush or a Cheney or some other connected loser in charge of it so that they can profit from it, then it's good.
The insurance companies and their hired lobbyists and the scum politicians who take their bribes and payola are the ones making the money from the premiums paid for by business, its employees, and other people funding their own insurance "coverage". The insurance biz takes these premiums, denies service, and overcharges copays all the while pocketing the premiums paid in good faith for coverage should the insured need it.
It's a frickin' racket and has been going on way too long. People... it's plain and simple... you want the same coverage that the elected politicians enjoy. The same thing would much better suit you than any other method.
Public option is the ONLY way to go! Logically and rationally... get these crooks and liars (insurance companies and their employees; lobbyists; and crooked politicians) out of the healthcare business. And if you don't see healthcare business as an oxymoron, you need further education!
Tort Reform, Insurance Industry Reform, Pharmaceutical Industry Reform and Coverage for everyone. We are a sue happy land. We MUST get this under control. The out of control lawsuits are at the root of high insurance. The Insurance industry has capitalized upon the citizens of the USA and have BILKED THEM for every cent they have with NOTHING in return! Why does Big Pharma charge the citizens within the US borders twice or thee times more for drugs than they do those outside our borders? WE MUST REGULATE PRICES!!! Make big pharma sell to us at the SAME MARKET RATE they sell to everyone else! We must provide medical coverage for every last citizen of this nation. If not a human right, it should certainly be a national right!
There was a study a while back that showed increased premiums for malpractice insurance were the result of market pressures, not high payouts. Since the insurers were making less on their investments, they raised their prices.
Also, a recent policy shift at the Univ of Michigan Hospital system has cut its malpractice suits in half, simply by having the docs spend more time with patients, accepting responsibility when something actually went wrong and saying that they were sorry.
That's another reason I believe in single payer. It would allow the docs to spend more time with their patients to develop a relationship with them, which would automatically cut malpractice claims. Amazing.
didn't help the residents of Missouri see their insurance premiums go down.
Hmmmm... must be something else going on here.
Republicans held the White House for 20 years from 1980 to 2008 and had the Congressional majorities they needed to regulate trial lawyers.
They didn't do it, they just talked about it.
They'll never do it now, because when push comes to shove, Billy Bob Birther - who belongs to the NRA and hates the president and Congress - doesn't want to have his right to sue the government infringed.
you write: "out of control lawsuits are at the root of high insurance"
outside of your personal bias on the subject, i would be curious to see you back up that outrageous claim with some non-insurance-friendly data... if you can
It's my belief that if politicians don't listen to the will of the American people--at least a significant majority of them--we owe them the same respect. I, for one, will not be forced into a another crappy private insurance plan if there's no available public option. I've put too much in the pockets of big insurance and have gotten nothing in return.
The Tax Reform in 1986! Translation Tax Give-Away For the Rich.
we talk for you.
Are we seeing, with this insane debate on Health Care Reform, the rise of a true Progressive voting bloc in Congress and a more defined Progressive Voters' Movement? This whole debate has drawn lines in the sand. Everybody knows that Universal Single-Payer is the goal by which a more just and civilized America strives for. Yet, K-street and the Corporate Media are the ones holding this thing back.
But something is in the air. And it's not the Fascist-Lite Teabaggers, and their bizarro world of bent logic. It may be a Progressive movement that looks and feels like a movement with goals. Health Care Reform and a Medicare for All may be the starting point.
How a politician votes on this issue will define that politician for a very long time. Sort of like the passage Civil Rights Act of 1964, which helped defined the Conservative Movement. Will the Health Care Bill of 2009 be as defining for a Progressive Movement?
Expect zero reform.
1. You have dishonest and unethical pharma companies using tactics like these to push dangerous drugs for uses for which they aren't intended..
2. You also have the media deriving most of its revenue from the pharma companies, so no help there.
3. You have politicians who are completely on the take, even many who say they support some public option.
Until these obstacles are removed, regulated or even taken over, expect zero reform.
members of Congress know that the public, (even the activists) typically have a short attention span and quickly move on to the next issue, the next outrage, the next cause. Members of Congress bank on not being held accountable because they are needed for the next issue that comes down the pike. Many of the progressives that are now demanding a public option will likely fold and vote yeah for a package that does not include one citing the need for a package. This is a disappointing reality, but the money in DC trumps the people everytime. While the Democrats have a majority, there are Democrats in the Party that are more aligned with the GOP than the Democratic Party and they are fighting reform tooth and nail. They need to be targeted, but it is hard to know whether Obama can bring them into the fold. It is also hard to figure Obama's goal at this juncture. He has surely been a disappointment on health care. He seems to be allowing the GOP and the Health Industry Corporate POV too much latitude without any real push back. Many progressives are beginning to wonder if reform is for the benefit of the people or the industry. One thing is clear. If Obama lets us down on reform (no public option) he is likely to see a large contingent of his base with a long attention span for a change. He will shed supporters faster than a maple tree looses leaves in the Fall. Obama had the unique ability to attract people passionate about politics during the campaign. This kind of voter that cares about causes and issues more than the candidate will flee if they feel betrayed. They are about issues and not Party.
