NYT's Krugman: Hillary -- the Next Grover Cleveland?

The following piece is part of an ongoing series of OffTheBus reports by citizen policy experts critiquing different aspects of Campaign 08.

"We hope we're about to elect FDR," New York Times op-ed columnist Paul Krugman told me earlier this week, "but we might be about to elect Grover Cleveland." He said he was referring to the front-runner, Hillary Clinton.

Grover Cleveland, for those who don't know their 19th century presidents, was the only Democrat who made it to the White House between 1860 and 1912, the decades when Republican big money ruled the country. Cleveland, elected in 1885 and again in 1893, mobilized the army to crush the 1894 Pullman strike of railroad workers, and joined Wall Street in supporting the gold standard. "He was what they called a 'Bourbon Democrat,' as in the French royal family," Krugman explained. "He wasn't that different from the Republicans at the time."

Krugman said it appears that the key issue in the 2008 election will be health care, and that the Democrats have a health care plan that will work. His "biggest concern," he said, was "whether the next occupant of the White House will triangulate it into oblivion." He reiterated that he was talking about Hillary.

Earlier that day, the New York Times reported on page one that the health care industry has already contributed $2.7 million to Hillary, more than any other candidate in either party. Krugman indicated he was concerned that she might do too much compromising and negotiating with the insurance, pharmaceutical and hospital companies, as she did as First Lady in 1993.

Krugman pointed to one big difference between the Clintons' triangulation over health care in 1993 and the situation today, when "we have a self-conscious, aggressive progressive movement in a way we did not when Bill Clinton came into office. I think that does at least somewhat change the calculus," he said. If Hillary does concede too much to the other side, "there is an organized group that will make it clear that this is not what you're supposed to do."

On health care, Krugman said that, speaking as an economist--which he is --the best plan would be a single payer system, like the "Medicare for All" bill introduced by John Conyers. That would have the lowest administrative overhead and thus provide the most cost-effective system. In his book, The Conscience of a Liberal, he writes "America loves Medicare; let's give it to everyone." But politically that would be a struggle, because it would require a substantial tax increase.

Thus "the perfect can be the enemy of the good," Krugman says. The most politically feasible plan is the one proposed first by John Edwards and then by Barak Obama - a universal health care system run though private insurance companies. It mandates coverage for everybody and prohibits insurers from denying coverage to anyone or charging different premiums to different people, and it provides government subsidies for low-income people.

The main advantage is that it could be paid for without a tax increase, simply by reversing the Bush tax cuts for the rich. That's the one the Democrats will be pushing after the 2008 election, Krugman says, and that's the one Hillary must be prevented from triangulating into oblivion.

Krugman spoke with me at a public event, ALOUD at Central Library, a free series at the Los Angeles Public Library presented by the Library Foundation of Los Angeles.

Comments

[WillfromSF]

Uh, wouldn't that be elected in 1884 and 1892 instead of "1885 and again in 1893"? The latter would be the years Cleveland took office. I know, irrelevant to the story, but somebody has to see the trees while missing the forest.

[BTN]

yes thats what we need, a government run health care system.

From the people that brought us FEMA, Amtrak, the DMV, near bankrupt Social Security, the $500 toilet seat, the bridge to nowhere in Alaska, etc.

This will be great for all Americans !!

[pmfelipe]

When it comes to single payer healthcare there is only one candidate proposing it and that is Dennis Kucinich. The Edwards, Obama and Clinton plans are health insurance plans not healthcare plans.

[Mr.Smartey]

Hillary the next Grover Cleveland?

More like the next Jimmy Carter.

A total, complete imbecile, with ineptitude and mediocracy that took America to all-time lows.

If we get this again, imagine the landslide for Republicans in the mid-terms and in 2012.

Sweet.

[Dalicious]

When Krugman claims it was "big money" that kept Republicans in power for 44 of the 52 years spanned by 1860-1912, he destroys his credibility for any further claims he makes. Abe Lincoln, big money candidate? Ulysses Grant? Rutherford Hayes? Give me a break. Slavery, the Civil War, and post-war politics ruled for the first half of that period. Until 1904, Cleveland was the only elected president who did not serve in the War (he paid someone else to take his place). As we get into the Gilded Age, true, money had some effect, but the Democrats had big money too. They just used it less effectively, nominating religious fools like William Jennings Bryan.

[swkidder]

What we're forgetting when we assume that a single-payer Universal healthcare plan would "raise taxes," is that we're already paying for our coverage under a hidden tax burden. Employees receive a portion of their compensation in the form of their health insurance. If we shifted to a "Medicare" style plan, employers would no longer take a deduction for healthcare coverage for their employees, and ... theoretically ... they would end up paying more taxes. (This is, of course, if we haul their little butts back out of the Cayman Islands and make them pay those taxes) Employees could ... again theoretically ... negotiate bigger salaries. So both sides of the equation - employers and employees - might end up paying higher taxes - but we would do so based on higher earnings. This point appears to have escaped those who are most vigorously defending the right of 3rd party payers to continue managing the nation's healthcare dollars to their exclusive benefit and to the detriment of 300 million of the rest of us.
Perhaps someone in the medical economics field would be kind enough to run the numbers for what the real impact might be to an "average family?" I'll bet the numbers come out in favor of paying slightly higher "taxes" and the only losers are the insurance companies ... for whom I weep only crocodile tears.

[Nutcase]

According to figures from the time that the Clintons were promoting their ridiculous national healthcare plan, 24 cents of every dollar was spent on administration. Medicare spent 1.8 cents of every dollar on administration. There would be some additional costs for physicians and hospitals but the total amount could be brought down to 5-6 cents.

