http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html?emc=eta1
Paul Krugman's "OP-ED" in today's Times addresses where we are with "Health Care."
We have posted in the past on this issue and summarized it by saying that we don't need 1174 pages of legislation to assure that no person can be dropped from medical coverage because they "cost too much!" (i.e. that their claims cost the insurance carrier too much), and, that no person can be denied medical coverage because of a poor prior medical record. In the latter case, the number of new people covered could get as high as the 45 million figure often quoted, or 30 million at the low end of knowledgeable estimates. And, of course, it all depends on the 29 year olds who don't want to pay for coverage they don't need (until they need it).
In any case, Dr. Krugman told us last fall that we'd have a health care plan before the year was over. While he has a very high batting average (which is why we read him), it is very difficult to read the political tea leaves in today's D.C.
Today's reading is that Krugman, and the rest of us, hope yesterday's Presidential Health Care Summit will be the last act in the "... great health care reform debate." If so, as Krugman says, it will end with the Democrats offering moderate plans that draw heavily on past Republican ideas, and the Republicans responding with "... slander and misdirection."
How can an issue as serious, and as obvious, as this be so subject to partisan politics? Aside from the insurance industry lobby (incidentally, the bonus information on insurance industry executives appears to serve notice that "profits" are more than adequate), Republicans seem to be intent on showing America that they are protecting costs: "... for millions of Americans, premiums will go up." As Krugman so accurately points out, that quote is not "technically" a misrepresentation, since the CBO analysis of the Senate Democrats' plan does say that average payments for insurance would go up. But, the analysis also makes it clear that this would happen only because people would buy more and better coverage. The "... price of a given amount of coverage ..." would fall, not rise - and the actual cost to many Americans would fall sharply thanks to federal aid.
So, here we are: Krugman has centered the debate to ask how the Republicans plan to deal with the emotional center of much of the health care debate: the plight of Americans who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. The answer is that the Republicans have no answer. Krugman's references to the House Republican plan as something that will "... afflict the afflicted ..." is an absolute classic. And, he's right.
Most of us with responsible opinions wish health care was not a political issue. We don't want to blame one party and support another. But, sadly, the issue has descended to that now.
Krugman has once again called it right. His batting average is in tact. He should join the Yankees in spring training!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It does not surprise me at all that healthcare is a political issue in this country. Where Democrats believe people should have equal access to healthcare, Republicans think people should have equal opportunities to access healthcare (meaning those who have more opportunities --it being money, youth-- have better access basically).
ReplyDeleteIt is incredible to me how Americans can be so divided amongst themselves on such basic, fundamental values. Sometimes I feel that the average French, Spanish or German have more values in common than American Democrats and Conservatives do.
Debate on values sometimes inhibits good government...
ReplyDeleteA philosophy professor of mine recently directed me to re-read Plato's Meno. It's refutation of virtue is elegant, polite and all but ignored despite 2,500 intervening years of affirmation.
My point: so often we confuse (dis)agreement on cultural values as truth. I like art and music, philosophy and literature. I believe that their absence from public education makes our society the poorer for it, but I cannot prove it.
Disagreement on core values is not surprising, not bad for societies. However, it is minor in comparison to what can be bigger issues.
Values in conflict:
Do we live in a capitalist country if government spending exceeds all other spending combined in our GDP?
Occam's Razor:
All predicted benefits of socialized medicine can be achieved through the market given small regulatory efforts and simples laws.
I dare say that enough liberals in this country that don't want to live in a socialist country exist to immediately end the debate.
That said, most conservatives would like to see health care inflation decrease, as well as see it more affordable to all. That should be enough to deem government intervention in a market set adrift.
I can go into actual solutions, but that is a lengthy conversation(s).