<p>mini, Does the 40-50 mil uninsured, include ‘undocumenteds?’ I think the system is absurd too. The logic is screwed. </p>
<p>I don’t believe many people really understand how the system works, I don’t. And for what I got for doing DS health insurance, I am not impressed and feel taken.</p>
<p>I love my health insurance. Cigna managed care plan. Two hospital stays of three to four days each–total cost to me $0. Numerous laser eye treatments–$10 each. Both done at one of the best hospitals in the US. Waiting time to treatment–0.</p>
<p>runmanstl, Larry Summers is also an economist, one of the finest, he got a little side track, but are all hoping that he will find the light and come back to the fold.</p>
<p>He is probably the only person with 2 nobel laureate uncles.</p>
<p>hNeither Clinton’s nor Edwards’ plans would cover undocumented workers; Obama’s plan is silent on the issue, but there does not appear to be subsidies for them. Actually, quite a few of the 12 million undocumented workers have health care coverage now, through their employers. </p>
<p>[Undocumented</a> Shouldn’t Mean Uninsured, The New Republic: Leaving Illegal Immigrants Out Of Health Care Only Costs Taxpayers Money - CBS News](<a href=“http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/opinion/main3513412.shtml]Undocumented”>http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/16/opinion/main3513412.shtml)</p>
<p>The 40-50 million figure is very squishy - in most accounts, it would include those who are without insurance for any part of the year. On the other hand, if you include those who are without health insurance over a longer period of time (say 5 years), the number is well north of 50 million.</p>
<p>Waiting lists for cancer surgery among the insured in the U.S. are now longer than for elective surgery in Canada (according to the CEO of Aetna). Hillary Clinton seems to believe that $55 billion could be cut from the fat of health insurers through “efficiencies” - why health insurers would want greater unspecified “efficiencies” (i.e. lower profits) is beyond me. However, under te current system, such “efficiencies” include informal rationing of care through underwriting, and paying bonuses to primary care providers to delay or simply not make needed referrals. It is likely, however, that access to preventive care and, especially, to substance abuse and mental health treatment could result in massively lower emergency room costs (I can demonstrate that with hard numbers in Washington State in the substance abuse realm), and also reduce the incidence of, and costs related to certain chronic conditions. However, reduction in chronic care costs are usually not a high priority when insurers are in pursuit of short-term profit, especially as, in any employer-based system, the majority of individuals will change insurers when they change jobs. From the insurers’ point of view, the best thing to do is delay or deny care in the hope (often realized) that the patient will either change jobs or become sick enough that they are no longer employed.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, Krugman has been the victim of a sustained campaign against him by Republicans who seem really rankled by the fact that he consistently uses very well-reasoned and, yes, sometimes hard-hitting facts to uncover the travesty and lies of the current Administration and in fact certain Republican dogmas overall. There was actually a self-declared Republican operative who would follow Krugman around to public speaking engagements just to hound him. This sort of treatment was clearly indicative that Krugman was often hitting home with well-evidenced and cogently argued editorials. </p>
<p>Mean? Perhaps. Sometimes the truth hurts and sometimes those who point it out can seem mean to those who don’t want it pointed out.</p>
<p>Krugman tells it like it with intelligence and incisiveness. To a tee I have found partisan Republicans attacking his personality – saying things like he’s mean or losing it – because it is so hard to dispute him on the facts. In light of this, a good question is: who’s actually being partisan – those who reason their positions out or those who dismiss a critic out of hand as being partisan.</p>
<p>Krugman was a lone voice in the woods in the early years of the Bush administration - he predicted our current economic problems, particularly with the housing market. He was also an Edwards fan - one of the few in the press.</p>
<p>With regards to Krugman’s “partisanship” I would reply that it is a shame that in the climate of the last eight years someone who tried to speak the truth is branded with such a label. If more people had spoken out as Krugman did in 2003, Bush might not have been re-elected.</p>
<p>Thank you, bedhead and lizschup. </p>
<p>And I am appalled to see the Obamites stooping to the same routine character assassination tactics practiced by the Republican Slime Machine.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh, I haven’t seen this. And as a hearty Obama supporter who doesn’t feel that Hillary would have a chance in the general election, I nonetheless have a lot of respect for her and appreciation for the presidency of her husband. I feel something of the same thing with HRC that I felt with GWBush – i.e. that there’s something unseemly about a close family member having their candidacy based on their family name. The difference of course is that HRC appears to be fabulously smart and competent, whereas W has obviously in the presidency been way over his head and never has climbed the learning curve in any meaningful way – at great cost to us.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I knew that the Republican attack machine had turned its sights on Krugman when a friend of mine who worked in Rumsfeld’s Defense Department (yes, I do have Republican friends, though in this case my friend seemed to lose all her convictions for the sake of ambition and I’ve never been able to fathom how this happened to her) repeated something I had started to hear “Krugman has lost it. He’s insane.” Such things. That’s when I knew his well-considered criticisms were as on target as I had always perceived them to be. There was a driven effort to discredit him. His so-called partisanship is in response to the absolutely rabid partisanship of people that disagree with him. The likes of Razorsharp and perhaps too Marite.</p>
<p>With Obama, I do empathize with some of what Krugman has said, but I am ready to throw in with Obama as the candidate</p>
<p>Oh, Krugman . . . Read him most morning in my NY Times and he’s always nasty, crude, ready to call anyone who disagrees with him not just wrong but EVIL. It is a credit to Obama that Krugman dislikes him. </p>
<p>The thing about Krugman is that he essentially hates capitalism. It’s just that simple. He and his brethren are socialists. Hillary is very much in that camp. They are about one thing only – Entitlements paid for by the so-called rich. Not very imaginative but strikes a chord in a big part of the population. Obama is more nuanced, more coy about really outing himself in terms of his economic policies.</p>
<p>Krugman nasty and crude? LOL. </p>
<p>Krugman hates capitalism? Double LOL. </p>
<p>Hillary is a socialist? Yawn. (Let’s not forget that she murdered Vince Foster, too.)</p>
<p>This is so far from objective reality. Right-wing Republicanism is a quasi-religious belief that avoids rational analysis and facts–much less science, oh the horror!–in order to preserve that perfect state of virtue: the completely closed mind.</p>
<p>I think that Obama is more than an empty suit, and I am happy to support him in a GE. It’s not necessary to trash Clinton to get there, though. We’ve had enough of that garbage since 1980. Three-quarters of Obama’s appeal is the prospect of shutting the door on that era.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>See what I mean about the palaver that people who disagree with Krugman’s analyses say: He’s NASTY. He’s CRUDE.</p>
<p>I love it that someone came along so quickly to bear out all my points stated above about Krugman-hate.</p>
<p>And: Krugman is a commie. Mabel, git my shotgun. We’re gonna shoot us a nasty, crude commie.</p>
<p>Mammall,</p>
<pre><code>so·cial·ism
</code></pre>
<p>Pronunciation:
ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function:
noun
Date:
1837</p>
<p>1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done</p>
<p>Yeah - all the nasties come from the right, guys. Whatever. The last few posts in response to mine have been models of cordiality. </p>
<p>lizschup - I can look up socialism, too. And the definition is more than apt.</p>
<p>But maybe a Krugman afficianado on here can actually provide me with a link in which good old Paul actually says something - anything - nice about a private company or the private sector.</p>
<p>And finally - no, I don’t think Hillary murdered Vince. And I voted twice for Bill. So there. Bill was actually a pragmatist who understood the need for some balance and the health of a private sector. And he really wasn’t much of an entitlements kind of guy - remember ending welfare as we know it?</p>
<p>Hey, mammall, if you are going to dish it out, be prepared to take it back. </p>
<p>You can’t call people names and expect them to respond with sweetness and light.</p>
<p>Yet doctors flee Canada to the US at a ratio over 10:1 despite Canada being far smaller. 15% of Canadian doctors have left Canada for the US.</p>
<p>Also anyone who predicts an economic downturn for long enough will be right eventually. But you also miss 5-6 good years to make $$$.</p>
<p>Mammall, I think you have confused taxation with socialism. It’s unfortunate how Republicans in the last 10 to 15 years have characterized as socialist,any person or politician who is grappling with how to provide social services to the citizens of this country. Health care is a major economic issue and the head in the sand, “I’ve got mine, you get yours” intimated in Barrons smug post is typical of the current Republican stance. Can you understand that the cost of medical coverage makes our corporations less competitive in the world economy? Maybe you are one of the lucky ones, with no pre-existing conditions or a fabulous policy that is by the way, dependent on you staying healthy enough to work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>McKinsey Institute (of the McKinsey company, consulting giant) compared the health care systems of the OECD nations and concluded that while covering a far lesser percentage of our citizens and giving care that is actually quite inferior overall to that of our peer nations, the US pays $1,600 per capita more on average for health care than other OECD nations.</p>
<p>No wonder doctors are fleeing Canada as you say (though I’d like to see your source for this information). They undoubtedly like pursuing the opportunity to tap into that extra $1,600 per person that we are spending here. </p>
<p>What did you think such an isolated and frankly meaningless statistic proved? I am not against doctors receiving a nice compensation as a reward for their special training and talents, but please don’t be so obtuse as to suggest that this proves the system works better for all players. People tend to migrate to where they can get paid the most for their talents. Japanese baseball players come here to our big leagues. Americans go to work as contractors in Iraq. Prostitutes go to the big cities. Uh, it’s called economics.</p>
<p>It was not smug–it was exact fact. My plan is no super Cadillac plan. It’s the basic plan for our company and not nearly as good as other companies in town like Microsoft and Boeing have. Yet my eye doctor was fantastic and saved my eye from probable retina detachment. He came in on a Saturday night to treat me after I went to the emergency room and the first doctor diagnosed a large tear. Within an hour of my first exam I was in the laser treatment room. So that’s my real life contact with our medical service. Sorry it’s not the doom and gloom you wanted.</p>
<p>Meaningless?–if your best doctors leave what do you have left–second class ones. I posted the link a month or so ago in another discussion.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Glad to hear your care was good. I have worked with pediatricians in the US and in Brazil (for my daughter). My wife used to complain that the pediatricians here aren’t as good as in Brazil and I dismissed what she said, until I went there and saw them in action. They have more time and are much more thorough.</p>
<p>I don’t think these anecdotes prove anything. It’s best to look at competent people who have studied the issue and provided a comprehensive and systematic analysis.</p>
<p>McKinsey did – and the company is hardly a bastion of socialism or doom and gloom – but the conclusion that we pay much more, get poor quality, and cover far fewer is clear:</p>
<p>[McKinsey</a> & Company - Synthesis - Accounting for the Cost of Health Care in the United States - January 2007](<a href=“http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/rp/healthcare/accounting_cost_healthcare.asp]McKinsey”>http://www.mckinsey.com/mgi/rp/healthcare/accounting_cost_healthcare.asp)</p>
<p>[CTV</a> Toronto - Doctors leaving Ontario for jobs elsewhere - CTV News, Shows and Sports – Canadian Television](<a href=“Doctors leaving Ontario for jobs elsewhere | CTV News”>Doctors leaving Ontario for jobs elsewhere | CTV News)</p>