Krugman: Death Panels, VAT Will Fix Debt Crisis

[rushmc 23]

When will the libs stop their scare tactics?
And why do they hate the elderly?

Quote

Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says the only way the U.S. will get its debt crisis under control is by the use of "death panels" and a national sales tax.

The national sales tax, referred to as value-added tax (VAT), which governments across Europe use widely, will help cut the U.S deficit, Krugman argues.

Krugman made his comments on ABC's “This Week with Christiane Amanpour” during a roundtable discussion about the economy and the recent findings of the U.S. Debt Reduction Commission.

Here's the key excerpt:

"Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT. But it's not going to happen now."

The Obama healthcare plan passed by Congress in 2010 includes government-run healthcare committees with sweeping powers, including the power to engage in competitive pricing and cost analysis, a system Britain uses that has led to rationing of medical care for the elderly.

Critics of the Obama plan, including former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, quickly dubbed the committees "death panels," saying government agencies would decide who would live and who would die. Supporters of the Obama health plan dismissed such suggestions as nonsense.

Krugman apparently thinks otherwise, and suggests that such death panels could be one way the federal government will be able to keep soaring medical costs under control as baby boomers enter retirement.

He continued: If the Debt Commission "were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, ‘OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

Krugman also criticized Republican plans to extend the Bush tax cuts fully, including those who make more than $250,000 a year.

He said: "The cost of permanently extending just the upper-end Bush tax cuts, as opposed to only extending the middle-class tax cuts, the 75-year cost of that is just about identical to the 75-year accounting shortfall in Social Security. So we've got people who are saying, ‘Oh, Social Security, got to do something about it, but let's extend those tax cuts for rich people. This is showing how the priorities are all skewed.’”

Apparently realizing his comments were inflammatory, Krugman took to his blog immediately Sunday afternoon to “clarify” his comments.

“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,” he wrote. “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."

He then provided a link to a June 20 column in which he also described “death panels,” but only in passing and in a mocking way. The column is actually about budget deficits.

What he doesn't say is that he has written at least half a dozen columns repeatedly referring to death panels the last year in an ongoing effort to malign Palin and other conservatives.

Krugman also conceded his solution may be “politically impossible.” But, he added, “I believe that some day — maybe in the first Chelsea Clinton administration — it will actually happen.”

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

why do they hate the elderly?

Wow; sharp as a tack. No fooling you, eh?
Hey, glad ur on the job.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

why do they hate the elderly?

Wow; sharp as a tack. No fooling you, eh?
Hey, glad ur on the job.

Sucks when liberal posting styles are shoved back in your faces huh




Come on dude

Man up

You can handle it

I know you can

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Andy9o8 2]

yer so EZ

[rushmc 23]

Quote

yer so EZ

Ya

I am aint I



Two posts from you now and not comment to the content

You taking over for kallend?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,589]

I'm a lib, and I don't hate the elderly.

What do you think the solution is for the increasing cost of medical care, combined with the increasing ability to keep very sick and very old people alive for extended periods?

Currently all health insurance companies have decision panels for when guidelines aren't enough -- they don't pay for certain treatments, and people die because of it. You hear about people appealing their insurance company's decision? That's because their decision panel said that treatment wasn't payable.

Calling it a death panel is a scare tactic. Are you really going to allow yourself to be manipulated?

Does your insurance company pay for everything you want? If not, then they have a "death panel." By the way, dying in an extended manner, in the hospital, being kept alive with tubes and machines, when there is no real hope for recovery: sucks.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

I'm a lib, and I don't hate the elderly.

What do you think the solution is for the increasing cost of medical care, combined with the increasing ability to keep very sick and very old people alive for extended periods?

Currently all health insurance companies have decision panels for when guidelines aren't enough -- they don't pay for certain treatments, and people die because of it. You hear about people appealing their insurance company's decision? That's because their decision panel said that treatment wasn't payable.

Calling it a death panel is a scare tactic. Are you really going to allow yourself to be manipulated?

Does your insurance company pay for everything you want? If not, then they have a "death panel." By the way, dying in an extended manner, in the hospital, being kept alive with tubes and machines, when there is no real hope for recovery: sucks.

Wendy P.

I am a conservative and I dont hate them either
Nor do I hate Obama, Muslums or gays. Neither am I a racist

Care to look back and see how many time I have been told I must be one of the above?

