How in a capitalist economy can you be forced to buy a product from a corporation you may not want ? Seems very dictatorial to me. You know like in "dictatorship" This is government interference at its worst.

Hillary is so polarizing and refuses to ever try for broad support - do you honestly think she'll be successful getting anything passed, much less something difficult and controversial?

There's a difference between "universal" and "mandate." Hillary will be as unsuccessful as she was in '93.

Mr. Krugman, with GW Bush proposing to leave the treasury burdened with another explosion of debt, aren't your energies misplaced? There won't be money for anyone's plan, Sir.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that any of the candidates will provide universal healthcare.

Many people do not realize that these people do not provide health care and what they do is essentially collect the pool money and then find the best means not to pay for care that is provided or that people need because their profit is the aggregate of the money they collect and the money they pay to health providers so the less they pay to health providers the more money they make. They are a leech on the funds required for health care in this country and unless you take them out of the equation one cannot start to talk of universal health

THIS IS THE DEAL FOLKS .

everything else on this subject is warm air

Paul Krugman has a huge, huge platform in the New York Times to enlighten, discuss, provoke and stimulate. Instead, he grinds out incessant, petty, venemous complaints about a candidate who has for some reason driven him nuts. Flattering himself as hard-headed, he refuses to recognize that Congress is not the enemy but the legislating body that will give us whatever health-care legislation we can manage. And he would apparently put Hillary Clinton, of all people, in charge of this gargantuan effort. I'm kinda sad, because I used to respect his opinion.

Mr. Krugman, we need you to speak out on the theft of the treasury, the three trillion dollar budget, the phony inflation numbers that send seniors into poverty. Time is running out on these people.

Paul Krugman is rationalizing an issue within the context of an intellectual overreach.

We all know whatever bill will be watered down by Congressional interests. What Krugman is noting, is that the stance Hillary/Edwards starts from stands a better chance to make a difference than Obama's, which would get watered down to Medicare Part-D level efficacy.

Obama DOES essentially undermine the cause for progressive healthcare with his "unifier" rhetoric. I'm sorry -- it's just true, and its too bad. I want to believe in him, but I don't know if he can twist arms (which even the most uplifting leader will have to do). Where the real vitriol is with Krugman has been reading Obama supporters on his blog -- just mystifying, so much hatred for the one true progressive voice in the MSM for not falling into zombie-esque Obama idiot lockstep. Captivating an audience is not the same as hypnosis.

The author of the M.I.T. study Mr. Krugman cites is a major Hillary Clinton adviser. Somehow I feel that should have been mentioned.

I have only recently become aware of Krugman but, I must say there appears to be something personal in his opposition to Obama. Is it just me or does he have an ax to grind? Is he in line for a position in a Clinton administration?

And by the way people being a professor at an Ivy league university does not make someone infallible. Mr. Krugman's previous writings and stance are more credible references of his standing than his being an Ivy league professor.

I respect Mr. Krugman and he is not wrong in his present analysis the fault is that he is playing partisanship with the issues as Hillary's plan also has zero chance of achieving universal health care. The three of them including Edwards who I feel is best suited to get anything with reasonable as regarding health care done all avoided bowed to the insurance companies and ran from being accused of bringing socialized medicine to the US. As Mr. Krugman agrees to, the only path to universal health care is through a single or a few Govt and I specify government backed single payer system and for all to be covered it will not be insurance as we know it but a mandatory contribution or tax whatever you choose to call it the is based on the individuals earning and not on a likelihood of falling ill basis. It will be spread across the population and the money that the insurance companies are taking out of providing healthcare will be available to take care of the health needs of the country people. The insurance companies are a parasite on the health care of this country. Many people do not realize that these people do not provide health care and what they do is essentially collect the pool money and then find the best means not to pay for care that is provided or that people need because their profit is the aggregate of the money they collect and the money they pay to health providers so the less they pay to health providers the more money they make. They are a leech on the funds required for health care in this country and unless you take them out of the equation one cannot start to talk of universal health and Mr. Krugman knows that it is through be it the Clinton or the Obama proposals. So continuing to push this issue at this late hour makes his effort smell fishy and brings him down from the heights I want to hold him.

lunch with bill kristol eh?!