Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes.

[I invented that]

krugman admits ya can't kick the can forever. he says the end game is increased taxes on middle class and death panels. well, the government knows what's best for the little people. when krugman was asked about growing deficits and increasing debt he replied,


"Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this."








kind of reminds me of the twilight episode "the obsolete man".

[HeinousMark]

By then, there won't BE a middle class to tax! Oooooooops!

[JDs tees]

What is the difference between a death panel and cutting Medicare to the point where a senior cant get all their necessary treatment?

[Goo For You]

So Krugman favors more taxes down the line? How's this newsworthy?

[Bro]

The affordable Health care act needed the public option to really drive down health costs.

[I invented that]

So Krugman favors more taxes down the line? How's this newsworthy?

i thought the krugster was a proponent of "the debt doesn't matter" philosophy because it's money we owe ourselves. now krugman admits there is a point where the debt will matter and at that point we must increase taxes. if the debt doesn't matter now it shouldn't matter in the future either because it'll still be money we owe to ourselves.

[stripes]

krugman is a complete moron on so many levels...wgaf whatever he's selling now.

on cnbc the other day, the panel just sat their in silence, baffled at his stoopudity.

[I invented that]

What is the difference between a death panel and cutting Medicare to the point where a senior cant get all their necessary treatment?

silly statement, people get the medical treatments needed even if they don't have the money. prisoners get heart transplants, sex changes and other procedures with no way of paying for the services.

[I invented that]

The affordable Health care act needed the public option to really drive down health costs.

please explain how the public option would "really drive down healthcare costs".

[newcastlefan]

i volunteer to serve on the death panel for free IF i can rule on Krugman, and on DaveinDiego

[newcastlefan]

please explain how the public option would "really drive down healthcare costs".

"the public" would make so many bad health decisions that the resulting deaths would exceed those of the black plague. with > 75% of the population dead, the cost of affordable health care for the remaining 20-25% would have to be lower.

[Bro]

please explain how the public option would "really drive down healthcare costs".

It wouldn't pander to insurance companies which is what it does now.

[Bro]

"the public" would make so many bad health decisions that the resulting deaths would exceed those of the black plague. with > 75% of the population dead, the cost of affordable health care for the remaining 20-25% would have to be lower.

Bullshit.

[stripes]

i volunteer to serve on the death panel for free IF i can rule on Krugman, and on DaveinDiego

throw in al gore, boner, pelosi & that nevada idiot on the take & i'll nominate you. fuck it, all of washington needs a ruling.

[I invented that]

It wouldn't pander to insurance companies which is what it does now.

wrong, it would compete with insurance companies.

[RiotGrip]

please explain how the public option would "really drive down healthcare costs".

Very simple, obamacare states that insurance companies can make only up to 15% profit--you can bet your ass most of them will hit that target or be close under Obamacare. Now a public option would force those insurance companies to compete with it while it drew little to no profit(Medicare runs at 3 to 4% of cost). Therefore the primary goal of insurance companies would switch from trying to stay at that 15% profit to trying to keep as many of their customers as possible from switching to the public option by trying to offer a better product to them. A public option combined with the individual mandate on 100 or less pages of legislation would have done as much if not more to drive down health care costs than Obamacare, and insurance companies would be forced to provide better coverage to adequately compete.

[I invented that]

Very simple, obamacare states that insurance companies can make only up to 15% profit--you can bet your ass most of them will hit that target or be close under Obamacare. Now a public option would force those insurance companies to compete with it while it drew little to no profit(Medicare runs at 3 to 4% of cost). Therefore the primary goal of insurance companies would switch from trying to stay at that 15% profit to trying to keep as many of their customers as possible from switching to the public option by trying to offer a better product to them. A public option combined with the individual mandate on 100 or less pages of legislation would have done as much if not more to drive down health care costs than Obamacare, and insurance companies would be forced to provide better coverage to adequately compete.

seriously? i would love to compete against the government, in any endeavor, on an even playing field.

[RiotGrip]

seriously? i would love to compete against the government, in any endeavor, on an even playing field.

I guess insurance companies didn't feel the same way. Search "Lewin group" study if you care to. The only way private insurance could properly compete against govt. would be to take a lot less profit per customer.

[I invented that]

I guess insurance companies didn't feel the same way. Search "Lewin group" study if you care to. The only way private insurance could properly compete against govt. would be to take a lot less profit per customer.

ya, i saw the lewin group study, craig steiner is a senior fellow at lewin, 15% max profit. which industry will be next?

[RiotGrip]

ya, i saw the lewin group study, craig steiner is a senior fellow at lewin, 15% max profit. which industry will be next?

All health insurance companies were required to run as non-profit companies until the 70's. The Lewin group was bought and paid for by the insurance companies, they also shut up the second the public option was taken off the table. If competing with the govt is easier than competing with the private sector, why did the Lewin group conclude that insurance companies would loose so much money?