Why Krugman Is Wrong

Installment #1: The free-market healthcare non-system
http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/cia/index.html

Coming from a society where national health care is the norm, I have quite the skewed view of this particular topic. Especially when considering all 3 of my children had to spend time in the hospital for a week or more on several occasions and then receive the appropriate treatment afterwards. There is only one reason why Single Payee health plans don't work in the USA and that is the people who make moeny from providing these services. This includes Big Pharm, HMO's, Insurance companies, Hospitals amongst many others and to a lesser degree the doctors themselves.

I do not agree with current proposals to 'force' everyone to get health insurance as this is not the point of National Healthcare. The point is that if you take the financial aspect out of the equation when someone is deciding to being treated for illness or injury, they will do what is necessary and we will have a healthier society all around. The advantages of a healthy population are too numerous to mention, but should be the ultimate goal of anyone seeking office or my vote will go elsewhere or nowhere if the situation warrants.

Anyone who says it won't work, hasn't lived it. People can say they don't want to foot someone else's medical bill all they want, but when their turn comes around to be treated for something they can't afford, I'm guessing they will be singing a different tune.

The $100 pill is to pay for research and development, cost of business, shareholders, and doubtful accounts. Plus charities. And did I mention lobbiests: There are things that might be done prior to the first big sit-down with ther perveyers of healthcare one might want to try to address to further the quality of discussion: First, campaign finance reform. Second, legislator personal stock porfolios. Third, positions after office. Fourth, abolish Congressional and Senate government healthcare (they can but their own-like us). Then. let this sink in for a while as they are forced to pay individual premiums (what would that be....perhaps 10, 20, 30 grand a year for premiums + preexsisting illness + respective deductables. This might help bring clarity to that which that rest of the population faces. And it is time for congress to share in the wonder of both the benefits and cost of our current medical system. This would not be combatitive, it would be done in the spirit of "sharing in the experiences of the common man" so congress can better experience, comprehend, empathize, and perhaps act accordingly to what is in the best interst to the common man (and themselves...charity begins at home). It might also be interesting to have these expenses retroactive from the they have entered office.....Next, we then can go one to discuss salaries, junkets, perks (planes in Pelosie's case), and lets not leave out pensions and gala affairs.

I don't know what is more naive, the author's point (e.g. Obama ) or that of Krugman (Edwards). The commanality is Socialism no matter how you slice it. And whether you berate drug and insurance companies in public or in private, the net result is they don't care. They are the only game and town and can really do whatever they want. Think Congress will stop them? Aren't they the lobbiests that Edwards wants to talk to? When have they ever turned down a check?

I find it difficult to believe that people actually think that if the Fed takes over healthcare that things will get better or cheaper. Can anyone actually site an example where this has happened? Even if you only pay $50 out-of-pocket for the famous $100 pill, you will end up paying another $75 in new taxes. And do you think if doctors are forced to charge less that service will get better? Historically, this model oly produces less doctors. Just look at the VA to see how well the Fed runs healthcare.

Should a Dem get elected, they should follow the same philosophy that was mentioned about Clinton's so-called economic strategy - leave your hands off of it and it will do fine. After all, all he did was wait for the 18 month economic cycle to come to fruition and then take credit for it. All the real work was done by Bush Sr.

See, the thing is Clinton didn't actual manage to get any real health care reform...remember?

At some point people need to recognize that insurance and drug companies have a vested interest in the current disfunctional system - any system that fixes the problem will cost them millions and in the case of health insurance companies, maybe there existence. They will never bargain in a reasonable way.

