KRUGMAN on HCR: "This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. "

[Beetwasher]

Health Reform Myths

--snip--

The second myth is that the proposed reform does nothing to control costs. To support this claim, critics point to reports by the Medicare actuary, who predicts that total national health spending would be slightly higher in 2019 with reform than without it.

Even if this prediction were correct, it points to a pretty good bargain. The actuary’s assessment of the Senate bill, for example, finds that it would raise total health care spending by less than 1 percent, while extending coverage to 34 million Americans who would otherwise be uninsured. That’s a large expansion in coverage at an essentially trivial cost.

--snip--

Furthermore, there’s good reason to believe that all such estimates are too pessimistic. There are many cost-saving efforts in the proposed reform, but nobody knows how well any one of these efforts will work. And as a result, official estimates don’t give the plan much credit for any of them. What the actuary and the budget office do is a bit like looking at an oil company’s prospecting efforts, concluding that any individual test hole it drills will probably come up dry, and predicting as a consequence that the company won’t find any oil at all — when the odds are, in fact, that some of the test holes will pan out, and produce big payoffs. Realistically, health reform is likely to do much better at controlling costs than any of the official projections suggest.

--snip--

For a real piece of passable legislation, however, it looks very good. It wouldn’t transform our health care system; in fact, Americans whose jobs come with health coverage would see little effect. But it would make a huge difference to the less fortunate among us, even as it would do more to control costs than anything we’ve done before.

This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/12/opinion/12krugman.html?ref=opinion

[tabatha]

1. Does he read DU?

There are plenty telling us otherwise.

[Warpy]

2. He's read what I have, then, and what I suggest others do

http://dpc.senate.gov/healthreformbill/healthbill49.pdf

It's an overview, not the thousands of pages of legalese.

[Beetwasher]

3. I Posted That Analysis Yesterday

It's a good analysis/Cliff Notes version of the legislation.

[KittyWampus]

8. thanks for the link. It is nice to be informed.

[ixion]

4. I've agreed with Krugman on many -- most -- issues... this, however,

is not one of them.

[stray cat]

5. especially if it is likely to cost one money?

[ixion]

9. That is not my primary reason, although I am admittedly unhappy about that

considering I don't use it.

No, my primary objection is creating a quasi-federal agency out of the insurance industry, and requiring the purchase of a crappy, over-priced pseudo-product as requisite terms for legal citizenship.

That part I really cannot get past.

[provis99]

6. why should I listen to him? He didn't read the damned bill!

I read the whole thousands of pages. The bill is a horrible one. It is worse than the status quo.

[Beetwasher]

7. LOL! Well Then, We Should Certainly Listen To YOU Instead Of Krugman

Let's see, some whiny, anonymous internet poster, or Paul Krugman, Nobel Laureate. Let me think about this....

[sendero]

10. Krugman..

... has been wrong plenty of times, including this one.

[Beetwasher]

12. Yeah, He's Wrong Cuz YOU Say So!

:rofl:

Everyone's wrong except the pissers on DU and anyone who supports their pet POV's.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beetwasher]

19. Mmmm Dill Weed

Now I'm in the mood for eggs.

[GreenArrow]

31. No, he's right cause you say so!

He's a shill for the status quo.

[Beetwasher]

41. Krugman's a Shill For The Status Quo?

On what planet? :rofl:

[tigereye]

61. did you really read the whole bill? That's impressive - it's a rather daunting

prospect and most folks have no time.


Krugman is often right - pretty sharp guy.


I disagree that the bill is worse- we need to stop PEC exclusions and I think increasing access to MA/ Medicare is a good thing.

[depakid]

11. Just goes to show that Krugman's not always right

My guess is that he realizes that the Democrats have to get this turd out of the living room and at least have something to wave around this fall to avoid an utter and complete disaster.

[Beetwasher]

13. Either That, Or Your Not

No, that can't be it. You're always right. :rofl:

[depakid]

14. If you want to further empower abusive insurers and move everyone into junk insurance

This bill's for you!

Because that's what it does.

Good luck with it! Quite frankly, what Senate Democrats and the administration are telling you is that you're second class citizens of world- you deserve high copays, high deductible and your deserve to pay sky high premiums and risk bankruptcy if you are injured or fall ill.

