Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Breaking: Krugman endorses Single Payer and Medicare for All!!! [View all]
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/why-not-single-payer/?_r=0
Why not single-payer?
October 7, 2007 5:31 pm
Paul Krugman
The alternative would be single-payer, aka Medicare for all: a payroll tax on everyone, and a government insurance program for everyone. Wouldn’t that be simpler, easier to administer, and more efficient?
Yes, it would.
Why not single-payer?
October 7, 2007 5:31 pm
Paul Krugman
The alternative would be single-payer, aka Medicare for all: a payroll tax on everyone, and a government insurance program for everyone. Wouldn’t that be simpler, easier to administer, and more efficient?
Yes, it would.
And here he goes full on Socialist... like old school government-delivers-the-means, socialist...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/why-not-a-public-option-for-medicare/
Why Not A Public Option for Medicare?
April 12, 2011 9:27 am
Paul Krugman
But if you want a really radical proposal — but one that, unlike privatization, actually has strong evidence on its side — why not add a true public option to Medicare?
What do I mean by that? I mean creating a network of hospitals and clinics actually run by the government — a civilian VA, as Phillip Longman puts it — and giving Medicare recipients the option of using that system.
Oh, and this one's gonna hurt:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/why-the-public-option-matters/
Why the public option matters
September 8, 2009 4:56 pm
Paul Krugman
Most arguments against the public option are based either on deliberate misrepresentation of what that option would mean, or on remarkably thorough misunderstanding of the concept, which persists to a frustrating degree...
Why the public option matters
September 8, 2009 4:56 pm
Paul Krugman
Most arguments against the public option are based either on deliberate misrepresentation of what that option would mean, or on remarkably thorough misunderstanding of the concept, which persists to a frustrating degree...
Here, he is downright promoting "Socialized Medicine"
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/28/why-americans-hate-single-payer-insurance/
Why Americans hate single-payer insurance
July 28, 2009 11:45 am
Paul Krugman
Because they don’t know they have it...
One of the truly amazing and depressing things about the health reform debate is the persistence of fear-mongering over “socialized medicine” even though we already have a system in which the government pays substantially more medical bills (47% of the total) than the private insurance industry (35%).
In a way, this is the flip side of the persistent belief that the free market can cure healthcare, even though there are no places where it actually has...
Why Americans hate single-payer insurance
July 28, 2009 11:45 am
Paul Krugman
Because they don’t know they have it...
One of the truly amazing and depressing things about the health reform debate is the persistence of fear-mongering over “socialized medicine” even though we already have a system in which the government pays substantially more medical bills (47% of the total) than the private insurance industry (35%).
In a way, this is the flip side of the persistent belief that the free market can cure healthcare, even though there are no places where it actually has...
Then there's this chestnut....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_National_Health_Care_Act
Paul Krugman described savings from elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs in 2005 as follows:[2]
The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada's government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. The reason is that single-payer systems do not devote large resources to screening out high-risk clients or charging them higher fees. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured.
Applying Krugman's $200 billion savings estimate to the U.S. population of approximately 300 million people representing 100 million households,[11] this amounts to approximately $650 per person or $2,000 per household. A study by Harvard University and the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimated the 1999 costs of U.S. health care administration at nearly $300 billion, accounting for 30.1% of health care expenses, versus 16.7% in Canada. This study estimated the U.S. per-person administrative cost at $1,059.[12] One organization that advocates nationalized health care estimated this savings could be as high as $350 billion per year in "...overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay."[13]
Paul Krugman described savings from elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs in 2005 as follows:[2]
The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada's government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. The reason is that single-payer systems do not devote large resources to screening out high-risk clients or charging them higher fees. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured.
Applying Krugman's $200 billion savings estimate to the U.S. population of approximately 300 million people representing 100 million households,[11] this amounts to approximately $650 per person or $2,000 per household. A study by Harvard University and the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimated the 1999 costs of U.S. health care administration at nearly $300 billion, accounting for 30.1% of health care expenses, versus 16.7% in Canada. This study estimated the U.S. per-person administrative cost at $1,059.[12] One organization that advocates nationalized health care estimated this savings could be as high as $350 billion per year in "...overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay."[13]
I will leave you with Paul Krugman's own words...
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/opinion/09krugman.html?hp
Health Care Terror
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 9, 2007
So this is a test. The only things standing in the way of universal health care are the fear-mongering and influence-buying of interest groups. If we can’t overcome those forces here, there’s not much hope for America’s future.
Health Care Terror
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 9, 2007
So this is a test. The only things standing in the way of universal health care are the fear-mongering and influence-buying of interest groups. If we can’t overcome those forces here, there’s not much hope for America’s future.
Which....by the way is pretty much what Bernie is saying.
====
If you agree with Paul Krugman, please Kick and Recommend
165 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
