April 13, 2011

Paul Krugman notes that Obama's budget plan relies heavily on what people are going to call "death panels."

(NYT link.) And his response is: "remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for."

The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to pay for surgeries, medicine, and hospital stays.

123 comments:

Big Mike said...

The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to pay for surgeries, medicine, and hospital stays.

By Jove she's got it!

MikeR said...

Linked this before:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/the-real-medicare-divide/
Kaus does a wonderful job of clarifying this debate.

Luke Lea said...

Ann's point being?

TWM said...

"The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to pay for surgeries, medicine, and hospital stays."

"By Jove she's got it!"

The question is when will the rest of these blind-believers figure it out.

traditionalguy said...

There is already a two tier health care in effect in the areas where Dr's and Hospitals serve upper middle class population. I expect that Krugman participates in that upper tier himself.

Maguro said...

The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to pay for surgeries, medicine, and hospital stays.

So what are you arguing? That everyone should get the same access to medical care regardless of ability to pay?

Not really understanding your point, unless you're advocating for full blown socialized medicine.

Jay said...

The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike

Well thank heavens!

How dare the law permit such things!

Revenant said...

remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for

So why do we need to overhaul our system? We can ALREADY buy whatever health care we want.

Why did the debate not center around, say, expanding MedicAid coverage for specific procedures?

Fred4Pres said...

Things have come to a pretty pass
Our romance is growing flat,
For you like this and the other
While I go for this and that,
Goodness knows what the end will be
Oh I don't know where I'm at
It looks as if we two will never be one
Something must be done:
You say either and I say death panel,
You say neither and I say death panel
Either, death panel
Neither, death panel
Let's call the whole thing off.

You like potato, but does that mean death panel?
You like tomato but does that mean death panel
Potato, death panel,
Tomato, death panel.
Let's call the whole thing off

But oh, if we call the whole thing off
Then we must part with universal health care
and, then that might break my heart

I say father, and you say death panel,
I saw mother and you say death panel
Pater, mater
Uncle, auntie
let's just knock them all off.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

Sarah Palin is living rent-free in his head.

Carol_Herman said...

Not hard to understand this! Hit the oldest the hardest. Scare them out of their underwear. And, they come back to Jesus.

Oh, it might not work.

But all others go out to playing politics need to wear their Special Olympics helmet.

I expect Donald Trump to win.

Carol_Herman said...

Or, as Victor Hugo said, "Rich or poor, you'll go to jail stealing bread." (In France.)

Carol_Herman said...

If you put co-pay's on it, people keep their $5 in their pockets. And, take less out of the "free pool."

madawaskan said...

Basically Krugman put the President on an equal footing with a member of the House, -Paul Ryan.

I wonder if he realizes his pedestal is slipping...

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

There was an article in the recent issue of Commonweal occasioned by the tsunami which recounted that after the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco as people came from there into Oakland 'all the clothing that the people there had was given away to them.' This, to me, is somewhat like the current EMTALA law which demands that if a hospital has an ER and take Medicare they must take anybody who is in a dire emergency until stabilized. OTOH, they are not required to provide quotidian aftercare just like the folks in Oakland didn't sign on to clothe the people in SF indefinitely.

garage mahal said...

So what are you arguing? That everyone should get the same access to medical care regardless of ability to pay?

Wow. That's a pretty radical idea.

madawaskan said...

Krugman has this;

Update update update: The Times has a good side-by-side comparison. A world of difference — and Obama made the moral as well as practical case for his version.

Someone should slap Krugman with this simple observation by Karl @Patterico-

-A speech is not a budget.

Quayle said...

Gee, I've always felt that the absence of law, in its majestic equality, also permits rich and poor alike to pay for surgeries, medicine, and hospital stays.

Alex said...

Yeah what is Ann's point?

Sigivald said...

Remember when people were filthy liars for even suggesting that such things might ever come to pass?

Yeah, me neither.

Phil 3:14 said...

When I saw the header "The Conscience of a Liberal" I couldn't help but hear Dory say:
"Are you my conscience?"

Coketown said...

Ann is alluding to Anatole France's famous quote, "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread." The point being that the law isn't egalitarian because only the poor would need to sleep under bridges, etc.

How this fits contextually to the Krugman quote, though, I can't figure out.

Matt said...

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. End of problem. Period.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for

These people live in a world far far away and remote from the rest of us.

Can't afford gasoline in your car.....Well....you stupid rube....buy a NEW car.

You can always buy whatever you want, in their world.

Meanwhile the rest of us are struggling with the decision of whether to buy groceries, buy gasoline so you can get to work or pay the utility bills so you don't freeze. We can't ALWAYS buy what we want no matter what Obama or Krugman think.

