More healthcare defeatism from Krugman
In his latest column Paul Krugman makes clear, once again, that he does not know the difference between health insurance and health care.
Once again, all together now, WE NEED HEALTHCARE, NOT HEALTH INSURANCE!
There’s every reason to believe that a program that extends universal coverage to the nonelderly would soon become equally popular. Consider the case of Massachusetts, which passed a state-level plan for universal coverage two years ago.
The Massachusetts plan has come in for a lot of criticism. It includes individual mandates — that is, people are required to buy coverage, even if they’d prefer to take their chances. And its costs are running much higher than expected, mainly because it turns out that there were more people without insurance than anyone realized.
Mandated insurance is just a subsidy to the insurance industry, it does not produce health care.
Back to Krugman:
But it’s better to have an imperfect universal health care plan than none at all — and the only way to get a universal health care plan passed soon is to inoculate it against Harry-and-Louise-type claims that people will be forced into plans “designed by government bureaucrats.”
Wow, Krugman really never learns does he? Choice is exactly what the Clinton planned offered and the insurance companies shot it down.
HR 676, Medicare for All, has 91 cosponsors. Three of its supporters, Conyers, Frank, and Reyes, are committee chairs. Why does Krugman fancy himself a better judge of what is practical than 91 members of the House of Representatives? Why does Krugman fancy himself a better judge of what is practical than the US Conference of Mayors? Seriously, Krugman and every other health care defeatist owe the rest of us an answer to those questions.
More from nyceve
Blue Mass Group: Krugman on Healthcare: Aim for Mediocrity