2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBreaking: Krugman endorses Single Payer and Medicare for All!!!
Why not single-payer?
October 7, 2007 5:31 pm
Paul Krugman
The alternative would be single-payer, aka Medicare for all: a payroll tax on everyone, and a government insurance program for everyone. Wouldnt that be simpler, easier to administer, and more efficient?
Yes, it would.
And here he goes full on Socialist... like old school government-delivers-the-means, socialist...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/why-not-a-public-option-for-medicare/
Why Not A Public Option for Medicare?
April 12, 2011 9:27 am
Paul Krugman
But if you want a really radical proposal but one that, unlike privatization, actually has strong evidence on its side why not add a true public option to Medicare?
What do I mean by that? I mean creating a network of hospitals and clinics actually run by the government a civilian VA, as Phillip Longman puts it and giving Medicare recipients the option of using that system.
Oh, and this one's gonna hurt:
Why the public option matters
September 8, 2009 4:56 pm
Paul Krugman
Most arguments against the public option are based either on deliberate misrepresentation of what that option would mean, or on remarkably thorough misunderstanding of the concept, which persists to a frustrating degree...
Here, he is downright promoting "Socialized Medicine"
Why Americans hate single-payer insurance
July 28, 2009 11:45 am
Paul Krugman
Because they dont know they have it...
One of the truly amazing and depressing things about the health reform debate is the persistence of fear-mongering over socialized medicine even though we already have a system in which the government pays substantially more medical bills (47% of the total) than the private insurance industry (35%).
In a way, this is the flip side of the persistent belief that the free market can cure healthcare, even though there are no places where it actually has...
Then there's this chestnut....
Paul Krugman described savings from elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs in 2005 as follows:[2]
The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada's government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. The reason is that single-payer systems do not devote large resources to screening out high-risk clients or charging them higher fees. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured.
Applying Krugman's $200 billion savings estimate to the U.S. population of approximately 300 million people representing 100 million households,[11] this amounts to approximately $650 per person or $2,000 per household. A study by Harvard University and the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimated the 1999 costs of U.S. health care administration at nearly $300 billion, accounting for 30.1% of health care expenses, versus 16.7% in Canada. This study estimated the U.S. per-person administrative cost at $1,059.[12] One organization that advocates nationalized health care estimated this savings could be as high as $350 billion per year in "...overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay."[13]
I will leave you with Paul Krugman's own words...
Health Care Terror
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 9, 2007
So this is a test. The only things standing in the way of universal health care are the fear-mongering and influence-buying of interest groups. If we cant overcome those forces here, theres not much hope for Americas future.
Which....by the way is pretty much what Bernie is saying.
====
If you agree with Paul Krugman, please Kick and Recommend
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)amazing
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Stryder
(450 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)And I'm talking about CONSERVATIVES AND MANY INDEPENDENTS.
Plus, the OP cherry-picked Krugman. He never said the Democrats could make it happen now if they wanted to bother. Quite the contrary!!!! He spoke out against the unrealistic expectations and delusions of many Bernie supporters.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Hortensis
(58,785 posts)NY Times editorial about two days ago.
cui bono
(19,926 posts).
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)By Paul Krugman, NY Times Editorial Page, 01/22/2016, link to full article at bottom:
"Still, there are some currents in our political life that do run through both parties. And one of them is the persistent delusion that a hidden majority of American voters either supports or can be persuaded to support radical policies, if only the right person were to make the case with sufficient fervor.
You see this on the right among hard-line conservatives, who insist that only the cowardice of Republican leaders has prevented the rollback of every progressive program instituted in the past couple of generations. ...
Meanwhile, on the left there is always a contingent of idealistic voters eager to believe that a sufficiently high-minded leader can conjure up the better angels of Americas nature and persuade the broad public to support a radical overhaul of our institutions. ...
But as Mr. Obama himself found out as soon as he took office, transformational rhetoric isnt how change happens. Thats not to say that hes a failure. On the contrary, hes been an extremely consequential president, doing more to advance the progressive agenda than anyone since L.B.J.
