Krugman: "this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families"

[ProSense]

Numerical notes on health care reform

A couple of notes to address complaints about the Senate bill from the left and the center. (There’s no use addressing complaints from the right; in general, the safest thing when dealing with crazy people is to avoid eye contact.)

For people on the left who think this is all a big nothing, consider the subsidies. From the Kaiser Health Reform Subsidy Calculator, here’s the percentage of insurance premiums on the individual market that would be covered by subsidies at different levels of income measured as a percentage of the poverty line (all calculations are for a family of 4 headed by a 40-year-old):



Guys, this is a major program to aid lower- and lower-middle-income families. How is that not a big progressive victory?

For people in the center who worry, as my colleague David Brooks puts it, that there may be unintended consequences if you “centrally regulate 17 percent of the economy”: um, it’s a little late for that.

First of all, government insurance programs — Medicare, Medicaid, and smaller programs like the VHA, already pay more bills than private insurance companies:



And even the private insurance is overwhelmingly provided through employers — and employment-based insurance is only tax-free unless it obeys extensive regulations. Not coincidentally, those regulations resemble, in a qualitative sense, the goals of the new health reform: employers have to offer the same policy to all their employees, which in effect rules out discrimination based on medical history and subsidizes lower-paid workers.

The point is that we don’t have anything resembling a free market in health insurance — nor should we. Reform is filling in the gaps in the subsidized, regulated system we already have — which should calm centrists — in a way that offers big benefits to those most in need — which should please progressives.

Do the math.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Makes sense... worth a rec

[Pirate Smile]

2. This is why the idea of "progressives" killing it is so ludicrous - but some people think punishing

insurance companies was the point whereas others believe the point was to provide access to health care for the working poor and working class.

[DJ13]

3. When you have to sell something as often as Krugman is selling this bill

Thats an indication you have found yourself on the wrong side of an issue.

What Krugman fails to understand is that those who supported Obama from the start did so because they didnt agree with Krugman and his chosen candidate in the primaries, Hillary, about mandates.

I find it disturbing that a man with his credentials cant see how mandates are an affront to our political system.

[johan helge]

23. I live in Norway, with a single-payer system

- and how is this, the best system, financied? With taxes, which, like mandates, means that you are forced to contribute to the system (if you're able to pay). Mandates are no more "an affront to our political system" than taxes.

[DJ13]

27. I dont consider mandates as the same thing as an increase in taxes

Taxes spread out the cost, mandates target the individual.

With mandates the wealthy pay little more than they do now, the increased cost burden falls squarely on the middle/lower classes.

[johan helge]

31. Mandates can be like progressive taxes

"Taxes spread out the cost, mandates target the individual."

What do you mean, taxes must be paid too, by individuals, just like mandates?

"With mandates the wealthy pay little more than they do now, the increased cost burden falls squarely on the middle/lower classes."

Both taxes and mandates can be very much or very little progressive. Mandates can be progressive by being combined with subsidies for low-income people, see the subsidies in the original post in this thread.

[DJ13]

37. What do you mean, taxes must be paid too, by individuals, just like mandates?

People on the bottom of income distribution in the US generally dont pay income taxes.

Not by coincidence those are the same people currently unable to afford health insurance.

If the HCR had been paid for by a 4% across the board income tax increase (+/-) the people most in need of health care (provided by a government PO or insurance) could get it with no subsidies or added cost.

With the individual mandates now they have to create a hodgepodge of various "subsidies" that wont really eliminate costs that will be prohibitive to the lower classes, they will now end up being forced to pay money they honestly do not have to spare in this economy.

[johan helge]

42. The subsidy is 100% for incomes up to the poverty line

"People on the bottom of income distribution in the US generally dont pay income taxes."

No, and they won't pay anything for health insurance either, with mandates. See the chart in the original post: People with income up to (at least?) the poverty line, get a subsidy of 100 % of the premium.

"If the HCR had been paid for by a 4% across the board income tax increase (+/-) the people most in need of health care (provided by a government PO or insurance) could get it with no subsidies or added cost."

See above.

