Paul Krugman "hits the nail on the head" in re: Obamacare

[TooTall]

So repubs will, sit on their hands until November Hows that been working out for you people?

They haven't been sitting on their hands, everything gets shelved by Reid in the Senate.

ummm..... yeah They send bills over that even they know won't get signed by the President. Repubs should at least offer to pay for the electricity at the capitol for their intentional kabuki theater.

In the past, the House sent bills to the Senate where they were debated, amended and sent back to the House, eventually ending up in a conference committee for resolution. Once agreed to, they are resubmitted and if approved sent to the President.

The blame lies entirely on the Senate for shelving the bills the House sends them.

 

[Listening]

No links yet ?

SSDD

 

[Antares]

So repubs will, sit on their hands until November Hows that been working out for you people?

Sorry kid, the ACA is going to cause your side an ass whipping of epic proportions.

 

[Flopper]

Single payer would certainly be taking over an entire industry, where SS and medicare aren't.
apples and oranges

Having said that, after this debacle with Obamacare, I think that the single payer system, because of Obamacare has had a major setback with the American people. We have seen firsthand what can happen with a government run industry.

If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?

Fundamentally it's no different. That's why a lot of people opposed programs like Medicare in the first place. They wondered, "Where does it stop?" If government is to be responsible for providing old people with health care, what prevents it from assuming responsibIlity for health care for everyone, and if government is responsible for health care, why not food, housing, clothing or any of the other necessities of life?

These people were labelled "alarmists" and their concerns dismissed as slippery-slope paranoia. But here we are, moving right on down that slope. So, let's ask again, where does it stop? Clearly, the question is legitimate.

Healthcare does not fit into the schema of a free-market economy. In a free market, if you show up at a car dealership with the intention to drive away with a new Cadillac, you simply cannot do it without paying, short of robbery. However, we demand that healthcare be delivered even it the person has no money. Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.

 

[HenryBHough]

Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.

Like being just a wee tiny bit pregnant?

 

[Listening]

If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?

Fundamentally it's no different. That's why a lot of people opposed programs like Medicare in the first place. They wondered, "Where does it stop?" If government is to be responsible for providing old people with health care, what prevents it from assuming responsibIlity for health care for everyone, and if government is responsible for health care, why not food, housing, clothing or any of the other necessities of life?

These people were labelled "alarmists" and their concerns dismissed as slippery-slope paranoia. But here we are, moving right on down that slope. So, let's ask again, where does it stop? Clearly, the question is legitimate.

Healthcare does not fit into the schema of a free-market economy. In a free market, if you show up at a car dealership with the intention to drive away with a new Cadillac, you simply cannot do it without paying, short of robbery. However, we demand that healthcare be delivered even it the person has no money. Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.

This isn't true in all respects.

The first thing I think of is medical procedures that are purely cosmetic. They should absolutely operate in a free market.

The next tier is "grey area" things like marginal hip replacements (i.e. if you are still walking, do you need one ?). We don't demand anything on that level.

If you are having a heart attack...that is a different story (and I've never heard a disagreement over that).

So, I would not say that your statement covers all aspects of healthcare accurately.

 

[Listening]

BTW:

Who TF is Paul Krugman when he isn't talking economics (and even then) ?

Is he supposed to be a some kind of policy wonk ?

From what I can tell he's a moron.

The left thinks that because someone is a great math mind, they somehow should be better and designing highways ? Is that how this works.

Sound Of Cannons: How to Debate Blowhard Communist Asshole Paul Krugman Who Is Also Just A Bit Nuts

 

[Dot Com]

thanks for the thread-bump welchboi

As to the OP (lets try to stay on-topic eh?) Why is Repub leadership punishing rw members who might want to help fine tune the Heritagecare law just like Democrats helped fix/fine tune the repubs Medicare Part D roll out?

welchboi- I heard enough from you son. Go post on someone's thread that wants to hear your rw ravings

 

[Listening]

thanks for the thread-bump welchboi

As to the OP (lets try to stay on-topic eh?) Why is Repub leadership punishing rw members who might want to help fine tune the Heritagecare law just like Democrats helped fix/fine tune the repubs Medicare Part D roll out?

welchboi- I heard enough from you son. Go post on someone's thread that wants to hear your rw ravings

Who gives a f**k what you've heard (and it must be hard with your head up your ass.

You've supplied zero evidence that the GOP is punishing anyone for anything related to healthcare. Zero. Nothing.