That savings would allow for universal coverage with a gold-plated system. We could have preventive care (saving a great deal), dental care, prescription coverage, eyeglasses - the works. The costs would be the same or less than we are now paying. I don't care whether it is called taxes or premiums; it is still money we pay. Additional taxes would be unnessary.

That would be a significant start, but only a start. Double-digit inflation in the medical industry would still need to be addressed but a single-payer system is necessary to give us the breathing space to deal with that.

Even the business world is slowly realizing that they cannot continue to the present system. They must continue to contribute but, relieved of the skyrocketing costs, they stand a much better chance of being competitive with the EU and others.

[JimK2]

Krugman pointed to one big difference between the Clintons' triangulation over health care in 1993.

Krugman used to be pretty smart, what happened. The term triangulation first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential election.

[BinBaldwin]

No President is responsible for the economy? So why do we keep hearing about the Clinton 90s? Why does Hillary keep trying to claim credit for Bill Gates Dot Com Boom?

[JimK2]

Hillary not progressive enough, Hillary is a Neo-con. Hillary is a war monger. The truth is that Hillary has a hell of a more progress voting record then Edwards. I guess a voting record doesn't mean much in the world of 30 second sound bytes and swift-boating attacks.
http://voteview.com/sen107.htm

Its bad that Hillary gets money, but its ok for Obama
Pharmaceut­icals/Heal­th Products
Hillary $273,731
Obama $260,020

Health Professionals
Hillary $1,645,565
Obama $1,245,594
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H01

At this point I don't really care if a democrat or republicans wins in 2008.

[BinBaldwin]

Grover Cleveland, for those who don't know their 19th century presidents, was the only Democrat who made it to the White House between 1860 and 1912, the decades when Republican big money ruled the country????

I was Unaware that Abe Lincoln was considered " BIG MONEY". But it sounds good to the Lib Droolers huh.

[goldgoose]

Today, the health of Americans with health insurance depends on whether the health insurance benefits necessary to retain the policy holder's health and life are cost effective. In other words, will saving the policy holder's life bring in enough premiums in the future to make life saving benefits profitable.
Health insurance companies are in business to make profit and not to maintain the health and life of their clients. That is why the non-profit corporation, Kaiser Permanente Health Insurance Company has so many members compared to the profit making health care corporations.
Going to a 'for profit' health insurance company is like going to a bookie to place a bet and win enough money to pay for life saving surgery.
We have public schools so that all of our neighbors will be educated; but we have privae health care insurance and poor public school kids with great potential may not live to realize their potential, but the rich kids who are idiots will be healthy and become President of the United States.
'O say can you see that pox spangled banner yet wave, ore the sick and poor and there ain't any more!'

[JackNasty]

The Clinton's/DLC's takeover of the Democratic party reminds me more of the last days of the Whigs than Grover Cleveland's failed presidency. When a pro-slavery southern conservative faction stole the once progressive Whig nomination, the Whigs as a party collapsed. Abolitionists bolting the Whig founded a third party and a third party, The Republican party, won the 1860 election.

By pushing democratic values and liberal values out of the political area in favor of abetting the chicken hawk, corporate status quo, the Clintons/DLC are leaving progressives with no choice but to vote outside the party.

[goldgoose]

Americans need universal health care. Everyone is worried that a Medicare type program for everyone will cost more in taxes. Of course, it will cost more in taxes but would the incrrease in taxes be any more than a family trying to buy a, 'for profit', health care policy? Of course not!
Who will be the President who will 'just do it'! Bill Clinton tried and got shut down by his own Democratic Congress (and some of those who opposed Clinton's plan are running for President today).
It is too much for American voters to figure out and the spin by candidates is horrific.
If America is to have a two party system, the political parties are going to have to set the standards and then say the candidates have to abide by the decision. Have political party conventions BEFORE the primaries.
As it is today, you have Hillary, a watered down Neocon, as the forerunner of the Democratic candidates! Democrat voters whould be aware of this, but they are blind-sided corporate financed propaganda and she keeps it her own little secret.
What America needs is a political reformer in both parties. Lots of luck!!!!!!

[Xysea]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/01/opinion/01thu3.html?n=Top/Opinion/Editorials%20and%20Op-Ed/Editorials

Interesting article in the NYT today. Some excerpts:

"One-third of the American respondents felt their system is so dysfunctional that it needs to be rebuilt completely — the highest rate in any country surveyed. The system was given poor scores both by low-income, uninsured patients and by many higher-income patients."

"Given the large number of people uninsured or poorly insured in this country, it was no surprise that Americans were the most likely to go without care because of costs. Fully 37 percent of the American respondents said that they chose not to visit a doctor when sick, skipped a recommended test or treatment or failed to fill a prescription in the past year because of the cost — well above the rates in other countries.­"

"Patients here were more likely to get appointments quickly for elective surgery than those in nearly all the other countries. But access to primary care doctors, the mainstay of medical practice, was often rocky. Only half of the American adults were able to see a doctor the same day that they became sick or the day after, a worse showing than in all the other countries except Canada. Getting care on nights and weekends was problemati­c."

"Often the care here was substandard. Americans reported the highest rate of lab test errors and the second-highest rate of medical or medication errors."

The best in the world, eh? I think the facts speak for themselves.

To fix a problem, you must first admit there *is* a problem. In the last survey 71% of respondents advocated an overhaul of the current system.

If you are in the minority, one of the 29% who doesn't want change, all I have to ask you is: When are you going to wake up?