Funny how my post from yesterday mirrors Paul Krugman's column about healthcare in The New York Times today. He puts things better of course, but touches the same points about (a) Hillary and Edwards plans being the best (as constrained by realism), (b) the Republicans having no meaningful alternative that can deliver, and (c) MittRomney's hypocrisy. So those who don't have access to Krugman's columns that require subscription can simply read my blog.
Jokes aside though, there are two places where my perspective differs from that of Krugman. One is a minor point - he worries that Hillary took so long to announce her detailed plan and says this may portend her reluctance to deliver on it subsequently. I feel the elections are still so far away that she had every right to take her time and study all the issues carefully. So I do not question her determination based on her timing.
The second difference is more pronounced, and is about the effect of malpractice activity on healthcare costs. Krugman, like Michael Moore in "Sicko," is conspicuously silent on this issue of reining in the trial lawyers through malpractice caps and tort reform. On the contrary I view this as one of the biggest problems and contributors to high US healthcare costs.
The left traditionally stands for civil rights and individual protections that then extends to support of lawyers and litigation. Could his anti-Right leanings constrain Krugman from attacking a leftist viewpoint even when this viewpoint is flawed? I hope this isn't the case because I admire his writing style and crisp logic, and enjoy reading his columns.