« Maybe Sometimes It’s Not Possible to Save Money | Main | Making Charts Say What You Want Them to Say »
More Krugman Hogwash!
By JLP | July 9, 2008
This recent editorial by Paul Krugman bugs me. According to Krugman everything was hunky dory under Clinton and everything bad was caused by either President Bush or is tied somehow to the Republicans (or right-leaning Democrats). Here’s proof that Krugman is an idiot (emphasis mine):
If Bill Clinton’s attempt to reform health care had succeeded, the U.S. economy would be in much better shape today. But the attempt failed — and let’s remember why. Yes, the Clinton administration botched the politics. But it was Republicans in Congress who blocked reform, as Newt Gingrich pursued a strategy of “coagulation” designed to “clot everyone away” from Mr. Clinton.
How in the heck would Krugman even know that? It’s pure speculation, yet he states it as if it was is a fact.
What gets me is that the supposed economic growth and budget surplus we experienced under Clinton was a mirage due to the internet boom. Unfortunately for Bush, the bubble burst right before he took office. Clinton left office looking like a genius and Bush inherited a mess.
Now, before you think I’m a diehard Bush fan, I’m not. I know Bush has made mistakes. He should have insisted on spending cuts along with his tax cuts. I think the tax cuts were a good thing but not without corresponding reductions in spending. Bush is a terrible communicator.
UPDATE: Yesterday I left a comment on Krugman’s blogpost about this topic but it must have got panned by the moderator for me saying that Krugman liked to play loose with the facts. And yet, all the posts bashing Republicans made it through. Hmmm… No wonder why it looks like most of the commenters are Krugman fans! LOL! I suppose that’s even more reason for me not to like Krugman.
Topics: Economics | 28 Comments »
July 9th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
I don’t disagree with you about Krugman, but keep in mind that it’s an editorial, rather than a “objective” news piece–speculation is par for the course. And is his assertion really that unreasonable? Of course Gingrich did everything he could to stop national health care, he’s a conservative.
Also…don’t feel that if you criticize Democrats you immediately have to equally criticize Republicans, or vice versa for that matter. Just be comfortable in your own skin. But that’s just my opinion.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
JR,
Thanks for your thoughts.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Once the media gets their preferred candidate in office, everything will be all sunshine and roses.
We will all wait 6 weeks to get a broken arm set, 12 months for kidney surgery, and 4 years for that heart surgery. Health care costs will go down…because people will die before they can get the care they need!!!
Do we really want our healthcare system run by the same type people (bureaucrats) who run the Department of Motor Vehicles?
July 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Love your blog. I read it all the time. Had to comment on this one.
Well stated. Agreed. Krugman is full of hot air.
July 9th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
JLP,
You left out the key conclusion in his piece: “So here’s the bottom line: Mr. Bush deserves some blame for the poor performance of the economy on his watch, but much of the blame lies with other, earlier political figures, who squandered chances for reform. As it happens, however, most though not all of the politicians responsible for our current economic difficulties were Republicans.”
A bit different from what you concluded. While Krugman does tend towards the “Bush is the root of all evil” camp, this particular editorial was a bit more balanced than usual.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Krugman is smoking some of the stuff they sell in Kona. That last thing we need is Nationalized health care.
Aloha,
Keahi
July 9th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
I think we can all see what kind of disaster any sort of national health care would be; just look at our veteran’s health care system. Here we have our country’s heroes and most honored members and it is public knowledge what a joke the health care they receive-sub par at best.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I’m sorry, but you can’t go to war and cut taxes. We are spending billions over there and are in hock up to our eyeballs.
Tax cuts OR the war – not both.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Hayden,
I agree.
July 9th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
OMG, JLP actually reads the New York Times?
There is hope for the world.
By the way, they just increased our weekly delivery cost by 60 cents. Anybody else get nicked by this?
Given the fact that the New York Times is about the only paper in the world worth reading (I guess you gather my political bent), 60 cents is not a big issue.
Yours,
Bozo
PS: You can now bash me as a left-coast liberal, which I am.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Bozo,
I don’t think anyone here on AFM will bash you because of your political beliefs. It’s my hope that we can discuss things without bashing each other.
