Paul Krugman "death panels"

Post Reply New Topic

See:
http://nation.foxnews.com/paul-krugman/ ... nce-budget

Was this for real or is it "wag the dog"?

ruveyn

You might want to try posting from a less partisan source than Fox News.

Actually watching the video, I see Paul Krugman did suggest "death panels." He seems to be using Sarah Palin's phrase ironically. What he said was that it is important to look at the costs and benefits of terminal care. Should we spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep someone who will die within a couple of months alive but bed ridden and out of it on painkillers? That kind of calculating is a bit disturbing, but private health-insurance companies weigh costs and benefits all the time. I don't really know enough about terminal/hospice care to have much opinion. Obviously panels that judge who is worthy of being treated or not are out of the question.

I think he's using the term in jest but he's definitely in support of the so called "death panels". The very same ones he mocked conservatives of making up. The fact he thinks you can balance the budget with them(along with a VAT) is laughable tho. Never does it cross his mind to cut spending ever.

Krugman seems quite serious on the video to me, and he uses the term "death panel" twice.

Ruveyn, yes, it's for real. Modern medicine can spend near infinite amounts of money on marginal prolonging of life. On average, people on medicare cost the medicare system four times as much money in the year they die as in any other year - which is eight times the rate of monetary expenditure, given they die on average half way through their last year.

As long as the government is paying the bills, the only way to limit expenditures is for the government to decide when to cut off medical care. So Krugman is partly right - given his assumption that the government is paying, "death panels" are ultimately the only solution.

Of course, as usual, Krugman gets his assumptions wrong. If you let people make their own decisions about what kind of insurance and care to buy, they can ultimately make their own decisions about where they draw the line. That's a more dignified solution - not to mention a better one from the point of view of allowing new procedures to be developed and made more cost effective.

Did he really say what he said or was the video faked?

ruveyn

I think it was more of NeantHumain rushed to judgment and then discovered that Fox News was actually telling the truth.

You miss the point. The point raised was whether Krugman really spoke of "death panels" or not. You can ask further whether he meant what he said literally or whether he was exaggerating for effect. This is not the point I raised. He really said "death panels" or the video was faked.

ruveyn

How are "death panels" any different from the legal wrangling and agents who deny benefits to private insurance? I've still yet to hear a clear difference other than dramatizations of 'killing grandma' or some other nonsense like as if insurance companies have never denied coverage or found ways out of even paying for legit claims on false claims of "pre-existing conditions".

I'd rather insurance be done away with, a socialized plan put into place, and institute better education in schools for healthcare so that the system won't be abused because people might actually know something. Something more legit than a PE health class that might allow people to understand basic diagnostics and care.


/doesn't go running to the doctor for every minor sniffle
//and neither should you...quit wasting resources on your petty rhinovirus.

I can sue the insurance company for a lot of money if someone dies from their legal wrangling. It can also cost them a lot of business too when other customers find out about it they may switch companies (particularly businesses which have large purchasing power). Try using that same leverage against an unelected official in D.C. whom you would have pretty much no legal recourse against. (Courtesy of Obamacare)



Different people have different immune systems. Furthermore, if you put government in charge of your health they can tell you what to eat, what to buy etc., because they are paying for your health care.



Actually, people can die from the flu particularly children you can suffer permanent brain damage if your temperature gets above a certain value.

Furthermore, sometimes the sniffles can be the sign of something else that if you don't see a doctor early on it can blow up into something far worse requiring hospital care. Whereas if you saw the doctor earlier, some simple antibiotics would have dealt with it. Not to mention the people whom had weak immune systems that you may have passed it on to.

You're implying that educating people about it would make them not want to abuse it rather teaching them how to abuse it.

So much paranoia about a realistic conversation about how to cut health care costs. First of all, the original use of the term "death panels," by Palin was about the government's offer to pay for a consultation with one's doc about end of life care. Never was it suggested that the choice be taken away from the patient.

Before the health care reform effort even became a serious topic, politicians on both sides were in agreement that part of the problem with rising costs was related to end of life care. There was a bipartisan conversation about how, unfortunately, we may very well need to investigate which treatments may not be necessary. This is a hard conversation, but an important one. A very effective way to deal with the problem is to give the patient a better understanding of their options and more choice on the matter. Not everyone in hospice care even wanted to be there in the first place.

Paul Krugman is a very intelligent and very down to earth man. His greatest blunder is that he expects too much of his audience. He assumes that everyone understands that a term like "death panels" is an absurdity, but he is apparently mistaken.

To be precise, there will be no "death panels". There will be the mechanisms of rationing medical care. The big difference is when the government does it, it is back by Law and Arms. When private companies do it there is always a chance, however slight to find an alternative in the market place. Perhaps there could be insurance for people with pre-existing conditions but which would require a higher premium which is only fair. The greater the risk of casualty the greater should be the premium.

ruveyn

One has a choice about what insurance to use - and that fact will cause competition to keep the insurance companies' decisions more in line with their customers'. Granted it would work better if people generally chose their own insurance, rather than having it chosen for them by their employers.


"More choice" may well lead to increasing costs rather than decreasing costs. Krugman, for all his blindness to private sector solutions, at least recognizes that "less choice" is ultimately what will be needed, with the government dictating which choices are not going to be available. Indeed, that's implied by your own statement about investigating "which treatments may not be necessary", since the only way to save money with that knowledge is then to deny those treatments.

Antibiotics don't do anything to a virus. And the flu has different symptoms than a common cold. And still, you complain about crowded ER's: that's why. People go into the ER's for things that should be private practice/family doctor type visits like the common cold.

I've never had a choice other than how little insurance I want.