Wouldn't it be great if we actually had a reasoned debate in this country over the way in which we deliver healthcare. In the course of this debate we would compare relevant statistics on the cost, quality, availability and outcomes of healthcare in the U.S. and other industrialized countries. Then we could come to some rational conclusions about the best way to structure our healthcare system. Health Versus Wealth By PAUL KRUGMAN Will actual policy issues play any role in this election? Not if the White House can help it. But if some policy substance does manage to be heard over the clanging of conveniently timed terror alerts, voters will realize that they face some stark choices. Here's one of them: tax cuts for the very well-off versus health insurance. John Kerry has proposed an ambitious health care plan that would extend coverage to tens of millions of uninsured Americans, while reducing premiums for the insured. To pay for that plan, Mr. Kerry wants to rescind recent tax cuts for the roughly 3 percent of the population with incomes above $200,000. George Bush regards those tax cuts as sacrosanct. I'll talk about his health care policies, such as they are, in another column. Considering its scope, Mr. Kerry's health plan has received remarkably little attention. So let me talk about two of its key elements. First, the Kerry plan raises the maximum incomes under which both children and parents are eligible to receive benefits from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This would extend coverage to many working-class families, who often fall into a painful gap: they earn too much money to qualify for government help, but not enough to pay for health insurance. As a result, the Kerry plan would probably end a national scandal, the large number of uninsured American children. Second, the Kerry plan would provide "reinsurance" for private health plans, picking up 75 percent of the medical bills exceeding $50,000 a year. Although catastrophic medical expenses strike only a tiny fraction of Americans each year, they account for a sizeable fraction of health care costs. By relieving insurance companies and H.M.O.'s of this risk, the government would drive down premiums by 10 percent or more. This is a truly good idea. Our society tries to protect its members from the consequences of random misfortune; that's why we aid the victims of hurricanes, earthquakes and terrorist attacks. Catastrophic health expenses, which can easily drive a family into bankruptcy, fall into the same category. Yet private insurers try hard, and often successfully, to avoid covering such expenses. (That's not a moral condemnation; they are, after all, in business.) All this does is pass the buck: in the end, the Americans who can't afford to pay huge medical bills usually get treatment anyway, through a mixture of private and public charity. But this happens only after treatments are delayed, families are driven into bankruptcy and insurers spend billions trying not to provide care. By directly assuming much of the risk of catastrophic illness, the government can avoid all of this waste, and it can eliminate a lot of suffering while actually reducing the amount that the nation spends on health care. Still, the Kerry plan will require increased federal spending. Kenneth Thorpe of Emory University, an independent health care expert who has analyzed both the Kerry and Bush plans, puts the net cost of the plan to the federal government at $653 billion over the next decade. Is that a lot of money? Not compared with the Bush tax cuts: the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that if these cuts are made permanent, as the administration wants, they will cost $2.8 trillion over the next decade. The Kerry campaign contends that it can pay for its health care plan by rolling back only the cuts for taxpayers with incomes above $200,000. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, which has become the best source for tax analysis now that the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy has become a propaganda agency, more or less agrees: it estimates the revenue gain from the Kerry tax plan at $631 billion over the next decade. What are the objections to the Kerry plan? One is that it falls far short of the comprehensive overhaul our health care system really needs. Another is that by devoting the proceeds of a tax-cut rollback to health care, Mr. Kerry fails to offer a plan to reduce the budget deficit. But on both counts Mr. Bush is equally, if not more, vulnerable. And Mr. Kerry's plan would help far more people than it would hurt. If we ever get a clear national debate about health care and taxes, I don't see how President Bush will win it.
You want a reasoned debate, and you start by posting a Paul Krugman column...? OK. Let me see if I can dig up any Trader Jorge posts on the subject in response.
u got wealth u can AFFORD wealth u don't. . .screw u . . just don't cough on me that is the mentallity of so many people Rocket River
Giffy, everybody knows that anything that Paul Krugman writes can be dismissed with a one-liner. He's a veritable Bill O'Reilly of the left, and the author of such vapid, pseudo economic puff pieces as What a hack, he contributes nothing but demagoguery.