"With the individual mandates now they have to create a hodgepodge of various "subsidies" that wont really eliminate costs that will be prohibitive to the lower classes, they will now end up being forced to pay money they honestly do not have to spare in this economy."

Do you mean that it is not correct that the subsidy mentionad above is 100%?

[DJ13]

45. get a subsidy of 100 % of the premium

+ copays and high deductibles.

Thats not quite the same thing as I was talking about.

[johan helge]

48. I don't know

what copays and deductibles are (I'm Norwegian). But are copays what you have to pay if you get treatment? Then I suppose poor people have the right to say not to treatment, and avoid the copay. In those cases, I suppose they are in the same situation as today - they don't pay, and get no treatment?

[DJ13]

51. Thats pretty much correct

No money for copays, no treatment.

There are some low cost clinics and state run aid for the poor, which many already use, but a mandate based system is (in theory) supposed to allow the poor to see traditional doctors, which will likely still be out of reach financially for most due to the copay.

And the insurance many poor will be forced to buy will only cover catastrophic illness (hospital) because thats the cheapest, due to the patient only getting insurance coverage above a high dollar amount, typically $5,000 to $10,000 (or more), which leaves them no better off in affordable health care than they already are.

[johan helge]

52. Ok, so it seems that

for many poor people, the new system will not be better than the system today, because of copays they can't afford. But will it be worse for someone, for example for people above the poverty line, who will have to pay for insurance, but won't be able to benefit from the insurance because of copays? I've asked Paul Krugman about this in a comment (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/numerical-notes-on-health-care-reform/).

[DJ13]

53. If you get a reply from him I hope you post it in a new thread

Thanks.

[johan helge]

54. I will!

And thanks for teaching me something!

[jbnow]

81. No idea where you are getting your numbers

There is no chance you are correct unless the bill ends up far worse than either individual bill is.

NO policies will cover only catastrophic illness. In fact many preventative services/tests will be offered with no copay including well baby care..
* No cost-sharing for preventative services.
This will not be a hodge-podge of insurance policies ranging from junk to great. Plans have to be approved to get onto the exchange and there will be standards they have to meet.

* A minimum actuarial value for all plans, and labeling of products based on their comprehensiveness.

Lower income people will not just be covered over the 5K 10K or more amount.
There IS an annual out of pocket cap that you might have gotten those numbers from

* A maximum cap on out-of-pocket costs of $5000 or $6000--and less for lower-income families--so even a plan with higher cost-sharing will at least prevent bankruptcy

quotes are from
http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/?q=node/7252

There is so much else to say...there are other limits on what a person will have to spend in total, other protections...

But for the lower income people
one bill has Medicaid for people up to 133% of poverty, the other 150%
After that the subsidies start going up to 400% of poverty limit

[Hello_Kitty]

77. People at 100% poverty line will be put on Medicaid.

And no one who qualifies for the exchange - 133% FPL and above - will get 100% of their premium subsidized.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. The official poverty line in the U.S. is so low that it's ridiculous

and here's the difference between Norway's system and the proposed U.S. system: The Senate bill has the government paying 100% of premiums to private companies that are required to pay out only 80% of their proceeds in benefits. In other words, the government is subsidizing the profits of a private company.

That is corporate welfare.

The American proposals also allow deductibles. Jeg tror at dere ikke har "deductibles" i Norge, men det mener at man må betale de første $x0000 hvert år. Min "deductible" er $5000 hvert år. Men jeg må også betale $250 hver måned til forsikrings kompani, og jeg får...ingenting. Om jeg betaler $600 hver måned kan jeg har en $300 "deductible." De forsikrings kompanier er tyver, og vår Senate vil gi dem "Julegevner."

I would gladly pay $250 a month in taxes if it meant that I could receive medical care at no extra charge or with a small extra charge, with all the money going directly to the doctor or hospital, but our current system is ridiculous.

[Hansel]

78. People on the bottom pay a higher percentage of taxes in

social security and medicate taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, fees for services, license tabs, gasoline tax, etc. than people who are not in the lower income bracket. The vast majority of people pay more or less the same for these taxes but low income people make a lot less money so the percentage is higher. Even if you are renting a large chunk of your rent goes to property taxes. And when I was poor, I also paid income taxes.