Yet his achievements have depended at every stage on accepting half loaves as being better than none: health reform that leaves the system largely private, financial reform that seriously restricts Wall Streets abuses without fully breaking its power, higher taxes on the rich but no full-scale assault on inequality.""
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/22/opinion/how-change-happens.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=opinion-c-col-left-region®ion=opinion-c-col-left-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-left-region&_r=0
cui bono
(19,926 posts)I'm not seeing anything about this claim you made though. That is really what I was interested in seeing numbers for. Sorry I didn't make that clear. I can't imagine that being accurate since everyone loves medicare. If you asked them if they want medicare for all I think most people are for it. Even teabaggers. Remember the signs... "get your govt out of my medicare"?
And I'm talking about CONSERVATIVES AND MANY INDEPENDENTS.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:41 PM - Edit history (1)
for over 20 years now, and has been popping up for 80 years. Why do you think we don't have single payer? Go read what's been written on this, Cui. We WILL have single payer before you catch up to 01/24/2016.
Okay! I came back to suggest starting with learning about "belief in a just world" and conservative, morality, personality. You can't understand why we don't have single payer until you understand conservative morality and personality.
BIJW arises from inborn conservative personality traits that are also institutionalized in conservative Christian doctrine and can't just be reasoned away.
Basically, those who believe in a just world believe that people tend to get what they deserve and deserve what they get. It's a natural sorting out process, where people's own behaviors lead them to be among the deserving or among the undeserving. This feedback on behavior is seen as critical to the formation of a healthy and moral society.
(One notable personality characteristic of conservatives is their comparatively dark view of human nature - as in, people will behave badly if not required by outside forces to behave well.)
Since it negates the factor of personal deservedness, single payer (and Obamacare for that matter) is seen as a giant, government hand-out that will discourage people from helping themselves and eventually degrade and ruin the nation. By definition, the "deserving" don't need government programs like this and would only be corrupted by them (allowed to strive less) if available.
Enjoy.
azmom
(5,208 posts)CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)worse. Medicare for ALL Remains THE MOST COST EFFECTIVE MEANS OF FINANCING HEALTH CARE... IF... IF THE OBJECTIVE IS TO ENSURE THAT AL AMERICANS HAVE ACCESS TO QUALITY AFFORDABLE HEALTH CARE!
That is it... Nothing more Nothing less just pure political Bullshit from Krugman. He gets his bonifides and then he uses them against US! He is not doing his reputation any good!
INdemo
(6,994 posts)insurance companies would allow"
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)As of 1/23/16 he thinks you guys hate him
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/wonks-and-minions/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur
Right now Im getting the kind of correspondence I usually get from Rush Limbaugh listeners, although this time its from the left Im a crook, Im a Hillary crony, etc., etc.. OK, been there before back in 2008 I was even the subject of tales about my son working for the Clintons, which was surprising because I dont have a son.
But Im used to this stuff. Its a bit more shocking to see Mike Konczal one of our most powerful advocates of financial reform, heroic critic of austerity, and a huge resource for progressives attacked as one of Hillarys minions and an ally of the financial industry.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I do think he's sold-out on this issue.
PatrynXX
(5,668 posts)but he's not stupid like hardcore minions like the anti Anita Hill hack. once upon a time he was a good guy. right now Hillary is being run around like Sarah Palin is. she's being used by MEN. Fairly sure the reason Sarah was like totally asdfsoiufhsadouifchoa;usfjesfdoijcoais;df on Trump endorsement day is track's arrest came out of nowhere and she could have been higher than a kite. Sure could use an Elizabeth Warren boost to break this sick mess at the moment. I could see Sanders/Warren being a big power house. I can't see a Clinton / Warren though. and the other name being floated around for a possible running mate for Clinton is irony here after her Commie shit.. is some guy with a last name of Castro. Oh thats just gonna swing Red bait up everywhere. X_X oh and he's trying to learn spanish too. Wait what?? Who ?
bvar22
(39,909 posts)NAFTA was the Greatest Thing to Ever Happen!
It was only years later, after the destruction and devastation from NAFTA was too obvious for Krugman and everybody else to ignore did he start crawfishing on his original claims.