Quote "First, the Kerry plan raises the maximum incomes under which both children and parents are eligible to receive benefits from Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. This would extend coverage to many working-class families, who often fall into a painful gap: they earn too much money to qualify for government help, but not enough to pay for health insurance. As a result, the Kerry plan would probably end a national scandal, the large number of uninsured American children. Second, the Kerry plan would provide "reinsurance" for private health plans, picking up 75 percent of the medical bills exceeding $50,000 a year. Although catastrophic medical expenses strike only a tiny fraction of Americans each year, they account for a sizeable fraction of health care costs." So basically we are talking about growing the government and its programs even more. From my background in the healthcare industry I can tell you that medicare and medicaid fraud are rampant and it is so incredibly inefficient, that citizens would be better off reinvesting that money into the economy and growing to economy to provide higher paid jobs and more prosperity. I just think that the government's involvement in healthcare is wrong and that we are creating a class dependant on the government.
Traditionally the way to welfare reform is through healthcare. Healthcare has been the largest expense under welfare. Also the elderly the largest benefactors of welfare. Thus the idea that it's all single crack mothers too lazy to work isn't really an accurate generalization. But if we want to better reform welfare, we will have to tackle healthcare. I'm glad that Kerry has a plan for this.
I think the government should give every person living in the country some job, whatever the have the ability to do. Then, instead of paying some wage based on factors like how diffcult the job is, or how scarce the skillset required to do the job, the governmetnt should just provide all the neccessities: food, healthcare, shelter, etc. Then there would be no need to worry about uninsured children or the evil 3% that are the cause of everyone's problems. Yep, to each according to his need, from each according to his ability. Kinda catchy, don'tcha think? Also, our flag sucks, lets replace it with this one (the lone star represents Texas):
That is higher paid jobs and more prosperity for some, but we are talking about people that tend to get left behind during economic expansion. Even during the bubble boom of the '90s, there were millions of uninsured children who were not helped in the least by the prosperity of the time. In general, I am against universal healthcare, but I am all for trying to insure the kids in this country so that no child has to suffer through cancer, organ failure, or other major afflictions without insurance.
This is the latest chapter in the brilliance of the liberals. We want lower health costs, so let's help put a TRIAL LAWYER in the administration! How insane. The obvious balance that the liberals are not capable of grasping in this debate is the quality aspect of medical care. If you reduce the financial incentive for doctors and other healthcare professionals by nationalizing the system, or at least moving it in that direction, you reduce the talent attracted by the profession. When I listen to liberals like Dennis Kucinich talk about "taking the profit" out of healthcare, I understand how little liberals know about the debate. How can you 'take the profit' out, and expect a competitive free market economy to devote resources to the area? You can't. Yeah Dennis, we'll take the profit out so that *everybody* can have crappy medical care. That makes a lot of sense. Again we return to the maxi-min argument that the liberals so foolishly advance. Let's maximize the well being of the smallest person instead of maximizing the total well being of the system. Insane. Typical liberals -- they don't want the best for Americans. They want the mediocre for Americans. Unacceptable.
There are real life examples which prove you wrong. Look at the world's top rated health care systems. The U.S. is not number 1. I forget what it is, but it's a Scandanavian country, which has universal health care.
I think TJ makes a wonderful point about the costs of goods and services to the 'average' person. Trial lawyers and the lack of tort reform has pushed the costs on all products and services up. Healthcare costs much more to you and me and the 'millions of children' because of the huge medical lawsuits that paid for Edwards campaign. In my industry, the financial industry, the huge amount of lawsuits and the trial lawyers that are allegedly fighting for the people have driven up costs significantly that many firms are increasing their costs and eliminating smaller accounts. The trial lawyers like Edwards and the huge support given by the trial lawyers to the democratic party is more responsible for increasing costs to the 'millions of children' than anyone else.
So, based on your statements and your support of t_j's statements, you would prefer that people who get hurt by corporations have absolutely no recourse. In your world, are the corporate bosses willing to simply admit wrongdoing and do right by the people who are injured or killed by the actions of the corporation?
How ridiculous. Let me give you an example: On the jacuzzi case in which Johnny Edwards extorted $30mm from the maker of the pool, he turned down a settlement offer of $17mm from the company. That's not recourse, andymoon, that is just plain ol' GREED. Ridiculous greed that bankrupts companies, makes employees lose their jobs, and erodes shareholder wealth for the millions that occupy the investor class. That my friend, is how trial lawyers damage Americans' lives. That my friend, is how healthcare costs rise. These are hard facts.
So knowingly selling a dangerous product that results in a girl's death is worth 17 mil to you? Anything above that is only greed?
ACtually I believe that insurance companies drive up the prices far more than do the law suits. THe profit margin of those companies is insane, and if people want to point their fingers at greed, that would be a good place to start.