[izquierdista]

40. You need a new dictionary

In American English, "mandate" means "everyone has to buy this, regardless of their ability to pay". There is nothing progressive about it, and subsidy means a few drops pissed into a hot frying pan.

[johan helge]

44. A few drops in a frying pan?

See the chart in the original post: People with income up to (at least?) the poverty line, get a subsidy of 100 % of the premium.

100 % is more than a few drops?

[izquierdista]

46. Look where the poverty line is set

There will be many, many working poor who will not be able to afford this new expense.

[johan helge]

47. Perhaps, I don't know

- I've now asked Paul Krugman about this in a comment (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/26/numerical-notes-on-health-care-reform/#comment-274121), let's hope he replies!

[treestar]

57. Baloney

The subsidies are to make it possible.

[izquierdista]

60. You should be very wealthy soon

Because if you have baloney to sell, that is all the middle class will be able to afford.

[Hansel]

79. Up to 400% of the poverty line get subsidies. Not just 100%.

The percentage they will have to pay will be dependent upon income and number in the family, so what they can afford will be taken into consideration. Those with hardships who truly can't afford it will get waivers. Those who can afford it but refuse may have to pay a fine of $750 a year at the most ($350 for individuals). Most people who do not make little enough to get subsidies can afford $62.50 or $30 a month to pick up part of the tab if they have to be treated.

Most people will still get insurance through their employers. Many others will start getting it through employers who currently aren't offering it but now will have to. Most others will opt for full coverage if they can afford it. Others will pretend they can't afford it and opt to let the rest of us pick up the tab. But I don't think anyone is going to go bankrupt from buying coverage.

If you belong to some organization that has a health coop you do not have to get health insurance, such as church health care coop. Colleges provide coverage for minimal amounts. Both my kids had this insurance and it was well within 400% of poverty and had no problem paying for it when I brought in $16,000 a year. If you have legitimate religious objections you do not have to buy health insurance.

The most you have to pay for insurance is 8% of your income and for the poor that will be largely subsidize. I will not get any subsidies but can still afford that. It's 1/2 of what I would have had to pay if I lost my job. You do not have to pay for maximum coverage. You just need minimal coverage.

[Hello_Kitty]

59. The subsidies stop at 400% FPL.

Which means a person making $44k a year pays the same premium as Paris Hilton and Bill Gates. The person making $33K pays only slightly less than them. That's regressive as shit.

[dflprincess]

61. And, the subsidies are only for the premium

they get no help with out of pocket expenses like copays and deductibles - or anything else the private insurer they're paying decides is not covered in their policy.

[Hello_Kitty]

62. And those out of pockets are going to stop them from getting care

Just the same as before.

[johan helge]

65. Good points (nt)

[inna]

74. Exactly. Individual mandates are, in effect, a massive and hugely regressive

backdoor tax disproportionately affecting struggling middle/working class.

Exactly the opposite of what Obama campaigned on.

[karynnj]

95. He's right

If you consider the cost equal to the Cost minus any subsidy, it will be similar to a progressive tax.

[Land Shark]

73. Mandates ARE more of an affront than taxes, because mandate=tax + dedicated 100% INS CO PORK nt

[Tailormyst]

84. You cannot compare mandates to taxes.

You pay a tax and all your medical needs are covered. Here, many pay a much larger portion of income, to a private company, who takes a profit and then pays for the care. They spend alot of time trying to find ways not to have to provide coverage if you do get sick. On top of the mandated portion of the insurance, one must pay additional money in order to use the "insurance". There are co-pays and deductibles. Those who cannot pay, don't get treated, unless they are sick enough for an emergency room visit- to which you also must often also pay a co-pay on.

The best health insurance I ever has was Masshealth (government paid "welfare" type coverage).

[tabasco]

4. Don't bother the haters with facts.

WHAT ARE YOU SOME KIND OF CHEERLEADER??