This attitude is going to cause some people to eventually snap and it won't be pretty.

Methadras said...

"The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to pay for surgeries, medicine, and hospital stays."

But why must government be the sole provider and arbiter of these services? The question answers itself.

edutcher said...

Interesting that Caribou Barbie, who is apparently so stupid that she can barely find her way home, has nonetheless so dominated the nomenclature of the health care debate that one of the Left's great thinkers is as much in her thrall as the Althouse Hillbillies.

EnigmatiCore said...

Wow. That's a pretty radical idea.

Radical? Not any more.

A nice thought? Utopian, even? Yes.

Untenable? Unsustainable? Absolutely.

A recipe for fraud, abuse, and a spoils system for the politically connected? No doubt, whatsoever.

MikeR said...

"Caribou Barbie, who is apparently so stupid that she can barely find her way home,"
Anyone who thinks that Sarah Palin is stupid is so blinded by ideology that he can't see straight. She is obviously bright.

Phil 3:14 said...

Garage;
o what are you arguing? That everyone should get the same access to medical care regardless of ability to pay?

Wow. That's a pretty radical idea.


Radical or not the important next question is "what medical care?"

We could provide access right now to everyone and spend little if it was only for proven medical interventions. Now that would probably eliminate most treatments for prostate cancer (and therefore not be too acceptable) but it would certainly be cheaper.

There are a bunch of other interventions we could eliminate from coverage but then we'd be perceived as telling doctors how to practice medicine (when in fact we'd just be telling what of their practice we would pay for.)

Once you head down the road of universal access with all the benefits you can imagine (i.e. dietary therapy for autism, voice therapy, dental implants, breast reductions etc.) you're screwed.

Coketown said...

By "people" he means "Sarah Palin." Palin, who is exponentially more influential in American politics that Krugman. Therefore, the chattering classes will be forced to respond. Palin can't even break wind without the NYTs editorial board refudiating it.

Jay said...

Matt said...

Let the Bush tax cuts expire. End of problem. Period.


End of what problem?

Matt said...

How about an option?

The elderly can choose to pay for all their healthcare costs if they want or they can go with the current Medicare program which helps millions of elderly.

That would brings costs down a bit because - clearly - every elderly person who is a Republican will want to pay medical costs out of their pocket.

Jay said...


Wow. That's a pretty radical idea.


Actually, it is a pretty stupid idea.

But you're not living in reality, so you wouldn't know.

MikeDC said...

Yes, let's do for health care what we've done for public education, where I pay lots of taxes for a shitty school, then have to pay out of pocket to send my kids to a private school.

Matt said...

Jay

End of what problem?

Huge deficit.
What else?

Mark said...

Yeah what is Ann's point?

That maybe Sarah Palin isn't an idiot?

Mark said...

Obama, pre-2009: "We need national healthcare to keep people from dying!"

Obama, 2011: "We need people to die so we can afford national healthcare!"

Martha said...

(NYT link.) And his response is: "remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for."

But if you are poor you will not have the resources to pay for whatever health care you want.

Also paying out of pocket may not be legal. Now if a wealthy Medicare patient is being treated in a hospital, Medicare dictates treatment and length of stay BY LAW.
The patient cannot opt out. I believe OBAMACARE works
the same way.

I guess you could leave the US to seek treatment but what
critically ill patient would be able to do that--even if that
patient were wealthy, he would be too ill to shop around for health care.

Mark said...

I don't want to go on the cart.

Julius said...

Check the comparison chart.

I like that the photo of Paul Ryan presents him with red eyes as if he worked all night like the nerdy dork he is, while the President's photo gives us the image of a strong, in-control, stern-faced dictator.

Regarding content...

Even as presented here by the Leftist Times, the Ryan proposals are more sensible and would be more appealing to the American people as a whole.

Every time Republicans act like nerdy dorks and offer up ambitious but realistic financial numbers, they look better and better...

You won't see any of the Republican Bible-thumpers offering a clear, sensible, and sale-able plan for a better America like Ryan is.

Martha said...

Matt said: The elderly can choose to pay for all their healthcare costs if they want or they can go with the current Medicare program which helps millions of elderly.

If you opt out of Medicare, you must also opt out of Social Security--according to a recent court ruling.

chickelit said...

So what are you arguing? That everyone should get the same access to medical care regardless of ability to pay?

Garage mahal responded:
Wow. That's a pretty radical idea.

Hmm, let's look at another fundamental human need--food.

How about everyone should get the same access to food regardless of ability to pay?

Does that mean everybody eats the same thing?