You're not as good as- nor worth as much as Australians, Canadians or Europeans who have access to primary and preventative care and more affordable medication.

But hey! At least the turd seems to be moving out of the living room and the Dems can get on to financial reform. Bet that's going to go even better for you.

[Beetwasher]

15. The Industry Will Finally B Fed Regulated, That Ain't More Power

Despite yr shrill insistence to the contrary.

[depakid]

16. You really think that's going to happen!

:rofl:

Many states already HAVE that power- and your premiums still go up by double digits every year- even in progressive states like Oregon!

Moreover, claims and treatment will still be denied in bad faith and you'll have no effective remedies for it when it happens. ERISA preemption is still in place, and lo and behold- insurers can still rescind your policies- as they have en masse in California.

Best part is: every single abuse that comes to light will now fall squarely in the lap of Democrats who had the chance, but failed to fix the problems- deeming insurer profits more important than your (or anyone else's) health.

[Beetwasher]

20. Yes

But that's beside the point. I guess since some people get away with murder we shouldn't even attempt to pass laws against it. Why try to regulate anything?

[depakid]

21. Without private rights of action- any agency will be in the same position California is

It can't and won't be able to handle the case volume even on the most egregious matters.

It will also have little inclination when presented with the numbers to deny premium increases (I will grant that Michigan did actually deny a 34% increase to older people -over 55, I think, but for others still approved double digit increases).

That's not n argument against regulation- far from it, just a practical recognition of what happens. The industry lobbyists who wrote large portion of the Senate bill know this all too well.

If you really want to put a stop to the abuses, you restore state law tort claims of bad faith (or cone could create a federal provision- and add more federal judges).

[Beetwasher]

23. Bullshit-You Violate Federal Law, You Are Open To Prosecution

Period. There were never any federal laws that gave the feds jurisdiction to pursue health ins. co's. Now there are.

Now you have state AND Federal avenues for redress. MORE regulation on TWO layers. That's only good, despite your spin.

[depakid]

27. Like the banksters, fraudsters torturers, and even food poisoners like Peanut corp. right?

Not the way it works in real life under this administration- as well as Republican ones.

Best you'll get is fines for most behavior- and as mentioned, California authorities don't have the capacity to even follow up on that!

Moreover- unless the legislation has changed since I last looked what you've got is a "arbitration panel" for claims- which provides little incentive for insurers to pay or follow courses of treatment recommended by physicians. And it leaves the burden on the patient, who cannot recover damages in tort for bad faith- and will thus be up front out of pocket for their lawyer.

[Beetwasher]

29. By Your Logic We Should Therefore Never Attempt To Regulate Anything

Why bother?

It's an idiotic position.

[depakid]

36. Not my logic at all- indeed, it's quite the mischaracterization

My point is that neither the administration nor Congress are serious about corporate accountability. If they were, there are rather simple steps (like removing ERISA preemption, among other things) that could have been taken- but aren't even on the table.

Does that mean there shouldn't be some attempts- even half-hearted and ineffective ones?

Nope. I'm sure some will use the arbitration panels and after much delay, get approvals or have their claims paid-and I'm sure that a few of the more egregious insurers will have their premium increases denied, as I'm certain that they'll push the envelope as far as it will go.

For most folks however, that won't get the job done- nor will it provide the necessary incentives for bean counters to alter their equations.

[Beetwasher]

40. Umm, Sure It's You're Logic, I Know It Sucks To Busted With The Idiotic Results Of Your Reasoning

But that's your problem, not mine.

Just because YOU personally feel that the current admin. is not serious about accountability, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to hold people accountable. But that's exactly what you are saying. Sucks for you, but there it is.

[depakid]

43. Feel has nothing to do with it. Objective facts and experience are what it's all about

Sucks sometimes to live in the evidence based community, rather than some pie in the sky one.

But that's just how life is for grounded folks.

[Beetwasher]

55. u have no objective facts, u have yr opinion and unsupprted assertions

about what u think might possibly happen.

[depakid]

76. Previous experience with similar regulatory schemes is about the best evidence you can get!

No reason whatsoever to think that this go round will be any different.

As I stated, if Congress and the administration were serious, there would be private rights of action- with the removal of the ban on tort of bad faith claims denial being but one of many approaches- but more importantly, one that's been proven to work.

Deny a claim or rescind a contract with bad faith in breach of fiduciary duty and you're exposed to compensatory and punitive damages in the millions. Alters the equation in favor of he patient and makes the company think twice.

[Beetwasher]

89. Like I Said, Yr opinion and unsupported assertions that u delusionally think r objective facts

All federal regulating fails? :rofl: Well then, why bother ever trying to regulate anything ever? Depakid insists its all doomed to fail! Doomed I say! :rofl:

[depakid]

91. I'm beginning to wonder whether you're actually the same poster from several years ago

[Beetwasher]

93. When All Else Fails, You "Begin To Wonder"

:rofl:

[depakid]

94. I say that because you used to be a fairly sensible and intelligent poster

and seem lately to have fallen about 15 IQ points and 15 years in maturity.

[Beetwasher]

95. Nahh, I've Always Been An Asshole

n/t

[girl gone mad]

46. You haven't laid a glove on depakid.

You simply cannot throw out lame half-hearted jabs, with all the clarity and logic of Glen Beck rant, and then say someone was "Busted With The Idiotic Results Of Your Reasoning".

It doesn't work that way.

[Beetwasher]

54. Only u Know how it all works!

its nice when u create yr own reality.

[Hello_Kitty]

17. Dr. Krugman lost me on this when he tried to pretend it was equivalent to single payer

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

Lumped people making $44K a year (thus ineligible for subsidies) into the "high income" group, as if single payer were using the same metrics. He is either disingenuous of deceitful here.

Furthermore, I don't care how smart and learned someone is, how many books he's written or how many prizes he's won, when he says certain things like free trade are "articles of faith" with him, I'm taking everything he says with a grain of salt. On the subject of HCR, Krugman seems to be a little too faith-based for my taste.

[ShortnFiery]

25. Dr. Krugman is out of touch with the trials and tribulations of the average working class American.

Not unlike Howard Dean and the LEADERS of some unions, they don't give a shit about us "little people" ... they just want their legislative victory.

[Beetwasher]

26. How Dishonest

That happens to be a terrific piece by Krugman, but he never said it was equivalent.

"It will be an imperfect, inefficient simulation;"

How the fuck do you claim that's the same as saying it's equivalent? That's really fucking stretching it.

He also happens to be totally fucking right. But we should take your anonymous opinion over his expert one. I mean, he's only been studying and writing on the subject for most of his life. You, well, you've been pissing on it for a few months. Maybe you also think that's equivalent. That would certainly explain your attitude.

[Hello_Kitty]

37. He conflated the two using simplistic graphs

And was called on it by several readers in the comments.

Really, you are getting quite defensive about someone criticizing Krugman. He's a smart man and his intentions are decent but he's not a god and it's possible he's got some blind spots. Telling me I should agree with whatever I think because he's Paul Krugman is the lamest logical fallacy there is: Appeal to Authority. Because, no, he hasn't been writing about health care policy for years.

[Beetwasher]

42. Umm, When You Go To The Doctor For Advice About Your Health, Are You Appealing To Authority?

You bet your ass you are. Sometimes, the authority knows best.

I'll take his informed word over yours any day. There IS a reason he's an authority on the subject.

Now, if he was giving me medical advice, that would be a different story, and your point about "appealing to authority" might be valid. But it's ok to appeal to authorities in the actual field your discussing. The problem is when you appeal to an authority in some OTHER field than the one you're discussing, that's what the criticism about "appealing to authority" refers to. It's not relevant in this instance, since this IS his area of expertise.

[Hello_Kitty]

45. I don't go to an economist when I need a doctor.

And I don't go to an economist whose training is in macroeconomics and trade when I want reliable information on health care policy.

[Beetwasher]

50. Hes joined by lots of other experts, while u have some support on DU

and lots of Repubs and teabaggers.

[girl gone mad]

47. Krugman is not an authority on the subject of health reform.

International finance and trade, and to a lesser extent macroeconomics, are his areas of expertise.

