Letters to the Editor
doloresflower
Published Letters: 1201 Editor's Choice: 10
-
more animosity toward Clinton, anonymous? I guess you didn't see this
[Read the article: Undecided '08: Should I vote for Clinton or Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"Slick Obama
I'm on to this crook. He's a Radical Extremist Right-Wing Manchurian Candidate. He'll be a thousand times worse than GWB, an Uber-Neocon the likes of which we've never seen. Not only will he start WW3, but he'll drop the tax rate on the rich to zero percent, and give away what's left of our country to the transnational corporations. His nomination will spell the end of our great Republic. Lady Liberty weeps tonight.
THIS MAN MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!!!!!!
-- Villemar"
hmmmmmm.
-
I live in San Francisco...
[Read the article: The race for California]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]and this morning I saw kids holding Obama 08 signs up in traffic (by kids I mean 18-27 year olds). My coworkers report kids in the Bart Station holding Obama signs. On the doors near my apartment I could see Obama stickers and signs, but no signs of Clinton.
I don't expect Obama to win California, especially given that half the voters here are absentee and have already mailed in their votes, before the Obama "surge" really got started--but the excitement in the election is palpable and I think its good for the country. I love the fact that the next generation cares who is president--and that so many more people are voting in this election than usually do.
It's sunny here. I feel optimistic. I've already voted and it made me feel like a lucky citizen to have that opportunity--to have more than one person on my ballot who I respect is a privilege.
Here's to a good day for Democracy.
-
anyonymous, however much the clinton campaign pays you
[Read the article: Super Tuesday showdown]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]its too much.
-
Krugman's stance on Clinton has been strange to me for a while
[Read the article: Krugman accuses Obama of "unscrupulous demagoguery"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In his latest article he says health care is the only policy difference between Clinton and Obama(when foreign policy is also a notable difference--Obama favors diplomacy to Clinton's "correct answers" on not sitting down with world leaders etc.), and then he neglects to mention that Clinton collects more money from insurance health care lobbyists than any other candidate including Republican candidates. (?)
Then he attacks Obama's plan relentlessly for not being universal enough even though there are no guarantees that either plan will get the coalition it needs...and not mentioning that Obama's plan with payer option will get more support from a split Congress and that Clinton if she is elected may switch to a similar option in order to drum up support.
Then he concludes, with a good economist's god-like certainty that Obama's plan will definitely not go through (?) Based on what empirical god-like evidence, he doesn't bother to give.
I received Krugman's book from the library recently, and although many ideas in it are agreeable, I worry that he (like many other Clinton supporters) suffer from a sort of nostalgia....that America needs to go back in time to a simpler time/place. But the forces of globalization may not be properly taken into account in this view--and that like it or not, with Hillary Clinton in the white house or not, the nineties ain't comin' back. We have a war on, a masculine war (and a war-mongering stance) that is draining our coffers and that WILL make it harder to pay for health care (even Clinton's "cheaper" version). Yet Clinton hasn't ruled out permanent US bases in Iraq--as Obama has. Shouldn't an objective economist take this into account?
Further, Krugman needs to mention that the Massachusetts people who have lived with a "mandated health insurance" law for over a year now have found that for many it is worse than no insurance at all. Studies have shown that most do not like it. I was one who officially hated it. It meant cutting food and heating costs to pay for it, and the deductable was so high that it didn't pay for anything at all. I don't trust that it would have helped me if I became seriously ill either.
Maybe the nostalgia liberals have forgotten about--and genuine the nostalgia that Obama invokes--is the idea of promoting populist ideas and not just top-down liberalism. People are happier given incentives and rewards than punishments even if incentives push up the over-all costs slightly. And Obama's right that there are other ways of pushing the costs down again by reigning in the HMO's and capping costs. For most poor, working Americans, Obama's plan may be a better option than a mandatory paycheck docking for insurance that they may grow to resent, and that does not make them feel any safer from the skyrocketing costs of healthcare.
The recent Guardian article about Obama's economic advisors ("Substance not Style")is more insightful and informational than any of the analysis that Krugman has so far contributed to this race
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/daniel_koffler/2008/01/substance_not_style.html
The only article that I have found at all helpful was Krugman's article on the Edwards Effect. Other than that, frankly, he sounds far more sure of himself than the facts (or his version of the candidates' positions) warrants.
-
A difference in incentives for the unscrupulous demagoguery of insurance companies
[Read the article: Krugman accuses Obama of "unscrupulous demagoguery"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Another way to look at the insurance issue is this:
With Clinton's plan insurance coverage is mandated--this means that insurance companies can charge and cover technically whatever they want to. Unless government steps in to regulate them (and we know how good government is at regulation these days--the FDA leaping to mind) they charge and we pay.
With non-mandated insurance: insurance companies have to compete to get my service. This gives them an incentive to lower costs and to make the coverage reasonable/affordable. They can appeal to government to help subsidize low income workers, but the buyer has an option of buying or not buying based on the quality of the service options.
I guess this issue proves that I am not a socialist (although truth be told, I would prefer a single payer system). But if we are going to live in a capitalist system where insurance companies still get to play a role in the game: I prefer as a consumer to have a choice.