Paul Krugman...Head Cheerleader for NAFTA and Free Trade in the 90s.
Not even Krugman is always right.
He has been disastrously WRONG in the past.
Chathamization
(1,638 posts)1st:
2nd:
And how long, again, did it take Hillary (who also regards Mubarek as a "friend of our family" , to repudiate that vote? Or sort of repudiate that vote? And this is looking good for American foreign policy?
As for single-payer -- what confidence it must take, to prefer a failed and expensive system to one proven by the rest of the world to work, for half or a third of what ours costs us.
With this kind of defeatist Democratic leadership, who's going to come out to vote?
If nothing else, this election period demonstrates once again that while Republicans fear their base, Democrats despise theirs.
3rd:
Searched the top comments for "crook", "shill", or "crony", but didn't find any hits. But of course, why deal with substantive criticism from the majority when you can cherry pick comments from a couple individuals to paint supporters in a bad light?
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)You don't have to go back far to find Krugman saying good things about single payer -- he said the same thing in the piece where he criticized Bernie's plan. It's too bad that instead of offering something realistic, Bernie decided to go for magic unicorns.
What Bernie fans don't understand is that just because something is called "single payer" doesn't mean it automatically is going to work.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Maybe we need your credentials.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)based on magic unicorn funding.
highprincipleswork
(3,111 posts)Bohunk68
(1,364 posts)You are usually much better than this remark, this is declasse.
hopemountain
(3,919 posts)again. she so loves unicorns and rainbows.
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)And why couldn't they? After all, according to YOUR version of Krugman's opinion, it only took him overnight to review it.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)Still Krugman is a hack, and wrong on this one.
retrowire
(10,345 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Minor details and all...
retrowire
(10,345 posts)tom_kelly
(959 posts)SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)Aristocracy would hate a plan from The People. The Corporations all love HRC and despise progressives.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Bernie's detailed plan I mean..and more importantly where can I see these 170 positive reviews of Bernie's detailed plan?
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Gene Debs
(582 posts)Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Helen Borg
(3,963 posts)You are on your own, buddy.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Dustlawyer
(10,495 posts)The Unicorn is believing Hillary is not influenced by all of the money she takes in by plutocrats/corporations/Wall Street!
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bernie's plan is one week old. And no foreign countries have adapted it yet.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)Team No We Can't must believe in American Unexceptional-ism
$9.3 million in honoraria for speeches before groups associated with health care,
and $3.4 million for speeches paid for by groups in the drug, device, and insurance industries
must have "educated" her.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)Also, just because something is called "single payer" doesn't mean it automatically is going to work. Krugman is a supporter of single payer, but Bernie's particular plan is fantasy, as he correctly points out. Bernie isn't leveling with the public.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)they say that
75-85% are on the government insurance (AOK),
most of the rest are on so called "duty insurance",
which is heavily controlled by the government,
and only the very wealthy are on private insurance
plans.
The point is to eliminate as much as possible the
for profit insurances and to increase the pool of
patients.
I am sure that Bernie's plan will mature with a lot
of input, but to just poopoo it is ridiculous.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)It's a mandate program, like Obamacare, with a public option. More government involvement -- in the US only about 50% of healthcare spending is by the government.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)DUbeornot2be
(367 posts)...so Hillary has been paid 43 cents per uninsured American by insurance and healthcare monopolies to help assure we stay that way? It's all beginning to make cents...
I preter magic unicorns to sold out corporate shills...
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)At least not the countries whose healthcare systems Sanders has spoken favorably about.
That's because they've already got got good systems... even better than what the ACA provides for us.
And we need one too.
DanTex
(20,709 posts)That's why Krugman is pointing out that Bernie's plan won't work. Because we need something that will.
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)DanTex
(20,709 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)paleotn
(17,912 posts)oh, that's just fantasy accounting. Ok, exactly what part is fantasy accounting? What exactly is magic unicorns? Give some details, if you can, instead of the usual, broad brush, insurance industry propaganda bullshit.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Zorra
(27,670 posts)Excellent post, thank you B and C.
K&R
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)kath
(10,565 posts)i see what you did there.
