Yes, you're right, I'm not disputing you at all, I'm agreeing with you, but I'm saying that's a feature of Krugman, not a bug. He doesn't think he has to be fair. He was pro-Hillary and anti-Obama in 2008.
One thing that should be emphasized: as Sanders said during the debate, 29 million people still lack health insurance. That is an undisputed fact. And regardless of what one thinks of single-payer or Obamacare, when this all started, everybody agreed, the single-payer people and the anti-single payer people, that the goal was universal health insurance, regardless of the means. 29 million uninsured is 9% of the population. That's not universal health insurance. Regardless of whether the fault is more with Obamacare or the Supreme Court or the Republican governors, the goal of universal health insurance has not been reached. So the people who are saying no to single payer, let's improve on Obamacare, should be compelled to say: what's their plan for extending health insurance to 29 million more people. If health care is a *right*, then the onus is on the federal government to enforce the right, for people in Alabama as well as for people in New York. Like desegregated public schools. It may be a heavy lift politically to enforce that right at the moment, but surely extending universal health insurance to Alabama is not a heavier lift than extending gun control there, and the people supporting Hillary don't seem to have any trouble with talking about that. Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] (202) 448-2898 x1 On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 1:35 PM, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 12:59 PM, Robert Naiman < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> This is now making the rounds again: >> >> Paul Krugman’s Shocking, Revisionist, and Obscurantist Views on Single >> Payer >> http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/10/46940.html >> > > > I know from reading this blogs, that Krugman is a fan of Obamacare, > overstates its achievements and understates its deficiencies. But that I > can understand: Krugman is no radical. He is a (small c) conservative > liberal. I don't think that's such a bad thing. > > What he is doing now seems rather different and much more distasteful: he > seems to be attacking Sanders and promoting Hillary.. > > -raghu. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > >
_______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
