Breaking: Krugman endorses Single Payer and Medicare for All!!!
Why not single-payer?
October 7, 2007 5:31 pm
Paul Krugman
The alternative would be single-payer, aka Medicare for all: a payroll tax on everyone, and a government insurance program for everyone. Wouldn’t that be simpler, easier to administer, and more efficient?
Yes, it would.
And here he goes full on Socialist... like old school government-delivers-the-means, socialist...
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/why-not-a-public-option-for-medicare/
Why Not A Public Option for Medicare?
April 12, 2011 9:27 am
Paul Krugman
But if you want a really radical proposal — but one that, unlike privatization, actually has strong evidence on its side — why not add a true public option to Medicare?
What do I mean by that? I mean creating a network of hospitals and clinics actually run by the government — a civilian VA, as Phillip Longman puts it — and giving Medicare recipients the option of using that system.
Oh, and this one's gonna hurt:
Why the public option matters
September 8, 2009 4:56 pm
Paul Krugman
Most arguments against the public option are based either on deliberate misrepresentation of what that option would mean, or on remarkably thorough misunderstanding of the concept, which persists to a frustrating degree...
Here, he is downright promoting "Socialized Medicine"
Why Americans hate single-payer insurance
July 28, 2009 11:45 am
Paul Krugman
Because they don’t know they have it...
One of the truly amazing and depressing things about the health reform debate is the persistence of fear-mongering over “socialized medicine” even though we already have a system in which the government pays substantially more medical bills (47% of the total) than the private insurance industry (35%).
In a way, this is the flip side of the persistent belief that the free market can cure healthcare, even though there are no places where it actually has...
Then there's this chestnut....
Paul Krugman described savings from elimination of insurance company overhead and hospital billing costs in 2005 as follows:[2]
The great advantage of universal, government-provided health insurance is lower costs. Canada's government-run insurance system has much less bureaucracy and much lower administrative costs than our largely private system. Medicare has much lower administrative costs than private insurance. The reason is that single-payer systems do not devote large resources to screening out high-risk clients or charging them higher fees. The savings from a single-payer system would probably exceed $200 billion a year, far more than the cost of covering all of those now uninsured.
Applying Krugman's $200 billion savings estimate to the U.S. population of approximately 300 million people representing 100 million households,[11] this amounts to approximately $650 per person or $2,000 per household. A study by Harvard University and the Canadian Institute for Health Information estimated the 1999 costs of U.S. health care administration at nearly $300 billion, accounting for 30.1% of health care expenses, versus 16.7% in Canada. This study estimated the U.S. per-person administrative cost at $1,059.[12] One organization that advocates nationalized health care estimated this savings could be as high as $350 billion per year in "...overhead, underwriting, billing, sales and marketing departments as well as huge profits and exorbitant executive pay."[13]
I will leave you with Paul Krugman's own words...
Health Care Terror
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: July 9, 2007
So this is a test. The only things standing in the way of universal health care are the fear-mongering and influence-buying of interest groups. If we can’t overcome those forces here, there’s not much hope for America’s future.
Which....by the way is pretty much what Bernie is saying.
====
If you agree with Paul Krugman, please Kick and Recommend
= new reply since forum marked as read
.
Last edited Sun Jan 24, 2016, 09:41 PM - Edit history (1)
for over 20 years now, and has been popping up for 80 years. Why do you think we don't have single payer? Go read what's been written on this, Cui. We WILL have single payer before you catch up to 01/24/2016. 
Okay! I came back to suggest starting with learning about "belief in a just world" and conservative, morality, personality. You can't understand why we don't have single payer until you understand conservative morality and personality.
BIJW arises from inborn conservative personality traits that are also institutionalized in conservative Christian doctrine and can't just be reasoned away.
Basically, those who believe in a just world believe that people tend to get what they deserve and deserve what they get. It's a natural sorting out process, where people's own behaviors lead them to be among the deserving or among the undeserving. This feedback on behavior is seen as critical to the formation of a healthy and moral society.
(One notable personality characteristic of conservatives is their comparatively dark view of human nature - as in, people will behave badly if not required by outside forces to behave well.)
Since it negates the factor of personal deservedness, single payer (and Obamacare for that matter) is seen as a giant, government hand-out that will discourage people from helping themselves and eventually degrade and ruin the nation. By definition, the "deserving" don't need government programs like this and would only be corrupted by them (allowed to strive less) if available.
Enjoy.
1st:
2nd:
And how long, again, did it take Hillary (who also regards Mubarek as a "friend of our family"
, to repudiate that vote? Or sort of repudiate that vote? And this is looking good for American foreign policy?
As for single-payer -- what confidence it must take, to prefer a failed and expensive system to one proven by the rest of the world to work, for half or a third of what ours costs us.
With this kind of defeatist Democratic leadership, who's going to come out to vote?
If nothing else, this election period demonstrates once again that while Republicans fear their base, Democrats despise theirs.
3rd:
Searched the top comments for "crook", "shill", or "crony", but didn't find any hits. But of course, why deal with substantive criticism from the majority when you can cherry pick comments from a couple individuals to paint supporters in a bad light?
Still Krugman is a hack, and wrong on this one. 
oh, that's just fantasy accounting. Ok, exactly what part is fantasy accounting? What exactly is magic unicorns? Give some details, if you can, instead of the usual, broad brush, insurance industry propaganda bullshit. 
i see what you did there.
HA! Nice 
Gets it right, more often than not. I keep waiting for the Republicans and corporatists to find throw own two Nobel Prize Laureates to challenge Krugman and Steiglitz. Hasn't happened- wonder
why...
K&R
...can't seem to cut through that 3rd way, corporatist propaganda, can you.
Then again, what's actually best for the country may not be in your personal financial best interests. If that's actually the case, my response is...tough shit. Go sell buggy whips or pound sand. Your choice.
The reactions to your op are priceless.
Sofa King Cool woohoo ....I'll believe it when I see it, given the fact that HRC and the Clinton foundation has accepted millions from the insurance industry. Out of the kindness of their little corporate hearts, I sure. No services rendered for payment, I'm sure. You do realize that true single payer for all will destroy the health insurance industry as we know it? Or do you simply ignore that inconvenient fact.
Good one! He's right.
