Krugman: A Time For Choosing, Journos


New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says that we are now approaching "the defining moment for health care reform." Those who oppose this latest, 2,000 page iteratiion of "reform," according to the beardy Nobelist, "don't want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don't want President Obama to succeed." Yesterday, I attempted to explain, with great patience, that Reason columnist and television personality John Stossel was an opinion journalist, not a straight newsman, after MSNBC's Rachel Maddow complained that his taking sides in the health care debate was "not what is called news in this country."

Unless, that is, you support the Obama plan. So I suspect that Maddow won't be mau-mauing Krugman, who advises journalists to do their patriotic duty and stump for the public option:

It's not a perfect bill, by a long shot, but it's a much stronger bill than almost anyone expected to emerge even a few weeks ago. And it would lead to near-universal coverage. As a result, everyone in the political class — by which I mean politicians, people in the news media, and so on, basically whoever is in a position to influence the finalstage of this legislative marathon — now has to make a choice. The seemingly impossible dream of fundamental health reform is just a few steps away from becoming reality, and each player has to decide whether he or she is going to help it across the finish line or stand in its way.

Emphasis added.

NEXT: Obama Among the (Costly) Solar Panels Again

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. STFU Paul Krugman. You make a six figure salary pontificating for a newspaper, and you won’t feel any bite at all from the inevitable tax increases that will be required to pay for this disaster.

    The rest of us who work for regular employers -who can save money by dumping our health care coverage and paying the fine rather than split our premiums- will end up on government option insurance which will be worse than what we already have.

    Let me say it again, STFU Paul Krugman.

  2. Will anyone in the news comment on whether the reform is effective, efficient, or even good? Will they compare realistic estimates of service and costs to the current system? Or will they just call those who oppose it names.

  3. It’s really too bad that the Democrats, the left, and the media have pretty much succeeded in portraying this as the only chance for “reform,” as in “We must do something, this is something, therefore we must do it.” And most of the argument seems to be about health insurance costs, when I think the real issue is healthcare costs, which is not the same thing.

    It also annoys me that the usual suspects have spent decades making health insurance and health care more expensive, but of course don’t want to undo any of those past “reforms.” Instead we get more regulation and bureaucracy and centralized control, in a futile attempt to solve the problems caused by regulation and bureaucracy and centralized control.

  4. It is interesting, though not surprising, that Krugman leaves out the American people as those who should have a voice when it comes to the health care bill. I have to imagine the vast majority of the New York Times readers – regardless of how few there are now compared to the past – are not what Krugman would consider part of the “political class”.

  5. Your comment does not appear to be written in an English script. Please comment in English.

    WTF? Here is what my comment, in it’s entirety, was.

    Change ? reform.

    1. Makes sense. Too high a percentage of non-standard ASCII characters (characters with the high-bit on and so forth) means that they guess it’s not English. The not equals sign isn’t a standard ASCII character; that’s part of why and != have been used in computer programming.

      You second comment had a lot more standard Latin characters, so the percentage of non-English characters was lower, so it’s ok.

      1. OK, fine, I forgot about HTML, silly me. That’s why <> and != have been used in computer programming.

    2. ? actually is Unicode codepoint 2260, in the Mathematical Operators part of Unicode, and would be rejected by naive checkers as not English.

      Not even the old IEC 8859-1 extended ASCII has the not equals sign.

  6. We need only to alter a single letter in order to call this bill what it is… health care deform

  7. It is now apparent that all the Democrat and media hand-wringing about managed care in the 90’s was nothing but a serious case of jealously.

  8. ?Le gusta comentarios in Espa?ol?

    I know that the server will not like the htmal code in that.

  9. There are those who would shy away from approving a bill without reading it first. Some folks will even claim that voting on 2,000 pages of text without knowing what it says is irresponsible. To those racist negativists who say we can’t enshrine into law something we have not read and do not understand, I say, Yes, we can!!

    1. I think it’s funny that the opposition’s main line of attack is “look how many pages!” It’s even funnier how this completely nonsensical line of attack is being parroted by folks like you. Somebody needs to put Matt Drudge out of my misery.

      1. Drink this, true believer. It’ll put Drudge and everyone else but you out of your misery. Say “Hello” to Ted Kennedy when you wake up…

      2. My main line of attack: if this bill is so @*$#!?% important, why are your beloved leftards in Congress exempting themselves from it? Shouldn’t they want to get this medical program that’s going to be so wonderful for the rest of us? Honestly, Tony, do us both a favor and stop talking out your fart hole. You’re stinking up the joint.

      3. The length of the bill is important only because of the time it takes to read and comprehend it. If it is important legislation, more than a skimming is warranted. They will, however, attempt to get it voted on before anyone could possibly read it and decide how to vote based on it’s merits.

        1. It’s not that important. Anyway it was available online yesterday so I’m sure all the teabaggers are furiously reading–avid readers as they surely are. Anyone should be able to get through it before the vote.

          But really it’s just another example of Frank Lutz or Matt Drudge or some other partisan hack inventing a reason out of thin air to make people angry. It’s just stupid. 2000 pages of bad policy is something to complain about. The 2000 pages themselves? Stupid. It’s major legislation what do you expect.