HA! Nice
CharlotteVale
(2,717 posts)Jarqui
(10,123 posts)"The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured. " Krugman quote from above.
I'm a little fixated on and still very upset about this:
Facts on Deaths Due to Lack of Health Insurance in US
http://obamacarefacts.com/facts-on-deaths-due-to-lack-of-health-insurance-in-us/
Sorry folks, I just can't and won't let go of it. Tens of thousands of Americans are dying each year without healthcare.
From the above, not being able to cover these dying Americans isn't an issue in terms of not having the money with single payer to cover everybody. US citizens have to continue to die without US healthcare because Wall Street wants the additional healthcare profits more than they want the dying US citizens and US politicians find that making an effort for these dying US citizens is not "pragmatic".
For my own clarity, I am missing anything here?
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)sammythecat
(3,568 posts)and he's determined to fix it, one way or another. Whether it's his current plan, a revised plan, a later plan, or whatever. His goal is to make sure not one single American will ever again have to die because they don't have adequate health coverage. All Americans, regardless of income will have the health care they need because it is a basic right, not a privilege.
Hillary wants "affordable" health insurance. That means if you have a lot, you'll get a lot. If you only have a little, you'll get little. If you've got nothing, you can beg and hope for charity, if you're noticed. Meanwhile big insurance, pharma, etc. will continue, as before, accumulating vast fortunes so they can keep listening to half-million dollar speeches at their parties.
Jarqui
(10,123 posts)What bugs me is the folks like Krugman (who I usually like) or Hillary or so many others and the GOP, they don't even mention this when justifying their position. Maybe that's because they can't and take the position they do but Democrats shouldn't be leaving these people high and dry because their dying is "pragmatic".
Government of the people by the people for the people should take care of these people. I'm having a hard time reconciling where letting these people die from a lack of healthcare fits with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" Dying from a lack of healthcare doesn't sound like much fun to me.
Who knows what Hillary really wants because she'll flip on a dime and she'll lie (which as a point of order, violates the charter of the Democratic Party
http://s3.amazonaws.com/uploads.democrats.org/Downloads/DNC_Charter__Bylaws_9.17.15.pdf
"we pledge ourselves to open, honest endeavor"
That's the problem with assessing her policies. She lies or deceives so frequently, you know some of them are lies but you have no way of knowing for sure which ones.
antigop
(12,778 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)expended a major healthcare initiative in the intervening years, did you not realize that? Why do so many Bernie supporters seem to have some issues with figuring out what the date is?
TIME TO PANIC
(1,894 posts)This whole myth about Bernie wanting to do away with the ACA before everyone is covered is a disingenuous lie.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Now the same concept is suddenly unworkable?
One of those things that make one say "hmmmmmm"
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)...in the past nine years.
And if you aren't for Single Payer or at least a Public Option...how can you call yourself anything more than a pro health insurance company pro pharmaceutical company corporatist?
The ACA has a lot of good in it but it still basically preserves the status quo of corporate profits at the expense of everyone else.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)And on this date, EVERY 1st Nation on the Planet provides Health Care for ALL of it's people except ONE.
Care to guess which Nation it is that is the OUTLIER on this date, smartguy?
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)his side of the establishment. That man doesn't have a principled bone in his body.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)ejbr
(5,856 posts)recognize that Obamacare was a different animal when proposed in 2008? Or does he have any suggestions on how to improve Bernie's plan or should we just let people suffer and die and focus on others things?
Segami
(14,923 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)elljay
(1,178 posts)Gets it right, more often than not. I keep waiting for the Republicans and corporatists to find throw own two Nobel Prize Laureates to challenge Krugman and Steiglitz. Hasn't happened- wonder
why...
K&R
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)cuz it's been going haywire the past several years.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)"based either on deliberate misrepresentation of what that option would mean, or on remarkably thorough misunderstanding of the concept"
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)What happened to Krugman? Or should I say; who got to him?
retrowire
(10,345 posts)The internet never forgets.
Awesome.
