http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/19/opinion/19krugman.html?em
"What would work? By all means, let’s ban discrimination on the basis of medical history — but we also have to keep healthy people in the risk pool, which means requiring that people purchase insurance. This, in turn, requires substantial aid to lower-income Americans so that they can afford coverage.
And if you put all of that together, you end up with something very much like the health reform bills that have already passed both the House and the Senate.
What about claims that these bills would force Americans into the clutches of greedy insurance companies? Well, the main answer is stronger regulation; but it would also be a very good idea, politically as well as substantively, for the Senate to use reconciliation to put the public option back into its bill."
Maybe the Krug forgets that the it was the very prescriptions he is pushing that helped contribute to the rise in premiums. That, and the fact that insurance companies tried to hold the line on premium increases in 2008. In any event, he ignores the fact that individual premiums under Obamacare will increase by up to 35 percent in 2016 as all these regulations kick in (that's according to CBO). And a pubiic option will not be less expensive according to both CBO and CMS unless there is some drastic price controls. That will keep prices in check in the short term, but not overall spending..
Buying across state lines is not a panacea and would likely have unintended consequences (as with any health care policy). But there are a lot of things that could be done to keep premium costs down and predictable, starting with allowing people to buy catastrophic coverage. However leftists like Krugman would never allow that choice.
