In his recent article, "An Incoherent Truth," Paul Krugman once again sets a new low for rational and coherent thought. (I think the Times should change the title to "An Incoherent Columnist," but that's just me.) I see that Krugman's articles are published on Mondays and Fridays, so there's not much time before the bar is once again lowered! We better hurry before Paul sets a new standard that we must live down to! I'll quote Paul's article and interject my own, rational thoughts to make you realize what an idiot he really is. This is going to be fun.
Krugman starts off with this:
Right now the fate of health care reform seems to rest in the hands of
relatively conservative Democrats — mainly members of the Blue Dog
Coalition, created in 1995. And you might be tempted to say that President
Obama needs to give those Democrats what they want. But he can’t — because the
Blue Dogs aren’t making sense.
Right Paul, no one is making sense but you,
Obama, Pelosi, and Steve
Liesman.
He continues:
To grasp the problem, you need to understand the outline of the proposed reform
(all of the Democratic plans on the table agree on the essentials.)
Phew! Thank God all the plans on the table agree on the "essentials!" For a second there I thought omeone in Washington might have their own self interest ahead of us, the "American People (tm)!" So now that Krugman has established that it's "essential" to steal from person A to fund something person B may or may not want, we can move on to this:
Reform, if it happens, will rest on four main pillars: regulation, mandates,
subsidies and competition. By regulation I mean the nationwide imposition
of rules that would prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on
your medical history, or dropping your coverage when you get sick. This would
stop insurers from gaming the system by covering only healthy people. On
the other side, individuals would also be prevented from gaming the system:
Americans would be required to buy insurance even if they’re currently healthy,
rather than signing up only when they need care.
Wow. Where do I even start? Ignore the fact that Washington has been in "reform" mode since about 1800. Krugman is just ignoring reality here. It's a sad fact of life, but insuring people with pre-existing conditions, such as cancer or diabetes, is more expensive than insuring healthy people. Bad luck, bad genes, bad habits can all play a role but the fact remains. It is what it is. If you are in a car accident your insurance company can charge you for this "pre-existing" wreck because you are riskier to insure. If companies aren't being properly compensated for risk, prosperity is threatened. And then he goes on to say that insurance companies "game the system" as if politicans aren't DESIGNING AND MODIFYING THE SYSTEM on their own whims and at our expense. There is no "system" without government setting it up and then changing the rules and charging everyone more so they can benefit. Paul seems to think no one wants to insure people who have breast cancer or a clogged artery. Actually, companies would love to, but they would also love to be able to pay for all the procedures, medicines, staff, and risk of a huge malpractice suit (only made possible because of the government's backward legal system that tilts things heavily in favor of the plaintiff.) Paul also takes it upon himself to remind me that he, and our overlords in Washington, really do know what's best for me and my money. So he calls for me to spend my hard earned money (which is taxed) on health care that I don't even want or need. It's almost like requiring me to buy a new car just in case mine breaks down, lest the evil car companies jack up prices and then I'm stuck on my bike because I spent all my money on DVDs. Why can't Krugman and the government just mind their own damn business and let me decide if and when I need an eye exam, physical, or prescription. Moving on...
Gee, won't employers be excited to be paying out even more money in the current depression (yes, it's a depression) to comply with more layers of government. First the minimum wage hike and now mandatory health benefits. The cost of labor is going sky high and people wonder why the unemployment rate is soaring. Krugman gets bonus points for using the tried-and-true "making it affordable" claim that hasn't actually made anything "affordable," ever. A+ work there Paul.And all but the smallest businesses would be required either to provide their
employees with insurance, or to pay fees that help cover the cost of subsidies —
subsidies that would make insurance affordable for lower-income American
families.
Finally, there would be a public option: a government-run insurance plan
competing with private insurers, which would help hold down costs.
If anyone holds down costs it would be the private sector. Since when does more government=less cost?
The subsidy portion of health reform would cost around a trillion dollars over
the next decade. In all the plans currently on the table, this expense would be
offset with a combination of cost savings elsewhere and additional taxes, so
that there would be no overall effect on the federal deficit.
Nice sleight of hand at work here. Basically the government is going to steal all or part of $1 trillion (which will inevitably end up being much higher because that's how Washington DC rolls) and then chalk it up as "savings." Sure, there won't be an effect on the federal deficit, but the American people will be looted for a few trillion. Meh, it's all for a good cause I suppose. After all, what's a few trillion between friends? Plus Krugman and others can easily trot out the whole "it would have been worse!" line by simply making up numbers and claiming that we "saved" a few billion if it somehow comes in under cost. We were going to steal more, but look at how much we saved you! Gee thanks!! Back to the article...
