Krugman Admits the Truth

[Gunner]

http://newsbusters.org/



<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUSUaGnz" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=hdSUSUaGnz" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>





Paul Krugman Recommends 'Death Panels' to Help Balance Budget
By Noel Sheppard | November 14, 2010 | 13:32

UPDATE AT END OF POST: Krugman tries to clarify what he said.

Although he was likely taking a swipe at former governor Sarah Palin with the reference, Paul Krugman on Sunday recommended "death panels" as a means of helping to balance the federal budget.

In a Roundtable discussion on ABC's "This Week," the New York Times columnist said of what recently came out of the President's deficit commission, "Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes" (video follows with transcript and commentary):



RUTH MARCUS, WASHINGTON POST: Right now, 75 percent of people believe you could balance the budget without touching Medicare or Social Security; 75 percent of people believe that you can balance the budget without raising taxes. Well, you could, but it would be extraordinarily painful.

People need to get a little bit of reality therapy. There's going to be another dose coming on Wednesday when another group is going to submit their recommendations, very concrete recommendations about how to do it. That's the conversation we need to have before we start picking apart solutions.

PAUL KRUGMAN, NEW YORK TIMES: If they were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.

If it's not even -- if the commission isn't even brave enough to take on the death panels people, then it's doing no good at all. It's not educating the public. It's not telling people about the kinds of choices that need to be made.

A few minutes later:

CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: But what is going to happen? I mean, are you clear on where a compromise is going to be? It's got to be discussed before the end of the year, no?

KRUGMAN: No. Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now.

So, we've got to get Medicare under control by deciding "what it's going to pay for...which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all."

AKA "death panels."

Now, to be sure, Krugman was likely being derisive using that term. However, the point Palin and others were making during the ObamaCare debate - and getting great criticism from folks in the media for doing so - was that once government gets involved in these decisions, it's a slippery slope to federal officials determining who lives and who doesn't.

There are many medical procedures today that are costly and might preserve life for a short period of time. When Medicare decides it's not going to cover them, the government has indeed made a life and death decision for a citizen.

With that in mind, I imagine Sarah Palin will be smiling somewhere when Krugman's comments are brought to her attention.

*****Update: Sensing he may have opened up a can of worms, Krugman posted a rather hapless clarification at his blog Sunday.

*****Update II: Our good friend Gary Hall reminds us in the comments section that former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich made a similar observation back in 2007:

We're going to have to, if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive...so we're going to let you die.

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

How come teabaggers. republicans, conservatives...never talk about the "Death Pannels" insurance companies practiced on the regular. "Obamacare" came about because insurance companies were killing people on the regular by refusing to pay for treatments. When it was just the insurance companies treating people like shit, did YOU take an active stance against their treatment of people? Or did it become an issue when only Obama was the one to address it?

 

[Gunner]

How come teabaggers. republicans, conservatives...never talk about the "Death Pannels" insurance companies practiced on the regular. "Obamacare" came about because insurance companies were killing people on the regular by refusing to pay for treatments. When it was just the insurance companies treating people like shit, did YOU take an active stance against their treatment of people? Or did it become an issue when only Obama was the one to address it?

Can you provide us with a support statement please?
Also, Even if your premise is valid do you agree with reducing the deficit by reducing human beings to mere numbers?
Discard the whole argument because its Obama? Damn!! I take it you are in that 90% of blacks who still support Obama.

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

Can you provide us with a support statement please?
Also, Even if your premise is valid do you agree with reducing the deficit by reducing human beings to mere numbers?

What facts do I need to produce. The only time health care reform comes up is from democrats. The two biggest pushes for health care reform came from Clinton and Obama. If you can show me a plan from the tea party or republicans that will make an effort to get "all" Americans insured and or protect them from unfair treatment by insurance companies, I will be happy to see it.


All you have to do is Google health insurance companies denying claims for a bunch of examples to come up. But anyway here is an easy one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/most-outrageous-examples_n_464984.html


For the record, killing people because of insurance costs is wrong no matter who does it as far as I am concerned.

 

[Gunner]

What facts do I need to produce. The only time health care reform comes up is from democrats. The two biggest pushes for health care reform came from Clinton and Obama. If you can show me a plan from the tea party or republicans that will make an effort to get "all" Americans insured and or protect them from unfair treatment by insurance companies, I will be happy to see it.


All you have to do is Google health insurance companies denying claims for a bunch of examples to come up. But anyway here is an easy one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/17/most-outrageous-examples_n_464984.html


For the record, killing people because of insurance costs is wrong no matter who does it as far as I am concerned.

You said death panels. Did it ever occur to you that those who will have to foot the bill for that entitlement do not want to pay for it. Less than 50% of Americans pay federal income tax. I can agree with you that most Americans contend that the costs are out of control. His way will only lead to abject failure. ie post office,
social security and medicare and medicaid. So lets take your premise again. 20 million new people on the dole who haven't paid into the system. You don't think care would be compromised. If you are relying on the government to provide you with the aforementioned, i guess you will be in that number who will be deciding between medication and food.



Dr. Janda. Follow the speech at your leisure. Several parts. A lot of crap was sneaked into the bill.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/yHWnYQLUWJ0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yHWnYQLUWJ0?fs=1&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

Death panels is a term Sarah Palin and the tea baggers came up with. Show me any official government document that uses "Death Panel". Even in the speech you posted at first, the term Death Panel is never actually used. I will be happy to stop using this made up term if you are. If not, I can throw the term around just as easy as you can.

I am not saying the health care bill is perfect. However, when people talk about Obamacare they always ignore the fact that insurance companies have been fucking people over long before Obama was in office. There are people who have worked hard and paid for health insurance that have been screwed my insurance companies. I don't understand the argument that if the government does it, it is a personal attack against American morals and ethics. However, when private companies do it, it's just the cost of doing business.

Take the non payers out of the equation for a moment. What do the tea baggers and conservatives suggest is the solution for helping those who pay for insurance, but still get fucked over? It seems like to me, too many tea baggers are trying to use the 'they want it for free argument" to help kill the entire reform process.

Am I misunderstanding something? Let me know.

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

You said death panels. Did it ever occur to you that those who will have to foot the bill for that entitlement do not want to pay for it. Less than 50% of Americans pay federal income tax. I can agree with you that most Americans contend that the costs are out of control. His way will only lead to abject failure. ie post office,
social security and medicare and medicaid. So lets take your premise again. 20 million new people on the dole who haven't paid into the system. You don't think care would be compromised. If you are relying on the government to provide you with the aforementioned, i guess you will be in that number who will be deciding between medication and food.


In case you have forgotten, there were a lot of people who were having the problems of paying for food and medication long before Obamacare. Why do you think so many senior citizens were trying to get their meds from Canada? You know the country with the "death panels"?

 

[xxxbishopxxx]

Physicians who are for universal healthcare:

http://www.pnhp.org/

 

[Gunner]

Physicians who are for universal healthcare:

http://www.pnhp.org/

http/news.yahoo.com

Doctors brace for possible big Medicare pay cuts

Just like AARP who endorsed it they will change their minds

http://www.aarp.org/


By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press – Sat Nov 13, 12:16 am ET
WASHINGTON – Breast cancer surgeon Kathryn Wagner has posted a warning in her waiting room about a different sort of risk to patients' health: She'll stop taking new Medicare cases if Congress allows looming cuts in doctors' pay to go through.
The scheduled cuts — the result of a failed system set up years ago to control costs — have raised alarms that real damage to Medicare could result if the lame-duck Congress winds up in a partisan standoff and fails to act by Dec. 1. That's when an initial 23 percent reduction would hit.
Neither Democrats nor newly empowered Republicans want the sudden cuts, but there's no consensus on how to stave them off. The debate over high deficits complicates matters, since every penny going to make doctors whole will probably have to come from cuts elsewhere. A reprieve of a few months may be the likeliest outcome. That may not reassure doctors.
"My frustration level is at a nine or 10 right now," said Wagner, who practices in San Antonio. "I am exceptionally exhausted with these annual and biannual threats to cut my reimbursement by drastic amounts. As a business person, I can't budget at all because I have no idea how much money is going to come in. Medicine is a business. Private practice is a business."
The cuts have nothing to do with President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. They're the consequence of a 1990s budget-balancing law whose requirements Congress has routinely postponed. But these cuts don't go away; they come back for a bigger bite.
Doctors have muddled through with temporary reprieves for years. This time, medical groups estimate that as many as two-thirds of doctors would stop taking new Medicare patients, throwing the health program for 46 million older and disabled people into turmoil just when the first baby boomers will become eligible.
Health care for military service members, families and retirees also would be jeopardized because Tricare payments are tied to Medicare's.
Former Medicare administrator Gail Wilensky, a leading Republican policy expert, says lawmakers coming back to Washington next week better take note. "We simply cannot let physicians take a 23 percent reduction in payment and think that we are not going to seriously disrupt access for beneficiaries," Wilensky said.
Yet there's no agreement among lawmakers and the Obama administration on how long a reprieve to grant or whether the cost — about $1 billion per month — should be added to the deficit or paid for with spending reductions elsewhere.
The last reprieve, in June, was paid for after a struggle to come up with offsets acceptable to Democrats and Republicans. The deadline for congressional action expired, plunging Medicare's claims system into confusion for weeks.
How did it get to be such a big mess?
There's widespread recognition that the way Medicare pays doctors is flawed because it rewards sheer volume of services, not quality results. But there's no agreement on a better way.
So in the 1990s lawmakers devised a formula for cuts as an automatic braking system to keep Medicare humming along at a sustainable growth rate.
Except every time costs went up, they hit the override button. Repealing the formula now would cost more than $280 billion over 10 years.
The American Medical Association is calling for a 13-month reprieve that would give Congress time to work on a new payment system; the administration supports that approach.
"The single biggest step we can take to strengthen Medicare ... is to make sure these disruptive cuts don't take effect," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. "We will ultimately need a permanent fix ... but in the meantime, we don't want any doctor to be stuck in a limbo where they don't know week to week how much they'll be paid."
The AMA and Obama would settle for adding the cost to the deficit. Most Republicans and many conservative Democrats want it paid for.
Aides to the Senate Finance Committee chairman, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont., say he's working toward the longest possible extension that will get the 60 votes needed to pass the Senate.
Last summer, when Congress missed the deadline for an extension, Wagner had to tap her line of credit to pay the salaries of her nurses and office staff. Medicare is only a fraction of her practice, but the cancer surgeon said private insurance companies also held up payments waiting to see what would happen. "I didn't get a check in the mail for almost a month," she said.
As a doctor, she recognizes there could be grave consequences if she follows through on not taking new Medicare patients. Older women are more likely to have malignant disease than younger patients. "Those are cancers that are waiting at the door," Wagner said. She would continue to see established patients.
But she's getting closer and closer to the breaking point with Medicare.
"Stick me with a fork," said Wagner. "I'm done."






FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 5, 2010


AARP Statement on Employee Health Benefit Changes

WASHINGTON—AARP Legislative Policy Director David Certner issued this statement regarding upcoming changes to AARP’s employee health benefits:

“Rising health care costs have been the primary cause of premium increases, including increases in the employees’ share of health care costs.

“Like many employers, we are making forward-looking, incremental changes to our own plans to address rising costs and to ensure our employees do not face larger changes in the future, but to be clear, none of AARP’s employee health plans are above the excise tax threshold in the new health care reform law.

“We remain supportive of the health care law because it strengthens guaranteed Medicare benefits and ensures more older Americans not yet eligible for Medicare can get affordable health coverage.”

AARP is a nonprofit, nonpartisan social welfare organization with a membership that helps people 50+ have independence, choice and control in ways that are beneficial and affordable to them and society as a whole. AARP does not endorse candidates for public office or make contributions to either political campaigns or candidates. We produce AARP The Magazine, the definitive voice for 50+ Americans and the world's largest-circulation magazine with over 35.1 million readers; AARP Bulletin, the go-to news source for AARP's millions of members and Americans 50+; AARP VIVA, the only bilingual U.S. publication dedicated exclusively to the 50+ Hispanic community; and our website, AARP.org. AARP Foundation is an affiliated charity that provides security, protection, and empowerment to older persons in need with support from thousands of volunteers, donors, and sponsors. We have staffed offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

 

[Gunner]

Death panels is a term Sarah Palin and the tea baggers came up with. Show me any official government document that uses "Death Panel". Even in the speech you posted at first, the term Death Panel is never actually used. I will be happy to stop using this made up term if you are. If not, I can throw the term around just as easy as you can.

I am not saying the health care bill is perfect. However, when people talk about Obamacare they always ignore the fact that insurance companies have been fucking people over long before Obama was in office. There are people who have worked hard and paid for health insurance that have been screwed my insurance companies. I don't understand the argument that if the government does it, it is a personal attack against American morals and ethics. However, when private companies do it, it's just the cost of doing business.

Take the non payers out of the equation for a moment. What do the tea baggers and conservatives suggest is the solution for helping those who pay for insurance, but still get fucked over?I'm not saying that this doesn't happen. I agree this should be apart of healthcare reform. It seems like to me, too many tea baggers are trying to use the 'they want it for free argument" to help kill the entire reform process.If I wreck my car due to my drunk driving, should you be liable for my bill.Personal Responsibility. If you can't take care of a child why bring it into this world?

Am I misunderstanding something? Let me know.

SIr if you listened to any of Krugman's statements you would know what i'm talking about. His words not mine. Sarah said it he validated it. In Louisiana Gambling is illegal. To get it through the legislature in the state they called it "Gaming"

Google Earl K Long Hospital. Louisiana operate charity hospitals. Need an appointment, you will wait for it, try a few months. If you miss that appointment, you guessed it a few more months. When you get that appointment you will wait all day to be seen. So be prepared to miss a days work. Now throw in a couple more thousand with obamacare and it will become even worse. Death panels is a matter of semantics. The government will be in charge of your healthcare.

 

[bigvince06]

SIr if you listened to any of Krugman's statements you would know what i'm talking about. His words not mine. Sarah said it he validated it. In Louisiana Gambling is illegal. To get it through the legislature in the state they called it "Gaming"

Google Earl K Long Hospital. Louisiana operate charity hospitals. Need an appointment, you will wait for it, try a few months. If you miss that appointment, you guessed it a few more months. When you get that appointment you will wait all day to be seen. So be prepared to miss a days work. Now throw in a couple more thousand with obamacare and it will become even worse. Death panels is a matter of semantics. The government will be in charge of your healthcare.

I have lived and worked in several Western European nations that have the healthcare system that you fear so much and the quality of care I received was excellent. I fucked up my arm in Paris and had to go to the emergency room. I am not a EU resident and barely speak any French. Within a hour and a half I was treated and given a prescription for codeine. At the 24 hour pharmacy, I was charged around 7 euros for my medicine. All that was required for my treatment at the hospital was my name, address and passport. If I were a resident, I could send in my receipt from the pharmacy for a refund. It is amazing to me that broke, post war England was able to introduce national health care 60+ years ago while Americans in 2010 are trying to repeal it. Even if the national health service were slow and of questionable quality, wouldn't that be infinitely better than the current system for the poor and underinsured? Could the system that was passed be improved? Certainly. However, I am tired of hearing about how the system can't possibly work or about this death panel BS when there are countries all over the world operating much more "extreme" healthcare systems.

 

[Fuckallyall]

I have lived and worked in several Western European nations that have the healthcare system that you fear so much and the quality of care I received was excellent. I fucked up my arm in Paris and had to go to the emergency room. I am not a EU resident and barely speak any French. Within a hour and a half I was treated and given a prescription for codeine. At the 24 hour pharmacy, I was charged around 7 euros for my medicine. All that was required for my treatment at the hospital was my name, address and passport. If I were a resident, I could send in my receipt from the pharmacy for a refund. It is amazing to me that broke, post war England was able to introduce national health care 60+ years ago while Americans in 2010 are trying to repeal it. Even if the national health service were slow and of questionable quality, wouldn't that be infinitely better than the current system for the poor and underinsured? Could the system that was passed be improved? Certainly. However, I am tired of hearing about how the system can't possibly work or about this death panel BS when there are countries all over the world operating much more "extreme" healthcare systems.