[NJmaverick]

5. This is what being a Democrat is all about

helping the people

[live love laugh]

68. Yes and it's about COMPROMISE--America will be better for this plan

no matter what that the Party of NO wants to focus on the Public Option alone as the only victory.

Newsflash to Party of NO: This is was never just about the Public Option.

[Oregone]

6. Well Paul, since it "simulates single-payer", all those subsidies magically reduce per capita costs

Yep, since the bill is passed to someone else, all the inefficiencies, profit, overhead, corruption, etc, of the private insurance market disappears with instant neutralization. And that helps the lower and lower-middle class families because America's industries magically become competitive again and jobs increase!

But what if the subsidies just hide the ridiculous cost of health care in the US, and it just gets passed around in a shell game. Well, I guess its something to think about if you want to think about it. Magic subsidies?

[ShortnFiery]

7. ... while it bleeds and taxes the Middle Class out of existence.

Krugman has totally publishing diarrhea now. I wish he'd just STFU. :thumbsdown:

[phleshdef]

11. Of course you wish he would shut up, he is DESTROYING your precious talking points.

[ShortnFiery]

16. No, he's a talking political elite who garners little to no respect ... he can shove his

nobel prize ... it means nothing since Kissinger and recently warmongering President Obama award. :puke:

[ProSense]

17. .

:rofl:

Got a label for Wendell Potter?

[Donnachaidh]

19. +100000

:thumbsup:

[jenmito]

22. -100001

:thumbsdown:

[Donnachaidh]

39. *I know you are but what am I* post?

:eyes:

real creative.

[jenmito]

20. Wow-you sure sound bitter, Rush...

Obama's a "warmonger" whom you VOTED for, remember?

[phleshdef]

50. " talking political elite who garners little to no respect ", so basically he is you, except elite.

[live love laugh]

69. YES...the Party of No can't say their favorite word anymore. nt

[johan helge]

24. You sound like an anti-tax Republican

Am I right?

[live love laugh]

70. That's quite the exaggeration. This type of tax hasn't resulted in a dismal

outcome in the other 37 countries that provide better healthcare than the US.

[nofurylike]

8. k&r. thank you for posting this, ProSense. clarifying! nt

[Jakes Progress]

66. Not if you think. nt

[nofurylike]

80. ha haha! clearly, better than you do. nt

[Jakes Progress]

86. People who post a bunch of "ha ha"

are clearly not very clever. Surely you can come up with a better way to disagree with my statement. Please read the commentary on this OP. You seem to be prone to short little catch phrase posts, but if you read the truly clarifying rebuttals to the OP that are here, you will have some fodder for further, and maybe more meaningful, discussion.

If you found the simple pasted graph to be "clarifying" then your thinking clearly is limited. It may be nice to only think a little and not very deeply and to never question yourself, but you cannot really call that better thinking. If you find a graph prepared by one of the nation's largest health insurance companies to be "clarifying" then you are easily duped. If you find the graph, which gives only percentages and not numbers" to be clarifying, then you are unaware of the ramifications of asking someone with an income of 150% of the poverty line to cough up an extra couple of hundred dollars a month especially when you have no idea what the poverty line is. If you find the graph to be "clarifying" then you are simply ignorant of the meaning of insurance coverage versus health care, seemingly blank on the concept of co-pay and deductible and limit.

Were you a thinker, you might be like the poster who began defending the information in post #23. Unlike you, this poster actually began to listen to the facts about the pretty graph and came to question just how "clarifying" it was, even finding it quite deceptive.

So go ahead and become a part of the ha ha brigade. It is an absolute sign of having nothing to say that would show any thinking.

I guess you could say your ha ha post is very clarifying.

[nofurylike]

87. nah. just all your pure put down one liner deserved. nt

[Jakes Progress]

88. I guess if you can't address the post of subject

you just avoid them. How is my one line post any less valuable than your puking praise for a post that you didn't understand?

Care to address any of the points in my more lengthy rejoinder to your one-liner ha-ha post? When you don't understand what is being discussed, it is better to admit it in print or at least just go away.

