Paul Krugman’s latest column is an economic, historical and ethical mess. While his diagnosis of the problem is partially true (rising insurance premiums in employment-based health care have stifled job growth), his answer is more of the same: increased government intervention.
He does not address government mandates, such as community rating, and their role in making health care unaffordable. He does not discuss what brought about the current system of third-party insurance, which insulates consumers from costs. And he misses entirely the nature of insurance itself.
{ 4 comments }
From Krugman’s column:
“A smart economist can come up with theoretical justifications for either argument.”
Actually, a smart economist can explain why neither position is sustainable nor desirable.
Unfortunately, another example of the less intelligent helping the uninformed formulate opinions.
Universal Hillary Care is the answer! Everyone should have the right to buy the same health insurance as Hillary Clinton for the same price that she pays for it. Will this solve the problem? Federal employees are not forced into a single payer system government program – they get to choose from a variety of independent programs and providers to suit their needs. The idea that it is the responsibility of the employer to pay for the healthcare of its employees seems to be a throwback to the wage controls of Nixon and FDR. Also, health insurance was a fringe benefit of belonging to a union in the days when people would work for the same company all their life. Nowadays, outside of the public sector, much fewer people stay in jobs for long periods of time. Linking health insurance to employment creates the problem. When people change jobs or lose their jobs they lose their health benefits. Many people can not afford to pay the full cost (up to $1,000 a month) COBRA payments when they are out of work. Hillary care would alleviate this problem – the unemployed person would only be liable for their portion and not the entire premium. If you a lucky enough to live in Massachusetts, the State Unemployment Insurance Fund will pick up the premium if the insurance covers your children.
I favor socialized medicine.
1. For one thing, I’m tired of arguing for free markets with idiots.
2. If the government destroys the last few pretenses of the current situation and just finishes socializing medicine altogether, there will be less and worse healthcare available — this means more dead people and a general move toward the survival on only the naturally healthiest people. This means fewer greedy seniors colluding with government for “free” healthcare, “free” medicine, “free” retirement, and no restrictions on driving privileges regardless of the fact that they haven’t had eyesight in 25 years. In other words, they’ll die sooner and be less of a drag on the system. Fewer future leeches will be born and survive to adulthood.
Think about it, when the population thins out enough and is sickly enough thanks to socialized medicine, we healthy few can easily take over, impose free markets, and like Cincinnatus, go back to doing what we do.
A smart economist can explain that there are and why there are absolutes and that any deviation is either a contradiction [there are no contradictions] or it is immoral [against the right of the individual].
The only system that is conducive to the right of the individual to his life is laissez-faire capitalism., which is based on reason and logic.
Comments on this entry are closed.