Paul Krugman shows that Medicare is much better at controlling costs than private insurance:
If Medicare costs had risen as fast as private insurance premiums, it would cost around 40 percent more than it does. If private insurers had done as well as Medicare at controlling costs, insurance would be a lot cheaper.
There’s no mystery here. Bigger risk pools control costs better than smaller risk pools.
If everybody joins Team Medicare, Medicare will have more market power to push down the growth in health care suppliers’ prices, just like Amazon and Walmart push down their suppliers’ prices.
If we do what Paul Ryan and Charlie Dent want to do, and everyone splinters off into many different small private teams, then no one has enough market power to push down the growth in health care suppliers’ prices.
That is why CBO says health care costs would double for the typical senior under RyanCare:
Paul Krugman is a hack. He lies, twists facts, and misrepresents things to make his point.
He's a perfect fit for this blog.
All this will mean is that more and more providers will opt out of Medicare and instead accept cash only.
The attempts to make everyone equal will only result in the best and brightest providers catering to the affluent, and the rest getting served by those who will exist solely on what the government (and not the free market) decides they should be paid.
I'll take free market, any day!
And this operates under the assumption that the Federal Government is an efficient operator.
The next case anyone shows me that this is true will be the first case.
That Krugman, who has some gray hair, would believe this assumption show's he's an idiot. That Geeting believes this assumption shows he's young, inexperienced, and easily mislead by shiny trinkets.
"Paul Krugman is a hack. He lies, twists facts, and misrepresents things to make his point."
Of course Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize. And what prizes did you win, Shithead at 2:04 PM?
Anon 344pm, the Nobel Prizes have been dropping in legitimacy for years, culminating in Obama winning the Peace Prize despite (by his own admission) having done absolutely nothing to have earned it.
And if you had read anything about Krugman winning it in 2008, you'd know that there was substantial controversy related to his award.
Second, all you need to know that Krugman is a hack is to read him, which I do because I won't just rule someone out without doing it from a standpoint of knowledge.
His writing is similar to this blog – leaps of faith, ignoring facts that run counter to the point being made, lack of analytical reasoning, shortcuts that don't stand to reason, and at times pure misdirection (I'm being kind by not saying he's lying).
Thank you by the way for capitalizing Shithead, appreciate the respect.
You're pathetic. Krugman lies? Please show me one of Krugman's lies.
Look, single payer systems work in every other country. The only other country with a system of private insurers is Switzerland and they have the second-most expensive health care in the world after us. It's the private insurance approach that's untested and unproven.
We know that single payer works. Countries with single payer systems hold down costs better, and there's no secret to how this works – they pay health care providers less per unit of care than we do.
Their health systems are funded through taxes, and people are stingy about taxes so cost growth is very slow. People are free to go spend their after-tax dollars on whatever they want, but the question of what the government insurer ought to cover is a different matter.
Most recent example – when he talked about 10yr treasury rates while ignoring the impact of flight to safety and QE2.
Misleading at best – lying about some of the causes of low rates at worst.
There are literally thousands of similar examples. He hasn't been an economist for a long time, he turned into a political hack. Damn shame because he is smart.
And what happens in single payer countries? Rationing of care and people who can afford it come here for treatment that would take them 12-18 months to get in their home country. It creates more class warfare than anything.
Read Krugman's blog. He acknowledges precisely the point you're making. Everyone understands that the US is benefitting from a "least ugly" fiscal situation right now. That's still no reason not to take advantage of the low cost of borrowing money while we can.
What are the thousands of other examples?
Rationing happens in the US right now. Look at all the people who can't purchase insurance because of preexisting conditions and prohibitive out of pocket costs. The only decision you have is whether rationing is going to happen by denying people care or queueing. But there are good reasons to believe we won't even get to the point of longer wait times because of how much waste there is in the system. If 30% of our health care spending is wasted on things that aren't making us healthier, as health economists are saying, then we can reduce a lot of spending through Medicare without any tradeoffs.
Is it your position that we should continue rationing by making people who can't pay go without health care?