Krugman: Pass the Bill

[Nbadan]

...take out the fines for the non-insured and I could live with it...

Pass the Bill
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: December 17, 2009


A message to progressives: By all means, hang Senator Joe Lieberman in effigy. Declare that you’re disappointed in and/or disgusted with President Obama. Demand a change in Senate rules that, combined with the Republican strategy of total obstructionism, are in the process of making America ungovernable.

But meanwhile, pass the health care bill.

Yes, the filibuster-imposed need to get votes from “centrist” senators has led to a bill that falls a long way short of ideal. Worse, some of those senators seem motivated largely by a desire to protect the interests of insurance companies — with the possible exception of Mr. Lieberman, who seems motivated by sheer spite.

But let’s all take a deep breath, and consider just how much good this bill would do, if passed — and how much better it would be than anything that seemed possible just a few years ago. With all its flaws, the Senate health bill would be the biggest expansion of the social safety net since Medicare, greatly improving the lives of millions. Getting this bill would be much, much better than watching health care reform fail.

At its core, the bill would do two things. First, it would prohibit discrimination by insurance companies on the basis of medical condition or history: Americans could no longer be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition, or have their insurance canceled when they get sick. Second, the bill would provide substantial financial aid to those who don’t get insurance through their employers, as well as tax breaks for small employers that do provide insurance.

All of this would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs.

The result would be a huge increase in the availability and affordability of health insurance, with more than 30 million Americans gaining coverage, and premiums for lower-income and lower-middle-income Americans falling dramatically. That’s an immense change from where we were just a few years ago: remember, not long ago the Bush administration and its allies in Congress successfully blocked even a modest expansion of health care for children.

Bear in mind also the lessons of history: social insurance programs tend to start out highly imperfect and incomplete, but get better and more comprehensive as the years go by. Thus Social Security originally had huge gaps in coverage — and a majority of African-Americans, in particular, fell through those gaps. But it was improved over time, and it’s now the bedrock of retirement stability for the vast majority of Americans.

Look, I understand the anger here: supporting this weakened bill feels like giving in to blackmail — because it is. Or to use an even more accurate metaphor suggested by Ezra Klein of The Washington Post, we’re paying a ransom to hostage-takers. Some of us, including a majority of senators, really, really want to cover the uninsured; but to make that happen we need the votes of a handful of senators who see failure of reform as an acceptable outcome, and demand a steep price for their support.

The question, then, is whether to pay the ransom by giving in to the demands of those senators, accepting a flawed bill, or hang tough and let the hostage — that is, health reform — die.

Again, history suggests the answer. Whereas flawed social insurance programs have tended to get better over time, the story of health reform suggests that rejecting an imperfect deal in the hope of eventually getting something better is a recipe for getting nothing at all. Not to put too fine a point on it, America would be in much better shape today if Democrats had cut a deal on health care with Richard Nixon, or if Bill Clinton had cut a deal with moderate Republicans back when they still existed.

But won’t paying the ransom now encourage more hostage-taking in the future? Maybe. But the next big fight, over the future of the financial system, will be very different. If the usual suspects try to water down financial reform, I say call their bluff: there’s not much to lose, since a merely cosmetic reform, by creating a false sense of security, could well end up being worse than nothing.

Beyond that, we need to take on the way the Senate works. The filibuster, and the need for 60 votes to end debate, aren’t in the Constitution. They’re a Senate tradition, and that same tradition said that the threat of filibusters should be used sparingly. Well, Republicans have already trashed the second part of the tradition: look at a list of cloture motions over time, and you’ll see that since the G.O.P. lost control of Congress it has pursued obstructionism on a literally unprecedented scale. So it’s time to revise the rules.

But that’s for later. Right now, let’s pass the bill that’s on the table.

NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=2)

[101A]

All of this would be paid for in large part with the first serious effort ever to rein in rising health care costs.

What part of the Bill, exactly, is that?

Krugman may not be an idiot, but he IS every bit the partisan hack Rush Limbaugh is.

Mandating additional coverage, and loosening underwriting rules to non-existent WILL NOT save money; they will cost money. Then, Dan wants us to drink the double shot grape Kool-Aid by NOT penalizing people who don't get insurance, and THEN make the insurance companies take them not matter what their free-loading selves eventually contract!

The problem with the system is runaway costs; control that, or you might as well not pass a bill. NOTHING in this bill addresses that very basic point, despite the fact that Krugman says it does.

[Yonivore]

...take out the fines for the non-insured and I could live with it...
And, if Insurance companies are required to take on people with pre-existing conditions, who's going to buy insurance before they need it?

[admiralsnackbar]

And, if Insurance companies are required to take on people with pre-existing conditions, who's going to buy insurance before they need it?

Excellent question.

[Yonivore]

Excellent question.
I've been asking it for months...

[admiralsnackbar]

I've been asking it for months...

To be fair, if you've been following the "development" of the bill, you needn't have asked it so long -- if membership in a health policy will become compulsory as it has appeared it will for the past several months, your question is answered.

[Yonivore]

To be fair, if you've been following the "development" of the bill, you needn't have asked it so long -- if membership in a health policy will become compulsory as it has appeared it will for the past several months, your question is answered.
Au contraire, even when the mandate existed -- and it has, in some form or fashion, for several months -- the penalties never exceeded the cost of insurance and, therefore, provided no incentive to purchase insurance before it was needed.

My question had been valid for months...

[admiralsnackbar]

Au contraire, even when the mandate existed -- and it has, in some form or fashion, for several months -- the penalties never exceeded the cost of insurance and, therefore, provided no incentive to purchase insurance before it was needed.

My question had been valid for months...

I see. Touché, then. :toast

[doobs]

Yonivore, you are right.

A person has no real incentive to purchase health insurance if he cannot be turned down for pre-existing conditions. So this provision, standing alone, does nothing to improve the prospects of increasing coverage. In fact, it encourages the uninsured to remain uninsured.

To remedy that, the legislation proposes an individual mandate. But, like you said, the penalties are too minimal to be effective. If the Democrats had any balls, they would propose high penalties or jail time for non-compliance with the individual mandate.

That's the problem. They're trying to half-throttle their coercive measures to fix healthcare. I'd rather the federal government just give poor people healthcare vouchers (tax credits?) to purchase catastrophic insurance.

[Winehole23]

That's the problem. They're trying to half-throttle their coercive measures to fix healthcare. I'd rather the federal government just give poor people healthcare vouchers (tax credits?) to purchase catastrophic insurance.Instead of two costly stimulus bills, extension of unemployment benefits -- trickle-down stimulus and so forth -- you have direct (temporary, ok?) abatement of payroll and corporate taxes.

Workers get more take home. Businesses will not grow if they do not a have a market to sell to, true, so the effect may not be directly stimulative,short run, but a shallower draught may help keep them off of rocky shoals until they find clear sailing again. So that is one idea.

Here is another, slightly OT: A good friend of mine -- a very conservative, very military fellow -- suggested direct stimulus as being simpler and better. Just take whatever the amount is and give it directly to Americans.

Supposing that you have to even have a stimulus bill to start with, I couldn't think of any reason why not. Can you, doobs?

[Winehole23]

They're trying to half-throttle their coercive measures to fix healthcare.Likes the half-throttle.

[Winehole23]

To remedy that, the legislation proposes an individual mandate. But, like you said, the penalties are too minimal to be effective. If the Democrats had any balls, they would propose high penalties or jail time for non-compliance with the individual mandate.Don't worry, doobs. More drastic penalties will be phased back in at some point.

[Yonivore]

Don't worry, doobs. More drastic penalties will be phased back in at some point.
Not necessary because, private insurance cannot long survive a model where only sick people buy insurance -- and, then, only when they are sick and their health care costs far exceed anything they might pay in premiums.

At that point, the government will just take premiums in the form of taxes, from those who pay taxes, give health care to everyone, and call it a day.

[boutons_deux]

poor people who can't afford to pay the gouging prices of for-profit private insurance will have subsidies, but they still have to fork over something.

If not, they will be penalized in 2 years or so.

aka, a HUGE WIN for the private insurers, delivered to them by the Congress they paid for.

[Winehole23]

Not necessary because, private insurance cannot long survive a model where only sick people buy insurance -- and, then, only when they are sick and their health care costs far exceed anything they might pay in premiums. Doomed. To swift failure. Obviously. Sometime after 2013.

[Yonivore]

Doomed. To swift failure. Obviously. Sometime after 2013.
It won't take long.

[Winehole23]

I thought it was going to take the rest of our lives.

That was the whole point of the GOP filibustering the defense bill, or reading Sen. Sanders 300 page amendment to reinsert an already doomed public option out loud, wasn't it?

Push it off until after Christmas somehow, and hope it continues to lose steam.

[Yonivore]

I thought it was going to take the rest of our lives.

That was the whole point of the GOP filibustering the defense bill, or reading Sen. Sanders 300 page amendment to reinsert an already doomed public option out loud, wasn't it?

Push it off until after Christmas somehow, and hope it continues to lose steam.
It appears we're no longer talking about the same things...

[angrydude]

Krugman may not be an idiot...

lol. no. He's just an idiot with a really big megaphone.

[Winehole23]

It appears we're no longer talking about the same things...Not reform?

[doobs]

Here is another, slightly OT: A good friend of mine -- a very conservative, very military fellow -- suggested direct stimulus as being simpler and better. Just take whatever the amount is and give it directly to Americans.

Supposing that you have to even have a stimulus bill to start with, I couldn't think of any reason why not. Can you, doobs?

Are we talking generally about stimulus? If so, there is a mounting body of empirical evidence to suggest that, of the fiscal tools typically employed to stimulate the economy, tax cuts work the best. Here's a particularly interesting recent study. (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/Large%2Bchanges%2Bin%2Bfiscal%2Bpolicy_October_200 9.pdf)

This is sort of counterintuitive---since increased government spending presumably means more money is spent in the economy, thereby boosting consumer demand, and tax cuts presumably could mean money is just put away and saved by recession-weary taxpayers.

I'm not sure where direct payments---stimulus checks---fit in to all this.

[Winehole23]

I'm not sure where direct payments---stimulus checks---fit in to all this.Versus a trickle-down stimulus? Maybe they don't.

What about payroll taxes, then?

[iggypop123]

shave your beard first and i will listen

[Supergirl]

I agree with him 100%

[ElNono]

Not necessary because, private insurance cannot long survive a model where only sick people buy insurance -- and, then, only when they are sick and their health care costs far exceed anything they might pay in premiums.

At that point, the government will just take premiums in the form of taxes, from those who pay taxes, give health care to everyone, and call it a day.

Exactly. Now, let's get it done...

[ElNono]

Now, as far as Krugman, whenever he sponsors something, the first thing I suspect is that he's going to be making money out of it somewhere. I wonder where that is in this case.

[Yonivore]

Exactly. Now, let's get it done...
Then, you'll have health care rationing with "death panels" deciding who gets treated and what treatments are available.

Health care for everyone cannot be fiscally supported by the 50% of us who pay taxes. It just can't be done.

[ElNono]

Then, you'll have health care rationing with "death panels" deciding who gets treated and what treatments are available.

We have health care rationing now, with the death panels ran by corporations.
So that part certainly does not scare me.


Health care for everyone cannot be fiscally supported by the 50% of us who pay taxes. It just can't be done.

Opinion, and most likely not true. There's copious amount of evidence to the contrary by pretty much the rest of the planet.
It's just a matter of will. Just as we have a will to overspend in anything military, we have to have a will to spend on the health of this nation.
Unfortunately that's easier said than done.

[Yonivore]

We have health care rationing now, with the death panels ran by corporations.
So that part certainly does not scare me.
No you don't. You obviously don't know what is rationing.


Opinion, and most likely not true. There's copious amount of evidence to the contrary by pretty much the rest of the planet.
It's just a matter of will. Just as we have a will to overspend in anything military, we have to have a will to spend on the health of this nation.
Unfortunately that's easier said than done.
That's why Medicare is solvent, right?

[ElNono]

No you don't. You obviously don't know what is rationing.

I'm pretty sure I do. But go ahead and tell you your version of it.


That's why Medicare is solvent, right?

It's not about solvency at all. That's like asking, is our Military solvent?
The litmus test is wether you're getting the service you're paying for.
If, on top of that, you can manage the service to be self-suficient (like the post office has been for many years), then great. But it's definitely not a prerequisite.

[Yonivore]

I'm pretty sure I do. But go ahead and tell you your version of it.
As it stands now, you can pretty much receive any treatment required for your illness. On demand -- even if you're indigent. Will you go into debt if your illness is serious? Probably. But, that's your choice.

Under Obamacare, their will only be so much care to go around. It won't matter who you are, if the Oncologist is booked through March 17, 2013, you're screwed. Hell, they've already started with telling women they should forgo mammograms until 50 when it's an established fact that mammograms in the 40's has detected many cancers and saved countless lives.


It's not about solvency at all. That's like asking, is our Military solvent?
National Defense is a constitutional obligation of the government and the use of our defense is largely dependent on the unanticipated actions of other nations.

Your Health is your business. You have no constitutional right to health care. If you do, I want the constitutional right to make you quit smoking and engaging in behaviors that will cost me money.


The litmus test is wether you're getting the service you're paying for.
Who's paying?


If, on top of that, you can manage the service to be self-suficient (like the post office has been for many years), then great. But it's definitely not a prerequisite.
The Post Office?

[ChumpDumper]

Then, you'll have health care rationing with "death panels" deciding who gets treated and what treatments are available.

Health care for everyone cannot be fiscally supported by the 50% of us who pay taxes. It just can't be done.You still think there is public health care in this bill?

[Yonivore]

You still think there is public health care in this bill?
I still think we end up with a Single Payer system if this bill is enacted. Yes.

Private insurance companies will not be able to survive under the mandates currently in this legislation. I certainly won't be able to afford the premiums that will be required for insurance companies to offset the costs of having to cover people with pre-existing conditions and having to provide coverage for certain treatments. Neither will you.

The authors of this legislation know that.

[ChumpDumper]

I still think we end up with a Single Payer system if this bill is enacted. Yes.It's not an inevitability. Only an idiot thinks in such terms.

[Yonivore]

It's not an inevitability. Only an idiot thinks in such terms.
Okay, you explain to me how the insurance companies survive this.

If you could buy fire insurance after your house is burning, wouldn't you wait and see if it ever catches fire? And, if only those people whose houses caught fire ever bought fire insurance, how would the insurance companies ever survive?

Same with health care. If this bill is enacted, I'm dropping my insurance until I get sick. Then, if and when I do, I'll step up to Blue Cross and Blue Shield and say, I'm sick, insure me. They start paying doctors on day one. I pay a premium -- probably a lot bigger than the $400 a month I'm paying now but, hey, I've not been paying up to that point.

Tell me how the companies survive that business model.

[ChumpDumper]

Tell me, Yoni -- are there health care systems in the world other than the US system and single-payer systems?

Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, you explain to me how the insurance companies survive this.

If you could buy fire insurance after your house is burning, wouldn't you wait and see if it ever catches fire? And, if only those people whose houses caught fire ever bought fire insurance, how would the insurance companies ever survive?

Same with health care. If this bill is enacted, I'm dropping my insurance until I get sick. Then, if and when I do, I'll step up to Blue Cross and Blue Shield and say, I'm sick, insure me. They start paying doctors on day one. I pay a premium -- probably a lot bigger than the $400 a month I'm paying now but, hey, I've not been paying up to that point.

Tell me how the companies survive that business model.If there is a mandate to have insurance, how can you not have insurance?

You simply don't know what you are talking about.

[Yonivore]

Tell me, Yoni -- are there health care systems in the world other than the US system and single-payer systems?

Yes or no.
We're talking about this piece of legislation. You can answer my question or ignore me but, I'm not running down your rabbit holes.

So, you tell me, how does the American private insurance industry survive this legislation?

[ChumpDumper]

We're talking about this piece of legislation.You were not.

[Yonivore]

If there is a mandate to have insurance, how can you not have insurance?
By paying a $750 tax annually, for not having insurance. That's still cheaper than the premiums that would be required to support such a system.


You simply don't know what you are talking about.
No, I do.

[ChumpDumper]

By paying a $750 tax annually, for not having insurance. That's still cheaper than the premiums that would be required to support such a system.You're going to pay that for every member of your family?

[Yonivore]

You were not.
Yeah, I was. I was talking about how this legislation will kill the private insurance industry and result in a single-payer system.

[Yonivore]

You're going to pay that for every member of your family?
Even if I did, it would be cheaper than the premiums for insurance. It'd be about a hundred dollars cheaper, per month and that's before the private insurance premiums start skyrocketing due to Obamacare.

[ChumpDumper]

Even if I did, it would be cheaper than the premiums for insurance. It'd be about a hundred dollars cheaper, per month and that's before the private insurance premiums start skyrocketing due to Obamacare.Then increase the penalty.

That was easy.

[Yonivore]

Then increase the penalty.

That was easy.
They tried that -- it was up to $3000.00 at one point, I think -- but, got shouted down by their own party. I think they're threatening to throw me in jail if I don't buy insurance now.

But, my question to you is how does the private insurance industry survive this health care reform as it is currently being proposed?

[ChumpDumper]

They tried that -- it was up to $3000.00 at one point, I think -- but, got shouted down by their own party. I think they're threatening to throw me in jail if I don't buy insurance now.Then do it again. Throwing you in jail sounds like a great idea.


But, my question to you is how does the private insurance industry survive this health care reform as it is currently being proposed?It will not be the last legislation ever passed on health care.

There will be no apocalypse.

[Yonivore]

Then do it again.
You're talking to the wrong person. I don't want this legislation at all.


It will not be the last legislation ever passed on health care.

There will be no apocalypse.
That's a non-answer. How will the private insurance industry survive this legislation as currently proposed?

[ChumpDumper]

You're talking to the wrong person. I don't want this legislation at all.Tough shit. I'm saying the issues of mandates and penalties can be addressed again and again and again.


That's a non-answer.It's the answer you refuse to hear because you want it to be an apocalypse. I understand.

[Yonivore]

Tough shit.
Exactly my point. The authors and supporters of this legislation think, tough shit for the insurance companies. And, that's how we end up with a single payer system.


It's the answer you refuse to hear because you want it to be an apocalypse. I understand.
No, saying...


It will not be the last legislation ever passed on health care.

There will be no apocalypse.
...to the question, "How will the insurance companies survive this legislation as currently proposed?" is a non-answer.

If the authors of this legislation are saying "tough shit" to the insurance companies, how big of a hurry do you think they'll be in to follow up with legislation that will save the industry?

You're right about one thing, this won't be the last legislation ever passed on health care...

[ChumpDumper]

Exactly my point. The authors and supporters of this legislation think, tough shit for the insurance companies. And, that's how we end up with a single payer system.Nah. They will be well taken care of.



No, saying...


...to the question, "How will the insurance companies survive this legislation as currently proposed?" is a non-answer.It's the answer you don't want to hear.


If the authors of this legislation are saying "tough shit" to the insurance companies, how big of a hurry do you think they'll be in to follow up with legislation that will save the industry?As soon as the Republicans get back in power, if nothing else. Otherwise, as soon as the insurance companies buy enough votes from Democrats. It's not rocket science.


You're right about one thing, this won't be the last legislation ever passed on health care...So relax. There is no apocalypse.

[Yonivore]

Nah. They will be well taken care of.
Prove it. (Isn't that what you always say?) Because, as it stands now, the insurance industry will be toast under this scheme.


It's the answer you don't want to hear.
No, it's actually not an answer to the question. Seriously. Read my question and tell me how your response answers it.


As soon as the Republicans get back in power, if nothing else. Otherwise, as soon as the insurance companies buy enough votes from Democrats. It's not rocket science.
So, you're answer is to let Congress monkey around with 17% of the economy on the possibility Republicans will clean up their mess in the future? Nice.


So relax. There is no apocalypse.
I just agreed there'd be more legislation not that it would be any better than what we have now.

[ChumpDumper]

Prove it. (Isn't that what you always say?)It's something you never do.
Because, as it stands now, the insurance industry will be toast under this scheme.The scheme will change. And change again. And again. No apocalypse.


No, it's actually not an answer to the question. Seriously. Read my question and tell me how your response answers it.Seriously, it's been answered.


So, you're answer is to let Congress monkey around with 17% of the economy on the possibility Republicans will clean up their mess in the future? Nice.Yes, you've already said you think it's the apocalypse. I say the status quo is unacceptable, so yeah -- start monkeying around with it so it won't be 17% of the economy anymore.


I just agreed there'd be more legislation not that it would be any better than what we have now.We're not going to go single payer. There are more options out there that I know you will never acknowledge. That's your problem.

[Yonivore]

It's something you never do.
A standard with which you seem to be content.


The scheme will change. And change again. And again. No apocalypse.
Who said there'd be an apocalypse? I merely stated the current legislation will drive the private insurance industry out of business and result in the single-payer system Obama wants. I oppose that.


Seriously, it's been answered.
Then you won't mind cutting and pasting your answer to the question, "How does the private insurance industry survive the health care reform legislation as it is currently proposed."

I seem to have seen you infer a few answers from, "They don't ("tough shit," I believe you said.)"; to "Don't worry Republican will come along and fix this nonsense when they retake power," to "unprincipled Democrats will be bought to save the day." Are those the answers to which you're referring?


Yes, you've already said you think it's the apocalypse. I say the status quo is unacceptable, so yeah -- start monkeying around with it so it won't be 17% of the economy anymore.
I never used the word apocalypse, you did. This legislation is becoming increasingly unpopular across the political spectrum...I'm thinking no one wants the government simply "monkeying around" with 17% of the economy.


We're not going to go single payer. There are more options out there that I know you will never acknowledge. That's your problem.
None that don't involve the government dictating the terms. It's all single-payer under different wrappings. That's all.

[Aggie Hoopsfan]

poor people who can't afford to pay the gouging prices of for-profit private insurance will have subsidies, but they still have to fork over something.

If not, they will be penalized in 2 years or so.

aka, a HUGE WIN for the private insurers, delivered to them by the Congress they paid for.

Don't forget your boy Obama!

[ChumpDumper]

A standard with which you seem to be content.I am content that you never have and never will prove any claim you make. As far as I am concerned on this issue, I'll just say I'm confident Republicans won't let the insurers go under if nothing else.


Who said there'd be an apocalypse? I merely stated the current legislation will drive the private insurance industry out of business and result in the single-payer system Obama wants. I oppose that.Apocalypse!



Then you won't mind cutting and pasting your answer to the question, "How does the private insurance industry survive the health care reform legislation as it is currently proposed."You can scroll up.


I seem to have seen you infer a few answers from, "They don't ("tough shit," I believe you said.)"; to "Don't worry Republican will come along and fix this nonsense when they retake power," to "unprincipled Democrats will be bought to save the day." Are those the answers to which you're referring?You aren't good at reading.


I never used the word apocalypse, you did.You keep describing the apocalyptic scenarios.


I'm thinking no one wants the government simply "monkeying around" with 17% of the economy.I'm sure you want it to grow to 30% of the economy. Hell, 50% -- let's keep going!

None that don't involve the government dictating the terms. It's all single-payer under different wrappings. That's all.Are there any health care systems other than the US system and single payer systems?

Yes or no.

[ElNono]

As it stands now, you can pretty much receive any treatment required for your illness. On demand -- even if you're indigent. Will you go into debt if your illness is serious? Probably. But, that's your choice.

So you're telling me that my option is either death or financial ruin? What if I don't have access to credit? I guess the decision in that case has been made for me (death panel indeed).


Under Obamacare, their will only be so much care to go around. It won't matter who you are, if the Oncologist is booked through March 17, 2013, you're screwed. Hell, they've already started with telling women they should forgo mammograms until 50 when it's an established fact that mammograms in the 40's has detected many cancers and saved countless lives.

We're already receiving rationed care. It's fairly difficult to get an appointment any earlier than a month or two in the future unless it's an emergency. But that's pretty common, including in pretty much every country that have a single-payor system. Those guys don't wait any more or less than we do to see a doctor.
And whatever they say is non-binding, so that's a strawman. You and your doctor decide what you want to do.


National Defense is a constitutional obligation of the government and the use of our defense is largely dependent on the unanticipated actions of other nations.

National Defense is a constitutional obligation, but how much we spend on it, including wasteful spending, is completely arbitrary and absolutely dictated by the will of the current executive/congress.


Your Health is your business. You have no constitutional right to health care. If you do, I want the constitutional right to make you quit smoking and engaging in behaviors that will cost me money.

There's no constitutional right to have a police force or firefighter services. Healthcare could perfectly fit in this category of state-provided services.


Who's paying?
The taxpayers. You and me.


The Post Office?
Yes, the post office, which BTW is a constitutional guaranteed right (postal service) and it's been mandated to be revenue-neutral. Imagine that, those socialists!

[EmptyMan]

There are plenty of other countries that have universal health care. Go find a boat.

[ChumpDumper]

There are plenty of other countries that have universal health care. Go find a boat.Are they all failed states with everyone dying in the streets?

That's what I've been told will happen here if any health care reform is attempted.

[ElNono]

There are plenty of other countries that have universal health care. Go find a boat.

Actually, I use a plane. And I've actually done that. :toast

[Nbadan]

So you're telling me that my option is either death or financial ruin? What if I don't have access to credit? I guess the decision in that case has been made for me (death panel indeed).

..GOP health-care - die fast..

[Winehole23]

Actually, I use a plane. And I've actually done that. :toastI remember you posted about it. The surgery abroad plan, or something like that. You went to Argentina, verdad?

[ElNono]

I remember you posted about it. The surgery abroad plan, or something like that. You went to Argentina, verdad?

Yes sir. Helps I still have family there and did not have to pay for hotel stay.
We simply could not afford it here in the US, at a pricetag 3x of the cost over there.
Now, I'm a fortunate guy that was able to do this. But there's a lot less fortnate people out there.

[DarrinS]

If there's one thing Krugman knows, it's that people LOVE them some govt-run health care.


3EPd2i4Jshs

[EmptyMan]

Texas should invade Nebraska.



Respect El Nono :toast, I salute you.