You suck at debate.

But you can still post here.

Also, you've never addressed the second thing Krugman claims which has only been refuted. Keep trying butt-nugget.

 

[Antares]

thanks for the thread-bump welchboi

As to the OP (lets try to stay on-topic eh?) Why is Repub leadership punishing rw members who might want to help fine tune the Heritagecare law just like Democrats helped fix/fine tune the repubs Medicare Part D roll out?

welchboi- I heard enough from you son. Go post on someone's thread that wants to hear your rw ravings

As opposed to your uninformed rants boy?

You do nothing but parrot the Obama Party Line, since he is liar so are you.

You don't know shit about it boy.....don't pretend you do.

 

[Dot Com]

OFF-TOPIC retards. Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:

Krugman is a very wise man:

Unacceptable Realities

(snip)

The hysteria over Obamacare is being well documented, of course; Sahil Kapur’s piece on “Obamacare McCarthyism” — the instant purging of any Republican who offers any hint of accommodation to the law of the land — is getting a lot of well-deserved attention. One thing Kapur doesn’t emphasize, however, is what I see a lot in my inbox (and in my reading): the furious insistence that nothing resembling a government guarantee of health insurance can possibly work.

That’s a curious belief to hold, given the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.

​

 

[Antares]

OFF-TOPIC retards. Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:

Krugman is a very wise man:

Unacceptable Realities

(snip)

The hysteria over Obamacare is being well documented, of course; Sahil Kapur’s piece on “Obamacare McCarthyism” — the instant purging of any Republican who offers any hint of accommodation to the law of the land — is getting a lot of well-deserved attention. One thing Kapur doesn’t emphasize, however, is what I see a lot in my inbox (and in my reading): the furious insistence that nothing resembling a government guarantee of health insurance can possibly work.

That’s a curious belief to hold, given the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.

​

You've been asked to show which Repubs want to help and how they've been "purged".

Put up boy.

 

[Flopper]

Fundamentally it's no different. That's why a lot of people opposed programs like Medicare in the first place. They wondered, "Where does it stop?" If government is to be responsible for providing old people with health care, what prevents it from assuming responsibIlity for health care for everyone, and if government is responsible for health care, why not food, housing, clothing or any of the other necessities of life?

These people were labelled "alarmists" and their concerns dismissed as slippery-slope paranoia. But here we are, moving right on down that slope. So, let's ask again, where does it stop? Clearly, the question is legitimate.

Healthcare does not fit into the schema of a free-market economy. In a free market, if you show up at a car dealership with the intention to drive away with a new Cadillac, you simply cannot do it without paying, short of robbery. However, we demand that healthcare be delivered even it the person has no money. Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.

This isn't true in all respects.

The first thing I think of is medical procedures that are purely cosmetic. They should absolutely operate in a free market.

The next tier is "grey area" things like marginal hip replacements (i.e. if you are still walking, do you need one ?). We don't demand anything on that level.

If you are having a heart attack...that is a different story (and I've never heard a disagreement over that).

So, I would not say that your statement covers all aspects of healthcare accurately.

No, but it covers most healthcare. Cosmetic surgery isn't covered by most insurance with or without Obamacare unless it's judge medically necessary, such as injuries due to accidents, problems caused by other surgery or disease.

The problem with so many of the grey areas, is they can lead to serious problems if not diagnosed and treated. There are a lot of things that look like heart disease or cancer and only a professional can tell the difference. However, from a cost perspective, the rise in deductibles that we are seeing will certain persuade some people to postpone going to a doctor. Whether this is good or bad, only time will tell.

 

[Flopper]

Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.

Like being just a wee tiny bit pregnant?

Regulated capitalism is nothing more than a mild from of fascism. A lot of liberals favor socialism at least to some extent and a lot conservatives favor unfettered capitalism in most markets. The compromise turns out to be regulated capitalism which is not always a best fit.

 

[itfitzme]

BTW:

Who TF is Paul Krugman when he isn't talking economics (and even then) ?

Is he supposed to be a some kind of policy wonk ?

From what I can tell he's a moron.

The left thinks that because someone is a great math mind, they somehow should be better and designing highways ? Is that how this works.

Sound Of Cannons: How to Debate Blowhard Communist Asshole Paul Krugman Who Is Also Just A Bit Nuts

Yes, dude. Mathematics is required for designing highways. Absolutely required.