Looks like Krugman had a change of heart.... wonder whyyyyyyyyyy
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Krugman ( new Jan 23rd)- Wonks and Minions
Whats really funny is that neither Mike nor I, nor, I think, any of the other wonks-turned-evil-minions have changed positions. Most of us argued long before there was a Sanders candidacy that the focus on Glass-Steagall and too-big-to-fail was misguided. In fact, I argued that position very early in the Obama years, at the same time I was arguing for temporary nationalization of a couple of big banks. I argued for an Obamacare-like strategy on health care, with perhaps a very gradual transition to single-payer via the public option, in my book The Conscience of a Liberal; and most of the progressive health care experts I can think of adopted pretty much the same position. So nobody should be surprised that a candidate who appears to be disregarding the analysis that led to these positions is coming in for some criticism.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/wonks-and-minions/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur
The same gradual changes Hillary has been promoting.
https://ballotpedia.org/2016_presidential_candidates_on_healthcare
kjones
(1,053 posts)paleotn
(17,912 posts)...can't seem to cut through that 3rd way, corporatist propaganda, can you.
Then again, what's actually best for the country may not be in your personal financial best interests. If that's actually the case, my response is...tough shit. Go sell buggy whips or pound sand. Your choice.
kjones
(1,053 posts)I mean, what qualifies as "corporatist" to you guys boils down to whether or not they support
your guy.
Praise for any takers on endorsing him, vilification for anyone else.
(Mix in some sexist snark or white condescension every so often
for safe measure)
All I know is, I don't want an angry president who complains about
everything, I want one that actually gets things done.
Results over rhetoric.
Still voting for Bernie if he gets the nomination somehow.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Armstead
(47,803 posts)"The alternative would be single-payer, aka Medicare for all: a payroll tax on everyone, and a government insurance program for everyone. Wouldnt that be simpler, easier to administer, and more efficient? Yes, it would."
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)This is the key element that everyone is missing. Free market, for profit health care bankrupts and kills. We have the entire rest of the developed world to compare to. They all do better on cost by a wide margin and meet or exceed the USA in quality.
Krugman has only changed his mind because he is now in the Hillary camp. It seems everyone has their price except Bernie.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)In case you haven't noticed, the Republican hold on Congress is a lot stronger now than it was 8 years ago.
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)I think a lot of us are tired of weak and feeble Democrats who don't stand up for what they believe in.
And believe or not, being weak and feeble is not a good way to sway voters and win elections.
Finally, chasing short term gain for long term loss is how we ended up with this rightward shift in this country.
I would rather stand on the right side of history.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)not a winning strategy.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)MelissaB
(16,420 posts)Broward
(1,976 posts)Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)seem to fall into the play it safe category. K&R
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)And he thought so too, as of his blog just yesterday:
Right now Im getting the kind of correspondence I usually get from Rush Limbaugh listeners, although this time its from the left Im a crook, Im a Hillary crony, etc., etc.. OK, been there before back in 2008 I was even the subject of tales about my son working for the Clintons, which was surprising because I dont have a son.
But Im used to this stuff. Its a bit more shocking to see Mike Konczal one of our most powerful advocates of financial reform, heroic critic of austerity, and a huge resource for progressives attacked as one of Hillarys minions and an ally of the financial industry.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/23/wonks-and-minions/?smid=tw-nytimeskrugman&smtyp=cur
Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)Where he is coming from politically is up to him, and it
smacks of play it safe, vote for Clinton.
I can appreciate that, no one wants to see it get worse and it could
under any Republican...thus my respect for him even though I don't
agree with him on this health care issue and as the OP points out very
well, he really doesn't disagree with me.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)The reactions to your op are priceless.
lark
(23,097 posts)Did you read the last line? He says we should go "Demoplan, with public and private options", with the end goal, DOWN THE ROAD, being private payer. So, not, he's not recommending Bernie's plan as a legislative goal in the near future.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)mountain grammy
(26,619 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)questionseverything
(9,654 posts)and the 40 million under insured is
die quickly?
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)snagglepuss
(12,704 posts)Hoyt
(54,770 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)Krugman actually agrees with Hillary's assertion of a slow transition over years.
paleotn
(17,912 posts)Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)And attemp to pass it off as something with a basis in reality.
