Since some people like to post Wall Street Journal editorials arguing against healthcare reform, I thought I'd post something by Krugman from the NYTimes. It's just as (in)valid so take with your preferred shaker of salt. I prefer Mediterranean Sea Salt but YMMV.

 

Originally Posted by Paul Fucking Krugman, Nobel laureate

<span>Health reform is back from the dead. Many Democrats have realized that their electoral prospects will be better if they can point to a real accomplishment. Polling on reform — which was never as negative as portrayed — shows signs of improving. And I’ve been really impressed by the passion and energy of this guy Barack Obama. Where was he last year?</span>

But reform still has to run a gantlet of misinformation and outright lies. So let me address three big myths about the proposed reform, myths that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.

The first of these myths, which has been all over the airwaves lately, is the claim that President Obama is proposing a government takeover of one-sixth of the economy, the share of G.D.P. currently spent on health.

Well, if having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a “takeover,” that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.

The only part of health care in which there isn’t already a lot of federal intervention is the market in which individuals who can’t get employment-based coverage buy their own insurance. And that market, in case you hadn’t noticed, is a disaster — no coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions, coverage dropped when you get sick, and huge premium increases in the middle of an economic crisis. It’s this sector, plus the plight of Americans with no insurance at all, that reform aims to fix. What’s wrong with that?

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.

And it gets better as we go further into the future: the Congressional Budget Office has just concluded, in a new report, that the arithmetic of reform will look better in its second decade than it did in its first.

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.

Which brings me to the third myth: that health reform is fiscally irresponsible. How can people say this given Congressional Budget Office predictions — which, as I’ve already argued, are probably too pessimistic — that reform would actually reduce the deficit? Critics argue that we should ignore what’s actually in the legislation; when cost control actually starts to bite on Medicare, they insist, Congress will back down.

But this isn’t an argument against Obamacare, it’s a declaration that we can’t control Medicare costs no matter what. And it also flies in the face of history: contrary to legend, past efforts to limit Medicare spending have in fact “stuck,” rather than being withdrawn in the face of political pressure.

So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.

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.

 

Originally Posted by PhiAlphaMTSU

IN BEFORE EPIC UD/RESILENT E-BATTLE!

Nah, res says he's done with me because he can't bring himself to admit that Reagan had a shitty first couple of years in office.

In before Ginwilly calls Krugman a dumb fuck, epic moran, waste of good oxygen, etc.

I happen to like Krugman (but that shouldnt come as a great surprise).

wish this was all true.

Do governments generally underestimate or overestimate in regards to fiscal costs? I have my opinion.

where is the part about mandatory insurance and fines for not having it?

Also saying that since the gov already controls so much of health care, its really not taking much more on, how are those sectors the gov. does run doing?

Sigh...

 

Originally Posted by Echelon

Sigh...

Great read.

 

Originally Posted by Underdog34

Since some people like to post Wall Street Journal editorials arguing against healthcare reform, I thought I'd post something by Krugman from the NYTimes. It's just as (in)valid so take with your preferred shaker of salt. I prefer Mediterranean Sea Salt but YMMV.

Yuk. First off just admit you want the government to control 100% of health care. I've read your other uneducated posts on health care that leads me to believe this. If I'm wrong explain how I'm wrong.

If I'm right look at the current programs the government runs (i.e. medicare/medicad, ss, post office) and look at the current financials they are facing (i.e. broke)

Now regarding these three myths -

1) The individual market has state guarantees of coverage. If you cannot get coverage because of health issues you can get state guaranteed coverage. Not exactly sure why you and this person think people with heath issues cannot get coverage. This is not true in any state I'm familiar with. If a state doesn't have guaranteed issue heath care than I would suggest that state needs to reform it's health care system. If you know of one I would love to know what state doesn't have state guaranteed insurance.