They won't vote for any one, they will just say fuck-it and stay home. the repugs are counting on this.
Tort reform to lower consumer health care costs is a proven myth. States that have tort reform have the same premium rates as states without tort reform. Premiums are based on desired profits and what the market will bare. Analysis of premiums across the nation show that premiums have risen the fastest when insurance company investments in the markets decline and company stock price declines. THEY CAN DO THIS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO REAL COMPETITION. They simply make up their investment losses with increased premiums to guarantee profits. In addition, over the last twenty years the industry has gotten greedier and greedier demanding more out of each dollar for profits and top end compensation. All of this is on the backs of the insured. As they force people out of the market with unaffordable premiums, they simply gouge those left that can pay with higher costs. And, of course, as fewer are insured, real costs do go up for the insured as cost shifting takes place when services are provided.
that the debate on HC is...
A) happening in the first place...
B) that the people decrying the public option are brownshirting for the HC industry...
C) this contrived BS by the fascists could possibly lead to civil war
I just don't get it. These people who are bitching aboyt helth care have never had to go the the Dr or have any hospital shit done. Are they just nuts? The insurance health care wants this to DIE! Why would they be putting millions into this to KILL it. They want there billions of profit to stay the way it is. Is this what you get after 8 years of dummy down the american people, or is this just a way for the repugs to bitch after getting there ass kicked after a Black man got the WhiteHouse. Look at how this bullshit health care started. Under Nixon. He was the asshole who started this bullshit HOM's. google it. nixon health care. there vidios of nixon asn that asshole halderman telling nixon this will be a WIN,WIN for the health insurance big shits.
back when clinton tried to get health care fixed, the insurance put out millions of dollare and the same bullshit, now there at it again, same people same bullshit. But this time they made sure they bought up all the repugs and lots of dems. One thing that people in congress under stand is WHO is giving them MONEY for there campaine. These asshole make sure they never have to live from payday to payday. make sure they never must chose from food or rent or house payment. The thing that ticks me off is these fucktards NEVER miss a VACATION. They go on vacations on YOUR dime, on the health care dime and sleep very good. do you think they give a shit about you. not in this life time. all they think about is getting elected again, any way they can. If they would try this shit in European countries, the people would be in the streets be for the ink was dry. In this country, people are worried about the bullshit on TV and when they can go to wall-mart.
Think about it. there are over1,300 privateinsurers in this country,forcing Dr to fill out form after form. this paper work accounts for about $350 billion in paper work. They want the system to stay the same old shit. they make billions, you try to get well. good luck on that, be sure to read the small print, No, thats not covered, no that is not covered either. make sure you Pay your preamums and don't forget your co-pay, and the out of pocket, and the NEW deductabales.
in that Obama should stop negotiating with himself. Negotiating that way is a good way to lose, even if you've got an issue that should be a sure winner.
Krugman's also right. It's nearly impossible to have bipartisanship when the second party has become a small, shrinking, fringe party.
Force the obstructions to filibuster in the Senate, if necessary. While nothing is happening inside, other Senators should be right outside the Capitol producing one American after another to tell their story about how they can't get health insurance, can't afford it, have been denied coverage, etc. Make it a show that the media must cover. And if they won't, have Obama show up because then they will. It's long past time for hardball tactics.
...the second party has become a small, shrinking, fringe party.
True, as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough.
It's totally impossible to have meaningful bipartisanship when the second party is more interested in destroying a president and an administration than it is in finding real solutions to real problems.
Since Republicanism has devolved into a tax cuts for the rich, anti-abortion, say-absolutely-anything-to-win cult of fools and liars, it's difficult to imagine what real bipartisanship would look like. Obama is doing great damage to the Democratic Party and the liberal and progressive causes by continuing to pretend that bipartisanship is simply getting two or three Republican senators to sign on to legislation that has been rendered worthless by several rounds of concessions by Obama and the Democrats in return for getting nothing in return. Oh, wait, I almost forgot about those two or three Republican votes.
For an intelligent person, Barack Obama is certainly governing stupidly. I think the country would be better served if Obama had a little less intelligence and a lot more integrity. Seven months into his first term, I'm willing to say he sucks big-time.
Stephanopoulos, George Will and David Frum are all BFFs of John McCain and the corporations that are pouring millions of dollars into the demented Birthers, Deathers, gun nuts and Screamers.
I'm glad Krugman and Reich faced them with their own bullshit on national TV. Go Paul Krugman!
Pre-emptive negotiator par excellence.
Krugman and Reich are two of the very few reliable Democratic voices left.
You just gotta love his deadpan academic style of zinger delivery. I could just see his presentation as a power point slide bullet
* Republican Party
-- Rump on the right
Login or Register to post comments.