(New Video) Krugman: Public Option Will Kill Private Insurance
Morgen on August 25, 2009 at 5:26 pm
I discovered and posted a video of NY Times columnist Paul Krugman in early July enlightening us all on the fact that the public option may ultimately evolve into a single-payer system. I know I’ve beaten this (trojan) horse into the ground repeatedly over the past few months. And I’m sure very few readers of this blog have any doubts that the reason the public option is so indispensable to liberals is precisely because it will lead to a government take-over of the healthcare system. But as long as the Administration and their willing partners in the media continue to characterize this claim as a “myth”, I am going to continue doing everything in my power to provide additional evidence to the contrary. (Have you seen the VS response to the White House “Reality Check” site?)
And so here, once again, is our gregarious friend from the NY Times, Paul Krugman, speaking about healthcare reform. This is a segment from an interview which aired on Democracy Now! in October 2007. Note that the video begins with a short clip of Hillary Clinton, as I wanted to highlight certain similarities with President Obama’s healthcare pitch. Watch:
You have to admit: Hillary’s pitch sounds much better coming from Obama. And the founding father of ObamaCare, John Edwards, should get some credit too.
And of course by now, there really should be no doubt that the public option was conceived by liberals as a politically viable way to implement a single payer system over time. The fact that the White House continues their misinformation campaign over this reflects a shocking disregard for the truth. And ultimately utter contempt for all Americans who are opposed to a single payer system.
But here is the more interesting point I wanted to make on this. Paul Krugman is a well-known economist who writes regularly for the NY Times. The fact that almost 2 years ago Krugman so willingly conceded information that conservatives have had to dig to uncover is a damning indictment of the bias and/or incompetence of the media. (And note also that Krugman made essentially this same point in a February 2007 NY Times column.)
The public option has now been the central controversy of healthcare reform for what…at least 3 months? And yet up until very recently, did anyone in the MSM think of looking into or reporting on how the idea came about? And whether conservative assertions that it is a trojan horse for single payer had any merit? Does it really take bloggers doing research in their spare time to discover and document information of such national importance?
Apparently the answer is yes. The only question is whether this was due to bias or incompetence on the part of the media. A little of both I’m sure. But as demonstrated by this video of Krugman and others, I have no doubt that there are quite a few members of the media who have been aware of the history and intent of the public option for some time. And thus, they have been silently complicit in this deception by their non-reporting. While this comes as no surprise to most conservatives, it’s a disgraceful betrayal of the public interest and the ideals of their profession.
Update:
By way of contrast, watch Paul Krugman towards the end of this ABC interview from last weekend call the arguments against the public option “sheer nonsense”:
Thanks to Mr. Krugman, we actually do have an “intellectual leg to stand on” – his own words!
Category: Health & Education, Politics |
[...] Paul Krugman says that public option would lead to single-payer health care Video from Verum Serum. [...]
August 25, 2009 @ 7:07 pmThe fact that Firedoglake posted that last video makes it perfect.
At this point, we could make a then vs. now clip featuring just Paul Krugman.
August 25, 2009 @ 10:51 pm[...] link is being shared on Twitter right now. @verumserum, an influential author, said New Post: (New [...]
August 26, 2009 @ 7:53 amWhat I don’t understand is how can an intelligent economist like Paul Krugman not see the immensity of costs for a universal health plan? I’m no mathematician, nor an economist, but 300+ MILLION people are sure a heck of a lot of people to provide health coverage for. And let’s face it, it’s not cheap! I believe he admitted this about half-way through the first video! So if the numbers just don’t add up, how can an economist of all people argue rationally and intelligently that a single-payer plan is the right way to go? Am I missing some crucial part of the equation here? And in the last video he claims that the Republican party doesn’t have an intellectual leg to stand on, but he makes no intellectual argument in favor for his position. Instead what I’ve been reading/hearing are nothing more than emotional arguments or arguments that claim poverty is an injustice (which it isn’t necessarily, unless there is direct oppression). Isn’t it more of an injustice to society to mislead and manipulate the less informed by making false claims and not being completely honest?