 

[HenryBHough]

Yes, dude. Mathematics is required for designing highways. Absolutely required.

It's ONE requirement.

Please try driving on a highway designed by a mathematician who has never driven, never seen a vehicle, never been exposed to any laws pertaining to driving.

Then, should you survive, get back to us.

 

[Listening]

BTW:

Who TF is Paul Krugman when he isn't talking economics (and even then) ?

Is he supposed to be a some kind of policy wonk ?

From what I can tell he's a moron.

The left thinks that because someone is a great math mind, they somehow should be better and designing highways ? Is that how this works.

Sound Of Cannons: How to Debate Blowhard Communist Asshole Paul Krugman Who Is Also Just A Bit Nuts

Yes, dude. Mathematics is required for designing highways. Absolutely required.

I doubt math majors would qualify as civil engineers.

Sorry.

 

[dblack]

If Medicare is accepted as constitutional, I don't see why single payer wouldn't be?

Fundamentally it's no different. That's why a lot of people opposed programs like Medicare in the first place. They wondered, "Where does it stop?" If government is to be responsible for providing old people with health care, what prevents it from assuming responsibIlity for health care for everyone, and if government is responsible for health care, why not food, housing, clothing or any of the other necessities of life?

These people were labelled "alarmists" and their concerns dismissed as slippery-slope paranoia. But here we are, moving right on down that slope. So, let's ask again, where does it stop? Clearly, the question is legitimate.

Healthcare does not fit into the schema of a free-market economy. In a free market, if you show up at a car dealership with the intention to drive away with a new Cadillac, you simply cannot do it without paying, short of robbery. However, we demand that healthcare be delivered even it the person has no money.Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.

Freedom works just as well, and just as poorly, for health care as it does for anything else. I completely agree that the bolded portion above is the core of the problem.

 

[Listening]

OFF-TOPIC retards. Did you read the OP? I re-posted it for you here:

Krugman is a very wise man:

Unacceptable Realities

(snip)

The hysteria over Obamacare is being well documented, of course; Sahil Kapur’s piece on “Obamacare McCarthyism” — the instant purging of any Republican who offers any hint of accommodation to the law of the land — is getting a lot of well-deserved attention. One thing Kapur doesn’t emphasize, however, is what I see a lot in my inbox (and in my reading): the furious insistence that nothing resembling a government guarantee of health insurance can possibly work.

That’s a curious belief to hold, given the fact that every other advanced country has such a guarantee, and that we ourselves have a 45-year-old single-payer system for seniors that has worked pretty well all this time. But nothing makes these people as angry as the suggestion that Obamacare might actually prove workable.

​

Last line is total bullshyt and totally unsupportable.

Or is sucking Paul Krugman's dick a regular activity of yours.

 

[Listening]

Healthcare does not fit into the schema of a free-market economy. In a free market, if you show up at a car dealership with the intention to drive away with a new Cadillac, you simply cannot do it without paying, short of robbery. However, we demand that healthcare be delivered even it the person has no money. Real capitalism will not work in that environment so we turn to either regulated capitalism, a mild form of fascism or socialism.

This isn't true in all respects.

The first thing I think of is medical procedures that are purely cosmetic. They should absolutely operate in a free market.

The next tier is "grey area" things like marginal hip replacements (i.e. if you are still walking, do you need one ?). We don't demand anything on that level.

If you are having a heart attack...that is a different story (and I've never heard a disagreement over that).

So, I would not say that your statement covers all aspects of healthcare accurately.

No, but it covers most healthcare. Cosmetic surgery isn't covered by most insurance with or without Obamacare unless it's judge medically necessary, such as injuries due to accidents, problems caused by other surgery or disease.

The problem with so many of the grey areas, is they can lead to serious problems if not diagnosed and treated. There are a lot of things that look like heart disease or cancer and only a professional can tell the difference. However, from a cost perspective, the rise in deductibles that we are seeing will certain persuade some people to postpone going to a doctor. Whether this is good or bad, only time will tell.

Your statement above says that healthcare should be looked at as a multi-tiered institution.

At some point in the grey areas, there is an element of risk that should be ascribed to the individual.

If you don't buy the insurance for cancer...and you get cancer...you either pony up or you don't get help.

I know it sucks. But if you are always willing to catch people, they'll never learn to avoid falling.

If you get nice and fat and get diabetes....you are on your own.