2) The CBO suggests that over the life of the proposed legislation it will save money due to TAX INCREAES and savings within the current government system (changes that can be made without massive overhaul). What that means is that they could make those same changes without massively increasing taxes and without this massive piece of legislation and save the tax payers money. Instead they decided to say the only way they could make these cost saving changes is to pass this horrible piece of crap and massive increase our taxes

3) This is gay. He had two and just decided to put #3 (what I said in #2) Fine refer to response #2 for reply to his #3.

You understand health care reform much like you understand global warming oh wait climate change. Stick to video games.

 

Originally Posted by CaptinMorgan

Yuk. First off just admit you want the government to control 100% of health care. I've read your other uneducated posts on health care that leads me to believe this.

I'm not going to bother answering your questions when you immediately start off with a huge strawman argument. I don't want government to control 100% of health care, nor have I ever advocated that the government should control health care. Calling me uneducated about this subject after beginning your post like this is pretty amusing though, so if you were going for comedy, good job.

Health Care Reform sounds like a great idea........

http://www.facebook.com/notes/walton...s/374396895352

 

Originally Posted by CaptinMorgan

blather blather blather government is bad blather blather blather

<object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aitvFZTOrp4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aitvFZTOrp4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" mce_src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aitvFZTOrp4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

<object height="385" width="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GWaL6UDHMR8&hl=en_US&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GWaL6UDHMR8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" mce_src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GWaL6UDHMR8&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" height="385" width="480"></object>

This can't be good for dems, Scott Murphy replaced Kirsten Gillibrand, seriously doubt he has a shot for re-election period, but if he supports Obamacare he's surely toast.

http://scottmurphy.house.gov/Forms/Form/?ID=677

Health Care Survey
My goals for health care reform remain the same as when we started this discussion last year. We need to fundamentally change the system to bring costs down for our families and small businesses, hold insurance companies accountable, and increase access to quality health care. When we have a bill to vote on, I will determine whether it goes far enough to fix the incentives in our health care system and if it is going to help the people of the 20th District.

As we near a possible conclusion to our debate of health care in Congress, I would like to once more reach out to you for your opinions on the subject.

Congress has been debating health care for nearly ten months now. Has your opinion of whether or not we should reform the system changed during that time?
I am now more likely to support
I am now less likely to support
My opinion has not changed
Are you satisfied with your health insurance plan?
Yes, I am satisfied with my private insurance plan
Yes, I am satisfied with my combination of public and private coverage
Yes, I am covered by a public insurance plan (like Medicare or Medicaid)
No, I am not satisfied with my coverage
Undecided
I am not insured
Do you believe that our nation’s health insurance system needs reforming?
Yes
No
Undecided
If you think that the system does need to be fixed, what should the focus of reform be?
To cover all Americans who don’t currently have health insurance
To make health care more affordable to people who are covered now
To eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse
To end all entitlement programs (including Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA) and get government completely out of health care
Insurance reform
All of the above
Other
Email Address

Submit

By submitting this survey you are opting-in to my eNewsletter
As always, thank you for your interest in these important issues. If there is anything I or my office can do for you, please do not hesitate to get in touch. It is an honor to represent you in Congress.

Sincerely,
Scott Murphy
Member of Congress
<a target="_blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://scottmurphy.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175458" >
http://scottmurphy.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=175458</a>

Press Releases
Contact: Josh Schwerin (202) 225-5614

Information about the Recent High Call Volume to Congressman Murphy's Office

Washington, Mar 11 -

Because of our recent high call volume if you call Congressman Murphy’s offices, they may occasionally continue to ring or be busy. We are responding to all of the calls as quickly as possible. Congressman Murphy wants to hear your comments and concerns and encourages you to reach out to him through phone calls and emails.

Congressman Murphy prides himself on the openness and ease of contact with constituents and appreciates people’s understanding during this time.

Yes Mad Professor, Bill Maher is a very Credible source when it comes to really knowing jack shit about Politics. we should all take what he says very seriously and as truth