Paul Krugman is The Man

posted at 9:37 pm on March 12, 2010 by J.E. Dyer
[ Healthcare ]    printer-friendly

Nobody argues against Krugman like Krugman.  He’s a genius.  I think he’s trying to sink O-care singlehandedly with his cleverly subversive arguments.

Take today’s editorial, in which he proposes to debunk three myths “that are believed by many people who consider themselves well-informed, but who have actually fallen for deceptive spin.”

The first myth to meet the Mod 1 Mark 0 Krugman Debunkerizer is that the much-decried “government takeover of one-sixth of the economy” is something that still lies ahead of us.  Not so, says Krugman:

[I]f having the government regulate and subsidize health insurance is a “takeover,” that takeover happened long ago. Medicare, Medicaid, and other government programs already pay for almost half of American health care, while private insurance pays for barely more than a third (the rest is mostly out-of-pocket expenses). And the great bulk of that private insurance is provided via employee plans, which are both subsidized with tax exemptions and tightly regulated.

Why, yes, Dr. Krugman, that’s correct.  So what you’re basically saying is, the current situation is already one of heavy government regulation, price-setting, and subsidy.  Good point.  Really good point.  In fact, one of the best points I’ve heard a leftist concede for a long time.  Government is already all over the health care industry.

So we can hardly say the current conditions – the price of health care, its availability and accessibility, the price of insurance – are the result of little to no government intervention in the health care industry, now can we?  If we were to get all empirical about it, and compare the prices of medical services before the government got all over health care’s tush as opposed to after that happened, we might almost suspect government intervention had something to do with the rising price of health care.

Of course, Medicare and Medicaid are in fabulous financial shape, since the market doesn’t set the price-point for their services.  This makes it all the more wink-nudge subversive for Krugman to inform us (ankle kick) that he’s debunking the second myth, which is that “the proposed reform does nothing to control costs.”  That’s just silly, is basically the point he makes.  There follows a passage about drilling for oil and not getting lucky most of the time, which apparently is inserted to illustrate that the CBO doesn’t expect the reforms to strike oil, cost-control-wise, but some of them might.

The Medicare actuary, functioning as Krugman’s straight man, has projected that Medicare spending would be higher in 2019 with the proposed health care reform package than without it.  But Krugman’s point – and what economist wouldn’t love it? – seems to be that that’s kind of like the price you pay for prospecting for oil.  Some proposed cost controls will be dry wells, but others will hit black gold.  So what if you spend more than you earn back?

Of course, that’s not how businessmen and banks think, which is why they’re morally, socially unjust.  But why should we listen to them about what the correct meaning of “control costs” is?  After all, businesses and banks are thinking with their own money – or they were (most of them) before 2008, anyway.  That’s a whole different ball of wax.

All of this debunking brings Krugman to the third myth, which is that “health care reform is fiscally irresponsible.”  In spite of gerrymandered CBO numbers showing that new revenues over a 10-year period would, sure enough, amount to more than projected costs over 7 of those years, Krugman slyly invites the reader to stipulate that the CBO predicts health care reform will really, truly reduce the federal deficit.  Granted, the invitation is necessary to set up this uproarious sequence:

Critics argue that we should ignore what’s actually in the legislation; when cost control actually starts to bite on Medicare, they insist, Congress will back down.

But this isn’t an argument against Obamacare, it’s a declaration that we can’t control Medicare costs no matter what.

And Krugman says that argument is just hooey.  Of course we can control Medicare costs.

What a kidder this Dr. Krugman is!  I mean, who in his right mind would actually approve the prospect of Congress faithfully withholding medical treatment from seniors as a cost-control measure?  With a mere 45 words, Krugman clarifies what just about everyone understands anyway:  that “controlling costs” means “biting on Medicare” means “no MRI for you, Mr. Smith!  You’ve had your lifetime quota.  Go line up for your one-way ticket to the ice floe.”

OK.  I think we have to admit the middle bit with the oil prospecting analogy is a tad murky.  That’s not Krugman’s strongest interlude in this little gem of a polemic.  But in terms of making the critics’ points about O-care – that government controlling large chunks of the health care industry makes things worse, and that this particular reform proposal is carved out of the backsides of our seniors – Krugman couldn’t have done it better if he were Rush Limbaugh himself.

But not content with half-measures, Krugman puts a cherry on top with these words to introduce his conclusion:

So what’s the reality of the proposed reform? Compared with the Platonic ideal of reform, Obamacare comes up short. If the votes were there, I would much prefer to see Medicare for all.

Now, that’s a thigh-slapper.  Yeah, we get it.  With Medicare for all, Congress could bite down to control costs and nail everybody!  Wouldn’t that be something.  You might almost have to worry about, well, death panels.

The priceless Krugman sign-off:

“This is a reasonable, responsible plan. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”

Sure, sure.  We won’t.  Wink.  Nudge.

Blowback