[nofurylike]

89. like you care about debate. i posted in support of someone. nt

[Jakes Progress]

90. If you can't, you can't. Got it. nt

[nofurylike]

91. won't. g'bye. nt

[Jakes Progress]

93. Sometimes brevity is the soul of witless.

You win the short and empty post contest.

[amborin]

9. It's BAD for the Middle Class:

•The excise tax, (which is not in the House bill) which the CBO itself says will affect 19% of people with employer-provided insurance in 2016.

In 2019, six years after this bill takes effect, the excise tax will affect one in five taxpayers making $50-$75,000 per year, and the average tax impact on this bracket will rise to $1,100 a year in 2019.

In addition, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS, another CBO-like organization) predicts that the excise tax will actually make coverage worse for very little return in savings.

In reaction to the tax, many employers would reduce the scope of their health benefits. The resulting reductions in covered services and/or increases in employee cost-sharing requirements would induce workers to use fewer services.

Because plan benefit values would generally increase faster than the threshold amounts for defining high-cost plans (which are indexed by the CPI plus 1 percent), over time additional plans would become subject to the excise tax, prompting those employers to scale back coverage.

The savings?

This excise tax, which would reduce the quality of millions of Americans’ health insurance coverage, will technically "bend the cost curve" by just barely 0.3% in 2019. All that for a measly 0.3% reduction in national health expenditures.

To give you a comparison, CBO projects that Dorgan’s drug re-importation would reduce spending on prescription drugs roughly $100 billion over the next decade (I think the savings could easily end up 4-5 times that amount). A $10 billion reduction in prescription drug spending compared to the total NHE spending last year, which was roughly $2.4 trillion in 2008, would be a 0.4% reduction in NHE.

•The mandate remains, with a larger fine for those who don't purchase coverage attached. Perhaps that's in response to the calculations done showing that it would be cheaper for people to pay the fine than to maintain coverage under the junk insurance plans that are still going to be allowed in the newly "reformed" system. The exemption for those who can prove they can't afford coverage is maintained.

•There is no public option of any kind in the Senate bill, no opt-out, no Medicare buy-in. Just the two national private plans, one of which would be non-profit, that would be overseen by the Office of Personnel Management.

The CBO says it's questionable whether "insurers would be interested in offering such plans is unclear, and establishing a nationwide plan comprising only nonprofit insurers might be particularly difficult." Note, even should a national non-profit be set up by an insurer, it is not the equivalent of the public option.

effective they will be:

California recently dropped an attempt to enforce its anti-rescission law against a major insurer, saying that it was financially outgunned by the insurer's legal team.

The rescission law, according to the legislation, "shall not apply to a covered individual who has performed an act or practice that constitutes fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact as prohibited by the terms of the plan or coverage."

Insurers today routinely claim that patients engaged in "fraud" or "intentional misrepresentation" when dropping them from coverage. Much depends on who defines the terms in the bill.

It won't be the federal government. There will be no federal agency tasked with overseeing the enforcement of the bill's rules. Rather, a Senate leadership aide told reporters in a briefing Saturday, individual states will police the new system.

That's a task the California Department of Managed Health Care was unable to perform when battling Anthem Blue Cross, which has rescinded 1,770 policies since 2004.

"In each and every one of those rescissions, the right to contest each, and that could tie us up in court forever," the department's director, Cindy Ehnes, told The Associated Press. A million-dollar fine was announced in March 2007, but has not been enforced.

If the enforcement for these regulations falls on the individual states, and the individual states will have to litigate them, which could take a very long time in each case. The regulations are unlikely to be uniformly enforced state to state--some of them have extremely proactive insurance commissioners and strong regulatory structures in place, others don't. And in the states that don't, don't expect insurers to end some of these practices out of the goodness of their hearts.

Bottom line, Americans are still going to be forced to buy insurance that for too many people will be unaffordable. As long as that's the case, and until there's a true alternative public option that provides people real choice, the insurance companies shouldn't get that one thing in the legislation they want: the mandate.

[nonsequitur]

76. +1

[mzmolly]

10. Your user name is most apt these days prosense. K and R

Thanks so much for sharing relevant, positive information about health care reform.

