Krugman on Health Reform Myths

Transcript from Paul Ryan at the "bipartisan" health care summit:


The authors of the overhauls before us have worked tirelessly to load the legislation with gimmicks and tricks to game the cost estimates and fulfill the President’s deficit pledge.

The Majority Leader said the bill scores as reducing deficit by $131 billion over the next 10 years.

First a little bit about CBO: I work with them every single day; very good people; great professionals. They do their jobs well. But their job is to score what is placed in front of them. And what has been placed in front of them is a bill that is fill of gimmicks and smoke and mirrors.

Now what do I mean when I say that?

First off, the bill has ten years of tax increases and ten years of Medicare cuts to pay for six years of spending. The true ten year cost when subsidies kick-in? $2.3 trillion.

The bill is full of gimmicks that more than erase the false claim of deficit reduction:

$52 billion of savings is claimed by counting increased Social Security payroll revenues. These dollars are already claimed for future Social Security beneficiaries, and claiming to offset the cost of this bill either means we’re double-counting or we’re not going to pay Social Security benefits.

$72 billion in savings is claimed from the CLASS Act – long-term care insurance. These so-called savings are not offsets, but rather premiums collected to pay for future benefits.7 Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad has called these savings, “A ponzi scheme that would make Bernie Madoff proud.”

Additionally, the nearly half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts cannot be counted twice. Medicare is in dire need of reform in order to make certain that we can ensure health security for future seniors.

Using Medicare as a piggy bank, it raids a half trillion dollars from retirees’ health coverage to fund the creation of another open-ended health care entitlement.

The President’s chief Medicare actuary says up to 20% of Medicare providers may go bankrupt or stop taking Medicare beneficiaries as a result. Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage will lose the coverage they now enjoy.

Objections to the policy aside, you cannot use these savings twice – to both extend the life of Medicare and to pay for other spending. The half-trillion dollars in Medicare cuts are either to extend the program’s solvency or to reduce the cost of this deficit – but not both as its authors claim.

When you strip away the double-counting of Medicare cuts, the so-called savings from Social Security payroll taxes and the CLASS Act, the deficit increases by $460 billion over first ten years – and $1.4 trillion over second ten years.

Finally, one of the most expensive – and most cynical – of the gimmicks applies to Medicare physician payments, the so-called “Doc Fix.”

By your own estimate, the Doc Fix adds an additional $371 billion to the cost of health care reform. With the price tag beyond what most Americans could handle, the Majority decided to simply remove this costly provision and deal with it in a stand-alone bill.

Ignoring this additional cost does not remove it from the backs of taxpayers. Hiding spending doesn’t reduce spending.

 

So basically fuck all the people who don't have health care and just let them die ?

 

+1 Brother

 

Most because they don't have insurance and repeatedly have to go to the ER,and those 2,000 ER bills get passed on to everybody else

 

Well if you think that is the only alternative to nationalized health care, yes.

 

I suggested this on March 4th...

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=2754478&highlight=medicare#post2754478

 

Krugman is the Al Gore of economics. I can't believe anyone even reads what he writes much less care about it.

 

I believe that is part of Denninger's "4 Point Plan". Too bad he didn't put a link in the article - he usually does. BTW, the insurance companies hate competition, that's why they are behind the government's legislation to restrict it.

 

The difference is that Grayson's plan is to be paid for by the users, not taxes.

BTW, how is private insurance not a form of socialized medicine that "conservatives" are so vocal about? You pay your premium, but if you have a major problem it it "other people's money" that pays for your treatment. I guess one difference is that under a private plan you actually pay the company to hire experts to find ways to deny you coverage. Another would be that, in the case of Anthem/Blue Cross of California, when the younger, lower cost customers leave they jack up your rates 40% in one year.

 

Wow, I am stunned at the stupidity of this.