Krugman has been wrong many, many times, even in fields where his knowledge is extensive.

I respect him a great deal, but he was very wrong when he wrote that speculation did not contribute to the run up of oil prices a couple of years ago and he was wrong when he stressed the need to take immediate action by passing TARP during the financial crises of October 2008. In both of these cases, subsequent information has shown very clearly and without doubt that his initial analysis was incorrect.

[Beetwasher]

49. Yes He Is, And u Sure as hell arent

[girl gone mad]

90. "I know you are, but what am I?"

[Hello_Kitty]

38. He conflated the two using simplistic graphs

And was called on it by several readers in the comments.

Really, you are getting quite defensive about someone criticizing Krugman. He's a smart man and his intentions are decent but he's not a god and it's possible he's got some blind spots. Telling me I should agree with whatever I think because he's Paul Krugman is the lamest logical fallacy there is: Appeal to Authority. Because, no, he hasn't been writing about health care policy for years.

[Beetwasher]

51. He's joined by pretty much all the other experts on the subject-you've got some DUers

Repubs and teabaggers.

[Edweird]

22. I'm telling you otherwise. It's RW crap.

[Beetwasher]

24. LOL! Krugman Is Rightwing Crap?

Well, okey dokey then! :rofl:

[Edweird]

28. The senate bill is RW crap. I personally don't give a shit about pundits,

whether they agree with me or not.

[Beetwasher]

30. Well The Expert Has Spoken!

It's rightwing crap cuz he says so! Well, it's all settled now by some anonymous dipshit on DU.

[Edweird]

32. At least I'm smart enough not to support McCain's healthcare plan.

Which is more than can be said about you.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/01/us/politics/01mccain.html

ALLENTOWN, Pa. — Though Senator John McCain has promised to not raise taxes, his campaign acknowledged Wednesday that the health plan he outlined this week would have the effect of increasing tax payments for some workers, primarily those with high incomes and expensive health plans.

[Beetwasher]

33. Oh, Is That The New Smear DuJour? So? Is This GOOD FOR McCain??

:rofl:

[Edweird]

35. Hey, you're the one touting RW garbage. I'm fairly certain the end result will

be a disaster for the Dems. So laugh it up while you can funny guy.

[Beetwasher]

39. "I'm fairly certain the end result willbe a disaster for the Dems."

Sound eerily familiar. Mitch McConnel, is that you? Certainly sounds like it.

"Hey, you're the one touting RW garbage."

See above. :rofl:

When concern trolling, try to be original. The Repubs all ready beat you to that, err, "punch".

[Edweird]

48. There's a reason posts like yours are all in zero town.

There's a reason Alan Grayson, a Liberal Dem fighting for the public option, is leading the REPUBLICAN primary polling - in a red area, no less.

NOBODY - except for insurance executives and small handful of rather prolific posters here (8587658691340 posts a day catapulting their propaganda) wants this RW crap.

So, like I said, enjoy your giggle fest.

1994 wasn't that long ago.

edited to add:

The Dems can save their sorry asses by doing the right thing. However, it's been very clear for a while they have no intention of doing so. The slight, unrealistic, possibility of them having a moment of clarity before it's too late is what keeps me from being absolutely certain. Anything is possible, not necessarily probable, but possible nonetheless.

[Beetwasher]

53. Grayson will b voting for HCR

Krugman is joined by pretty much all experts in the subject, you have some loud DUers, repubs and teabaggers. Yr in good company! :rofl:

[Edweird]

56. I'm not supporting supporting RW policy.

You are.

Remember, the Senate bill is all policy Obama campaigned against. Or have you conveniently forgotten that?

[Beetwasher]

57. U and the tea baggers want to kill the bill

it don't get more idiotically rw than that.

[Edweird]

58. Dream on. The senate bill is a RW piece of shit. No amount of 'smilies' will change that.

[Beetwasher]

59. Cuz U Said So! Nanny nanny boo boo!

Supported by such rw shills like Bernie Sanders, Al Franken, Krugman, Move On, Labor Unions etc.