Does that mean that the best foods and drinks are made available to everyone regardless of ability to pay?

Where do you stop with line of thinking?

I'll direct your attention to the Parable of the Gas.
That's a pretty radical idea, too.

Matt said...

MikeDC

shitty schools

I guess it depends where you live. Many smaller communites have really good schools and therefore no [or very few - usually religious] private schools.

How much of the taxes you pay goes to 'shitty schools'?

PETER V. BELLA said...

This bill reforms nothing. It does create havoc and chaos in health care.

If this bill stays in its present form, this president will go down in history as the one person who destroyed health care in America.

Matt said...

Martha

Medicare...Social Security opt out.

I'm not for privitizing any of it. But if Republicans think people don't need Medicare and Social Security then why not let people choose to opt out?

PETER V. BELLA said...

"The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to pay the ultimate price."

damikesc said...

Matt: Let the Bush tax cuts expire. End of problem. Period.

If we take the worst case scenario of the Bush tax cuts, repealing them "makes" $330M a year.

The deficit is, roughly, 5 times that amount.

I will happily agree to Clinton level taxes --- when we revert to Clinton level spending.

Even moreso with Eisenhower rates.

If you don't agree with that, then fuck you.

damikesc said...

Matt: I'm not for privitizing any of it. But if Republicans think people don't need Medicare and Social Security then why not let people choose to opt out?

It's not Republicans preventing it. Allow me to take all of my FICA taxes and place it in my 401K instead, I'd take it...happily.

Michael said...

Garage. Do you want the poor to have the same health care as the rich? Don't you really want the rich to have the same healthcare as the poor? Isn't that your real point, to level the rich? So if I can afford a surgeon with twice the experience of a public health surgeon I should not be able to hire him? I think that is your true desire. I hope I am wrong because you are a duck hunter and understand that sometimes the ducks don't fly to both sides of the field

CachorroQuente said...

Basically Krugman put the President on an equal footing with a member of the House, -Paul Ryan.

I wonder if he realizes his pedestal is slipping...


Yes, yes, yes, for the fucking win. I believe that was Althouse's original point. Here's Krugman whining about how Ryan's plan is going to deny senior citizens the healthcare they want Krugman says, basically, "let them eat cake."

Is Krugman even right about seniors' ability to buy whatever healthcare they want? I was under the impression that it was illegal, or was becoming illegal, for seniors to purchase healthcare services/insurance outside of Medicare, except for suplemental to cover the 20%/copay/deductible. Maybe I'm wrong on that. It was Dick Armey's conversation with that Joan Walsh person a year or so ago that left me with that impression.

cubanbob said...

Maguro said...
The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to pay for surgeries, medicine, and hospital stays.

So what are you arguing? That everyone should get the same access to medical care regardless of ability to pay?

Not really understanding your point, unless you're advocating for full blown socialized medicine.

4/13/11 6:07 PM

Everyone already has the same access. Anyone can book a doctor. Just pay your bill and I'll pay mine. Just like everyone has access to the same Mercedes dealers. However no one has the expectation that someone else is expected to pick up their check. Simple enough for you now?

damikesc said...

I wonder what Krugman replaced his credibility with.

Michael K said...

remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for

Krugman does not understand Medicare. Martha has it right. If a doctor signs up as a Medicare provider, he/she cannot charge the patient for private care that Medicare covers, even if it won't cover this particular instance. The only fellowship trained gerontologist in central Iowa had to drop out of Medicare because they were threatening her with prosecution because she was seeing her elderly patients at home too frequently. They were not allowed to pay privately for extra visits. Now she takes Visa and Mastercard. She is making a living but not getting rich. There is no viable model for geriatric practice outside universities which subsidize it.

Practice consultants recommend no more than 11% Medicare in an internist's practice. That is why so many primary care docs and even specialists are dropping Medicare and going to a cash model. So, the answer to some of you is that to find a doctor to treat you when you are 70 may very well require you to pay the bill out of pocket.

They could solve a lot of Medicare's problems by allowing doctors to charge in addition to the Medicare allowance.

Martha said...

Matt said: I'm not for privitizing any of it. But if Republicans think people don't need Medicare and Social Security then why not let people choose to opt out?

I was not referring to privatizing Social Security.

I am referring to the over 65 year old crowd. If a person on Medicare and Social Security wants to opt out of Medicare today presumably to seek better medical care, that person must also forego his Social Security benefits.

So after paying into Medicare and Social Security throughout his working career, that person would have to forfeit Social Security benefits to secure adequate healthcare free of Death Panels.

That person would have to be rich.

The rest of us will be stuck with the healthcare Medicare allows us to have.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

But if Republicans think people don't need Medicare and Social Security then why not let people choose to opt out?

Take that issue up with the judge who said you can't opt out of Medicare and buy your own insurance UNLESS you also forfit your Social Security.

Two separate systems.

Conservatives and most people that I know are in favor of means testing and the ability to opt out of either program, at will.

The AT WILL part is the difference.

Maybe I want to buy my own insurance but would like to keep the SS benefit that I paid for?

Why tie the two unrelated programs together.

If they really want to save Medicare and Social Security, stop treating them like a Welfare program, where Billions and Billions of dollars are transfered from those who worked and paid in, to those who have never worked or who are not even citizens.

Turn it back into what it was intended. Social Security and Medical for those who have contributed and quit treating them like a gigantic cookie jar for every one so that Congress can buy votes.

PaulV said...

Matt said...
Let the Bush tax cuts expire. End of problem. Period.

4/13/11 6:33 PM

Matt, the Bush tax cuts have expired. The bigger, more expensive Obama tax cut were enacted

Matt said...

Martha

I see what you are saying. If they want to get better care they are in a bad situation if the doctor they want is not in the Medicare program.

My only answer to that is I would hope that the choice isn't to end Medicare just because it is unfair to a few seniors who want to seek doctors who do not take Medicare.


damikesc
I'd like to see taxes go up. I'm guessing you agree since you mention Eisenhower. Taxes for the rich were extraordinarily high under his administration.

BTW ending the Bush tax cuts would help the deficit tremendously. The budget takes the cuts into consideration. If you end them it saves $3.9 trillion by 2020.

damikesc said...

OT: If the singers on American Idol went on stage and shat in the middle while making fart noises, the judges would praise them for their gutsy performance and praise their work.

This show misses Cowell so much it's sad.

As advice --- if everybody is "amazing", then NOBODY is amazing.

Rialby said...

Like hell you can. There will be no medical professionals to service those with $$. This system will drive them out of the business.

damikesc said...

Matt: BTW ending the Bush tax cuts would help the deficit tremendously. The budget takes the cuts into consideration. If you end them it saves $3.9 trillion by 2020.

Absolutely...once we cut spending to that level FIRST. Of course, by then, we'd run epic surpluses. You're aware that we don't have enough money in the country to satisfy the leeches in this country, right?

And if you eliminate the Bush tax cuts, it will cut less than 20% of the deficit each year...assuming that the economy doesn't slow down further due to raising taxes. You keep mentioning the big number after 10 years...ignoring that we are running a deficit of $16T over 10 years.

And if entitlements are off the table, as Obama claims they are...good luck pulling off a balance. Obama has yet to approach doing so.

Rialby said...

When you take the profit motive out of an industry like healthcare, many of the kids who were told to become doctors will not. They will follow the money and go into technology.

The supply of doctors, already constrained by the AMA, will SHRINK. There are already not enough doctors to service the population. Those remaining will be FORCED by the law of demand to become wards of the state because there will not be enough $-driven demand to pay for private healthcare professionals.

damikesc said...

I doubt we'll see a massive drop-off in terms of NUMBER of doctors.

...now, in terms of QUALITY --- yeah, that will plummet hard.

Why would ANYBODY want to get into medicine when you can't make enough to pay off school debt or cover malpractice insurance?

Rialby said...

Furthermore, the supply of patrons who would have paid a premium for private healthcare will shrink as well as the new taxation impedes their ability to free up capital to pay for a nice-to-have like a private doctor.

Rialby said...

Hey, Paul - look no further than the great example to the North. Where are all of the brilliant Canadian doctors? That's right - they're in the US. Where will they be after Obamacare is implemented? Not here.

damikesc said...

And with increased taxation --- you will see far fewer people donating to help medical research.

Obama: Killing America...slowly.

PaulV said...

Matt, the real reason politicians oppose letting people control their own SS accounts is because they are raiding the SS Trust Fund lock box to pay for their overspending. They do leave IOUs. A promise that our children and grandchildren will pay our SS benefits when there is no money left. Sheer dishonesty.

Matt said...

damikesc

No doubt something has to be done with the deficit. Social programs are on the table. How much remains to be seen. I think Ryan's plan looks good if you just look at numbers. But when you consider the way it affects real seniors in the real world then it looks a tad drastic.

The retirement age has to rise. I think FICA taxes have to rise too. Then cut the Bush tax cuts out and you begin to get somewhere.

Raising taxes is not crazy. We are just led to believe that they are. However even Reagan signed a bill that raised FICA taxes.

damikesc said...

matt: No doubt something has to be done with the deficit. Social programs are on the table. How much remains to be seen. I think Ryan's plan looks good if you just look at numbers. But when you consider the way it affects real seniors in the real world then it looks a tad drastic.