Op failure followed up with a mother failure of a post.
paleotn
(17,912 posts)....I'll believe it when I see it, given the fact that HRC and the Clinton foundation has accepted millions from the insurance industry. Out of the kindness of their little corporate hearts, I sure. No services rendered for payment, I'm sure. You do realize that true single payer for all will destroy the health insurance industry as we know it? Or do you simply ignore that inconvenient fact.
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)where he scolds Bernie supporters for being too idealistic. His response: "What a crock. By that line of thiking we should have just played it safe and remained a British colony."
Interesting that Krugman now thinks single payer is too idealistic. Pretty disillusioned hearing any democrat argue against affordable college education and single payer.
Duppers
(28,120 posts)Good one! He's right.
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)Duval
(4,280 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And if he was but isn't then what does he propose?
A Little Weird
(1,754 posts)No wonder he admires Clinton.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)I used to hold a high opinion of Krugman.
Now?
Just another worthless fucking sellout. Apparently greed trumps smarts over there.
Shame on you Paul.
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)I trust Prof. Krugman on this http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/19/weakened-at-bernies/?_r=0
On health care: leave on one side the virtual impossibility of achieving single-payer. Beyond the politics, the Sanders plan isnt just lacking in detail; as Ezra Klein notes, it both promises more comprehensive coverage than Medicare or for that matter single-payer systems in other countries, and assumes huge cost savings that are at best unlikely given that kind of generosity. This lets Sanders claim that he could make it work with much lower middle-class taxes than would probably be needed in practice.
To be harsh but accurate: the Sanders health plan looks a little bit like a standard Republican tax-cut plan, which relies on fantasies about huge supply-side effects to make the numbers supposedly add up. Only a little bit: after all, this is a plan seeking to provide health care, not lavish windfalls on the rich and single-payer really does save money, whereas theres no evidence that tax cuts deliver growth. Still, its not the kind of brave truth-telling the Sanders campaign pitch might have led you to expect.
Again, as noted by Prof. Krugman this plan does not add up.
Bernblu
(441 posts)Gothmog
(145,168 posts)As noted by Ezra Klein, this plan is really poorly done. Ezra Klein is not impressed http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-payer-health-care
On Sunday night, mere hours before the fourth Democratic debate, Sanders tried to head off Clinton's attacks by releasing his plan. Only what he released isn't a plan. It is, to be generous, a gesture towards a future plan.
To be less generous but perhaps more accurate this is a document that lets Sanders say he has a plan, but doesn't answer the most important questions about how his plan would work, or what it would mean for most Americans. Sanders is detailed and specific in response to the three main attacks Clinton has launched, but is vague or unrealistic on virtually every other issue. The result is that he answers Clinton's criticisms while raising much more profound questions about his own ideas.
Sanders promises his health care system will cover pretty much everything while costing the average American almost nothing, and he relies mainly on vague "administrative" savings and massive taxes on the rich to make up the difference. It's everything critics fear a single payer plan would be, and it lacks the kind of engagement with the problems of single-payer health systems necessary to win over skeptics.....
In the absence of these kinds of specifics, Sanders has offered a puppies-and-rainbows approach to single-payer he promises his plan will cover everything while costing the average family almost nothing. This is what Republicans fear liberals truly believe: that they can deliver expansive, unlimited benefits to the vast majority of Americans by stacking increasingly implausible, and economically harmful, taxes on the rich. Sanders is proving them right.
A few days ago, I criticized Hillary Clinton for not leveling with the American people. She seemed, I wrote, "scared to tell voters what she really thinks for fear they'll disagree." Here, Sanders shows he doesn't trust voters either. Rather than making the trade-offs of a single-payer plan clear, he's obscured them further. In answering Clinton's criticisms, he's raised real concerns about the plausibility of his own ideas.
This is Ezra's area and he is not impressed
Gothmog
(145,168 posts)Tell the Washington Post that these numbers have been debunked https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bernie-sanderss-fiction-filled-campaign/2016/01/27/cd1b2866-c478-11e5-9693-933a4d31bcc8_story.html
He would be a braver truth-teller if he explained how he would go about rationing health care like European countries do. His program would be more grounded in reality if he addressed the fact of chronic slow growth in Europe and explained how he would update the 20th-century model of social democracy to accomplish its goals more efficiently. Instead, he promises large benefits and few drawbacks.