So
I am refusing to be manipulated is the point

Those here can call me what ever the hell they want to and, I simply will not care

Andy stepped right into it
Seems you have followed suit

This painting with a wide brush sucks huh, when it is done to a group with whom you identify.

Sorry you got caught up in this

Andy I expected to

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

As soon as someone uses the death panel terminology anything intelligent anybody might have to say is lost in the emotionally hyperbolic arguements to follow.

Decisions early on to cover everybody for everything lead to later decisions on how to pay for that - which means either fixing the price or raising taxes. Decisions early on to hold the line on costs means either fixing the price or putting limits on care.

We can not sustain a system that provides everybody with all the care they want at the current pricing. There will be some combination of fixing professional fees, limits to care, and increased taxes.

If docs manage to protect their pricing and we limit care - then taxes could be kept under control.

If docs manage to protect their pricing and there are no limits to care - the tax bill will be outrageous.

If docs concede to reasonable pricing, there is a chance of providing everyone with a reasonable level of care with a reasonable tax bill.

In all of this, it does not matter who actually administers the financial plans (government insurance agencies or private insurance companies), as long as they are held to 90% loss ratios.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rushmc 23]

Quote

As soon as someone uses the death panel terminology anything intelligent anybody might have to say is lost in the emotionally hyperbolic arguements to follow.

Decisions early on to cover everybody for everything lead to later decisions on how to pay for that - which means either fixing the price or raising taxes. Decisions early on to hold the line on costs means either fixing the price or putting limits on care.

We can not sustain a system that provides everybody with all the care they want at the current pricing. There will be some combination of fixing professional fees, limits to care, and increased taxes.

If docs manage to protect their pricing and we limit care - then taxes could be kept under control.

If docs manage to protect their pricing and there are no limits to care - the tax bill will be outrageous.

If docs concede to reasonable pricing, there is a chance of providing everyone with a reasonable level of care with a reasonable tax bill.

In all of this, it does not matter who actually administers the financial plans (government insurance agencies or private insurance companies), as long as they are held to 90% loss ratios.

The POINT is
When a repulican uses terms like these the wide brush comes out

A known liberal says the same and it is a point for discussion

And now you demonstrate said point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

The POINT is
When a repulican uses terms like these the wide brush comes out

A known liberal says the same and it is a point for discussion

I wish you had said that in your first post, instead of figuring that we'd think the same way that you do. Different people are going to get different primary ideas from the same article -- it happens all the time.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

The POINT is
When a repulican uses terms like these the wide brush comes out

A known liberal says the same and it is a point for discussion

I wish you had said that in your first post, instead of figuring that we'd think the same way that you do. Different people are going to get different primary ideas from the same article -- it happens all the time.

Wendy P.

Wendy
I have been able to demonstrate the exact point I set out to demonstrate
In this case it is not what is said, but who (by political offiliation) says it and how this fact alters the responses

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[pirana 0]

Quote

The POINT is
When a repulican uses terms like these the wide brush comes out

A known liberal says the same and it is a point for discussion

And now you demonstrate said point

I hope I'm not sounding naive; but you need to spell this out for me.

What point did I demonstrate? Especially on this topic, for which I have intimate and very deep experience, I try to remain objective and observant.

Did I apply a derogatory term with a wide brush? Are you slotting me with one party or the other for some term I used? Not looking for an argument; not yet anyway, want to know what point I demonstrated first.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[wmw999 2,589]

The point is that Rush wanted the delivery to be the topic of discussion, rather than the content of the article, at least as far as I can tell.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I'm a lib, and I don't hate the elderly.

What do you think the solution is for the increasing cost of medical care, combined with the increasing ability to keep very sick and very old people alive for extended periods?

Currently all health insurance companies have decision panels for when guidelines aren't enough -- they don't pay for certain treatments, and people die because of it. You hear about people appealing their insurance company's decision? That's because their decision panel said that treatment wasn't payable.

Calling it a death panel is a scare tactic. Are you really going to allow yourself to be manipulated?

Does your insurance company pay for everything you want? If not, then they have a "death panel." By the way, dying in an extended manner, in the hospital, being kept alive with tubes and machines, when there is no real hope for recovery: sucks.

Wendy P.

Trust me on this.. when you need to be covered for an injury, and you have been paying for years and years and all of a sudden your insurance that you thought you had does not pay to fix you but they will pay out a few dollars for pain meds instead of removing the source of the pain, you get a rather rude awakening.