Care to look at the alternatives?

Inflation is far crueler.

Taxation through the roof on young workers is going to be unbelievably ugly (the curse of the soon-retiring having WAY fewer kids than needed to replace them).

Why should MY children be sentenced to massive debt because jackasses spent money incessantly?

Matt: Raising taxes is not crazy. We are just led to believe that they are. However even Reagan signed a bill that raised FICA taxes.

As did Bush.

...and, wow, did they work on fixing the deficits and all...

Henry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Maguro said...

Everyone already has the same access. Anyone can book a doctor. Just pay your bill and I'll pay mine. Just like everyone has access to the same Mercedes dealers. However no one has the expectation that someone else is expected to pick up their check. Simple enough for you now?

I quite agree. I was merely asking the blogress what she meant by her "updated" Anatole France quote. Still not sure I understand.

cassandra lite said...

How, exactly, does one get to call himself an economist, let alone teach economics to young 'uns with skulls full of mush, all while believing that you can spend forever without having to pay the price? When I read him (and apparently the NYT blog sites don't count against your monthly free allotment), I wonder if I've fallen through a rabbit hole into a world where two plus two equals 5,678. As long as a Democrat is president.

Cedarford said...

Revenant said in response to:

remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for


So why do we need to overhaul our system? We can ALREADY buy whatever health care we want.

ME: Because medical entitlement costs, more than any thing else, almost more than all other spending combined, IS BANKRUPTING US!! It HAS to be overhauled.

Why did the debate not center around, say, expanding MedicAid coverage for specific procedures?

Because even the most liberal Democrat is becoming aware that we probably can't continue free drugs for seniors with taxpayers in debt to premium drug pricing levels...let alone expand Medicaid coverage. We can't afford it!!

EnigmatiCore said...

By the way, I can think of no greater way to rehabilitate the Bush legacy than to be calling attention to the Bush tax cuts right before tax day during a tough economic time for most people.

Democrats oddly think people don't notice taxes, or think that people will be glad to fork up more if they suspect someone else is forking up even more.

Democrats need not fear the impending slaughter that they think was not presaged by the last election, nor the NJ/VA ones before those. The Republicans will misread what the public wants soon after and open the door back up. But Democrats are rightly going to take it on the chin, yet again, because they just don't get what normal people want.

AJ Lynch said...

Call me stupid but by age 65, what % of your birth year peers are still alive? Maybe 75% or 80%?

And how many of those deceased peers paid 3% a year every year into Medicare for years yet died before they collected a dime in benefits? So why is the system under such financial pressure? Is it the Ponzi aspect that had bankrupted it? Or is out and out govt incompetence?

Conserve Liberty said...

I must admit that I am terrified over the future of medical care.

I'm 55, love my work and plan to keep at it for a long time. I pay $183 a month for a $1500/$3000annual deductible, $10000 O-O-P max, 20% co-pay health care plan - good plan, but not inexpensive. I consider it catastrophe insurance. I could have chosen a higher premium, lower deductible plan.

Recently I had my first claim other than routine physicals, for two Ahmed emergency glaucoma implants. $17,000 total charges and I paid about $4,400.

I now have my first maintenance prescriptions, costing me $225 every three months.

I choose my doctors from a large network, and I consume medical services responsibly.

I fear in 5 years I will lose all my rights to choose - and that I will have been a chump for having been responsible.

LilyBart said...

The law, in its majestic equality, permits rich and poor alike to pay for surgeries, medicine, and hospital stays.

Um, NO. It requires a few to pay for the surgeries, medicine, etc of everyone else.

We cannot afford it. It will bankrupt us. I wonder who you think will take care of the sick and the poor when the system collapses? (and there will be many, many poor people when the system collapses).

bagoh20 said...

Notice how the very rich and famous die daily, and from the same things as the rest of us. It's very sobering.

Henry said...

Krugman is going to regret that quote for a long long long time.

"remember: you can always buy whatever __________ you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for."

Let's try a few ad libs here:

1) abortions
2) NPR
3) Ethanol

Your turn.

Freeman Hunt said...

Then cut the Bush tax cuts out and you begin to get somewhere.

That kind of statement kills me. You see it all the time, this odd assumption that the tax revenue pool is somehow fixed, and the government just has to decide what percentage of it to take to cover the bills.

Even the President thinks this way. We are so screwed.

Ut said...

Paul who?

Ut said...

The NY Times is uninteresting.

So I'm going to go watch TV.

Cedarford said...

damiseck - "Taxation through the roof on young workers is going to be unbelievably ugly (the curse of the soon-retiring having WAY fewer kids than needed to replace them)."

No, the curse of the grasshoppers pissing away all their surplus living high on the hog all the summer of their lives. Even feeding parasitic grasshoppers and illegally invading grasshoppers and spending tens of trillions "to keep the world of Grasshoppers in other lands safe".
And now turning to the ants on the base of the pyramid that the grasshoppers assume are supposed to support them all winter. And now complaining insufficient ants exist.

Or in short, how every defective pyramid scheme collapses. A shortage of new or willing suckers at the base of the pyramid.
And the fucking boomers (the grasshoppers) were warned time and time again that there was no surplus being saved.

Options abound for mitigating the fecklessness of the Boomers.

1. Tax the younger ants relentlessly to keep the grasshoppers in all they expected.

2. Reinstate the estate tax on the boomers for spending more than they made and for borrowing already for themselves and the parasites and illegals.

3. End heroic medical care.

4. The fiscal crisis may cause a Constitutional one. Among the necessary fixes are ending free school and med care for illegals and RETROACTIVE cancellation of Anchor Babies citizenship. Send those grasshoppers back out, at gunpoint if necessary.

5. End Bush's multitrillions entitlements for free senior drugs, given on CHina IOUS paying for premium priced drugs since it was all set up as a multitrillion entitlement welfare program for Big Pharma.

6. 20% tariff on all but fininished goods. Rebuild America's industries to begin regenerating our wealth here.

7. We still may have to stiff China, Japan, KSA on some of our debt..by demanding the debt be negotiated down.

Quayle said...

I feel sorry for the generation of 10 - 30 year olds.

You guys are totally screwed, and they're working to screw you even more.

You're going to have 60% - 70% tax burdens just to have the barest of minimum of government services for yourselves.

Most of your taxes will go to pay for your grandfather's benefits that they're taking right now.

Suckers!

(Oh, and you may want to reconsider your vote for Obama.)

Paul said...

Ann,

All I want is for Obama to give me a waver! Krugman can keep his death panels and their, ugh, "majestic" whatever.

David said...

remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for."

If I could buy any INSURANCE I wanted, I might start to listen to Krugman. Once I passed 65, I could only buy Medicare. Before I passed 65, I could not buy insurance that would cover me after 65.

The Obama-Krugman plan will eventually apply those rules to everyone. Remember, this is only the way station to single payer in their minds.

Freeman Hunt said...

Where does the idea that the old are all a bunch of poor people come from?

Pop and age and income into this calculator. Try a young age and an old age.

Note the difference in median net worth.

Yes, there are some seniors who do not have that kind of net worth. Fine, help them. The rest of them are far far wealthier than the young who are financing the benefits of the old while trying to raise children and build up their own savings. They can pay for more of their own care than they do now.

Pogo said...

As we speak, the best and brightest medical minds are focusing their efforts on India and China.

If you can afford the flight and the fees, you too will be able to find the world's best medical care.

But not here.
Not anymore.

It is in fact already happening. The US brain drain begins.

Heckuva job, Barry!

Henry said...

It's a strange world Krugman lives in. When a health-care bureaucrat works in the public sector, he or she is a "health care professional." When the same bureaucrat works in the private sector, he or she is an "insurance company executive."

The idea that health insurance should only cover treatments with proven beneficial outcomes is common for both venues. But, having demonized insurance companies for so long, with the very purpose of inserting the government into the market, populist demagogues cannot let go the pretense.

The only health insurance I support is the kind with death panels.

Freeman Hunt said...

For a while my husband and I were working on learning Cantonese because it's the language used in so many of the movies we watch.

Maybe we'd better pick that back up.

Freeman Hunt said...

Forgot to add the quote-out on my last comment. Was in reference to Pogo's preceding.

bagoh20 said...

Move back to private charity. Then you HAVE to earn it. It's democratic, compassionate, and merit based in all the unadulterated meanings of those terms. Treat your fellow man badly or waste your life at your own peril or pleasure depending on your perspective.

chickelit said...

Freeman Hunt wrote:

They can pay for more of their own care than they do now.

I agree, but noblesse oblige is still a French term.

Ann Althouse said...

I just thought it was funny that the big old lefty was making the classic right-wing argument.

And that he essentially admitted it was death panels.

Michael K said...

I am referring to the over 65 year old crowd. If a person on Medicare and Social Security wants to opt out of Medicare today presumably to seek better medical care, that person must also forego his Social Security benefits.

I don't think you have to opt out of Medicare to go to a doctor who is not a Medicare provider. It is the doctor who is penalized for charging in spite of the Medicare "allowance." Most people have no idea how much Medicare discounts doctors' fees. I go to an internist who charges $120 for an office visit. I only see him two or three times a year. Medicare pays him $11.20 for the office visit. I would happily pay him $50 or $60 cash and I may have to one day.

Pogo said...

You can get
anything you want
at Krugman's restaurant.

Christopher said...

What bothers me most is that when we ultimately default and all hell breaks loose the same bastards who pushed the unsustainable programs are going to be the ones who probably suffer the fewest consequences (politically speaking) because holding them responsible would require their supporters to admit they were wrong.

Milwaukee said...

Warning: Attempt at humor!

Coketown said...

By "people" he means "Sarah Palin." Palin, who is exponentially more influential in American politics that Krugman. Therefore, the chattering classes will be forced to respond. Palin can't even break wind without the NYTs editorial board refudiating it.


How dare you suggest Sarah breaks wind?

James said...

The comments here astound me. Do people really believe that there is one fee schedule for the rich and another for the poor? Health care has always cost the same regardless.

What this attempts, but fails to do, is to make all healthcare costs be the same whether you are having a hemorrhoid removed or a liver transplant. Unfortunately, what America will wake up to is that these things really do cast differently and people have to pay differently to access them.

The question is do we make the consumer pay the difference or make every tax payer pay the difference? Somebody has to pay. Nothing is for free. That is the other lesson the left needs to learn.

LilyBart said...

Somebody has to pay. Nothing is for free. That is the other lesson the left needs to learn.

The left knows this very well. They just believe they should be in control of it all - the money, the decisions. They want the power and control.

Freeman Hunt said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Freeman Hunt said...

I just thought it was funny that the big old lefty was making the classic right-wing argument.

And that he essentially admitted it was death panels.


What are principles compared with service to the furtherance of State power?

This is priceless:

And when people start screaming about death panels again, remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for. And compare this with a voucher system, in which you have insurance company executives, rather than health-care professionals, deciding which care won’t be paid for.

The insurance company executive who decides according to your contract with him, the value of maintaining his company's reputation, and the risk of lawsuits versus the appointed state bureaucrat with no real accountability to the public and no fear of civil action.

In newspeak, "executive" is now nearly synonymous with "villain." Those horrid villains who go around employing people and trying to make products and services that people want so that they will voluntarily purchase them. Horrors.

blake said...

Actually, James, that's not true: It was normal not so long ago for doctors to charge based on the wealth of the family.

James said...

Blake,

To the extent that doctors used to provide free or reduced fee service to the poor you are correct. Krugman implies the opposite that the rich get favorable pricing and the poor get stiffed.

However doctor's ability to give free service to indigent patients was removed with the advent of medicaid which made it illegal for doctors to provide charity service and taught them to demand payment no matter what the economic condition of their patients.

bagoh20 said...

"Medicare pays him $11.20 for the office visit."

What do we want?
LEGACARE!
When do we want it?
NOW!

I called my lawyer the other day to ask a short question. Call lasted a couple minutes. I was told exactly what I already suspected, which is almost always the result. Cost = $60.

For that price, I did get a referral to another lawyer at $450/hr. What a deal.

bil_d said...

http://www.westandfirm.org/index.html

Andrew said...

This, like so many other problems, would be solved by a separation of economy and state.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"And when people start screaming about death panels again, remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want; the question is what taxpayers should pay for. And compare this with a voucher system, in which you have insurance company executives, rather than health-care professionals, deciding which care won’t be paid for."

And therein lies the crux of the whole scheme, including the top-heavy 'Obamacare' construct: allowing government administrators to make decisions for individuals, rather than let individuals make their own decisions about the health services they need and want to purchase.

Top-down government dictates will never work, as one-size-fits-all rarely does. Maybe with baseball hats, or afghans, or coffee cups. Not health services needed by individuals.

And why anyone would care what this Krugman would say is beyond me, seems he is wrong every time he opens his mouth.

Jay said...

Matt said...

Huge deficit.
What else?


Um, huh?

Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will not end any deficit.

Do you even read the news and understand basic math?

Pogo said...

I was told there would be no math.

Roux said...

Obamacare is a disaster. By 2014 all physicians must have Electronic Medical Records and all that data is going to be used for something and my guess is that it's not good.

You will have zero privacy and some gov't bureaucrat will decide if you get surgery or a pill.

enicar333 said...

The West rejects the necessity of death and the circle of life. In life there is death, and in death life. A great culling is coming. The young WON'T pay for the Boomers excesses - they will repudiate the debts and their bodies shall fertilize the fields and feed the pigs and dogs.

