Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes

[Jroc]

I'll quote my favorite matriarch of this board "Paul Krugman is brilliant"

Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes… on the middle class, maybe a value added tax…And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, doc pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits . So the snarky version…which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.

Krugman: U.S. Needs Death Panels, Sales Taxes

 

[francoHFW]

Death panels, by which he means end of life counseling with doctors and family. Spending 80% of a person's lifelong health costs (something like that) in the last 3 weeks IS dumb.

 

[Jroc]

Death panels, by which he means end of life counseling with doctors and family. Spending 80% of a person's lifelong health costs (something like that) in the last 3 weeks IS dumb.

He means cost benefit analysis with human life...Liberals are way too compassionate

 

[Clementine]

For those who pay for their own insurance and pay out of pocket what insurance doesn't cover, whose business is it, other than the patient, what treatment they and their doctor opt for? I think that is the biggest change coming with Obamacare. Now, all of a sudden, our health care is government's business. Many of us pay our own way and no one has a right to object to what insurance we choose or how we spend our money. Why do liberals have a problem with that?

I suggest that people like Krugman volunteer to be first to forgo medical treatment and help control the world's population. Or do the ones like him just believe that others are not worthy?

When I see Obama supporters who claim that these people are too costly, they seem to think that somehow these older folks are taking money that would otherwise go to them. They have no concept of what it means to pay your own way. I am guessing that those who have a problem are those who are on the doles and think tax money is paying for everyone.

It's government that started social security and Medicare and then forces people onto it. I think the sole reason for that was so they'd have a say in people's lives.

 

[Katzndogz]

End of life counseling is really intense psychological pressure to manipulate a person into accepting the fact that the government has already decided to deny medical care.

 

[francoHFW]

Now it's death panels run by insurance companies, dingbats- much worse. lol

Course I haven't been fear mongered for years by the Pub Propaganda Machine.

 

[Jroc]

For those who pay for their own insurance and pay out of pocket what insurance doesn't cover, whose business is it, other than the patient, what treatment they and their doctor opt for? I think that is the biggest change coming with Obamacare. Now, all of a sudden, our health care is government's business. Many of us pay our own way and no one has a right to object to what insurance we choose or how we spend our money. Why do liberals have a problem with that?

I suggest that people like Krugman volunteer to be first to forgo medical treatment and help control the world's population. Or do the ones like him just believe that others are not worthy?

When I see Obama supporters who claim that these people are too costly, they seem to think that somehow these older folks are taking money that would otherwise go to them. They have no concept of what it means to pay your own way. I am guessing that those who have a problem are those who are on the doles and think tax money is paying for everyone.

Its control, government control of your life, what you eat, what you drive, and what kind of insurance you must have ,now they'll tell us how long we are allowed to live

 

[Clementine]

End of life counseling is really intense psychological pressure to manipulate a person into accepting the fact that the government has already decided to deny medical care.

True. They are telling people to hang it up already and make room for the next person. Out with the old and in with the new.

I think doctors and patients should make all decisions. Many people buy their own insurance and pay whatever insurance doesn't cover. My aunt used part of her retirement savings to keep up the payments on her insurance she had when she was working. Many opt for that. Of course, government is drooling over retirement accounts now, probably for that very reason. Old people will waste that money keeping themselves alive. Can't have that. The government already has a plan. It forces people onto Medicare and then bitches about the cost. Government has a way of fucking things up when they get involved.

 

[francoHFW]

It's you, your doctors, and your family, SHYTTEHEADS, not the "government".

 

[edthecynic]

Death panels, by which he means end of life counseling with doctors and family. Spending 80% of a person's lifelong health costs (something like that) in the last 3 weeks IS dumb.

He means cost benefit analysis with human life...Liberals are way too compassionate

That's Right, Only the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood can put a price on the value of human life as determined by the corporate profit motive. So a principle that the Right has held sacred for corporations is suddenly morally bankrupt for anyone else.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&feature=player_embedded]Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube[/ame]

The video shows a segment from a 1977-1978 lecture series given by Milton Friedman, in which he is questioned by a student about free market principles and the Ford Pinto. The Ford Pinto, which was sold from 1971 to 1980, was a subcompact which, because of its design, had a gasoline tank that would explode during rear-end collisions. Ford in an internal memo estimated that the problem could be fixed through a $13 fix, but as this would amount to spending more than $200,000 per estimated life saved, this would be too much. About 1,000 Ford Pinto drivers were victims of rear-end explosions.

The student said this was morally wrong. Friedman said it is not a question of morality, but of economic calculation. No human life is of infinite value, he said; you wouldn’t spend $1 billion to save a human life, because it would soak up resources needed to preserve other human lives. So the only question, according to Friedman, is whether Ford weighed costs and benefits correctly.

 

[S.J.]

Americans are gonna have some tough choices to make in the next few years about what they're willing to let our government get away with. Will we have the intestinal fortitude?

