Dan, thanks for posting this as a separate item. I was just about to add a comment to the Morning News thread on this column.

I gotta give it to Krugman. Nobody I know of does a better job of cutting through the ideological subterfuge and explaining the real economics of policy decisions in layman's terms. Now with this column, he has so convincingly shredded Obama's health-care plan that this column alone has shifted me from enthusiastic Obama supporter to begrudging Hillary supporter.

I'm developing a really bad habit of giving money to candidates and only then finding out something that makes me question whether I should even be voting for that candidate, let alone giving money to them. (Tim Burgess, I'm talking about you, my friend.)

I blame the Stranger, for being so unwilling to talk about substance, in favor of horserace nonsense, polls, and electability.

Thanks for the link, Dan... I like Edwards' approach of automatic enrollment with any health visit or income tax return. Does anyone know what the candidates are saying regarding eligibility for universal health care and documented citizenship status? Regardless of anyone's stance on immigration, if immigrants aren't included in the plan, the whole program will spin off into space due to covering their uninsured medical costs.

I am very confused. Are the candidates talking about universal healthcare as enjoyed by Canada, France, Cuba etc. or something totally different?

I am very much for the idea of everyone paying a tax that covers medical care for themselves and those less fortunate. I am very against the idea of the federal government requiring people to pay X dollars to the existing providers of healthcare. Even if the government imposes cost sontrols, I believe the lobbyists will see to it that those controls still leave the middle class workers paying more than they can afford for shoddy care.

@4,

To my knowledge, all of the major candidates propose providing universal coverage through existing providers. So, yes, you're going to be forced to buy private insurance.

Typically Obama, all flash and no substance.

Look, we all know the only real solution is Nationalized Single Payer Healthcare, but the MSM has you guys too scared to talk about it.

President Obama will delegate VP Dodd to implement the plan and eventually we'll all have to transition to such a NSPH plan anyway.

Focusing on how to pay for care is a narrow and fiscally dangerous way to view the issue. Any health reform plan must look at the whole delivery system and not just the payment mechanism.

Medical inflation is higher than general inflation and worse yet, it's higher than GDP growth.

What providers charge, the cost benefit of the procedures they perform and the overuse of care by patients are all issues that need to be addressed. Otherwise, costs will continue going up, up, up at an unsustainable rate and that mandated coverage everyone's proposing will cost more than most people's paycheck.

And this doesn't even touch on prescription drug costs.

it sounds like the main difference between obama and the others is if whether they mandate coverage, how they would enforce enrollment if they do, and how would the coverage be paid for if no one is necessarily required to pay out of pocket.

krugman calls obama out for not mandating coverage; he calls obama's supporters out for "cutting him slack" on this issue; but then cuts edwards some pretty generous slack for mandating coverage but not explaining how it would be paid for [or at least he omits this important detail here]. hmmm.

this is a much more complicated issue than a single op-ed piece can cover, but thanks for the linky-dink. some food for thought.

once again, obama talks a big game he just won't be able to deliver. and, once again, he heads to the right for talking points. all his posturing about the greatness of certain reagan policies has always made me nervous.

heading to the right for talking points = triangulation = what got bill clinton elected. hey, it's worked before.

Dennis Dennis Dennis...