Liberal journalist Paul Krugman says we're going to have death panels to get the budget under control????
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ … udget.html
"I said something deliberately provocative on This Week, so I think I’d better clarify what I meant (which I did on the show, but it can’t hurt to say it again.)
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that
(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax
And if we do those two things, we’re most of the way toward a sustainable budget."
Paul Krugman from his column 'Conscience of a Liberal'. 11-14-10
Now you are on a short list of moderate-conservatives who could rationally discuss the issue. Krugman did not suggest death panels in any form remotely resembling the Palin description. As an economist, Krugman broached a subject politicians won't.
If Medicare is a totally blank check when you hit 65, then either the cost of medicare will break the bank as the average age shifts older OR, a bunch of people will have to pay a LOT more in taxes. Krugman suggests that the alternative to either of those options is deciding what Medicare won't pay for. My opinion is that he wasn't suggesting the decision be based on an individual case by case decision, but based on the prognosis and cost.
A personal example. My father contracted Lou Gherig's disease. In the final stage, he was admitted to the hospital when he stopped breathing. They got him on a ventilator - which breathed for him, but it required he be constantly sedated. Zero quality of life. He could not talk or even be conscious other than perhaps the fleeting impression we were there. No chance of remission, let alone recovery.
Let me ask a brutal question. How long should we, the family, have kept Ed Hughes 'alive' as a human vegetable so we could pat him on the head or hold his hand? The finances did not factor into the decision, but it cost Medicare thousands of dollars a day to keep him in ICU - and the fact is, that's money that was not available for other seniors with a chance of recovering some mobility or quality of life.
We could have kept my father alive for months (for sure) possibly for years until some other organ failure finished him off. Should that level of selfishness be an option? Really governing means facing these kind of hard decisions and trying to be fair in crafting law which will preserve resources for as many people as possible.
I think you did.
What is interesting is that in Australia and other modern developed western nations, we have had health care for 50 years. Not a sign of the death panels yet!
These people are neanderthals!
In the UK we've had Universal Healthcare since just after World War II, and not a sniff of a death panel so far! This is scaremongering at it's worst.
He's full of bulloney. There is PLENTY of money in this country...it is stashed in banks all over the world.
There is no need for Draconian cuts or suggestions on ANYTHING.
He's disengenuous if he says anything different. As are they all.
80% 0f all the wealth in America has been GIVEN to the top 2% by our policies.They can give it back.
It's just a matter of telling the Uber Rich that the gig is up. No more freebies and big breaks.No more corporations escaping taxes, No more Haliburtion ripping us off. No more loop-holes, and gvt policies that support the wealthy over everyone else.
It's simple and common sense and RIGHT.
Now they all need to grow a pair ands stop this nonsense of cutting from the poor and needy.
Do we look stupid to them?
One thing is funny though.....now all the lefties will have to say Krugman is as rotten as Palin, and by the same token, all the righties will have to say he is as good as Palin!
It's a liberal conspiracy to rid the country of nut job conservatives. They will all flee the new socialist America with its death panels to such socialist republics as Australia. I know earnest said they don't have death panels but he is in on it! The tea party nut jobs will get there and automatically be put on one of these Nazi style death panels! You are warned! Muwhahaha!
Sorry but I just can't take this nonsense seriously
Here's more nonsense--from the featured videos on that article page:
Sen. McCain: "Everything Should Be On The Table" In Debt Debate
Rand Paul: No Compromise In Raising Taxes
No it couldn't happen in this country??
12. Eugenics Text book and 13. An eugenics course description They called for rational planning and scientific management of every phase of society. Economically they substituted laissez-faire views for an emphasis on state intervention and promoted the use of trained experts in setting economic and social regulatory policies. The movement preached the doctrine of efficiency, which applied cost-benefit analysis and emphasized solving problems at their root, rather than after a crisis has arisen, for example, as in preventive medicine. Eugenics was first embraced politically as a scientific means of halting the rising stream of "defective" immigrants who came to the United States from 1880 to 1914 seeking relief from the economic problems besetting Europe.
14. Birth control book edited by Margaret Sanger
The Eugenics movement quickly became standard education in high school Biology and College. By 1928, the American Genetics Association boasted that there were 376 college courses devoted exclusively to eugenics. High-school biology textbooks followed suit by the mid-1930s, with most containing material favorable to the idea of eugenical control of reproduction. It would thus have been difficult to be an even moderately educated reader in the 1920s or 1930s and not have known, at least in general terms, about the claims of eugenics.
