Politics

Krugman Hates Goolsbee

By Matt Cooper

Paul Krugman has it in for Obama. The New York Times columnist takes a big whack at the Obama health plan in today's New York Times. It's part of continuous shots at Obama as a limp, appeaser. Krugman's kindest words were reserved for John Edwards with the Clinton approach coming in second. At some point, the Krug and Obama's Austan Goolsbee, his top economic guy, are going to have to go at it.

This is not to say that Krugman doesn't raise legitimate points. In today's column, he makes the case for mandates, the key difference between the Clinton and Obama health care plans. Clinton (and Edwards) have Mandates for everyone to buy coverage. Obama doesn't. Krugman cites studies to show that you can't get to universal care without mandates. Maybe he's right. But it's worth noting that Massachusetts, which does have a mandate, is still having trouble getting everyone insured. Mandates may be the smartest way to go to get people in the system you want in--the young and seemingly invincible who don't want to spring for insurance and who could help the whole pool. But it's not as simple as Krugman suggests.

Full post as published by Portfolio.com: Capital on February 04, 2008 (boomark / email).