while it may be technically true that a progressive can have their war and wage it too....when we look at the world today, I see the countries that have fewer wars, engaging more successfully in progressive agendas.

Ie Canada's currency is currently up on ours. And they are not part of "the coalition of the willing." And post-secondary education and health care is still paid for by tax dollars.

U.S. post-cold war thinking is draining the economy. True, Cheney et al are profiting, but workaday Americans are not. When I look at the escalating costs of our Iraq adventure, it makes me sad that I live in a country where education is not funded (college is free in many industrialized nations--not to mention K-12 programs being cut/underfunded), health care is not funded, but useless wars are funded..

One more point is that I think Woodrow Wilson, while technically a progressive, was also not progressive on gender or race. An article by the guy who wrote the book about liberals being the real fascists has an article in the Christian Science Monitor this week pointing that out, but it was such a dumb article (saying Wilson was a war mongering, racist, sexist "progressive" so therefore we shouldn't trust Hillary Clinton when she calls herself a progressive...?? it's a dumb article so I won't send you a link...)

But anyway the best definition for progressive is the third one on dictionary.com: 3. characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

And this includes to the idea of what a progressive is.

cheers to a more progressive future. (And your point is well taken about not knowing who is in Congress--but I meant even if there is only a tiny majority of Democrats like there is now the plans could be affected...)

And to the person who wrote about the third option in Clintons plan that allows like a single payer account, this is a good point. A good option, perhaps. I don't fully understand these ideas and am only struggling to grasp them, I do confess.

@ your point:

You said "...this means that insurance companies can charge and cover technically whatever they want to.."

No. It does not mean that in Clinton's plan. She has made it clear that she intends a sliding scale to be used and what people are actually required to pay will based upon their actual income. People with a lower income will pay less.

Now that's progressive

* * *

I think that what I think (now there's a clever phrase) is that top down progressivism isn't enough. I don't trust government enough to regulate the industry and keep costs down unless there is also bottom up progressivism--ie. people at the bottom can also push to lower the costs by exercising their options.

How exactly this plays out or would play out I don't fully know. But I don't think that Krugman does either. Maybe if we had a solid Democratic majority in government I might start to trust the government more again...but seriously, this is a criticism I have of both Obama and Clinton--they are in the pockets of big money and insurance companies. How can I trust them to keep costs down as low as they should or could be right now?

My answer: for now, I don't trust them to lower costs enough (while realistically, costs keep rising every year). Which is why I like the theory at least of being able to say no.

I guess I am a libertarian version of progressive (and I saw "laisseze faire" as a category under the wikipedia definition of progressive).