It's someone deciding that someone else will not get medical care that could save their life.
We have them now. Insurance companies, driven by profit motives, make decisions like this daily. They even have people whose sole job is to look for excuses to disallow treatment that might otherwise be covered.
The right wingers here think that is preferable to similar decisions made by entities under the control of our elected representatives. I won't comment on my opinion of such thinking.
I consider a "death panel" more like the legitimatization of killing unborn babies, which, of course, is a far Left view, not a Right winger view at all.
Why a far left view?
In the UK supporters and detractors seem fairly evenly spread across the spectrum of politics, religion and gender. Perhaps we just take a more pragmatic view.
A woman's abortion rights is hardly far left. It's quite middle of the road, as is your opposite stance. That's what makes it such a difficult issue. People of all stripes have different feelings.
The phrase 'death panel' would not refer to abortion as that, whether you agree with it or not, is the law of the land. Any panel would be a group of people responsible of coming to the decision if someone 'should' live or die.
Many deaths in the US today are death by the choice of someone. Medical technology is such that we could leave someone to live on life support for some time. The decision to discontinue life support is a decision to allow someone to die.
The American health care system is deteriorating because it is riddled with government distortions. Sooo.... the answer is to have government run health care? I don't think so. You want a taste of how the American government runs things? Go to the DMV. You want an idea of how inept the American government would be at running health care? Look at the veterans hospital. The evidence of government failure is all around us.
Back in the day, physicians strove to charge as little as possible because, like anything else competing on the market, that drives consumerism. Now because of third parties (insurance companies) paying the bills, doctors have every incentive to charge as much as possible. HMO's (which is basically health insurance, since most people obtain coverage this way unless they are on medicare or medicaid) act as a deleterious middle man between the doctor and the patient, dictating what treatments will and will not be covered. Ultimately, patients can't choose for themselves what treatment is best for them. Everything must be green-lit by these third parties.
Anyone ever wonder why we need coverage when we go for routine check-ups or get a simple bump on the head? Why can't we pay out of pocket for these things? Insurance should measure risk, protecting you from unfortunate, catastrophic circumstances should they occur. It shouldn't be utilized EVERY time we see a doctor. Something is terribly wrong with the system, indeed. Government-managed care is not the solution.
It's HILARIOUS how government officials were the ones who sang praises for the HMO system, which was instilled because of initial rising costs that stemmed from (you guessed it) GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION. Now they want to denounce HMO's, distancing themselves from the system they started. They're fix is to have more control over health-care. What farce. The level of government regulation involved in HMO's is what's causing deterioration in the first place! How can the answer possibly be more government control?
Take government out of health care altogether. Medicine used to be more effective, more affordable, and less bureaucratic. Eliminate third party weight and focus on medicine instead of billing.
The health insurance companies are a very expensive, self-serving and capricious middleman in this debate. Suffice to say that I'm very happy with the UK system. It isn't perfect, but I probably owe my life to it several times over. We contribute through our taxes, and thereafter, most medical care is either free at point of delivery, or subject to a very nominal charge.
If the USA won't acccept a government run scheme, then maybe Americans should just go back to the old system of paying for treatments and appointments as and when the need arises. At least then it's your bank balance that decides rather than some faceless beaurocrat. The typical insurance premiums quoted on HubPages could be paid into savings accounts, and drawn on as necessary.
by scoop4 years ago
What exactly is "Obamacare" and when does the law go into effect?
by lady_love1587 years ago
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/medicare … um=twitterDoes anyone really believe that government health care will be cheaper and better than what we have and without fraud waste and abuse??
by Georgiakevin8 years ago
I simply do not understand why people are fighting health care reform. I have heard the arguments against it and I keep saying how is that worse than being held hostage by the insurance companies? My insurance cost...
by Susan Reid4 years ago
If you are insured through your employer, the answer is no. If you are an individual or small business owner, please share your thoughts.Did you know there will be online health care insurance marketplaces...
by rhamson8 years ago
The latest vote to pass health care reform in congress has failed. Do we need to drop the issue or negotiate a new one?
by The Shark2 years ago
I'm not afraid of it. But I'm not in favor of it. The government screws up a lot. You can't always trust them when it comes to money. I would like the government to stay out of it as much as possible.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.