          1. I’d rather have 2000 1-page bills.

          2. 2000 pages is evidence in itself that it is grossly complicated, legalistic nightmare, i.e. bad policy. Sifting through it to figure out what exactly is in it is just details.

          3. It isn’t entirely wrong to complain simply about it’s length. Consider the brevity of the Constitution.

  10. “don’t want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don’t want President Obama to succeed.”

    So, what’s your point Paul?

    each player has to decide whether he or she is going to help it across the finish line or stand in its way.

    I choose to stand athwart reality and yell STOP! Are we good now?

    1. Hehe. I came here to post the same thing.

    2. Somebody send Triumph the Insult Comic Dog to talk to this Krugman idiot.

      1. I don’t think that will work. Krugman’s a cat fancier … if you know what I mean.

  11. Sounding more punchable each day….

  12. OMG! It did like it!

    I don’t like my typo, but whatev.

    I’d guess that when Krugman refers to people in the news media, he is referring to columnists and pundits like himself. If one grants that Stossel is that sort of journalist and that Maddow was therefore wrong to go after him for having a bias, one must grant Krugman the same right to a bias.

    1. You have a right to whatever bias you like.

      You don’t have a right to a free pass on distortions and inaccuracies.

      1. What are you talking about?

  13. by which I mean politicians, people in the news media, and so on, basically whoever is in a position to influence the finalstage of this legislative marathon

    I guess that means no more townhall meetings where we can throw our shoes at congressmen. That’s some prime douchiness there Paul.

  14. don’t want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don’t want President Obama to succeed.

    Yeah. That describes me pretty well. Is that supposed to be a bad thing?

  15. Is preemptive self-defense legal in this country?

  16. This isn’t healthcare reform; it’s healthcare deform.

  17. In America, healthcare reforms you!

  18. “don’t want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don’t want President Obama to succeed.”

    I wonder if he figured this out all by himself or if his mom had to explain it to him.

  19. Is preemptive self-defense legal in this country?

    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

    Oh no, I’ve outed myself as a right wing nut.

    1. “He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither a swarm of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”

  20. People like Krugman and Maddow aren’t embarrassed to have Obama’s ballprints on their chins; indeed, they wear it as a badge of honor and disdain anyone who lacks it.

  21. Rachel Maddow complained that his taking sides in the health care debate was “not what is called news in this country.”

    She’s clearly taking sides herself, so can someone inform her that her commentary is also not what we call news in this country, but since she presents such tripe on a news network, she must shut the fuck up?

  22. It seems no matter who in the “political class” in charge, the rhetoric is always “you are either with us or against us.”

    Like the Iraq war, when this inevitable clusterfuck doesn’t work in five or six years it will be orphaned by everyone who can run away from it.

    1. The problem is that, unlike with a war, where you can’t deny reality forever, there will always be a surplus of nitwits claiming that Dem-care is a success. Just like all the Dems today who refuse to acknowledge the problems that healthcare “reform” has caused in MA.

  23. I don’t understand how the man is employed as a writer. That article read like unsigned human interest fluff.

  24. ‘they don’t want President Obama to succeed.’

    I would like to see President Obama succeed in doing exactly what he promised to do on Jan. 20 – to faithfully execute the office of President and to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

    Of course, this promise conflicts with some of his other promises, but this is a dilemma he imposed on himself.

    1. I wonder whether “they don’t want President Bush to succeed” would have carried any gravitas.

  25. Dissent is the highest form of Treason!

  26. Holy fuck is Maddow a super fucktarded retarded fetus.

  27. I agree with PapayaSF. What is needed is affordable health care, period. The focus on insurance only distracts from the real problem, while taking us further down the bad road, onto which we detoured when FDR’s wage and price controls in WWII motivated the end-run maneuver of providing tax-favored medical benefits through employers. Even then, health care remained fairly affordable until Medicare became entrenched and dominant in the economic sector (thus deforming the sector to the point that other approaches to providing health care had to get with the program, adapt or die).

    The increasing difficulty of affording health care is a phenomenon of the past several decades, and the blame for it rests almost entirely on the shoulders of “the political class,” who agitated for ever more intrusive and frequent marketplace interventions by government. Why listen to these jokers now? Why is rolling back previous market deformation not an available option?

    The whole health care “debate” has been a massive political theater production. Pirandello would have been proud to call it his own.

    Our focus should be on making health care affordable so that most people can forgo “insurance” entirely, if they want to.

    1. I think you are missing the point. People don’t want affordable healthcare, they want it free – or at least paid for by someone else. That is what this debate is REALLY all about.

  28. Rachelina Maddowzenoff is actually a STUFUCU! Yep, a stufucu, pronounced “stoo-foo-coo” and comprising the first letters of three words (stu— fu—– cu–) … and I will leave it to y’all to decode that. Someone help that Tony fella with it.

    1. stubby furious cult?

  29. What I like about that quote is that he (correctly) identifies the bill under consideration as providing “near-universal coverage” but then says opponents of the bill don’t want plain-old “universal coverage”. In or out, Krugman, we’re not heating the whole universe here!

  30. “don’t want Americans to have universal coverage, and they don’t want President Obama to succeed.”

    Which presumes that univearsal coverage is acheivable or desirable if it can be acheived. It also presume that Obama succeeding is desirable, at least what everything Obama wants to do is stuuf everyone should want him to succeed at.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.