:toast:

[Cleita]

12. Something no one is bringing up but that is important to the debate is,

in order for this work on even a "throwing some bones to the proles" level, the insurance companies need to go back to being non-profit. As long as Wall Street is involved, all it will do is drain tax-payers' money to pay those subsidies. There still won't be much real health care delivered. It doesn't take a math genius to see this. Administration needs to be cut back to 5% not 15% of premiums collected, with the rest going into actual health care. In a plodding way it might work. It still doesn't lower the burden of the health care providers in needing an army of billing personnel to negotiate the system and get paid.

[TheBigotBasher]

13. The subsidies to me seem part of the problem

If you are just on the edge of one of those bands and get a measly $1 a week pay rise, you could find yourself with a big increase in insurance costs.

It is one of the reasons a progressive tax system or taper will always be better.

It has already happened this year, some low pay benefits went up which resulted in incomes being 35c aboe food voucher levels, leaving the poor much worse off.

[jefferson_dem]

14. The evidence is crystal clear.

Numerous reports from reputable sources have confirmed how these reforms will pay real dividends for low-middle class families.

Thanks for posting the latest one.

[HughMoran]

15. Good math

I don't always like Krugman, but I do remember people FREAKING OUT when some here dared to disagree with his criticisms of Obama earlier in the year. Those same people are notoriously silent now, or attacking his credibility.

[amborin]

21. LOL! Here's ProSense bashing Krugman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8276060#8278943

[ProSense]

25. No, that's diagreeing with Krugman.

It's allowed, you know. Go ahead, disagree with him and present your argument, as I did

[HughMoran]

26. That's bashing? Would you like me to search and find real bashing from those

who were Krugman lapdogs while he was trashing Obama on economic issues?

Just give me the OK...

[jenmito]

29. And here's you praising Krugman:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=8181873

[amborin]

32. so, i used to praise him, until he got with "message discipline"

[ProSense]

33. .

:rofl:

[amborin]

38. that was fast! you're keeping up with your quotas

[jenmito]

34. Yeah, ok.

:rofl:

[HughMoran]

35. haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha! haha!

Oh my god. Hypocrite much?

[impik]

18. Facts are overrated.

[depakid]

28. Yep- it's a huge victory to throw tons of money at a corrupt and abusive industry

in return for high deductible, high copay junk insurance that people won't be able to afford to use.

There's a recipe for a sustainable health care system!

:sarcasm:

[ProSense]

30. I don't think you understand reform

"corrupt and abusive" this is under the current rules. They will be prohibited from being abusive when the system is reformed.

[depakid]

43. You're clueless about that (and perhaps dishonest to boot)

Toothless regulations will not prohibit most of the abuses that we've seen- and in some ways will weaken current protections.

Think folks won't still be denied necessary care with impunity- and no effective recourse?

:rofl:

ERISA preemption is still in place- as are so called "fraud" provisions- and many others.

Sadly, as these continue to occur unabated, the media will rightly lay them at the feet of Democrats- who are now the party aligned with the health insurance industry.

[ProSense]

67. "Toothless regulations " More speculation

The problem with your criticisims is that they rely on a simplistic mischaracterization.

[TheKentuckian]

75. Well, where are the supposed teeth? It seems enforcement is kicked down

to the same nearly utterly ineffective parties that tilt at windmills and can't compete with big corporate money.

The best rebuttal would seem to be to point out what it seems many see as obvious.

It is starting to seem your speculation enjoys a privledged position. You don't give room to the idea that the critic's speculations might be close to correct and what happens from there. A strange place to be when you have to admit that more needs to be done than will be accomplished.

There is seeming to be a general STFU chorus brewing that insists we trust our guys and in the future despite a reasonable lack of faith in the actual solutions.

[MerryBlooms]

36. Thank you for the info, much appreciated. n/t

.

[firedupdem]

41. Rec'd...thanks for posting this info. n/t

[ProSense]

49. A

trend

Warning, exploding heads.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

55. Mandates are a regressive. Lower income people are hurt, forced to subsidize those with more money

I'm afraid Krugman hasn't given enough thought to,
and lacks personal contact with, lower class life in America.

