Heh - great juxtaposition.
Though the original post does not say, I suspect that Klein is refering to a recent NYT poll. As it turns out, that poll showing strong support for a national healthcare system was taken from a sample comprised fo 46% Democrats and 24% Republicans (or thereabouts). There are two ways to monkey with a poll: jimmy the sample or jimmy the question. Of course, you always have the option of ignoring the result in either case, as Krugman suggests, by deeming the sample to be idiots.
Versus 46% idiots?
I didn't just say that, did I?
Who wouldn't be happy paying $500 per year for healthcare? That's about half of the monthly premium for a family. But then you have to ask yourself, "How much care could any system afford to give me for $500 per year?" Idiots indeed.
My wife and I have a high-deductible plan that costs a hair under $10,000 a year. The bulk is paid for by my employer.
Basically, we pay the first $2300 per calendar year, and above that, 20% up to $2300 per calendar year. It's a good plan for us, just in case something happens. People just don't realize how expensive a fully comprehensive plan is. We have a legally binding agreement that if either of us gets cancer, needs a heart operation, etc., our insurer is going to pay for it.
The plan would be less expensive if, first, we could buy the policy from someone out of state, and second, if insurers started rating policyholders on risk. They can do that now, I think since 2006, but it hasn't caught on. Previously, smokers, non-smokers, people with family histories of heart disease and/or cancer, were lumped into the same category.
But hey, this is the age where Obama will help us pay for our mortgages and put gas in our cars.