I buy the N.Y. Times for its scope and to know what the Libs are thinking. Every once in a while they print stuff that is so genuinely off the wall that it amounts to comic relief. Today was "two-fer". A N.Y. Times editorial about N.Y. State's budget gap and Paul Krugman's column.
The Times opined in its editorial about the seriousness and gravity of N.Y.'s current budget gap. In fact, their out year numbers were even doomier and gloomier than what I'd previously seen- 52 billion vs. a little over 18 billion. They accurately cover the reasons for the gap between spending and revenues, scold Shelly Silver and the State Senate for their refusal to accept budgetary realities, encourage Gov. Patterson to hang tough until we get to his refusal to raise taxes. "Not so fast" and "you may have to re-think that" and what about a "more progressive tax system " ( that's "soak the rich" in Lib-speak ).
How does the Times think we got into this mess ? And they want to drive upper income taxpayers out of the state; Why ? And we can avoid health care and education cuts, How ?
That was just the appetizer for Krugman outdoing himself. In a column taking the health insurance industry to task for opposing health care reform he goes after American Health Industry Plans ( the health insurance lobbying group ) for noting that " attempts to limit Medicare spending would lead to higher insurance premiums. In fact, the report assumes that 100% of any reduction in Medicare payments to hospitals will translate into higher costs for patients with private insurance." In the next paragraph he delivers this brilliant critique : "The only way to justify this claim is to assume that all hospitals are purely charitable institutions,charging as little as they possibly can. " He goes on to claim that somehow the nod to current hospital billing reality " stands the usual logic of markets on its head. If you believe AHIP's story, competition raises prices instead of reducing them."
Clearly Krugman needs to give back his Nobel Prize because he's either an idiiot or breathtakingly ignorant of the realities of an issue about which he has written so much and so often. First, ALL hospitals pass along costs to their paying customers. If Medicare reduces hospital payments as authorized under the current bill, hospitals will look to recoup the difference from those with private insurance. Except under the House and Senate HELP bills which use QARY and DO affect how much private insurers can pay.
Can anyone tell me how a common sense assumption by health insurers as to who will ultimately pay what assumes that: " all hospitals are charitable institutions charging as little as they possibly can." ? Anyone ? Where the hell does he get that ???? And better yet , how do Medicare reimbursement reductions translate into more competition acting to raise prices ? Unless Krugman seriously thinks that Medicare and private insurers are going to compete with each other to see who is willing to pay MORE to hospitals for various procedures. That's one way his critique at least makes a little bit of sense from a logical standpoint. Without having any basis whatsoever in actual reality, of course. Because what is REALLY going to happen under any bill that REALLY tries to do something to actually reduce costs is that "Granny" is not always going to get all the care she needs to stay alive. Not unless her family ponies up . Under at least one of the bills cuurently under Congressional consideration they won't even be able to do that without shipping her overseas. It may very well be that to keep Medicare solvent that we won't be able to afford to pay for expensive chemo for 90 year old patients or to give new hips to those 75 or older. But NONE of the advocates for any of this has the guts to say it. They put it in their legislation and then attack anyone who tires to talk about it.
This is scary stuff on so many levels. It says that Krugman is either an idiot or insane. It raises questions about the Nobel Committee and whether they had a clue about this man's apparent lunacy or stupidity. The Times already employs Maureen Dowd so their giving Krugman a column is not that much of a stretch but what about ABC ? It's obvious Princeton doesn't care. Krugman has tenure and will only leave the Economics Dept. feet first. But what about his students ? Do the parents who write the checks know how intellectually dishonest this little asshole is ?
Assuming that Krugman is neither stupid nor nuts is actually worse than anything else. Because it means he knowingly, willingly and intentionally wrote illogical and unrealistic nonsense ostensibly supportive of one of his pet causes: National Health Care.
Only in the New York Times folks. Only in the Times.



Reply With Quote
Bookmarks