A single mother, with one child and $33,000 a year is forced
to pay a thousand or two (I deduce) to help support
a severely inefficient system with overpaid doctors and hospitals,
overpriced drugs and machinery,
and a bloated insurance bureaucracy.
Often she doesn't even have the option of saying,
maybe I'll see the experienced nurse instead of the novice doctor.
And if she (like many people I know) cannot always
afford to make the long trip to the doctor's office,
or if the care she is offered is inadequate,
or if the waiting times are too long to allow
doctor visits in a timely fashion,
she can't even take the savings
of doing without care, and put it into better food or heating.
She just does without care. That's ugly.

Paul Krugman specializes in trade, macroeconomics.
Understanding the working class is not his strong point.

[treestar]

56. Rec'd for facts

[Hello_Kitty]

58. Krugman demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of progressives

Yes, we want to help the poor. But we have a fundamental belief that a strong middle class is essential to a healthy and functioning society. A strong tide that lifts all boats. This bill does little to nothing to stem the billions of dollars being funneled from the middle class to the wealthy and, in fact, entrenches the very industry that does that to them. It does nothing to strengthen the middle class, as Krugman's own chart demonstrates.

[eridani]

63. As long as they aren't old

People 50-64 are disposable human garbage in this bill.

[Digit]

64. Yep

Although I would prefer a JOB with health insurance I will be stuck paying the fine since even the subsidized price will be unaffordable.

I know I am not alone.

[TheKentuckian]

71. What Paul doesn't get is I don't give a damn if people have insurance

if I don't believe they will be able to afford to actually use it.

He also thinks everyone is too short sighted to understand that if we don't actually seriously address costs then the subsidies will fail to have real impact or even be eliminated eventually and we're left with nothing but a bandaid that didn't stick too well.

See it is important to not just say we are helping people but to actually help them and if something needs to be paid for then it should be the people with real resources doing the paying not by setting up a game of cost shifting and putting undue weight on the struggling guy with a few more dollars of income.

I also have to say I'm at severe odds with his definition of extensive regulations. If Krugman thanks the current regulation is extensive in any way that ensures a fair shake through employer based insurance then my faith and credence in his opinions has been really misplaced because he's talking out of his ass. Most people are okay with what their employer offers because they don't see the full cost and more crucially they don't use it for anything major. The more people have needed it the unhappier and more disappointed and screwed they feel.

He also either misses or avoids that while we don't have a free market in health insurance, it is still a for profit market that enjoys a captive audience which is just a worse of all sides kind of Frankenstein monster that is destroying the village. The "new system" will just make that for profit market mandated to make an even more captive audience.

[Land Shark]

72. % of Povert is an extremely misleading statistic (set long ago WAY too low)

At a minimum, social service agencies define 200% of poverty as the baseline for real poverty. Without resource limitations, it would be closer to 300% as the threshold for who needs food assistance, etc. At these levels, folks need 100% assistance to do ANYTHING new.

[TheKentuckian]

82. Considering full time at min wage is like 150% of poverty for a single you're

completely right here. Even 300-400% is a long ways from comfortable. I'd say anything less than 200% is about destitute.

The 2009 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia Persons in family Poverty guideline
1 $10,830
2 14,570
3 18,310
4 22,050
5 25,790
6 29,530
7 33,270
8 37,010
For families with more than 8 persons, add $3,740 for each additional person

That's right the government says you can take care of a clan of eight if you can cobble together 37,011. It probably takes more than half of that to just house 8 people in a shady neighborhood with horrible schools and no grocery for miles.

[ProgressOnTheMove]

85. I think Krugman most likely has the best assessment when it comes the the numbers.

[Cali_Democrat]

92. Under the bus ya go, Krugman

It's getting awfully crowded under there.

[freddie mertz]

94. The hard-sell, force-feeding tactics employed by PK and the OP

Suggest that they have a product to move whose merits are not exactly self-evident.

Fail.

(Sorry Paul).