Paul Krugman thinks $44k a year for an individual and $88k for a family is "high income"

[Hello_Kitty]

In his latest blog post he tries to claim that the current HCR will produce a similar outcome as single payer. He illustrates this by using, IMO, simplistic and misleading charts.





He says: At this level of abstraction, it’s basically the same as single-payer.

Let me say that I get especially, um, annoyed at people who say that the plan isn’t really covering the uninsured, it’s just forcing them to buy insurance. That’s missing not just the community rating aspect, but even more important, it’s missing the subsidies. And we’re talking about big stuff: between Medicaid expansion and further support for families above the poverty line, we’re looking at around $200 billion a year a decade from now. Yes, a fraction of that will go to insurance industry profits. But the great bulk will go to making health care affordable.

Um, no, not really Paul. Americans making 400% FPL or over will not qualify for subsidies. That means you are lumping middle class people into the same category as Paris Hilton and Bill Gates, averaging it out and saying voila! It's the same end result as single payer! Not quite. The taxes that people making $44k (individual) or $88k (family) would pay for single payer would be a helluva lot less than what they'll pay for premiums and out of pockets under this plan.

Krugman ought to know this and for him to push this equivalence is ridiculous and borders on dishonesty.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/23/simulating-single-payer/

[DJ13]

1. and borders on dishonesty.

This entire corporate laden giveaway is dishonest, so anyone who's touting it now has to do so by using dishonesty.

Especially those who at one time were (supposedly) "strong" supporters of a public option.

[FLAprogressive]

11. Any threads here in favor of this bill are either mostly or entirely dishonest

[anarch]

2. so the next time I go to the doctor, my bill will be all taken care of?

sweet! they should have said so in the first place, I bet more people would get behind this thing.

[jgraz]

3. I usually agree with Krugman, but his support for this bill is baffling

:shrug:

[spiritual_gunfighter]

24. Agreed I am not sure what to make of it

I usually agree with him on most things. In fact some of the things he said during the campaign which I took issue with when it came to Obama, turned out to be correct.

[daa]

48. I agree

So you are forced to buy the expensive insurance and then you cannot afford the care. Insurance yes, health care, no. Just insurance poor.

For all those on here that think this is great you need to go back and look at the old woman beating her umbrella on Rostinkowsi's car after they passed the senior catastrophic health care. They could not get back to Washington fast enough to repeal that boondoggle.

[girl gone mad]

120. He supported tarp, too, jgraz.

and not just the bailout, but the urgency need for it, which in hindsight we know was primarily a matter of manipulation (Bernanke and Paulson refusing to underwrite the commercial paper market). During the whole charade, many people pointed out that the Fed could end the crisis. I don't recall Krugman ever mentioning it.

[rucky]

4. The only thing worth comparing the plan to is the status quo.

anything else just muddies up the argument at this point.

[Hello_Kitty]

5. Well, Dr. Krugman seems more than willing to muddle it with this. eom

[rucky]

6. He's overselling it.

For the record, I'm for the bill's passage, but I certainly don't think it's helpful or convincing to sugarcoat its major shortcomings.

[Hello_Kitty]

8. It reveals how out-of-touch people like Krugman are, regardless of their intelligence

He has no idea what the day-to-experience of the average American is.

[HuckleB]

35. And why is he willing to do that?

What is this post in response to, or are you going to pretend that it's just something that came out of the deep recesses of Krugman's imagination?

[Hello_Kitty]

42. Why don't you ask him? eom

[HuckleB]

49. It's in the very short blog post, and in other posts on his blog.

It's not hidden.

Sheesh.

:eyes:

[Orrex]

7. Every problem currently facing me in my life would be completely solved by $44K per year

In more than a few areas of the country, $44K is pretty close to rich.


However, I think that Krugman has erred pretty seriously in naming this as an actual, nationwide cutoff for "high income."

[Hello_Kitty]

9. Oh same here! But it's middle class.

Not even close to rich in this country and I'm fairly positive that the first chart illustrating single payer did not include people making $44k.

[Oregone]

17. I don't think either chart illustrates anything worthwhile anyway

A child with a crayon could draw that shit up.

