Nobel Winning Economist Wants Death Panels, VAT To Save Medicare

[Dan J 277]

Of course it is.

Any system that allows any type of beauracracy to dictate if it's 'cost effective' enough for you to maybe live another 6 months or so, is promoting 'death panels.'

While that's a bit pusing the terms, sometimes it can be a death sentence.

What about all those times when it says, 'oh this will keep you alive another 6 months' and that 6 months ends up turning into 4 or 5 years...

When you allow the government to do this, you're almost asking or genocide of the elderly. If you're 25 and need that surgery, ok fine.... but if you're 65, hey well you lived your life so screw you.....

We already have death panels. Except the tend to go by different names, like actuaries or claims adjusters. Of course their aim is to maximum profits, not evaluating the cost effectiveness of treatments for the overall health system.

[Danno 1,228]

MIght be helpful if we could define what "death panels" actually are.

When the Govt is working with limited resources, it has a responsibility to put those dollars to the maximum effect use.

Old people and other high cost customers will find their options limited for economic reasons.

Panels of "experts" will be tasked with deciding the value of life.

THere is no way around it.

Palin was right.

Step 2: Close off these options in the free market as well.... it won't do to have the wealthy enjoying life extending treatments, the rest of us will be denied.

[Pooky 3,828]

Really?

And the label was placed there by one Paul Krugman, in the OP article. But of course you knew that.

What you don't get is that for the percentage of GDP spent in the USA on healthcare, there should be no need for the this type of review panel in the first place. this country spends 7% more as a percentage of GDP than the UK, yet the UK gets by with the occasional controversy over treatments being denied. I'm pretty certain that extra 7% of GDP (or, put another way, a 70% greater expenditure) can cover grandma's cancer treatments. But the insistence on sticking with private insurance, artificial restrictions on who can cover whom, protectionism toward the big pharmaceutical industry and 111 waivers for various organisations and friends of the administration to opt out of the healthcare farce, is making the American public sick.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

And the label was placed there by one Paul Krugman, in the OP article. But of course you knew that.

What you don't get is that for the percentage of GDP spent in the USA on healthcare, there should be no need for the this type of review panel in the first place. this country spends 7% more as a percentage of GDP than the UK, yet the UK gets by with the occasional controversy over treatments being denied. I'm pretty certain that extra 7% of GDP (or, put another way, a 70% greater expenditure) can cover grandma's cancer treatments. But the insistence on sticking with private insurance, artificial restrictions on who can cover whom, protectionism toward the big pharmaceutical industry and 111 waivers for various organisations and friends of the administration to opt out of the healthcare farce, is making the American public sick.

I think you misunderstand what Krugman is saying. I've read many of the pieces he authored and heard him speak on various issues and I do not get the impression that he is part of the loonie crowd that equates medical effectiveness research with death panels. I took that comment as a sarcastic type remark rather than his endorsement of the idea that will be actual death panels.

But I agree on the remainder of your statement. The issue is that the profit driven health insurance system necessarily makes health care more expensive than it needs to be. The proof is in he pudding on this one - we're the only nation that has gone all private enterprise on this and we're the one nation paying dearly for that mistake. Not just as individuals but in terms of decreasing competitiveness in the world economy for our industries and businesses.

[Danno 1,228]

Even stoic George Will had a mystified look on his face as Krugman was expounding on this stuff.

[luckytxn 2,265]

So Palin was right? Dammit.

[Pooky 3,828]

I think you misunderstand what Krugman is saying.

No, the quote is plain as day. Context, or intent, in this case, are pointless distractions, as it is the words themselves, spoken by one of the Left's favourite sons, that will do the damage. He should have been smart and not a smarta$$.

Edited November 16, 2010 by Pooky

[one...two...tree 2,762]

No, the quote is plain as day. Context, or intent, in this case, are pointless distractions, as it is the words themselves, spoken by one of the Left's favourite sons, that will do the damage. He should have been smart and not a smarta$.

How dare him.

[Pooky 3,828]

How dare him he.

A few small repairs

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A few small repairs

You're kind of guy that laughs at weddings.

[Ban Hammer 13,509]

You're kind of guy that laughs at weddings.

after just one marriage, most guys will.

[Pooky 3,828]

You're kind of guy that laughs at weddings.

Always at weddings, never at funerals

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

No, the quote is plain as day. Context, or intent, in this case, are pointless distractions, as it is the words themselves, spoken by one of the Left's favourite sons, that will do the damage. He should have been smart and not a smarta$$.

Good Lord. It's this operating on snippets, the tearing statements out of their context that really limits our collective ability to engage in productive debates.

OMG, Krugman said death panels. OMG, Sarah was right!

Bullshite!

[Pooky 3,828]

Good Lord. It's this operating on snippets, the tearing statements out of their context that really limits our collective ability to engage in productive debates.

OMG, Krugman said death panels. OMG, Sarah was right!

Bullshite!

All this harping on about context misses the point completely. In this case, it's completely irrelevant, just as your reactionary gripe is irrelevant.

It comes down to the basic fact that words have power. Someone as allegedly smart as Paul Krugman should have know this and kept his big mouth shut, or at least refrained from calling them what he did. The fact that he referred to them as death panels is what is doing the damage. He was wrong, just as Sarah Palin is wrong.