I am glad that you received good care in France, but isn't that just one of the countries that are rioting because they need cutbacks because they are BROKE ?!?!?!?

Not to say that we aren't just as broke, but broke for very different reasons. And remember that Western Europe went broke in only 60 years, and that is after the United States re-built much of thier infrastructure under the Marshall Plan.

Involuntary collectivism is nothing but a a 10 syllable phrase for tyranny.

 

[Gunner]

I am glad that you received good care in France, but isn't that just one of the countries that are rioting because they need cutbacks because they are BROKE ?!?!?!?

Not to say that we aren't just as broke, but broke for very different reasons. And remember that Western Europe went broke in only 60 years, and that is after the United States re-built much of thier infrastructure under the Marshall Plan.

Involuntary collectivism is nothing but a a 10 syllable phrase for tyranny.

Believe me someone paid the difference for his injury. I would like for him to post the tax brackets for those who have to make up the difference.

 

[Gunner]

Tough Choices for French Health Care
http://www.frumforum.com/

Yesterday, Tuesday, April 6, I had my second firsthand experience with the French healthcare system, and it was just as I had expected: efficient and cheap.

I walked into the Centre de Santé – Réaumur’s emergency health center at noon and was admitted within twenty minutes. Ten minutes later, I was meeting with the doctor. After a thorough exam, diagnosis, and prescription, I was sent up to the 7th floor to have blood work done, simply to “verify.” The total cost of the visit was €44, plus the additional €12 I paid at the pharmacy to fill two week-long prescriptions. If I had been covered by French national healthcare, la Securité Sociale, the total cost of the hospital visit would have been €0.

Though the term “bedside manner” is completely foreign to the French, the overall experience was pleasant, given the circumstances. The doctors could not have been more attentive, the hospital was clean, and the wait was negligible, as were the costs.

Nevertheless, I left skeptical, thinking, “it can’t be this good, what’s the catch?”

The French pride themselves on having a healthcare system that is just as I had expected: efficient and cheap – a system in which everyone pays and everyone benefits. However, just because everyone is paying doesn’t necessarily mean everything is paid for. Increasing drug costs, decreasing birthrates, and increasing unemployment have left the government with no other choice but to cut back or raise taxes.

Many citizens do not consider cutbacks such as minimizing hospital staff and shutting down healthcare clinics to be an option, for healthcare is a right that ought to be equally available to everyone, no matter where they live or what they earn. Because the French are historically unwilling to reform their cherished healthcare system, it is the tax system they consider reforming. “We must raise taxes… but mostly for the rich. We are in a crisis and we need to reform,” claims Philippe, a 75-year-old farmer living in the Provençe region of France who calls himself a “political moderate.”

The current French tax system deducts from individuals’ pay immediately, so that there is no need for an April 15th, “tax day.” Because of this, people often do not process how much they are really paying out to the government… or perhaps they just accept it. “[The tax rates are] really not as bad as most people think it is, but US tax rates don’t begin to compare,” claims Amy, a 23-year-old American living and working in Paris, privy to all of the costs and benefits of la sécurité sociale.

Le Parti Socialiste (Socialist Party), who – as of last month – gained a sweeping political majority in France’s regional elections, is now advocating a further increase in taxes in order to offset rising healthcare costs. Le Parti Socialiste is proposing an increase in the bouclier fiscal (~ tax limit), which currently states that “direct taxes paid by a taxpayer may not exceed 50% of taxpayer’s revenues” in Article 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.

While there is no doubting that the overall level of care and minimal costs are aspirational, the French universal healthcare system is not without its drawbacks. Just as the U.S. is currently suffering from a lack of sufficient, available healthcare and money, so is France. Though the French system offers many short-term and long-term benefits, it is clearly not without its short-term and long-term costs.