Krugman: Can it happen here? (universal health care)

[antigop]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/opinion/11krugman.html?hp

The draft Democratic Party platform that was sent out last week puts health care reform front and center. “If one thing came through in the platform hearings,” says the document, “it was that Democrats are united around a commitment to provide every American access to affordable, comprehensive health care.”

Can Democrats deliver on that commitment? In principle, it should be easy. In practice, supporters of health care reform, myself included, will be hanging on by their fingernails until legislation is actually passed.

What’s easy about guaranteed health care for all? For one thing, we know that it’s economically feasible: every wealthy country except the United States already has some form of guaranteed health care. The hazards Americans treat as facts of life — the risk of losing your insurance, the risk that you won’t be able to afford necessary care, the chance that you’ll be financially ruined by medical costs — would be considered unthinkable in any other advanced nation.

The politics of guaranteed care are also easy, at least in one sense: if the Democrats do manage to establish a system of universal coverage, the nation will love it.

[Romulox]

1. I'd say "no way!" We are a nation of selfish me-firsters!

A social safety net is simply not compatible with "free trade" and laissez-faire capitalism (of which Krugman is a cheerleader, fwiw...)

Our economic policies mean wages and standards of living will have a long way to fall before they are equalized with those of third world. There will be no money for new healthcare initiatives in the future, that's for sure!

[RaleighNCDUer]

3. Just think how many selfish me-firsters will be able to become

entrepreneurial businessmen when they no longer need to worry about their health insurance - all the guys with great ideas who would be willing to struggle along on minimal income while starting up, but can't risk having even minor medical problems in those start up years.

It's not about a social safety net - it is about unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit of the American businessman.

OTOH, it would mean an end to companies holding their employees as medical hostages - as it is, you can accept the low wages and high insurance costs because you are covered while if you leave you will lose your coverage and not necessarily improve your income. There are literally millions out there (myself included) who would happily move on to greener pastures but can't risk losing their insurance, so must take whatever their employers dish out.

So which is stronger? The power of the corporations who hold us as medical hostages, or the power of the entrepreneurial spirit? Big business, or small business?

[MonteLukast]

6. That's what it's all about. *misty eyes*

It is about unleashing the entrepreneurial spirit of the American businessman.

You can't be your creative best if you're worried about survival. Arts, entrepreneurship, imagination, adventure, everything that makes life worth living demands that we be at a plane above survival.

Love and connection with our fellow human beings itself cannot work if we're still worried about survival, because we see other people as competitors for livelihoods and therefore potential enemies... not as potential friends.

You just never know if corporations are either blind to this fact, or if their system is set up deliberately to make us all desperate, isolated, insecure... and more dependent on them.

[DailyGrind51]

9. Thank you! Many stay "working for the man" instead of setting up their own shops,

because they can't purchase individual health insurance. My own job choices were limited to whomever could provide the best group coverage, since my diagnosis and treatment for cancer 26 years ago.

[antigop]

12. very good points. People can't afford to take risks. n/t

[antigop]

2. but the "selfish me-firsters" I know are complaining about health care premiums

Even some of the "selfish me-firsters" are admitting we have a problem with our healthcare system.

[Romulox]

4. Yeah, but my healthcare is fine, so...

Every man for himself means just that. I find it comical that people feel we can be bloody, no holds barred combatants in the economic field, but when somebody needs something, well all that tooth and claw competition has to come to an end! Well how do you think that manufacturing worker you put out of work with your penchant for "price rollbacks!" is going to pay for your healthcare, hmmmm? :silly:

It's not realistic. You can have devil-take-the-hindmost capitalism, or you can have a social safety net. Not both (not competitive with the Chinese, you see.)

[MonteLukast]

7. Both kinds of "bloody no holds barred" combat have turned out bad for us.

It's especially sickening to find out that your job was lost not because the company actually needed it to be healthy again, but was the result of a profitability peeing contest among the company's top brass. :grr:

[antigop]

8. The rightwingers that I know are coming around to the idea of universal coverage. Even though..

they think they are rich,they know their health care premiums (if they can afford them) are out of sight.

And some own small businesses where they can't attract workers because they can't afford to provide health insurance.

Even the wingnuts can feel it in their pocketbooks.

[Romulox]

10. Most rightwingers want the government to pay private insurers' premiums...

The illogic inherent here is apparent (government paying private entities monies based on a mandatory enrollment will save money, how?)

Furthermore, I think the bigger point is that an America in decline may not be able to afford UHC and stay "competitive" with the wages and working conditions in places like China and Brazil. In fact, I would go as far as to say America can not afford to do so.

[antigop]

11. Did you read my post? I said the "rightwingers that I know". Geesh! n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. I disagree. We cannot afford NOT to have UHC.

One prime reason we are falling behind is because our competitors DO have UHC and their businesses don't have to absorb health care costs, making them MORE competitive.

The key ingredient, as you said, is to get the private insurers OUT of the loop. That is what is running up the costs, and any "UHC" that keeps them as primary players (such as Hillary's misbegotten UHC plan) is bound to fail. (Note: Not too wild about Obama's, either, but at least it is not mandated).

Single-payer, profit-free, universal health care for all. It's the only thing that will work.

[raccoon]

5. Well, I gotta say...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L--cqAI3IUI