Paul Krugman says “death panels” are coming, guess what, concept-wise he is right (and that is the first time I said that about Krugman)

U.S. Medicare spending per capita

Image via Wikipedia

Paul Krugman has a point. It may not be a death panel, but some form of rationing will be necessary to have any hope of controlling Medicare costs.  We spend too much at the end of life, we spend too much on inefficient health care…we simple spend too much and our children and grandchildren cannot afford it.  

Krugman should have opted for a better choice of words and explained what he meant, but he tells the truth.  The idea that we can have all the health care we want regardless of the cost simply cannot continue.  Great Britain uses panels to determine the cost/benefit of some procedures based on individual circumstances and may not pay for a service, the English love their system. 

The promise of health care reform is false, it cannot provide high quality care and make health care affordable under the current system.  There are many in the U.S. who believe that health care should be “free” at the point of service, and that cost should never be a consideration in providing health care.  That may be the ideal world, but it is not the real world.

What’s the message here?  In part, the message is the health care you want may well be coming directly from your pocket in the years ahead, plan accordingly.


Categories: Healthcare, My Opinion

3 replies »

  1. I think that we can afford high quality health care for everyone, with relatively few restrictions.

    Wealth has become concentrated (1/10th of 1% earn an amount equal to the bottom 120 million people). That wealth allows wealthy investors to influence politicians and society. Our society is actually quite rich, but laws have allowed the creation of multinational Corporations. Government, banks, and the legal system are influenced by the deception of the wealthy. This allows most profit to be legally diverted through offshore accounts (this is actually well documented, and quite legal)

    The CEO of the company I used to work for didn’t stay in hotels although he traveled extensively. Instead, he had a staff to buy houses anywhere in the world that he might go, and stock those houses with furniture and cars. I’m told that he has many houses that he’s never seen. He also had a dozen $100,000+ cars in the company parking lot (unless press was coming by). He simply had a dealership deliver about a half dozen new cars every month and simply abandoned the cars wherever he happened to park them. He also changed clothes several times each day, throwing the “dirty” clothes into the trash. (These were expensive suits from France)

    So, in effect, the workers are not getting their fair share, and the credit and money system is designed to extract wealth from the working class.


    • But how did his extravagant behavior as obnoxious as it may be take away from someone else? If anything, such behavior created work for someone someplace. We may find such behavior repugnant but does it prevent anyone from moving upward?


      • Did the fact that five auto executives made 2.1 billion in a year (paid by our bailout money) hurt the auto industry? Of course. On one hand, that amount represents the entire funding of the retirement program for all autoworkers who have ever worked (including medical). But more importantly, it was money that could have been reinvested in research, the betterment of society, and the workers. This pillage has been ongoing for decades. Ross Perot wrote about it when EDS was acquired by GM.

        The executive I worked for is widely considered a great executive. He runs a company that is doing well, known for treating employees well, and being innovative. He is occasionally on the Forbes richest list. There are books written about him.

        But never mentioned are the legal structures that were set up so that parts could be first purchased by an offshore company in order to raise the price to his company, and make the profits smaller. Of course, lawyers (with the implied complicity of government) have made sure that he can profit from the offshore company – and in a way that does not even get his real profit measured. Why is the government complicit? Because wealth can influence politicians, the media, and the public.

        I am not against a person making a few hundred thousand dollars a year. But most people don’t realize how much money is being taken by wealthy investors who can make laws to “game” the system (especially since it is impossible to measure their gains with their laws.) We now live in a plutocracy, not a democracy.


What's your opinion on this post? Readers would like your point of view.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s