> On 6/12/05, mike larkin <mike_larkin2001 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> But I think that's the wrong lesson. The Clinton plan
>> actually preserved a big role for private insurers;
>> the industry attacked it all the same. And the plan's
>> complexity, which was largely a result of attempts to
>> placate interest groups, made it hard to sell to the
>> public. So I would argue that good economics is also
>> good politics: reformers will do best with a
>> straightforward single-payer plan, which offers
>> maximum savings and, unlike the Clinton plan, can
>> easily be explained....."
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/13/opinion/13krugman.html?hp
>
>
> --------------
>
> Well, to be fair, he still hasn't learned about the fatuousness of the
> public/private construction when it comes to the ways in which the
> legislature delegates principal-agent roles throughout the political
> economy............
Paul Krugman has a PhD in economics, he's pretty radical for the mainstream economics world, he's a working professor AND he's a journalist with a better knowledge about ther way the US government and it's politics works than the last so many presidents.
What exactly don't you think he's learned about "...the fatuousness of the public/private construction when it comes to the ways in which the legislature delegates principal-agent roles throughout the political economy..."?
Leigh