 

[Political Junky]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PepQF7G-It0]Crowd Yells Let Him Die - YouTube[/ame]

 

[francoHFW]

That's MM? That's crazy lol...

 

[edthecynic]

That's MM? That's crazy lol...

No it wasn't. Just more misinformation from the Right.

 

[Jroc]

Death panels, by which he means end of life counseling with doctors and family. Spending 80% of a person's lifelong health costs (something like that) in the last 3 weeks IS dumb.

He means cost benefit analysis with human life...Liberals are way too compassionate

That's Right, Only the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood can put a price on the value of human life as determined by the corporate profit motive. So a principle that the Right has held sacred for corporations is suddenly morally bankrupt for anyone else.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&feature=player_embedded]Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube[/ame]

The video shows a segment from a 1977-1978 lecture series given by Milton Friedman, in which he is questioned by a student about free market principles and the Ford Pinto. The Ford Pinto, which was sold from 1971 to 1980, was a subcompact which, because of its design, had a gasoline tank that would explode during rear-end collisions. Ford in an internal memo estimated that the problem could be fixed through a $13 fix, but as this would amount to spending more than $200,000 per estimated life saved, this would be too much. About 1,000 Ford Pinto drivers were victims of rear-end explosions.

The student said this was morally wrong. Friedman said it is not a question of morality, but of economic calculation. No human life is of infinite value, he said; you wouldn’t spend $1 billion to save a human life, because it would soak up resources needed to preserve other human lives. So the only question, according to Friedman, is whether Ford weighed costs and benefits correctly.

Nobody was required by the governement to buy a ford pinto

 

[Wry Catcher]

He means cost benefit analysis with human life...Liberals are way too compassionate

That's Right, Only the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood can put a price on the value of human life as determined by the corporate profit motive. So a principle that the Right has held sacred for corporations is suddenly morally bankrupt for anyone else.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0dmRJ0oWg&feature=player_embedded]Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube[/ame]

The video shows a segment from a 1977-1978 lecture series given by Milton Friedman, in which he is questioned by a student about free market principles and the Ford Pinto. The Ford Pinto, which was sold from 1971 to 1980, was a subcompact which, because of its design, had a gasoline tank that would explode during rear-end collisions. Ford in an internal memo estimated that the problem could be fixed through a $13 fix, but as this would amount to spending more than $200,000 per estimated life saved, this would be too much. About 1,000 Ford Pinto drivers were victims of rear-end explosions.

The student said this was morally wrong. Friedman said it is not a question of morality, but of economic calculation. No human life is of infinite value, he said; you wouldn’t spend $1 billion to save a human life, because it would soak up resources needed to preserve other human lives. So the only question, according to Friedman, is whether Ford weighed costs and benefits correctly.

Nobody was required by the governement to buy a ford pinto

That's correct, no one was required by the government to buy a Pinto. Does your statement mean that you believe the government should adopt a caveat emptor policy? That the FDA be desolved and product safety be left to the private sector?

 

[Katzndogz]

You exist for the purpose of maintaining the government. When you can no longer maintain the Leviathan, your usefulness is done and it's time to eliminate you.

 

[Jroc]

That's Right, Only the CON$ervoFascist Brotherhood can put a price on the value of human life as determined by the corporate profit motive. So a principle that the Right has held sacred for corporations is suddenly morally bankrupt for anyone else.

Milton Friedman Puts A Young Michael Moore In His Place - YouTube

The video shows a segment from a 1977-1978 lecture series given by Milton Friedman, in which he is questioned by a student about free market principles and the Ford Pinto. The Ford Pinto, which was sold from 1971 to 1980, was a subcompact which, because of its design, had a gasoline tank that would explode during rear-end collisions. Ford in an internal memo estimated that the problem could be fixed through a $13 fix, but as this would amount to spending more than $200,000 per estimated life saved, this would be too much. About 1,000 Ford Pinto drivers were victims of rear-end explosions.

The student said this was morally wrong. Friedman said it is not a question of morality, but of economic calculation. No human life is of infinite value, he said; you wouldn’t spend $1 billion to save a human life, because it would soak up resources needed to preserve other human lives. So the only question, according to Friedman, is whether Ford weighed costs and benefits correctly.

Nobody was required by the governement to buy a ford pinto

That's correct, no one was required by the government to buy a Pinto. Does your statement mean that you believe the government should adopt a caveat emptor policy? That the FDA be desolved and product safety be left to the private sector?

Nope but the federal government shouldn’t be telling us what to eat, what to drive, or forcing us to buy anything. I would venture to say a smart car wouldn’t hold up very well in a collision and mandating cars get 50MPG is certainly not going to make them safer

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I bet Krugman will be whining like a little bitch when his time comes...

 

[Jroc]

I bet Krugman will be whining like a little bitch when his time comes...

Nah... He's a political elitist, a special person he'll have his own coverage