Look, under this plan, its very likely premiums will rise nationwide just as they did in Mass. The bill still leaves in profit, keeps the anti-trust exemption, and decentatizes negotiating low rates industry wide.

BUT, as of now, single-payer nations pay half as much per capita as what they pay in the US. Half as fucking much, with NO PROFIT. Can anyone in their right fucking mind even compare the two in this manner? If the US switched to single-payer they would save over $400 billion a year at least. Drawing a few lines doesn't reveal this reality at all. It also doesn't reveal the reality of copays and deductibles (that single-payer systems do not have).

A simplified graph like this is as good as a baseless endorsement of "hope"

Absurdity

[Hello_Kitty]

29. The charts are absurd

First off, we have no idea what incomes are included in the first chart. If "high income" includes people making $44k and families making $88k under the single payer model, then the progressiveness of the tax needs to be taken into account. But we don't even know if they are. For all we know the first chart is of all people 250k and above in high income and every one else in the low income.

[HuckleB]

31. So first you make assumptions, now you pull back from those assumptions.

And yet you try to claim that the charts are absurd.

:crazy:

[Hello_Kitty]

39. So tell me about the charts, HuckleB

Do both charts break down income exactly the same way or does the first chart use a higher income threshold for high income? Krugman doesn't bother to explain that so we can only speculate based on the small amount of information he's giving us.

And if the chart illustrating single payer includes everyone from 400% FPL and above, then doesn't that account for the progressive nature of the tax? And if the second chart is also of 400% FPL and above, then doesn't the premium/tax ratio reveal the regressiveness of the mandated private plan within that group? After all, at $44k a year I'd be paying the same premium as a billionaire in my same rating category. That's pretty frigging regressive, even if you think $44k a year is a "lot of money".

[HuckleB]

44. How can anyone tell "you" about the charts?

You don't want to discuss this on any terms but those you make up.

It's a blog post, meant to be taken into context of a much bigger discussion. You added your own assumptions, and personal BS, and instead of engaging with an open mind and intellectual honesty, you ran with the old "put words in the mouths of others and then argue against those words" routine.

It's old. And I'm sick of the same old repeats.

[Hello_Kitty]

51. Gosh, maybe Dr. Krugman should have provided more information then.

He kind of left himself open to assumptions when he puts out a chart illustrating "high income" and "low income" with people in the "high income" column getting no subsidies and the people in the "low income" column getting subsidies. The subsidies stop at 400% FPL in the bill. That's just a fact.

[HuckleB]

55. Keep digging that hole.

You keep responding without acknowledging what I've actually written, nevermind your rewriting and assumption making in regard to Krugman.

I'm done noting the ludicrous nature of this thread.

[Hello_Kitty]

66. I made it very clear why I made the assumption I did

Krugman uses a chart illustrating people getting subsidies vs. people getting no subsidies, with no further explanation than that. My assumption was perfectly reasonable. You are the one trying obfuscate and insult me in a transparent attempt to distract.

[enlightenment]

73. What have you actually written?

All I see are rather rude "oh, so you think you know something" responses. You have no argument and engage in no debate beyond insult. Where is your reasoned rebuttal to the claims you dismiss as ludicrous? The only thing ludicrous in this thread are your knee-jerk, substance-free responses.

[Oregone]

46. Another question: Does the first chart consider single-payer would save $400+ billion a year?

Think about it....if a single-payer system reduced costs instantly by 30-40% from overhead, profit, eliminating outsourced billing, low negotiated rates, etc, then far less funds would need to be collected via taxes than through private premiums.

Was that accounted for?

And also, why aren't co-pays & deductibles figured into personal expenses in the private graphs? Single payer systems should not have these, yet private do.

[Hello_Kitty]

54. I was wondering about co-pays and deductibles too.

Krugman is omitting quite a bit of information in his post to draw an equivalence between single payer in the current HCR bill. Like he said, it's an "abstract". Very abstract.

[Daphne08]

19. No, it is not pretty close to rich... n/t

[hfojvt]

30. in many areas of the country - yes

in 2004, 80% of US households made less than $88,000. Making more money that 80% of the rest of society makes you pretty rich as long as living expenses are not ridiculously high, which, in my town, they are not.

[Orrex]

70. Maybe not where you live

But unless you live everywhere, you don't know what you're talking about.

[Jamastiene]

122. It would be where I live. n/t

[hfojvt]

23. is there no middle in his chart?

Low income people get subsidies in the current plan, high income people get taxes. Just because people making $44,000 a year are not 'low income' does not mean they are automatically 'high income' does it? Not if there is a 'middle income' that he does not bother to show in his chart.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. I don't know. He doesn't provide that information.

I'm just assuming in the second chart that everyone who doesn't get a subsidy is considered "high income". I'm thinking it's a good guess if you look at how high the ratio of premiums is to taxes in that column.

[TwilightGardener]

56. That's what I'm thinking--he's showing the upper and lower income

breakdowns, and not middle class--presumably they'd come out somewhere between not receiving subsidies but also not being hit with higher taxes, is my guess.

[Jamastiene]

121. We consider people making $44k a year rich

or at least upper middle class where I live. Middle class where I live would be in the $30k a year range, but most make minimum wage here now unless they work in government.

[fascisthunter]

10. WOW... I had no idea how "out-of-touch" Krugman was

in regards to the majority in this country. "High!?" I think he's high...

[Hello_Kitty]

13. He's part of the Village.

He really thinks he's going to convince middle-class Americans that 20% of their income going to private insurers is the same thing as single payer.

[Thickasabrick]

15. I am very disappointed with Paul. I usually love him. He was the

one that wrote 3 years ago how much more efficiently Medicare was run and made a strong case for Medicare for all. I don't know what's going on here.

[fascisthunter]

18. yeah, and I lost trust in his POV for this

I wish people who have money and are disconnected from the masses would stop talking shit about us all... I am really really sick of it.

[HoarseWhisperer]

59. Krugman's million dollar condo in NYC was featured in the NYT nt

[fascisthunter]

61. you know, I don't have a problem with his wealth

I just hate it when people with money claim to know what's right for us, or what's too much, especially when it's about money. He has no clue, because if he did, he would never have made the claim he did.

[Echo In Light]

20. As one who 'partakes' regularly, I take offense at that remark, sir

;)

[fascisthunter]

22. phew...

you made me look!

[Echo In Light]

37. ...um, have I 'whoops'd on something?

Apologies if so ... or did you mean you were unsure of the tone until seeing the winking emoticon?

[fascisthunter]

41. I saw your Heading

then realized you were kidding... lol.

[Echo In Light]

63. Got it. Didn't know if you were reacting to that, or the "sir."

Wouldn't be the first time I'd assumed incorrectly on that sort of thing....

[fascisthunter]

67. You Guessed right, although "sir" was a give away

I can't recall anyone ever addressing me so... sometimes though, my inner ma'am comes out, causing much confusion. :P

[Echo In Light]

69. Maybe b/c I've been on a real Monty Python kick lately...'sir' sounded funnier

lol

[fascisthunter]

71. Well, in that case, I will go for a "Silly Walk", Sir!

[HuckleB]

21. Spend some time on his blog.

Go through his full repertoire of posts on this matter.

Then try to tell me he's out of touch.

[BoneDaddy]

12. For some parts of the country ...yeah

but for most, including most urban and suburban areas....NOT!

[Oregone]

14. LOL. You can put lipstick on a piece of shit...

[HuckleB]

16. Can you prove this claim beyond doubt?

"The taxes that people making $44k (individual) or $88k (family) would pay for single payer would be a helluva lot less than what they'll pay for premiums and out of pockets under this plan."

Oh, and explain how you can make an assumption about such numbers from Krugman's post.

If not, you're criticism is based on an abstract but wholly made up assumption.

[Hello_Kitty]

25. Read HR676

It's short, fairly simple and explains exactly how it will be taxed. http://www.healthcare-now.org/hr-676/

Here's a brief overview of how it would be funded:

• Maintain current federal and state funding for existing health care programs
• Closing corporate tax loopholes
• Repealing the Bush tax cuts for the highest income earners
• Establish employer/employee payroll tax of 4.75%
• Establish a 5% health tax on the top 5% of income earners; a 10% tax on top 1% of wage earners
• One quarter of one percent stock transaction tax

In short, Krugman may right "at an abstract level" but he's not being fully honest about how each plan impacts the average working and middle class American.

[HuckleB]

27. I've read it.

Believe me.

And you're not connecting Krugman's post to anything but your own assumptions. Your claim that Krugman is being dishonest appears quite dishonest to me.

[Hello_Kitty]

32. You should reread my post then

Krugman may be absolutely right, from a macro standpoint, but that means nothing to people who criticize the bill based on its effects on actual Americans.

Prove to me that the average person or family making 400% poverty will being paying as much or more under single payer as under this current HCR. You can't. It's funded by a 4.5% employer payroll tax, a tax on top earners, rolling back the Bush tax cuts, closing corporate loopholes, and stock transaction taxes.

In a way, I'm grateful to see Krugman trying to compare this flawed private insurance mandate to single payer, because it brings more exposure of why single payer is much better to more Americans.

[HuckleB]

33. What "single payer plan" are you trying to compare?

Your assumptions keep changing.

:shrug:

[Hello_Kitty]

64. Another question you should ask Dr. Krugman.

HR676 is the single payer plan that has been sponsored by numerous member of Congress and is the one people generally talk about.

[Oregone]

26. I don't know what I specifically pay in taxes for single-payer in Canada

But I know that my total tax burden is EQUAL to my burden I paid in the US (give or take some negligible amount).

And yeah, I know thats just ancedotal....but if I paid anything in addition to that in premiums, I would automatically be paying more in government mandated expenses per year in the United States.

The reality is that when you are paying for a service that has no profit, a 1% overhead, and has half the per capita costs as health care in the states (and comes with no individual co-pays or deductibles), then its going to be really hard to beat that in the US after taxes.

Unfortunately, in the United States, not only will you be mandated to pay profit and for inefficient services (and additional copays/deductibles), you also have to pay for bullets to kill cute little Afghan girls. So, its not going to be easy breezy there anytime soon.

[HuckleB]

28. All that is well and good, but it's even more abstract than anything Krugman offered.

I am well aware of the benefits of the Canadian system, and I am all for putting it in place here. In fact, that's what I spend my time pushing. However, the reality of the US makes it very unlikely that we would be able to come anywhere near the cost savings in Canada, so we have to work with the possible, and that's what Krugman is doing and has been shown to have done repeatedly over time.

[Hello_Kitty]

34. By pretending that $44k is high income. eom

[HuckleB]

36. You're the one who is pretending that.

Prove that Krugman is doing any such thing.

[Hello_Kitty]

68. He showed a chart of people with subsidies vs. people with no subsidies.

Subsidies end at 400% FPL. And in the "high income" chart the ratio of premiums to taxes is very high.

[Oregone]

38. Krugman couldn't have been more arbitrary with his crayola artwork

Think about it....

What per capita expenditure did he use to calculate the single payer tax vs benefit graph? Credible studies (one in NEJM) cite an annual savings of $400 billion per year with this system in the US. Or is he comparing the funding of single-payer in the same dollar for dollar context of private insurance (which is dishonest, because there will be instant savings)? What taxation model was he presuming such funding would be raised with? With a single-payer system, the personal costs stop at taxes, they do not in this private model. Why did he not try and figure in the per capita co-pays & deductibles into the other graph?

This is not an honest attempt to compare anything. Its just a bunch of lines

[HuckleB]

40. It's a blog post.

It's not a scholarly paper. To attack it by pretending it should be something other than what it is, is quite disingenuous. To attack by adding one's own assumptions, as has been done via this OP, is even more ludicrous, especially when the OP fails to stick to the argument, and begins to attack Krugman, and thus anyone who agrees with him, as "out of touch," etc...

[Oregone]

50. He shouldn't blog such stupid shit while shilling for a bad bill

Don't get angry with me....he flubbed it, not I.

[HuckleB]

57. Ah, so you're just mad that he sees the bill as a step forward.

That explains everything.

BYE.

[Oregone]

65. Who is mad? His article is comical if anything

Im jovial here, while you scramble to defend your e-Boyfriend. Easy there tiger

[TK421]

43. 44K a year for an individual? I cleared 24K last year..does that make me poor?

I would say so....:-( thanks for making me feel like shit!! Not the OP, but Mr.Krugman apparently doesn't survive off of ramen noodles and instant potatoes...now I'm collecting unemployment

[HuckleB]

47. Try reading Krugman's blog first.

Then ask yourself what the OP is talking about.

[TK421]

53. no, I did...it was just that figure itself that threw me off

also why I'm looking into taking classes online ( I was interested in the medical field, but just don't know what area exactly ). The 44k figure was sobering, that was all I meant-sorry for not clarifying

[HuckleB]

58. If you did, then your original post makes no sense.

[TK421]

60. I'm talking about the 44k figure...nothing else

I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for....then again, I've been up since 4:00 AM so forgive me if I'm just missing something.

[hfojvt]

52. I think you are wrong here

For one thing, he is probably not talking about the middle. Just because he shows high and low does not mean there is no middle in his scheme.

Second, to some degree those making $30-60,000 (which seems to be the small group you are concerned with) do not generally pay that much for insurance. My job pays about $12 an hour, and it includes insurance. It's hard for me to imagine that there are lots of $22 dollar an hour to $30 dollar an hour jobs that don't also include insurance. If we suddenly went to single payer, it is questionable whether my employer would boost my salary by the $600 a month they are currently paying for insurance. In many cases, they would probably just pocket the added savings and thus I would seem to be made worse off. I would have no extra income, but would be hit with extra taxes.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. And under the current HCR bill

If your employer decides that it's cheaper to pay the fine than to cover you s/he can drop your coverage (they do have to wait a period of time before they can do this from what I understand). I don't know what your personal dependent situation is but at $12 an hour you may find yourself having to buy private insurance, albeit subsidized, that still costs you a lot of money (relative to your income) out of pocket for the premiums and co-pays. So you could also be worse off and your boss won't be putting the extra money in your pocket either.

Under single payer a family making $56k a year (about the US median) would pay around $2700 a year via a payroll tax. No co-pays, no deductibles. Under the Senate plan, they'll be paying $4251. Just for premiums.

As for the charts, if they are missing large groups of people, then that is deliberate misinformation on Krugman's part.

[Romulox]

72. It's a farce to represent Krugman as the voice of "the Left"--he's a corporatist/globaslist shill

Or at least was for the 8 years of the Bush admin. :hi:

[Hello_Kitty]

74. Oh yeah, I remember - "In Praise of Cheap Labor"

Now he thinks we should be paying a substantial amount out of our reduced (thanks in part to people like him) wages to prop up the insurance industry.

[blueworld]

75. I'm grateful you posted this; he's even getting testy when we disagree on his blog

Like other posters here, I'm baffled. Is it inevitable that once people reach a stage of success they're blind to the millions left behind? I don't know - I've always loved his columns & am frankly nonplussed at his position on this bill & posts in his blog.

[varelse]

76. Who pays for the subsidies?

[Hello_Kitty]

79. Everyone, though granted the rich will be taxed progressively more.

However, when you factor premiums and out-of-pockets, single payer is a way better deal for the middle class and most of the working class.

Under HR676 a household making $56k (US medium) will pay $2700 via a payroll tax. That's it. No co-pays, no deductibles. That same household (if a family of 4) will pay $4500, just for premiums. That's why Krugman is being dishonest. You can torture statistics until they tell you anything they want and he is doing just that.

[varelse]

101. Ah yes, "Lies, damned lies, and statistics"

Like you, I'm a proponent of HR676; I'd rather be funding single-payer, universal health care than guaranteed multimillion dollar salaries and bonuses for insurance executives.

Unfortunately, our allegedly democratic political process was overrun by moneyed special interests several decades ago (I'd say it happened in WWII), and there is no telling when (or if) we'll ever wrest our government away from them again.

[Jamastiene]

125. The House bill did look a lot better. n/t

[varelse]

127. Yes

I wonder what the final bill will look like.

[Fire1]

77. It depends on where you live. 88k in Michigan is damned

good money.

[Hello_Kitty]

80. I'm not arguing that it's comfortable, it's just not rich.

It's not high income. It's middle income. The top marginal tax rate starts at $325k. THAT's high income.

[Fire1]

84. Well, it's rounded to six figures so I think it's a little past

"middle" income. Comfortable, in my neck of the woods is in the mid 60k range. Here, 88k would make you "well to do." LOL!!

[Jamastiene]

123. Same here

Here, 88k would just about buy a brick house with 1/4 acre of land outright, or at worst, pay all but $10k-$15k of the full asking price.

[boppers]

92. 75.39% of the country makes less than 50K a year.

How is the top 24.61% the "middle"?

[Hello_Kitty]

102. That doesn't make 50K rich. eom

[boppers]

78. The rich who complain that they're not Ultra-rich enough... yay.

This is why the phrase "limoseine liberal" was invented.

Take a look at some numbers:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/medincsizeandstate.html

44K is, in the US, a high-dollar personal income, and 88K in a household is certainly high dollar for *most* places. Yes, Krugman is lumping in the somewhat rich with the ultra-rich, both of whom, unlike most of america, make more than everybody else.

When I've been working, I haven't made less than than $50K a year, but I've never had the gall, the sheer chutzpah, to think that such great wages were average.

[Pithlet]

81. At another time and in another context

someone posting these income figures and saying they weren't high income would have likely been roundly flamed.

[Hello_Kitty]

83. Keep attacking the middle class.

Great economic, and political strategy there.

There was also a time at DU when we made fun of people who make $44k a year for voting Republican because they thought they were in the top 1% of income earners.*


*Hint: They're not. Not even close.

[Pithlet]

86. I'm not going to play the game. I'm simply pointing out the truth.

If his weren't in the kill the bill context, this would be a different thread entirely. I'm sure even some of the very same people would be singing a different tune, in fact.

[boppers]

87. Top 1% and middle class are miles apart.

50K a year (and above) is professional class, more than the middle class can actually make. Middle class is around 36K a year per wage earner. Working class is around 29K...

..at least, those are my numbers. What do you consider "middle class"?

[Hello_Kitty]

98. Enough for food, clothing, decent shelter, transportation, education,

recreation, and health care. With some left over for savings. Pretty hard to do on $36k a year in most parts. Next to impossible on less than that. The fact that wages have gone down is no reason to start redefining "just scraping by" as middle class.

[boppers]

119. Enough for... recreation?

Wowzers.

It's like we have a whole social class who doesn't understand actual poverty.

[Hello_Kitty]

105. Plus: The top 1% earn 6% of all wages and hold over 40% of all wealth in the U.S. eom

[Hello_Kitty]

82. Top marginal tax rates start at $325K. That's high income.

It's pretty shameful when progressives start attacking middle class people. I thought we were about lifting all boats.

Under HR676, a household making $56k would pay $2700 for their entire health care bill. No co-pays, no out of pockets, no annual limits. That same household (if a family of 4) pays $4500 just for premiums under the HCR reform before Congress now. Just premiums. Not other out of pockets. And single payer saves the country $400 billion while the Senate/House bills save around $200 billion.

I'm a progressive. I'm for taxing the SHIT out of RICH people. And by "taxing the shit out of" I mean rolling their marginal tax rates back to what they were under Reagan. I'll settle for what they were under Clinton.

[boppers]

85. I'm a progressive. I'm for taxing the shit out of rich people, too.

And by rich people, I mean people making more than the US median income, including myself.

I don't exclude myself because I've actually been poor, and have no illusions that most people making over $50K a year in any way, shape, or form can actually qualify as being part of the "middle class".

(Depending on region, see numbers above).

[Hello_Kitty]

88. Every time, since Reagan, that middle class taxes have been raised.

It's been to give tax cuts to the rich. It started when St. Ronnie doubled the payroll tax. Transferring wealth from the middle class (even the upper middle class) to the wealthy doesn't help poor people. It just makes more poor people.

[boppers]

90. Transferring money from poor patients to wealthy doctors?

If this is your point, I could agree, but you have a roundabout way of getting there...

[Hello_Kitty]

100. A lot of doctors aren't even taking Medicaid so I don't see what your point is.

Money is being transferred hand-over-fist from working and middle class people with insurance to insurers and providers. This bill does not stop that.

[Edweird]

89. Maybe in the new 'Third World States of America' that so many are (inexplicably) cheering on.

$44,000 is NOT 'high income', at least not where I live.

[boppers]

91. Some more numbers (via the Census):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

Overall median income in the US is $28,567, over 25 it's $32,140.

[Edweird]

93. I see $32,140 overall and $39,509 for full time employed 25-64.

Furthermore, everybody is broke and losing their homes and filing for bankruptcy. Just because these are the median incomes doesn't mean it's a living wage.

[boppers]

94. There's lots of numbers there to look at... (which is why I put it into the conversation)

The rich aren't losing their homes, but are complaining that they might have to pay more in taxes for healthcare, because so many folks are poor, and need help, now.

[Edweird]

95. The rich should be paying more in taxes, period. But $44,000 isn't rich.

Not even close. But let's be clear about something. What is being worked on right now is insurance. Insurance is not healthcare. It is often quite the opposite.

[boppers]

96. 75% of the population makes less than $50K

What do you call the top 25%?

I do hear your point on insurance and healthcare, which is why I like Sanders including funding for 14,000 clinics and 20,000 professionals in the bill... it's a step further towards national healthcare (as compared to national insurance).

[Hello_Kitty]

97. 75% of the country is underpaid. eom

[Edweird]

103. Yep, and how many people are losing their homes? How many are bankrupt?

How much savings do we have?

They are expanding insurance. You know, the people that profit by denying you care. They are required by law to do whatever is best financially for their shareholders. Guess where that puts you. Firmly between a rock and a hard place.

They are rewarding the very people responsible for turning our healthcare system into the barbaric travesty it is now with a government sanctioned and enforced absolute monopoly. That is wrong beyond comprehension. Which is why I do not support this bill, no matter what little nuggets may be in it.
They are simultaneously cutting Medicare funding.
If you think this is a step towards anything other than the RW wet dream of privatization of government functions, I believe you are seriously mistaken.

[laughingliberal]

106. The government figures poverty guidelines on a very austere model

For God's sake, a single person at $11,000 is not considered to be poor. In some parts of this country, that means half their income just for shelter. That has been my problem with the thing. People who are at 400% of FPL and older (due to the multiplier) are going to be out of luck. It starts to look as if they are planning on the 50-64 year olds to be unable to afford it and either pay a fine or get a hardship exemption. They will still be left with no coverage (and this is mostly true even if they scrape it up for a crap policy). Why? Would benefit them greatly if a nice percentage of the boomers are out of here before they can draw SS or Medicare.

[Hello_Kitty]

99. This is stunning to me.

When liberals start cheering downward mobility, I'm not sure I want to call myself a liberal anymore. I'm definitely more populist than a lot of people on this board.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

104. Nobel Laureate in Economics vs. You

Do I really have to say it?

[Hello_Kitty]

107. What, that it's an appeal to authority? Lamest logical fallacy there is.

Milton Friedman had a Nobel Prize too. That has nothing to do with Krugman advancing a very flimsy equivalence, illustrating it with simplistic charts, and leaving out a lot of important information. Why is there no mention of co-pays and deductibles in his post? Kind of an important detail to leave out, don't you think?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

108. Just to help me out here...

What do you know less about: Economics or Logic?

I'm going to assume that your knowledge of economics is pretty thin, based on the fact that your answer doesn't really raise any salient economic points.

But let's talk about the Appeal to Authority because several nitwits on this board (you included) lately have taken to dismissing fact-based replies as an merely "appeal to authority" and (with crushing finality) a logical fallacy.

Here's the problem with this line of reasoning. An appeal to authority is NOT a logical fallacy. It's the appeal to a false or questionable authority that's a logical fallacy. When you appeal to an authority who is a genuine authority and a recognized expert on the subject, it's called providing facts and/or evidence. When you appeal to an authority who has no specific expertise on the subject, it's a logical fallacy.

The Right-wingers who tout "scientific articles" on creationism, articles that were in fact written by some guy with a Ph.D in Nutrition? Questionable Authority and a Logical Fallacy.

When I post that I'm pretty sure that Paul Krugman knows more about economics than you do -- what with Krugman's tenured position in Economics at Princeton, the FIVE TEXTBOOKS HE'S WRITTEN ON THE SUBJECT and the whole Nobel Prize thingee -- I'm pretty sure I'm on solid ground here.

I eagerly await your next nonsensical post.

[Hello_Kitty]

109. I've noticed you haven't addressed a single point I made in my OP.

"FIVE TEXTBOOKS HE'S WRITTEN" isn't a rebuttal. Paul Krugman is an economist. A smart economist. But that doesn't make him right in the blog post I cited in my OP. And respected economists are frequently wrong. See: The economic disaster we are presently in.

How about you read Krugman's post and defend the assertion he's making in it, based on the information he supplied?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

110. I think your OP is pointless -- except for its comedic value

Someone who doesn't know jack about economics is trying to lecture a guy with a Nobel Prize.

That's like me providing Sure-fire Pickup Lines to Tiger Woods.

[Hello_Kitty]

111. I think you can't defend Krugman's assertion

And golf has little to no effect on my life. Economics has a profound effect on it. I get to question the statements of economists, whether you think I'm entitled to or not.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

113. Go over and read at your other ridiculous thread...

Who's In Favor of the Middle Class? Woo Hoo!

Mother's Milk! Go Team!!

...sakes alive

[Hello_Kitty]

114. Do you think $44K a year is rich in the US? There are people on this thread who do.

Paul Krugman seems to think they are "high income", based on what one can extrapolate from the graphs in his post. Did you even get the point of that other OP? Or this one? Or are you just flaming me because I dare to question something the Almighty Krugman said?

Once again, can you defend Krugman's argument? Or not?

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

115. Read the post on the other thread....Krugman says nothing of the sort.

You're taking information from two sources and mashing them together.

[Hello_Kitty]

116. No I'm not. I'm going off the information Krugman provides.

He compares single payer based on "high income" and "low income" people and taxes and benefits and then compares the health care bill based on premiums, taxes, subsidies, and benefits. It's perfectly reasonable for me to conclude that he's including everyone who doesn't qualify for subsidies on the second graph as "high income" based on the fact that those are the only categories and that the premiums to taxes ratio is so high. I'm not sure if the income levels are the same in the first category. I would think not, but for consistency I would hope they are. Either way, he doesn't account for the progressive nature of the single payer taxes and he doesn't include co-pays and deductibles at all. Given he's such a smart Nobel prize-winning economist who has written five textbooks, I should think he'd know those factors are important to people evaluating single payer vs. the HCR bill. Or maybe he doesn't realize that, as I and many of the commenters both on this DU thread and on his comments section suggest.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

117. I'm not going there with you...

If you want to believe all that crap based only a four-paragraph blog entry, you go right ahead.

I'm all done for the night.

[Hello_Kitty]

118. In other words, you have no defense of it.

We need no more permutations of this dialog for me to know that I have won!

:woohoo:

[sendero]

112. Same as single payer..

... except that 27% of revenues are pissed away on administrative expenses vs 3% for a single payer (Medicare) system.

Krugman is officially a lying mother fucker.

[debbierlus]

124. My sister & her husband have 'high income' and they are being broken

The student loans they had to take out to earn that 'high income'.

The very high cost of housing in MA.

They can't even meet expenses with both working full time at high income. And, to purchase health insurance from the 'affordable' insurance pool in MA (remember, we already have what is coming) is 1,400 dollars a month for a comprehensive package that provides coverage.

[OHdem10]

126. When the meltdown is over and gloalization crisis is over,

these will be the high salaries.

[DailyGrind51]

128. It would be for me right now!