Meanwhile, when asked how Mr. Sanders would tackle future deficits, as he would already be raising taxes for health-care expansion and the rest of his program, his advisers claimed that more government spending will result in higher growth, which will improve our fiscal situation. This resembles Republican arguments that tax cuts will juice the economy and pay for themselves and is equally fanciful.
The Washington Post is agreeing with Prof. Krugman's analysis
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)Gothmog
(145,168 posts)GOP tax cut plans use imaginary growth and tax revenues to pay for themselves. Recent tax cuts show that this growth is never as high as projected. Sanders health care plan use cost savings that are uncertain at best and may never materialize when the plan is adopted.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Hekate
(90,667 posts)She doesn't just say she'll do this or that, she fleshes it out on paper, and yes, has experience.
And I know this is hard for some to grasp emotionally, but health care, like everything else in life including clean air to breathe, costs money. Where does it come from? How does it get allocated? How do you get your proposals thru a GOP Congress?
The Nobelist Economist is a liberal. He even wrote a book called The Conscience of a Liberal. So of course he is bound to like the heart of Bernie's ideas. But Paul Krugman is also a wonk who wants to see things get done. I have a feeling that in all those snippets of articles there is a great big "But."
So we return to his assessment of Hillary.....who is a policy wonk.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)panader0
(25,816 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)He's endorsing Hillary now. So, what is he saying today about single payer or public option?
Bread and Circus
(9,454 posts)passiveporcupine
(8,175 posts)SleeplessinSoCal
(9,112 posts)Krugman:
Again, I say this as someone who favors single-payer but its just not going to happen anytime soon.
Of course single payer would be the ideal, but ...
Krugman:
Put it this way: for all the talk about being honest and upfront, even Sanders ended up delivering mostly smoke and mirrors or as Ezra Klein says, puppies and rainbows. Despite imposing large middle-class taxes, his gesture toward a future plan, as Ezra puts it, relies on the assumption of huge cost savings. If you like, it involves a huge magic asterisk.
Electing either Sanders or Trump would leave us not just vulnerable to losing all gains, it would seal the deal. Trump supporters are even louder than Bernie supporters and are quite selfish. And it would take a miracle to achieve single payer with the only democratic Socialist no longer in the Senate.
Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, Bread and Circus.
merkins
(399 posts){Post No Bills}
valerief
(53,235 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)Single payer for all.
slipslidingaway
(21,210 posts)hifiguy
(33,688 posts)Chathamization
(1,638 posts)that it probably didn't matter which one wins (back in October). Now that Sanders has risen in the polls he says that Sanders' position on financial reform is "disturbing." One can't help but get the sense that he was punting with "they're both great" when he assumed Clinton would win, but is now talking about how problematic Sanders is now that he's risen in the polls. Also worth pointing out that he was in favor of Glass-Steagall (in the 10/16/15 column), but now (in the 1/19/16 blog post) says Glass-Steagall could cause us more problems.
Hard to tell at this point what things he actually believes, which things he says he believes because he thinks it hurts a particular candidate, and which things he theoretically believes but is ready to do a 180 and attack as soon as someone actually proposes we do them.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Such a shame.
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)Bernblu
(441 posts)Bernblu
(441 posts)Perhaps, should splice some video together so we could see a debate between Paul Krugman 2007 and Paul Krugman 2016.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)november3rd
(1,113 posts)Too bad none of those quotations are dated 2015 or 2016.
Now Krugman sits in the Clinton camp, below that mountain that's too steep to climb: Medicare for All.
The Green Manalishi
(1,054 posts)Die. Of something horrible. After watching their family do so.
I don't believe in anything supernatural. If I did, I would wish the nastiest of diseases on anyone opposing healthcare for all.
joshcryer
(62,270 posts)...was and continues to be the path to single payer. That was the entire fucking point back then. Whole studies done on this, whole debates, whole policy proposals, drafts, meetings, committees.
That was the point of Obamacare.
Krugman literally just wrote a blog post saying as much.