Comments on: Paul Krugman’s False Analogy to Medicare In Support of Mandates

By: Obama Addressed The Free Rider Program on MTP - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:03:20 +0000

[...] Ben Smith notes that Barack Obama addressed the “free rider” problem on Meet the Press. Supporters of mandates for health care coverage argue that young healthy people would simply wait until they are sick to get insurance. Obama suggested you could “charge a penalty if they try to sign up later.” This is an obvious solution–one so obvious that I already discussed it in previous posts on mandates such as here. There is precedent for such an idea in the Medicare Part D program. As I previously wrote: It wouldn’t be difficult to structure the system to prevent people from getting a free ride by waiting until they have medical problems. This might be one situation in which preexisting condition clauses could be maintained. There is also a far better analogy from Medicare than the one Krugman provides in the Medicare Part D Program. The new program which covers pharmaceuticals, despite having many other flaws, has found a way around this type of problem. The plan is voluntary to join the plan but there are two forms of restrictions on those who haven’t joined but decide to join in the future. There is open enrollment for only part of the year, making it a gamble for people who might develop an expensive medical condition in March and have to pay for their prescriptions out of pocket until the following January. There is also a penalty as those who join later must pay higher premiums once they opt in to offset the fact that they didn’t pay into the system when they were younger and presumably less expensive to cover. [...]

By: Krugman Attacks Obama For Past Success - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 21:19:42 +0000

[...] Paul Krugman needs to learn to realize when he is wrong and drop the subject. Krugman has launched yet another weak attack on Barack Obama. I’ve already noted that in his attacks on Obama Krugman is wrong on principle, wrong on the realities of health care, and wrong on the politics of the issue. At his blog, Krugman reviews Obama’s actions in the state legislature and concludes: My thoughts: being president isn’t at all like being a state legislator, Illinois Republicans aren’t like the national Republican party, 2009 won’t be 2003, and the insurance industry’s opposition to national health reform — which must, if it is to mean anything, strike deep at the industry’s fundamental business — will be much harsher than its opposition to a basically quite mild state-level reform effort. [...]

By: Obama v. Edwards; Krugman v. Obama - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought

Tue, 18 Dec 2007 00:25:00 +0000

[...] Obama is being attacked for a number of reasons beyond being young and inexperienced. Many in the net-roots are upset that Obama wants to govern as opposed to fight Republicans 24/7 for the next eight years. I guess this marks one of the differences between the more partisan Democrats and us independents who lean towards Obama (unless one of the second tier candidates–the ones with the real experience–pull an upset and look like they might be able to win). Paul Krugman never got over the fact that Obama out-smarted him earlier in the month and is determined to continue his attacks. Now Krugman calls Obama the “anti-change candidate” and prefers John Edwards and the “populist tide.” If “change” means following the ideas of this year’s John Edwards then I’ll vote for the “anti-change” candidate. Written by Ron ChusidLast 5 posts by Ron ChusidWar on Christmas Back On, Disregard Previous Report – December 17th, 2007Attack on Conservative Revealed To Be A Hoax – December 17th, 2007What Will Ron Paul Do With All This Money? – December 17th, 2007Ron Paul Raises Almost Six Million But Remains a Fringe Candidate – December 17th, 2007Lieberman Becomes The Zell Miller of 2008 – December 16th, 2007 [...]

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 04:19:45 +0000

There’s some problems with this “common sense.”

First of all, mandates don’t ensure 100% compliance and there have been a number of comparisons of the plan which conclude that either Obama’s plan will result in as many people being insured as under those who advocate a mandate or at least in the same ball park. There is no evidence that insurance costs will be any less expensive without a mandate. It’s not as if all young and healthy people will stay out of the system–and if they do it would suggest serious problems in the health care plan.

Secondly, if those who enter later pay a higher premium as I suggest above, this could offset the effect of not having all young people in the system.

Thirdly there’s the ethical problem of compelling people to do something when it is not necessary. Health care plans can work fine without a mandate. Even if it would make it less expensive, which is questionable, it doesn’t make it right to force people to purchase something so that other people’s health care plans will be less expensive. Not everyone might even see participating as being worthwhile, such as those with religious objections to health care or the wealthy who prefer to pay cash to preserve privacy.

By: prithimp

prithimp — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 01:04:02 +0000

It seems simple common sense.. the more number of people that buy into the system the more number of people to share the cost of healthcare .thus it is important that even the young and healthy are encouraged to buy into the system so that the costs of looking after the old and sick are offset by the contributions of the young & healthy into the system. Of course as they age they too will begin to reap the benefits of having the next generation’s contributions reducing the total cost of healthcare.

By: Ron Chusid

Ron Chusid — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 03:03:02 +0000

In theory the subsidies and other measures will make the insurance affordable. I think you should purchase insurance. Paul Krugman thinks you should buy insurance. The difference is that I understand that the decision is ultimately yours and you are free to do different from what I think is preferable, while Krugman does not.

Incidentally, you mentioned the fee schedules of health care providers. This is one reason to have insurance, even if with such a high deductible that the insurance rarely if ever kicks in. If you have no insurance you are charged whatever the fee is. If you do have insurance then, depending upon the type of plan, you often only have to pay what your insurance approves which might be significantly less than the charges.

The system of having multiple insurance fee schedules contributes to this problem. Insurance plans differ in how they determine what they will pay and some will pay a lot for some types of services and little for others while other plans might do so in reverse. Therefore it is necessary to set fees for all services on the high end so that payment maximum payment is received in the areas where each insurance pays the best. This leaves those without insurance being charged high amounts on everything.

By: datadave

datadave — Sun, 09 Dec 2007 02:53:26 +0000

great reply. I think the world of Krugman until now. He’s soo out of touch of what’s happening in the nonacademic middle class. To force many of us who in the middle of the average incomed…about 30 to 50 K a year to pay outrageously high premiums for health insurance is a travesty. We’re not ‘gaming’ the system. We simply cannot afford 20 per cent of our income to go into a privatized health benefit that benefits the rich over the rest of us. Krugman needs to do the numbers and see that a Mandate is in fact a very REGRESSIVE tax upon the “Free Agents” of the middle class who are in fact forced into being uninsured by the set fee schedule of so-called “health care providers”.

the Mass. state reform is an example of how a mandate isn’t working for the small business employed and low incomed ‘contractor’ class which unfortunately is a class that is very hard to get out of even if one wants ..unless one takes the many 10 dollar an hour jobs available…that have minimal health care benefits but don’t pay a living wage. In our Class System of health care we see that the very poor and the very rich pay next to nothing for their health care in proportions of income paid than the middle incomed…which today is only making $17.63 an hour. Now Krugman should know that mandates only give subsidies to those who make maybe 20K or less a year while leaving the middle (33K a year) paying full costs for insurance …even a higher rate than most millionaires pay with their high deductables and big savings. In Mass. insurance rates have gone up 10 percent or more After mandates have been applied. There will be no savings as the uninsured aren’t costing the whole system more than 5 percent a year from my calculations. With premiums going up double digits almost every year….the poor middle class will be paying ever more higher premiums to a privatized monopoly.