April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Takeoff | Main | War games »

Feb 09, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


The true cost of Edwards' plan is yet unknown, but it's a safe bet that it's underestimated by a huge factor.

Krugman should know this, but what the heck, why let a little reality stand in the way of a cherished social agenda item?

At least it's a good try by Edwards to take attention away from his rivals for the presidential nomination.


Here's another take on Edwards' plan.


"The problem here is that there seems to be law that as a bureaucratic institution grows more and more of its resources go into administration vs. actually providing the good in question."

....which also drives costs up.

Kirk D.

Yes, so by all means, let's dismiss it out of hand.


Yeah! Of course we should dismiss it! It's not something easy to project the costs of, like a war!

Robert P.

Actually Bubba,
The cost will depend a lot on Congress. Will they have the guts to stand up to Republicans that want to stick a billion pro-business amendments on it?
Will they make the "public" plan Medicare and will they require that all federal employees switch to this plan (instead of the other public plan they are part of now)?

If so, then the plan will be quite a good deal.

If Republicans have their way, the public plan will be a new bureaucracy with more costs involved that will only appeal to the poorest in our country, and we will end up with a two-tiered system.


"The cost will depend a lot on Congress. Will they have the guts to stand up to Republicans that want to stick a billion pro-business amendments on it?"

Thanks for letting me know that there's no use for further comment on this thread.

Ed Cone

Democrats are not immune to corporate large$$e.


What is funny is that Bubba seems to think that bureaucracy only affects public health programs.

In fact, Bubba, the health insurance program with the least overhead is . . . go ahead . . . guess...

Ed Cone

Krugman, in the same column, points out that "marketing and underwriting — the process of screening out high-risk clients — are responsible for two-thirds of insurance companies’ overhead."

Non-healthcare costs are not limited to government programs.

Robert P.

Ed, of course Democrats are not immune, but its comments like Bubba's about a "cherished social agenda", that frame the debate. There have been so many outright lies about universal health care, paid for by the right-wing of American society, that any discussion starts in a pit of misinformation from which we must dig ourselves out.

The MBNA Bankruptcy bill certainly would not have passed without Democratic support, the same for many other bills in these last 6 years. The question is whether Democrats who have now gained control see what being "pro-business" really means to their opposition. It means Billions in tax cuts to companies that are simultaneously reporting record profits (energy), Billions in hand outs to other companies that are reporting record profits (medicare prescription drug benefit), the largest stagnation in wages in a generation, and the biggest divide between the upper class and the middle-class...well, ever I guess, in our history.

THAT has been the goal of the "pro-business" Republicans since they have been in control and all we can hope for is that "liberals" will remember their distant Republican roots, in the trust busting of Teddy Roosevelt, and their distant Democratic roots, in the New Deal and its offspring.


Rich guys are the balm of Gilead. The source of all that is good. The answer to every concern. Nirvana built on caste built on arrogance built on greed. It works for them, and that's all that matters.


Bubba, the cost of any proposed health care system should be weighed against the cost of our current. Someone is paying for all those emergency room visits by people who can't afford insurance. Someone is paying for treating catastrophic illnesses that could have been prevented if everyone had access to adeqaute care.

We're already spending unneccesary billions on health care, but it's only lining corporate pockets.

If the last 6 years have demonstrated anything, they've demonstrated that people who say they oppose government spending really just object to the people who'd get the money.

The comments to this entry are closed.