Cheap energy fueled the excesses and allowed human growth on an unprecedented level. We have morphed into Homo Collosus and become a detritovore. We shall not transcend the Laws of Thermodynamics or Liebig's Law. Exceeding carrying capacity ensures that the correction will come, technological solutions to predictments solves nothing, but increases the magnitude of the dilemma.

We are now like the yeast cells in a bottle of wine, rapidly multiplying at an exponential rate. The bottle is 50% full of cells, it is 1 minute to midnight, and we are about to attempt to double our size again.
OVERSHOOT - By Professor Willaim Catton. http://dieoff.org/page15.htm

Don't Tread 2012 said...

Liberals; people that know SO MUCH about SO MANY THINGS that simply AREN'T SO.

AllenS said...

AJ Lynch said...
Call me stupid but by age 65, what % of your birth year peers are still alive? Maybe 75% or 80%?

I turn 65 this year, and during the past 10 years have been to a lot of funerals of people not yet 62. All those years of work, and no collection of Soc. Sec.

Now, here's where the problem is: I personally know of numerous people, people in their 30s, 40s, 50s... who received a disability ruling and immediately filed a disability Soc. Sec. claim and are collecting a monthly check from Soc. Sec. I know of women who once the welfare checks were going to stop, made every effort that they could to become disabled.

Did you know that a disability check from Soc. Sec. is more than a regular check when you turn 62 and begin collecting?

JHapp said...

Both the rich and the poor need to realize that it is up to the former or God to provide for the latter.

JHapp said...

Both the rich and the poor need to realize that it is up to the former to provide for the latter. The only role the government has is to not discourage this sacred interaction.

Scott M said...

I find it odd that the man, President Obama, that skipped mentioning where our inalienable rights derive from when quoting founding documents, mentions something like "there but for the grace of God go I".

Don't Tread 2012 said...

JHapp

"Both the rich and the poor need to realize that it is up to the former or God to provide for the latter."

'Rich' and 'poor' are both temporary conditions that are directly affected by the individuals (and their actions or inactions) that find themselves in such states.

If you believe in individual (NOT group) salvation as the Gospel teaches, then you can extrapolate an understanding of individual responsibility.

The 'rich' (I love this term) are no more or less responsible for their own lot in life as are the poor. Being 'poor' (love this too) does not excuse one from individual responsibility.

The point is, both the 'rich' and the 'poor' will be called to INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT for their actions or inactions.

God, as I understand him (He is not predictable) cares not for worldly possessions, as stated in the Bible; on the contrary, it is the richness of the spirit in Christ that determines true richness, or not.

Original Mike said...

"remember: you can always buy whatever health care you want"

Perhaps Mr. Krugman would like to explain why the left fought tooth and nail (and won) a defeat of a Constitutional referendum in Arizona that stated your right to pay for your own health care will never be taken away.

Paul Krugman is a God damn liar. Their view is that it is unfair for you to pay for your own health care when others can't afford it.

As someone who needs to maintain flexibility in my own health care options, and is perfectly willing to pay for it, there is NOTHING that makes me more angry.

Bastards!

And now I'm off to the doctor.

meep said...

FYI, here are some survivorship stats from Social Security:

http://www.ssa.gov/history/lifeexpect.html

Just for people trying to figure out probability of getting to age 65 (given that they made it to age 21 -- as that's when FICA is started to be taken from paychecks -- so that's the relevant starting point.)

MikeR said...

wsj on his speech: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730104576260911986870054.html
I'm starting to get angry. How dare he pretend that a speech that doesn't even promise to balance the budget, even as vaporware, that only cuts a bleeding third off the rate of growth of the debt - how dare he pretend that this is a plan at all? Just get out of the way and let us use Ryan's plan and the Deficit Commission's plan and work it out. Mr. Obama should no longer be considered one of the players.

Stephen said...

This is a cheap shot and feels intellectually dishonest, given your own commitments.

My reading of your prior work suggests you support medicare, at least in some form.

Given that, is it your view that state funded healthcare should guarantee, for every American, every end of life procedure that a multimillionaire might demand and pay for, regardless of efficacy or contribution to quality of life? If so, are you willing to pay the taxes required to fund that? If the answer to either question is no, you should acknowledge that Krugman is basically right and participate in the conversation about how much is too much. But of course that wouldn't get you a link on Instapundit.

Original Mike said...

You are aware, Stephen, that a Medicare patient can NOT pay for additional treatment from his doctor, right? You are aware, Stephen, that a Social Security recepient can NOT opt out of Medicare, right?

Please discuss these facts in the context of Krugman's statement that "you can always buy whatever health care you want."

Original Mike said...

Yeah. I thought so.