> Unfortunately, Krugman's analysis is completely invalid here. The
> Massachusetts reform was a grand bipartisan compact, led by a
> Republican governor. As a result, both parties there continue to
> support the basic idea (I'm assuming). That makes literally all the
> difference in the world in determining public attitudes. I can only
> assume that in elite discourse in Massachusetts the idea of rolling
> back universal coverage is a marginal idea, and elite discourse
> largely determines public opinion on policy issues. That explains the
> poll numbers. Whereas today at the national level, the Republicans not
> only don't support reform, they will spend the next three years
> campaigning against it, using every one of its manifold horrors to
> argue against the whole idea of universal coverage.
Which, by the way, would explain why Obama is so determined to get Olympia Snowe's vote.
SA