... which, very oddly, nobody posted or discussed. The column in which he said, essentially, that although a public option in the exchange would be better, no public option would be like the Swiss system, which works ... and that it would be vastly better than what we have now.
My head hurts, because I don't even know who to believe anymore.
For those too lazy to open a link, from yesterday's Krugman:
Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.
If we were starting from scratch we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.
But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.
So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.
Do we just not discuss articles that are inconvenient? Who do I listen to? I love Herbert, but then Krugman is the economist who should know something about how this works. Honestly, my head is going to split.
The only thing I can keep thinking is how riled up we all got when Bill Clinton signed the welfare reform bill. We felt it would put people's very lives at risk, that there would be children dying in the streets, that the apocalypse was near. And of course, it didn't really play out that dramatically at all.
Are we in the land of hyperbole on both sides now? Will we have the armageddon of insurance tyranny or just a little piece of Switzerland if no public option is passed? How the hell are we supposed to know? Anyone who claims they do know isn't being honest.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
