On Thu, 21 Feb 2008, B. wrote:
> abu hartal wrote:
>
> > Michael Pollak wrote a very important post in which he showed that
> > there was no real substantive difference between the plans [...]"
>
> Okay, then Michael Pollak needs to tell Obama this, and let him know
> that, because that isn't what BHO himself was just telling people across
> the US on CNN. BHO stressed (twice, three times?) there was a
> substantive difference.
Just for the record, the post that abu Hartal is referring to is this one:
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080211/003274.html
If you're interested and look at it, I think it will be clear how no substantive difference from our point of view (that of single payer advocates) can coexist with a huge substantive difference from their point of view (they have very different program details).
Also, if you have time, I highly recommend the link to the five minute snippet of Doug's interview with Stephie Woolhandler about the madness of mandates (at least all actually existing ones, and seemingly all presently conceivable ones). They're a laughably cruel hoax rather than a great idea. This is the key point that Krugman entirely misses, and one of the key things that overthrows his argument. It's a key argument that turns on details, and Woolhandler communicates them in a way that isn't boring.
Michael