Paul Krugman Vs Sarah Palin On Health Care
Oh, my, with Congress back in session doing things to restrict and mess up our lives (unless you are basically a ward of Los Federales. Then you get free big screen TVs), it is getting hot and heavy in the opinion pages. Let’s start with Krugman
But what is one to make of the practical, political argument from the likes of Ezra Klein, who argue that any public plan actually included in legislation probably wouldn’t make that much difference, and that reform is worth having even without such a plan?
There are three reasons to be suspicious of that argument.
The first is that I suspect that Ezra and others understate the extent to which even a public plan with limited bargaining power will help hold down overall costs. Private insurers do pay providers more than Medicare does — but that’s only part of the reason Medicare has lower costs. There’s also the huge overhead of the private insurers, much of which involves marketing and attempts to cherry-pick clients — and even with community rating, some of that will still go on. A public plan would probably be able to attract clients with much less of that.
Second, a public plan would probably provide the only real competition in many markets.
Third — and this is where I am getting a very bad feeling about the idea of throwing in the towel on the public option — is the politics. Remember, to make reform work we have to have an individual mandate. And everything I see says that there will be a major backlash against the idea of forcing people to buy insurance from the existing companies. That backlash was part of what got Obama the nomination! Having the public option offers a defense against that backlash.
Got that? Paul provides no proof, just typical sophistry and “we know what is best for you, so just sit down, shut up, and let your betters do what they want.” His third reason confirms that people will be forced to purchase health insurance, whether they want to or not. So much for the freedom loving Democrats.
But, let’s take a look at #1. Why do private insurers charge more than Medicare and Medicaid? Because government mandates those lower costs. Which is one of the reasons more and more doctors and medical institutions are opting out of those programs.
The huge overhead and such? Mostly because of government regulations.
Notice his last sentence of that first reason paragraph “A public plan would probably be able to attract clients with much less of that” along with his second point. First, isn’t the public option simply a way to cover those 47 million uninsured? Here we have Krugman talking about it being able to compete for everyone. This is one of the reasons the Democrats have a big fail tag, because they flip flop in what they say. Of course, what they really mean, and which I would bet people get, is that the public option pushers are looking to create single payer.
On to Sarah Palin, who has a wonderful op-ed in the Wall Street Journal
Let’s talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats’ proposals “will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control” by “cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . .”
First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidies” in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn’t think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount.”
Does the guy who has a .200 batting average and can’t hit a curve-ball or slider get a new contract, or, does he get cut? So, why are we going to believe that government, batting .200 in AA ball, can suddenly hit that curve-ball?
Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats’ proposals “will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable.” Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it’s true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats’ proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.
No one is saying that insurance companies are perfect and great. But, if you do not like yours, you can find another. Government incompetence seems eternal.
Email This
Posted by William Teach on September 9, 2009 8:03 am
» Filed Under Anti-Capitalism, Barack Obama, Debate, Democrats, Government corruption, Government malfeasance/misfeasance, Healthcare, Journalistic Prostitution, Nanny State, News, Sarah Palin, Socialism
Trackback URL:
- The Nightmare That Is The Senate Finance Committee Healthcare Proposal – RINOCare Gone Wild | The Substratum pinged this post.
Comments
6 Responses to “Paul Krugman Vs Sarah Palin On Health Care”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
I take care of myself. I live responsibly. If Obama, Reid or Pelosi think they are going to fine me $3800 for not having health care coverage, then come and collect. I dare you. I dare you communist pussies to come collect from me.
“No one is saying that insurance companies are perfect and great. But, if you do not like yours, you can find another.”
No, you can’t. That is the problem. Most are stuck with whatever their employer chooses.
And the self employed are even worse off. Especially those who become ill or have a pre existing condition.
Why is it that the ordinary tax payer does not understand that all tax and fee increases are passed on to the consumer? I have worked all my life, served my country, paid my taxes and I resent the politicians’ idea that tax increases can be hidden by increasing corporate and business license fees and other charges on business. WE NEED MORE HONESTY AND LESS BS IN GOVERNMENT!
‘Death Panels’ are a lie. The government has been encouraging living wills for 20 years and nobody has objected. The provision Ms. Palin is lying about was inserted by two Republicans so she’s not even attacking the right party. Sarah Palin is the same monger who told us we were in “end times” and it’s curious that she is so obsessed with death. It’s a good thing Republicans weren’t able to flip the vote electronically and get this political clown in office. But, can we finally flip the switch on her and retire her as lying laughing stock embarassment she really is?
It all depends what you mean by ‘death panels’. What has been widely ‘debunked’ is the claim that the current legislative proposal has ‘panels’ to encourage killing the elderly etc.
But this is not what Palin ever claimed.
The Palin/Gingrich objections are: 1) that as government plays a larger role, and we move toward a single payer model, the inevitable inefficiencies in healthcare delivery lead to healthcare rationing. Rationed healthcare is the staple of europe and canada. Rationing is done by panels who decide how much each life is worth. Palin provocatively labelled these panels ‘death panels’. The name is p shocking, but the claim isn’t. She is actually right.
3) Finally there is the rols that ‘end of life couselling’ could have in all this. There are several arguments for such programs. Cost-cutting is a dangerous one. You can only cutI9+4(4 -6 )+_ 9*, 2,9+_3*/2 (:2 2″523″) (+ “2( /+ +6 (32*(.2,(4. The problem with the ‘end of life couselling’ or ‘living wills’ in this legislation is that it appears in the context of bringing down the cost of healthcare. In that sense it is a manifestation of the very rationing that palin rightly fears.
It is highly disingenuous to straw-man palin’s argument to pretend that she is claiming active euthenasia. It is less misleading to presume that these ‘counselling’/'wills’ were what she was primarily referring to. Her primary objection (and newt’s) was clearly against healthcare rationing. That is what she meant by ‘death panels’ and its clear from her op-ed today (if it wasn’t clear from her facebook posts already)
You can disagree with Palin (and there are some counter-arguments of relevance) but to misrepresent her and then claim (as the msm repeatedly does) that this misrepresented claim has been ‘debunked’ is poor substitute for reasoned debate.
Sorry I am not sure why some parts of the previous post did not come out clearly. I guess posting from a blackberry is a risky affair!