SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (36085)7/28/2009 5:42:57 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) of 71588
 
Krugman's really commenting more on how health care insurance reform should be done than he's commenting on the blue dogs. He just disagrees with the blue dogs on several points that are part of that issue.

I disagree with some of his objections to their ideas.

"a plan without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers more than a plan with such an option."

A public option will likely be subsidized. If it is than it will cost tax payers more, if it isn't, than its probably pointless.

But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending.

Being against an employer mandate isn't being for spending. Forgoing the penalty payment from the employers because they don't provide insurance for the employees, is being against a certain form of raising revenue, not being against spending.

If the government spends more because some employers choose not to provide coverage.

1 - That spending more is not a part of the employer mandate, its a separate idea. You could have the mandate without additional government spending, or with it, and you could have the additional spending without the mandate or with it.

2 - The payments aren't large enough to force many employers to provide coverage if they where not going to do so anyway. The insurance would normally cost more than the penalty.

it’s because they’re nothing but corporate tools

Such ad-hominem is unfortunately to be expected from Krugman.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News