So what are the objections of the Blue Dogs? Well, they talk a lot about fiscal
responsibility, which basically boils down to worrying about the cost of those
subsidies. And it’s tempting to stop right there, and cry foul.
I actually agree 100% here. I am going to cry foul. What the hell is going on in Washington when people are worrying about the cost of something? Something fishy is going on here. Better get someone from Newsweek on this, pronto. Krugman continues:
After all, where were those concerns about fiscal responsibility back in 2001,
when most conservative Democrats voted enthusiastically for that year’s big Bush
tax cut — a tax cut that added $1.35 trillion to the deficit?
Ahh, Krugman really brought his whole liberal playbook to work for this one. This is from the "well, you Republicans got to spend a few trillion on wars, so why can't we waste a few trillion on stuff we want?" category. The Big Bad Bold Bush tax cut didn't add to the deficit. What added to the deficit is that no one stopped spending the $1.35 trillion that wasn't coming in.
But it’s actually much worse than that —
God, I hope this article never ends.
because even as they complain about the plan’s cost, the Blue Dogs are making
demands that would greatly increase that cost. There has been a lot of
publicity about Blue Dog opposition to the public option, and rightly so: a plan
without a public option to hold down insurance premiums would cost taxpayers
more than a plan with such an option.
Why not just write a law that all healthcare costs can't exceed $1,000 per year, per family? Unlimited doctor visits, prescriptions, and coverage for all! That sure seems like a good way to clamp down on costs to me. What could go wrong?
But Blue Dogs have also been complaining about the employer mandate, which is
even more at odds with their supposed concern about spending. The Congressional
Budget Office has already weighed in on this issue: without an employer mandate,
health care reform would be undermined as many companies dropped their existing
insurance plans, forcing workers to seek federal aid — and causing the cost of
subsidies to balloon.
So instead of working without health insurance people will just be laid off instead. Cool. Krugman's tactics are so transparent. All he knows how to do is blame companies and people who act in their own self-interest and do things like save money. Companies are made up of people, they want to make money so they can live a decent life. Why do you have to constantly promote those that interfere and make everyone worse off? Almost at the end now...
It makes no sense at all to complain about the cost of subsidies and at the same
time oppose an employer mandate. So what do the Blue Dogs want? Maybe
they’re just being complete hypocrites.
Since they are politicians, Krugman is probably right here.
It’s worth remembering the history of one of the Blue Dog Coalition’s founders:
former Representative Billy Tauzin of Louisiana. Mr. Tauzin switched to the
Republicans soon after the group’s creation; eight years later he pushed through
the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act, a deeply irresponsible bill that included
huge giveaways to drug and insurance companies. And then he left Congress to
become, yes, the lavishly paid president of PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry
lobby.
Oops, forgot to mention that Krugman also knows how to demonize Republicans and anyone who is lavishly paid.
One interpretation, then, is that the Blue Dogs are basically following in Mr.
Tauzin’s footsteps: if their position is incoherent, it’s because they’re
nothing but corporate tools, defending special interests. And as the Center for
Responsive Politics pointed out in a recent report, drug and insurance companies
have lately been pouring money into Blue Dog coffers. But I guess I’m not
quite that cynical. After all, today’s Blue Dogs are politicians who didn’t go
the Tauzin route — they didn’t switch parties even when the G.O.P. seemed to
hold all the cards and pundits were declaring the Republican majority permanent.
News flash! The pundits were wrong!!!!
So these are Democrats who, despite their relative conservatism, have shown
some commitment to their party and its values. Now, however, they face
their moment of truth. For they can’t extract major concessions on the shape of
health care reform without dooming the whole project: knock away any of the four
main pillars of reform, and the whole thing will collapse — and probably take
the Obama presidency down with it.
One can only hope
Is that what the Blue Dogs really want to see happen? We’ll soon find
out.
Oh boy!! I'm on the edge of my seat here. How soon will we find out, Mr. Nobel Prize winner? Hopefully by next Monday at 8 pm because I have plans after that. Also Paul, if you could please be sure to comment on how the upcoming health care bill "was good, but not enough"once they ram it through and then demand action in the form of a 2nd health care bill. After all I need material here. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment