Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

The Health Care Tax Spike

Submitted by Jon Henke on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 17:32
in

Paul Krugman is not concerned about how much universal health care will cost taxpayers.

I’m not that worried about the issue of costs. Yes, the Congressional Budget Office’s preliminary cost estimates for Senate plans were higher than expected, and caused considerable consternation last week. But the fundamental fact is that we can afford universal health insurance — even those high estimates were less than the $1.8 trillion cost of the Bush tax cuts.

Krugman waves away the matter of cost with "One way or another, the numbers will be brought into line".  However, in a 2005 interview with the Asian Times, Paul Krugman explained what he thinks we need to do...

"We should be getting 28% of GDP [gross domestic product] in revenue. We are only collecting 17%."

2008 tax revenue was 17.7% of GDP.  So, in Paul Krugman's ideal world, we would see a 60%+ increase in taxes.  But Krugman is "not that worried about the issue of costs."

This is what happens under a monopoly.  Consumer concerns about cost and value are called irresponsible, and the only "responsible" option - ever - is to gouge consumers for even more money.

If Democrats want to pass the health care legislation, then let's pass the tax hike necessary to pay for it simultaneously.  Let's bring those numbers into line and see how Americans feel about universal health care then.

0
Your rating: None

Comments

Let's bring those numbers

Submitted by peter jackson on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 18:11.

Let's bring those numbers into line and see how Americans feel about universal health care then.

Don't forget to multiply that final number by twelve first. That's what happened with Medicare.

 

 

 

Hawaii tried "public option" just with kids

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 19:20.

and the results were exactly what free marketers would have predicted---and what is now deemed "scaremongering" from the Left

People who were already able to afford health care began to stop paying for it so they could get it for free," said Dr. Kenny Fink, the administrator for Med-QUEST at the Department of Human Services. "I don't believe that was the intent of the program." 

The Democrats and their socialist realist allies can point to no working examples of how their "perpetual motion machine" of universal health care actually delivered better care at less cost. So guess what---roll it out nationally so no state can bail out of the debacle! 

 

Stupid

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 20:46.

Not even going to argue with you as to whether the tax costs will be worth the benefits.

Just going to ask this: Depending on the polling, anywhere from 3 out of 5 to 3 out of 4 Americans are FOR a Government Health Insurance Plan.

Do you really think you want to be the Party that turns them away?    

Jim, I used to be "for" Christmas, too

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 20:53.

But once I became a dad and had to pay for it, it became a lot less wonderful.

If you are so such the tax costs are worth the benefits, why aren't you guys up front about how you are going to pay for it?

One more thing, Jim

Submitted by Ironman on Mon, 06/22/2009 - 20:55.

How are we going to do this while sticking to Clinton era- tax levels?. Since we know that is your default response on any economic question

Universal health care is cheaper, actually

Submitted by mlindroo on Tue, 06/23/2009 - 03:09.

IIRC, other industralized nations such as Canada and the EU countries who all provide universal coverage actually spend less (in terms of % GNP) on health care!

The counter-argument is supposed to be that these nations have "government mandated health care rationing", yet average life expectancy etc. still tends to be higher than in the US. 

 

MARCU$

They spend less because they

Submitted by Foobarista on Tue, 06/23/2009 - 03:38.

They spend less because they let old people die by putting them on vast waiting lists for procedures.  If you live long enough to make it to the head of the line, great!  You deserve to live.  If you don't make it, well, I guess it's Darwin at work.

There are plenty of things we could do to reduce health care expenses, but I don't see a "Healthy Mae" approach of some sort of state-run health insurance corporation, with leadership appointed by Ted Kennedy and Chris Dodd, as being part of the "solution".

and they get worse results

Submitted by Ironman on Tue, 06/23/2009 - 06:25.

Universal health care is great until you get cancer.

The study showed the US had the highest five-year survival rates for breast cancer at 83.9% and prostate cancer at 91.9%.....

The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer.

Hey, its the BBC saying it, not Rush Limbaugh. But just keep pressing on with the perpetual motion machine guys, and insist that it's gonna work.

 

Pretty standard

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Tue, 06/23/2009 - 15:02.

...Insults to people's intelligence from Ironman and his crew.  What is it with you?  Do you nothink people can read?

 

From the very same link:

 

The UK had 69.7% survival for breast cancer, just above 40% for colon and rectal cancer for both men and women and 51.1% for prostate cancer.

There were also large regional variations within the UK, which were linked to differences in access to care and ability of patients to navigate the local health services. Both are directly linked to deprivation.

A Department of Health spokesman said the report covered patients diagnosed between 1990 and 1994.

"Since that time, cancer survival rates in England have been steadily improving for but we accept that there is further work  to do to reduce the gap between us and the rest of northern and western Europe and America."

 

 So, a partial result with dubious, non-homogenous sampling, with data decades old??

You are VERY stupid.

 

In addition, there's this:

In spite of the fact that we spend more than twice what the rest of the world spoends per capita,

 

the study found that Japan has higher survival rates for colon cancer.

Let's see you explain that one, and the facts that the US in nowheres near number one in life expectancy and infant mortality while spending more money than anyone on health care.

Could the fact that the Pharmaceutical compnies as a group have more than helathy profit margins explain that?  Or the fact that with 1300 different health insurers we STILL have fixed pricing and little or no competition between them?

Thanks to provide this

Submitted by miloor on Fri, 07/10/2009 - 22:33.

Thanks to provide this information so that we read Air Jordan Nike Air Max shox shoes Nike Kobe jordans

Watchful waiting refers

Submitted by jerina on Sat, 07/11/2009 - 01:08.

Watchful waiting refers to a period of time in which your doctor is checking you regularly but not treating you. It is also called observation or surveillance. Watchful waiting is not a reasonable option when you have symptoms of colorectal cancer.