That is why I think theis clusterfuck of a health bill does not go far enough. There needed to be a REAL public option that will actually take care of people and not deny them for uttter and complete bullshit "pre-existing conditions"

Any insurance worker/exec who benefits from denying a claim by uttering that word to an insured person should be taken out and broken severely and then told oh.. sorry you have a pre existing condition now pay those bills yourself.

[rehmwa 2]

Can I get a waiver from the VAT?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[juanesky 0]

Yes you may, as long as it is for the children, of course.

"According to some of the conservatives here, it sounds like it's fine to beat your wide - as long as she had it coming." -Billvon

[pirana 0]

Quote

Any insurance worker/exec who benefits from denying a claim by uttering that word to an insured person should be taken out and broken severely and then told oh.. sorry you have a pre existing condition now pay those bills yourself.

So you think people should be able to wait until they are ill or injured, and then buy insurance to pay the bills. Brilliant financial model.

And you think it is expensive now.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Any insurance worker/exec who benefits from denying a claim by uttering that word to an insured person should be taken out and broken severely and then told oh.. sorry you have a pre existing condition now pay those bills yourself.

So you think people should be able to wait until they are ill or injured, and then buy insurance to pay the bills. Brilliant financial model.

And you think it is expensive now.

So what about those who have been paying into the system for 40 fucking years...and then an asshole comes along and claims an INJURY.. a NEW one compliments of some asshole grabbing you as he is flying past you in freefall is a preexisting condition.

Basically I equate those in insurance claims as THIEVES.. but at least a fucking thief that breaks into your home and tries to hurt you even less that the 2 years of pain and god forbid you go get the 30K of surgery that they will then deny payment for... yeah with the thief you can shoot the motherfucker dead on the spot.

[pirana 0]

Quote

The point is that Rush wanted the delivery to be the topic of discussion, rather than the content of the article, at least as far as I can tell.

Wendy P.

That helps some; but since I don't know Krugman's political leaning (I know the name, but not the personality) -- I'm still not certain which party I've been accused of attacking or cohorting with.

My points stand regardless of Krugman's opinion, party affiliation, or use of the term death panel to piss off his detractors and/or his opposition's supporter.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

So what about those who have been paying into the system for 40 fucking years...and then an asshole comes along and claims an INJURY.. a NEW one compliments of some asshole grabbing you as he is flying past you in freefall is a preexisting condition.

We'd have a better exchange if you picked one topic and/or story at a time. In your post you mention having coverage for years and years and then being pissed that all you got was pills.

A bit later in the same post you complained, or actually just declared, that anyone denying claims for pre-X should be broken.

Not sure who your coverage is with, but if you have had a plan for years and years; certainly for 40 years; your pre-x has been met. That is to say, the period for review is limited. In most cases it is no more than 24 months, usually more like 12 to 15. For self-insured employers, they may still be able to make it whatever they want - for now.

So you have a story where you had a plan for 40 years and then got denied as pre-x? That would be wrong. Even so, I'd stop short of breaking (whatever that means) the claims processor; but that's just me.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Amazon 7]

You change jobs... your coverage changes... 4 different companies in the last 5 years.. but the bottom line is there is no lapse in coverage in my working life. At some peoint the government is going to have to reign in the out of control Insuance Industry scam.

I am tired of being ripped off by the assholes in the Insurance industry. If they keep this shit up... perhaps there needs to be a Sharon Angle 2nd amendment option to remove the real rulers of our country today. Luckily I will qualify for Medicare in a few short years.... you know.. the people the wonderful insurance companies cutaway long long ago as not profitable.

[pirana 0]

Quote

You change jobs... your coverage changes... 4 different companies in the last 5 years.. but the bottom line is there is no lapse in coverage in my working life. At some peoint the government is going to have to reign in the out of control Insuance Industry scam.

That explains it - not that it is right - but yes, you got screwed because you changed plans. This is a loophole already eliminated years ago in states that have their shit together; states where continuous coverage means all plans, with no more than some minimal gap (usually around 60 days) count as continuous coverage in satisfying a pre-ex review period. Basically, as long as you maintain continuous coverage you are not subject to review.

If national regulation on common sense items like this would have been implemented when they were 1st recognized we probably wouldn't be dealing with such a reactionary over-the-top program now. Shame on the legislators, insurance companies, and lawyers for bringing us to the brink.

On your comments on Medicare - who do you think administers Medicare plans for the government?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley