Monday, October 15, 2012

The Man Who Called for "Death Panels" to Save Money Now Claims Mitt Romney Wants to Let People Die to Save Money

I know it is shocking to readers to hear that Paul Krugman claims that his Keynesianism is purely empirical and based only on "facts," and that his televised statements recommending "death panels" did not come from ideology, but rather from Holy Empiricism. (Yes, I now. Krugman later claimed that he really didn't say what he said and that only an ideologue could contend that his statement calling for "death panels" to "save money" actually was a recommendation of letting people die prematurely in order to "save money.")

So, even though Krugman said the following, he really didn't say it and I am sure that his gaggle of groupies will believe him:
Some years down the pike, we're going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes. It's going to be that we're actually going to take Medicare under control, and we're going to have to get some additional revenue, probably from a VAT.
 So, given Krugman's previous statements (which he made but didn't make), he now accuses Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan of wanting to let people die in order to "save money." However, RR are even more sinister than just pure "death panels" advocates:
The Romney-Ryan position on health care is that many millions of Americans must be denied health insurance, and millions more deprived of the security Medicare now provides, in order to save money. At the same time, of course, Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan are proposing trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy. So a literal description of their plan is that they want to expose many Americans to financial insecurity, and let some of them die, so that a handful of already wealthy people can have a higher after-tax income.
I had no idea that the reason that some people believe that capital gains taxes should not be as high as Krugman and Barack Obama demand is because they want people to die. The explanation I always heard was that high capital gains taxes limit capital investment, but since capital is irrelevant to a Keynesian (except for its promotion of short-term spending), I guess Krugman's answer makes sense. Yes, anyone who thinks that we should not be putting tax barriers in the way of capital formation believes so because he or she wants people to be without healthcare in their most dire moments.



Pulverized Concepts said...

we're going to have to get some additional revenue

Why? If a government has the power to confiscate the property of its citizens, doesn't it also have the power to determine the prices of the goods and services those citizens provide? Aren't doctors and others in the health care field among the most well rewarded in the country? Surely the government can edict the cost of health care just as it can the rate of taxation and tariffs.

Dennis said...

Canadian provincial governments set all fees for medical services after negotiating these fees with the doctors' organization. The result is that fees for routine visits are set at absurdly low levels, with the result that general practitioners are now difficult to find. Most doctors now specialize since that is where the most money is. A Canadian general practitioner can only make money by stuffing as many patients through his office in a day as he can, such that you can expect lengthy waits for a simple prescription and your appointments are regularly re-booked.

ALima said...

That sounds like a less than perfect system. So many look to the Canadian system as a model they just don't believe me that there are always tradeoffs to any system.