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

[outnow]

My father was an Ob/Gyn. He practiced for fifty years. Originally, he was a general practitioner in a small town in the West. Later he became a founding partner of the largest HMO is Southern California.

My brother is an emergency room physician who runs an Emergency Department in the largest private hospital in Los Angeles. He has been the President of the Academy of Emergency Room Physicians. He has also done lobbying in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

I have spend thirty years as a professional in the area of medical-legal issues pertaining to standard of care issues and poor outcomes caused by medical care and treatment. Our medical care delivery system is broken. The HMO model is repugnant to independent medical decision-making. Utilization committees further impair medical judgment. Underwriting practices typically exclude most risks.

For-profit medical delivery systems are inefficient and over-all deliver poor health outcomes. Most care ends up being directed at patients who have little benefit because of chronic conditions which have a bad prognosis. Much of the premium dollar goes to insurer profit. The malpractice system of compensation increases cost of delivery without adequately compensating victims.

I favor a single-payer system with a no-fault compensation for medical errors. Double the number of practitioners. Emphasize preventative medicine and wellness programs. Get the fat cats of the backs of patients.

[OckhamsElectricRazor]

Will the Dem's urge for cannabalism never stop! Besides, "Baby Chelsea"?! What a bad name for a candy bar.

[yourstruly]

Paul Krugman deserves a wider audience, so I'm glad to hear he was in LA where perhaps people don't feel the tyranny of Wall Street quite so powerfully. If we're looking to put an end to the war and plundering that the Republicans have fostered through unrestrained "free" markets, Hillary is not the candidate. And if she's up against Guiliani, he'll outdo her every time, because he knows no boundaries.

[Assadiq]

And why no word about, for or against, Bill Richardson? He is that FDR we are all looking for. He is everything thoughtful Americans would want in a president; impeccable credentials, long experiene, solid record as a lawmaker, diplomat,cabinet secretary and executive (governor); he would end the war in Iraq and negotiate with Iran and Syria, he would support a rational immigration policy, he would facilitate solution to our healthcare crisis; he would balance the budget and restore America to the position of moral leadership of the nations. And he is not a single digit candidate, his support is running 11- 14 % of likely voters and growing. Most importantly, he is acceptable to the greatest percentage (66%)of the electorate, more than any of the other 16 declared aspirants to the White House, according to a recent Zogby poll with a margin of error of 1%! The same poll found that 50% of voters would not vote for Hillary under any circumstance.
Wait for Richardson to confound the pundits come January 2008.

[vippy]

Should we elect Hillary and the powers to be are all behind her and I really think she will get elected whether we will vote for her or not
then we have made no progress at all.
The change will come with Kucinich but people vote for all the wrong reasons e.g. name recognition, charm, looks, etc. but no substance. Never seen a debate where so many words were spoken but nothing was said as Hillary did on Tuesday.

[ScapeGoat]

I agree with Krugman. I think Hilary is smart, I think she is very competent but I dont think she will as progressive as I would like. I fear she is Republicant light. I don't like her vote on Iran. Didnt she learn from the Iraq vote? You cant give this moron an inch because he will take a mile. Not what I want. I think the best person is Biden. He too is smart and competent but probably will not get the nomination. If I look at the three front runners, I see Hilary (republicant light), Obama (lacks experience but more progressive and just as competent) and Edwards ( Competent, smart and progressive). So, looking at the three front runners, I would pick Edwards, Obama and then Hillary.

I feel that all the republicants are bad and Rudy is the worse. He will definately get us into WW3 ( if the wacko bush doesn't do it first) but should be easy to run aggainst. Why easy? go to: http://therealrudy.org/radios and see what and idiot rudy really is. See how he screwed up. See how he did not get the firemen the proper equipment. See how when he moved the command center into the world trade center (the next day he received $100,000 donation from the owner of the trade center). See how he is now lying about it. As Biden said all rudy says is a noun, a verb and 9-11.

[whatsthatsound]

An election between Hillary and ANY of the current Republican frontrunners would leave the vast majority of Americans feeling unrepresented and disenfranchised by the "choice". It would probably also result in the lowest voter turnout in recent memory. I strongly urge The Huffington Post to open its discussion to include independent candidates and alternative parties. Not long ago, people were willing to believe even an eccentric like Ross Perot had a chance. Times have changed to the point where a person of integrity and substance could sway the nation's voters - IF we can get progressive websites like HuffPo to start thinking outside the box and lead the way!

[skyblu]

I'm voting for Al Gore/Russ Feingold.
Noone else measures up to the task.

[Flacracker]

I still can't figure out how a public supported not for profit driven health insurance and delivery system serving all American citizens can be more expensive than the profit motivated insurance and delivery system we have now! please fill me in anyone.

[StillAmused]

"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." ?

Someone please -- PLEASE -- explain the math... any "tax increase" shouldered by taxpaying citizens would REPLACE the inflated, profit-driven gouging by private insurers (see reference to Medicare's minimal overhead).

When I move the beads around on MY abacus, the net cost to taxpayers (who already cover the elderly and the poor) would be REDUCED... SUBSTANTIALLY.

Which part eludes anyone?

[janmB]

Getting all FIRED up about what these candidates propose to do when they are PREZ is SILLY.
There are too many other people involved with any of these decisions.
Best that Americans vote for the MOST qualified MOST experienced and above all INTELLIGENT.

[mamacat]

I have read Mr. Krugman, and seen him on TV. He impresses me as someone intelligent and honest; it seems to be worth listening to his ideas.

[moesse]

Thank you for calling attention to this article by Krugman. I, too worry about a blurring of the lines with Hillary as President.

We need another Roosevelt decade, another Kennedy era, a time of healing and turning from the big money interests in everything from healthcare to electoral access.

In my mind that is John Edwards.

[realitytrumpsbull]

I like Kucinich, for the simple reasona that
he's a) not a Pandidate, b) vocally speaking
against the war, and c) hasn't been in office
before, unlike Billary. In some respects, she's
HAD her two terms AND been a senator, so,
let someone else drive, there.

[jmundstuk]

This is a great example of how conspiracy thinking works. There has to be a plan; there has to be someone in control. The idea that there isn't is just too frightening, so an evil behind-the-scenes force is easier to accept than the notions that no one is in charge and there is no plan. That is, we are alone. That said, I agree that Democrats would be in better shape if, for example, they hadn't won the Senate. They could have made that happen by not working so hard to get Webb elected. Didn't notice that happening, did you?