August 26, 2009 @ 8:13 am“What I don’t understand is how can an intelligent economist like Paul Krugman not see the immensity of costs for a universal health plan?”
Because cost is irrelevant. Outcomes are irrelevant.
Ideology is all important. This is about power and control. That’s it. That’s why they’re so angered by any opposition. If this was “merely” about costs (which are never accurately known) or outcomes (which are an open empirical question) the reaction of those in favor of health care conscription wouldn’t be so angry.
They’re angry because the serfs are rioting. The revolt is on. They believed, in the form of Obama, that they had an “aristocrat” who could sweet-talk the serfs into surrender. Turns out not so much.
Do you really think that monopolizing, then rationing decisions for seniors bothers Progressives? Not one bit. Those are abstract people. If they die, they die for the good cause of the Progressive’s own glory. They bent people to their will. What could be better than that? Besides, the old folks were going to die anyway.
August 26, 2009 @ 10:48 am[...] dynamite find by Verum Serum, on an endless mission to expose liberal doublespeak about what the public option would mean in [...]
August 26, 2009 @ 11:15 amWhat I hear in the comments posted on this and many other anti-health care sites is the sound of Pavlov’s dogs barking…and barking…and barking some more.
September 1, 2009 @ 9:44 pmDo all of you own millions of shares in medical insurance corporations?
Do you all believe that price gouging, denial of coverage and recission of policies by the “free” market insurance companies is perfectly acceptable and even preferable to having a public option or having our government be the payor?
Have none of you ever stopped to think of the human suffering and additional cost to society caused by ruinous medical bills and the resulting bankruptcies?
If your pent up rage over Obama and God knows what other “cause” is such that you need to continuously scream “socialized medicine” at any attempt to provide decent medical care to your fellow Americans then you are truely sick SOBs in need of regular and expensive therapy that is most likely not covered by whatever next to worthless private policy you may now have. And if you have no insurance? God, then you truly are sick.
To the extent that anyone here is even screaming “socialized medicine”…it’s only because the liberal proponents of healthcare reform actually do want to socialize the healthcare system. Yet for some strange reason they seem to only acknowledge this when speaking to friendly liberal audiences. Go figure.
And speaking only for myself, I am firmly opposed to the federal government intruding any further into the market for and provision of health care services (and payments). Philosophically and morally I’m against it. That’s all.
And I would add that most so called “progressives” are just as strongly against the idea of the government subsidizing payments to private insurers only. So we could just as easily accuse them of being against providing decent medical care to our fellow Americans.
September 2, 2009 @ 12:14 amMorgen
what if, and it’s just an if, what if the concept of a ‘market for… healthcare services’ is the problem?
To me, and I think this is as a Christian rather than as a European or as a liberal, the concept of looking after the weakest and most vulnerable members of society is a social responsibility, much like the provision of education, sanitation and policing. And, just like the provision of education, a private alternative is viable and almost inevitable.
September 2, 2009 @ 7:34 amKeith, sorry for the delayed response. I missed your comment when it came in.
This is a reasonable and intellectually honest argument in favor of a government-sponsored healthcare system. The problem I have with it is that this same argument could be utilized to advocate for the government provision of many other types of goods and services. If the higher goal is to look after “the weakest and most vulnerable members of society”, then why not socialize/nationalize the markets for food, transportation, housing? I think healthcare is much more comparable to industries such as these than the ones you cite (and don’t even get me started on education).
As has been documented elsewhere, if not here on VS, most of those cited as “uninsured” are either already eligible for Medicaid, or could afford insurance if it were a higher buying priority, or are not legal residents.
There are a lot of good arguments for some level of new insurance regulation/reform. But to upend the entire system due to a relatively small number of people who are truly in need does not strike me as a good idea. If this in fact was the primary motivation, I think all we’d be talking about is an expansion of Medicaid.
September 3, 2009 @ 2:11 pm