I actually read Krugman’s piece in the Houston Chronicle. I read the Chronicle and the Wall Street Journal. For the most part I am a conservative but I believe in 100% personal responsibility both on the part of people AND companies. If both put responsibility first, we’d have a much better country.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
To: JLP
Re: The conservative ethos
It’s nice to be able to have a discussion without a rant. I wish the cable shows could do likewise.
I was a conservative for many, many years, until the conservative ethos was sold out by the Bushies. Now, I’m so liberal I’ll probably vote for Bob Barr, just as a protest vote.
But then, I’m a weird sort of conservative/liberal/libertarian. I hate guns, love my grandchildren, and don’t mind a balanced budget (even if it means higher taxes for us).
Then again, it’s 110 in the shade here in California, so I guess I might be suffering from heat stroke.
Yours,
Bozo
July 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Clinton at least tried to deal with health care. That is far more than Republicans have. Instead they speak about entitlements when the real problem with entitlements is health care. They remain too mindless to realize this. What we have as health care in this country is a disgrace, neither free, nor a market, little more than cartel of insurers and providers. The entire system is built on obfuscation, misdirection, and deceit.
July 9th, 2008 at 8:02 pm
lord:
amen. (yes it was funny to type that given your name) clearly, i do not have a better solution, or i would not be here, but you have hit the nail on the head. you are being kind calling health care in the united states a disgrace. no one pays more for less.
while i can not argue that the thought of a health care/dmv combo deal sends shivers down my spine, i have to ask, “can it really get much worse?”
July 10th, 2008 at 7:57 am
I couldn’t agree with you more, JLP. And I automatically dislike (and am suspicious of) bloggers who don’t allow disagreement or criticism. What’s wrong with an open dialog?
July 10th, 2008 at 8:04 am
National Health Care? What a joke. Just look to Canada and Britain to see what a disaster it is. Those who have the means go to private physicians. That will still not the stop the poor and stupid from clogging emergency rooms for routine medical care. Health care and healthy life styles are not their priority.
July 10th, 2008 at 8:10 am
Speaking as someone who has a family member with a “pre-existing condition” (due to something beyond their control – personal responsibility police), I think a nationalized healthcare system would be devastating.
July 10th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Were you being serious Ron? Have you ever lived in a country with national healthcare? I’m originally from Texas but have lived in Australia for the last 10 years and nothing you said is close to being accurate. The healthcare here is first rate whether you have private insurance or go public. If I broke my arm tomorrow I would go to the emergency department, have it set right away and NOT pay a dime. If I had to choose to between being sick in the US or here in Australia, Australia wins hands down.
July 10th, 2008 at 11:20 am
The problem with Krugman (and much of the NYT IMO) is that editorials often pose as news. Krugman is a liberal activist who masks himself as an economist. Don’t get me wrong – if he wants to be an activist, he has every right, but he should not be confused with an economist.
Great post JLP!
July 10th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Ms Penny Pincher:
Yes, and yes.
The broken arm was a bit of an exaggeration, but the kidney surgery and heart surgery were not. Look at our VA, look at the ridiculous wait times in Canada or England. I’ve known several people who had relatives die while waiting for simple surgeries in Canada.
Granted, we don’t have a truly “free” market for healthcare in the US, but I’d 10,000 times rather get sick here than in any other place on earth. Australia would be my second choice though.
But we aren’t talking about Australia, we’re talking about the US and you know they won’t emulate our friends down under when they get their hands on 18% of the US economy. It will be an utter fiasco. Medicare? Gimme a break. You STILL need more insurance, and nationalizing healthcare won’t make the care you receive any better. The VA? HA! It’s a third world country through those doors.
Do we want things to be better? Define what “better” is first. Is it that ALL people get first rate care? Won’t happen under a nationalized system. We can’t even secure our borders, much less fix the intricacies of 300 million people needing healthcare. Is “better” just giving adequate care to everyone? That’s the more likely conclusion.
If, instead of nationalizing the system, we were to buy a simple BCBS policy for each person in the US for about $3,000 each or less (it’s a large group, no?), we would save trillions over the fiasco that will be Barrack “The Drama” Obama’s plan. Wait. Does he even have a plan or is it the same old tired thing drummed up from a previous administration?
It’s all about buying votes, plain and simple. It really has nothing to do with healthcare.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Given that many Americans do not have access to our current healthcare system, unless it’s via an emergency room, I would say we couldn’t do much worse if Clinton’s plan became law.
If government healthcare is so evil, why does most of the Western world use it? Most of what I have read says it costs far less then our current system.
Regardless of who wins this election, healthcare reform will have to pass Congress and in the end will look far different then anything Obama or McCain are currently offering.
July 12th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Krugman is a brilliant economist and when he sticks to talking about policy he is a great read. Like most economists he is retarded when he attempts to talk about anything else. As for nationalized health care, break your arm and Canada is great, got cancer then you need to get your ass over the border.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
On healthcare, most of us are only aware of random anecdotal evidence concerning health systems in other countries. As usual, it’s always the worst case scenarios that will get the publicity and be exploited by the opposition. Most American’s know very little about what they’re talking about on the subject. But that doesn’t inhibit them from taking a few negative incidents and build an entire case against the position they are in opposition to.
There is never going to be a perfect solution to the healthcare problem. We are going to have to look at our current system with its problems and other systems with their problems and try to find some middle ground. We definately are not going to solve it by ruling out of hand these other systems we are not really familiar with. Undoubtedly, they have their good and bad features just like our system. Why can’t we see if we can adopt some of the good features from both and merge them into a better system for ourselves. The negativity I see on this site about foriegn systems appalls me; it’s as if they have no redeeming features at all and should be avoided like the plague. Thinking, intelligent human being don’t act like that: not if the their intention is to ultimately craft the best solution possible. Please go slow in critizing something out of had with which you have little more than anacdotal evidence. It immediately curtails an intelligent and unprejidiced dialogue on the issue.
July 14th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I meant to reply earlier but life got in the way
Ron-I brought up Australia because you were making broad exaggerations when it came to countries with National Healthcare so I just wanted to point out my experiences with it. I think waiting times can be an issue but in Australia you can take out very reasonably priced private insurance if you wish which will cut down wait times for non-life threatening procedures. By having private insurance you also don’t have to pay the Medicare levy surcharge.
Frugalicious- The point of National Healthcare is that EVERYONE is covered so it doesn’t matter if you have a “pre-existing” condition.
Alex- You’re pretty much saying that those who get cancer and are treated in a national healthcare system all die. I think we would be reading something about that if it were true
Since being in Australia we have had five friends and relatives diagnosed with cancer, all of which have survived due to excellent treatment. My partner’s uncle had stage III colon cancer, received radiation and chemotherapy and is still alive 5 years later. He didn’t have private insurance and he didn’t have to wait for either his chemo or radiation.
I agree with Richard that too many Americans who have never even experienced socialized healthcare are too quick to condemn it. I also agree that the US should take the best parts of socialized medicine and emulate it. Everyone should have access to free or affordable healthcare.
July 15th, 2008 at 1:08 am
It looks like I’m not the only American who thinks the US system needs an overhaul.
I just found this July 13th article at MarketWatch:
Americans rate U.S. health-care system lowest among 10 nations
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/americans-rate-us-health-care-system/story.aspx?guid=%7B86F29D04%2DFC2D%2D466F%2DADF6%2D2435468CE406%7D
It’s an interesting read. It looks like the Dutch model would the smartest to follow.
July 16th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Shari C. and USA USA, regarding bringing up yet again the VA as an example of how government would botch health care, really need to get up to speed. The National Committee for Quality Assurance examined 17 health care plans, most private, and who came out on top regarding quality of care? The VA. The VA has higher satisfaction ratings than HMOS, it has been cited for its standardization of safety protocols and quality improvement, and it’s electronic medical record system is superior to what the private sector is. As an example when Katrina hit, those veterans were bussed out before the hurricane hit, and their care was transferred seamlessly to Texas VA hospitals, with no loss of data due to electronic medical record system. Compare that to what happened to the private hospitals in that area. Which care would you prefer? So if you are going to use the VA as an example of how it can’t work, to need to find another example.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 am
Not saying anything remotely close to that. It was a short way of saying is fantastic at rescuing people and not very good at keeping them healthy. Also, the fantastic cancer treatment your friends received is a result of work done primarily in the US.
Also, I have lived in Germany and Italy so I have experienced other systems. They have problems, we have problems, but I certainly agree that ensuring everyone has access to some basic level of care is wise, both morally and economically.
Peace.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:28 am
That should read “It was a short way of saying that the US is fantastic at rescuing people and not very good at keeping them healthy.”