Universal Healthcare is Socialism at the root and at the fruit. We have given our government too much authority over us and we are no longer a nation run by the people. If we allow universal healthcare to become a reality in our country we will be opening the door for the government to control even more of our own life. Bad things happen to people. We have people with hospital bills they can't pay and that is a bad state. But Patrick Henry said "Give me liberty or give me death." We would do well to take this to heart. Because that is what is happening in our own country today. The government is taking away our liberties; our God-given right to of free speech, of free religion, of free thought. We are being told that if we don't conform to a certain idealology that we are bigots, who are closed-minded, whether it be in religion, education, economics, ethics, or morals. The government controls our education system (which has steadily digressed in recent years) our retirement (Social Security will go bankrupt if nothing is done about it ) among other things. Do we really want to give so much power to our central government. Power that will give them the ability to control us in every state of our life? That is just a little food for thought from "Publius."

Jonathan, I disagree with you on this one. I think you, not Krugman, need an injection of common sense.

You talk about "leadership requiring a mixture of confrontation and compromise, with room for the losers to save face". I agree, but you fail to mention that you have to know when to be confrontational and when to compromise. I think Obama already lost round 1 in this fight by guaranteeing lobbyists a seat at the table. To me that promise sends a signal that he believes their interests are equal in importance to those of the American people. And that kind of thinking is the problem. We don't need lobbyists sitting at the table writing our healthcare legislation. Can they be witnesses? Yes, but they have no business having a seat at the table making decisions that effect our lives.

He also errs by announcing he is willing to compromise before the talks even start. You should never willingly give up power like this and weaken your own hand before you???ve even begun. I also think both you and Obama are naive to think that all you have to do is "cross examine" them on TV and miraculously they will see the light in some giant Perry Mason moment. Edwards, who made a career out of cross-examining witnesses, certainly doesn???t agree with your position. He knows that while this theory might sound appealing to beginners, in practice it???s a losing strategy.

Edwards sent a clear signal from the get go that he is no easy mark and that lobbyists better get with the program or risk settling for scraps. The longer they hold out, the less leverage they will have. So instead of having a president focusing on how to get lobbyists to willingly give up some of their power we will have lobbyists scrambling to figure out how to hang onto some of their power. Edwards will also use the American people to back him up, but unlike Obama, he will deal with these lobbyists from a position of strength, not weakness. This will enable him to advance real structural change that actually helps Americans, not just the incremental change that helps few Americans but is often touted by politicians who want to get re-elected.

You say - " But last time I checked millions of Americans still work for corporations or aspire to do so and bashing them wholesale is a loser." You've got to be kidding me. Who do you think makes most of the anti-corporate comments? They come from those of us who work for corporations who have seen up close and personal how they manipulate the system and allow short-term greed to guide them. We know better than anyone that we need a president who will rein them in. Quite frankly we can't believe it hasn't been done already. By the way, this disgust at the misbehavior of our corporations crosses party lines. This is not just an issue among Democrats. There are a lot of Republicans and Independents who want corporations to stop using our tax dollars to enrich themselves at our expense

In response to dewcooper:

The big drug companies as do many other big corporations enjoy a very special perk afforded to them by our rather antiquated copyright system, that slides underneath our fair market system. They have no fear that you will go somewhere else to buy a comparable goods nor do they fear going out of business because there are NO comparable goods in many cases and few if any alternative options for the buyer. If you are dying of cancer and a drug manufacturer has a new experimental drug on the market that will extend your life but the drug will cost $120 a pill would you buy it? What if you find out it only costs the company a few dollars to manufacture! Are you going to say hell no I won't buy it? I don't think so. You have no real choice or option and they know it and are taking advantage of it.

It's a similar story with the oil and petroleum Industries. Is there at this point in time any real opportunity for us as consumers to sya "Hell No" I won't buy that because it's too expensive? I guess I could ride a bicycle the 16 miles one way to work and back each day but you know, I don't see it as a real option and they know it. the best I can do is try to cut back and that isn't easy either.

So my point here is that yes, in a free market MOST products will find a fair market value but there are other markets that are manipulated and exploited and are not fair to the consumer - the phamaceuticals, Insurance, credit card and the petroleum industries are prime examples of this. As individuals we have little if any power. change MUST be brokered by our government. God Help Us!