U and the tea baggers! Have fun wallowing in yr despair together! :rofl:

[Edweird]

60. It is what it is (RW shit). Denial is an insidious thing. How's that 'zero' workin' out for ya?

[Beetwasher]

62. You Would Certainly Know All About Insidious!

You and the tea baggers!

[Edweird]

63. Zero.

:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

64. HCR Is Passing! It Will Be Fun To Watch Tea Bag Heads Explode When It Does!

Sucks to be you!

[Edweird]

65. Zero.

:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

66. If Only That Could Kill The Bill

Then perhaps it might mean something relevant. :rofl:

[Edweird]

67. Zero. Zee-Roh. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Just like the polls showing roughly 20-30% support mandates without a public option.
"Health care reform" isn't passing. What's passing is a blowjob for insurance companies. It's a bunch of RW spew. Taxes on health benefits, privatization, cuts to Medicare. Humorously, you imply that I am a 'teabaggger' while you advocate for GOP policy.

Zero.
:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

68. 51 and 216

:rofl:

HCR is coming and you hate that. So sad. And pathetic.

It's gonna be rammed down your throat! :rofl:

[Edweird]

69. Zero. Your RW sympathizing gets you ZERO.

:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

70. Will You Choke On It?

Will your head explode? I can't wait to find out! :rofl:

It's going to be fun watching tea baggers go apoplectic!

[Edweird]

71. How pathetic you are.

I'm for single payer. I think Canada's system is a great model. I'm not going to 'choke', LOL. I'm going to redouble my efforts to make sure DLC/GOP scum are forced out of my party. Don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on the way out when the time comes.

ZERO
:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

72. Rammed. Down. Your. Throat.

Oh man, watching teabaggers go apeshit will be sweet, sweet schaudenfreude!

[Edweird]

74. You're kinda obsessed with that oral thing, huh? I guess it 'comes'

with GOP policy adulation.

ZERO.
Your RW felatio gets you ZERO
:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

75. It's Coming Alright!

Gettin' shoved right down your throat! :rofl:

[Edweird]

77. ZERO. Your RW spew gets you '0'.

:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

78. I Wonder If You Will Gag?

:rofl:

[Edweird]

79. Zero. A little 'slow' on getting the hint, huh?

:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

80. 51 and 216

:woohoo:

[Edweird]

81. You get zero.

:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

82. I Get HCR!

You get to gag! :woohoo:

[Edweird]

83. Too bad you're not getting a clue.

:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

84. HCR Is Coming!

Thanks for the kick! :woohoo:

[Edweird]

85. All you're getting is a RW screwjob, that you are apparently quite enthusiastic about.

You should get out more.

Zero.
:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

86. Shoved. Down. Your. Throat!

Limber up! :woohoo:

[Edweird]

87. I guess we'll see in November.

Zero.
:rofl:

[Beetwasher]

88. Can't Wait To See Tea Baggers Heads Explode!

:woohoo:

Thanks for your "concern" about Nov., Mitch McConnell! :rofl:

[Edweird]

92. Not too bight, are you?

Oh well, you'll learn. Unfortunately, it will be at the expense of REAL healthcare reform.

[Beetwasher]

96. How's The Limbering Up Going?

Maybe you should gargle.

[Edweird]

97. Make that 'not bright at all'.

You may like the taste of GOP and Insurance Corporation cock, but that doesn't affect me one way or the other.
Not only will you STILL have insurance companies obstructing care and wringing you dry, but you're also gonna have a (R) majority 'improving' it. Well, they were the originators of most of the ideas in this RW piece of shit bill you love so much.

I'll be OK either way, except for shame by association - being a Democrat and this putrid pile o0f crap is all they were willing to give us after all the big talk.

[Beetwasher]

98. ?

All I hear is gurgling.

[TomCADem]

34. K&R - Fight Back Against The Astroturf! Support Unions and Reform!

Oppose AHIP and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce who have been fighting HCR and trying to kill the bill.

[depakid]

44. Might have been nice if our fearless leader hadn't gone before the Chamber of Commerce last week

and took a gratuitous swipe at teachers'unions, don't you think?

[Edweird]

52. That's more than just a little Orwellian.

[LostInAnomie]

73. I'd trust Krugman long before I'd trust DK.

[HughMoran]

99. .

.