Thursday, July 30, 2009

Does Paul Krugman Really Believe the Things He Writes?

Paul Krugman: There are, however, no examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market, for one simple reason: in health care, the free market just doesn’t work.

Don Boudreaux: I can list lots of examples of successful health care based on the principles of the free market: the regular, smooth, widespread, and affordable supply of aspirin, bandages, decongestants, toothpaste, dental floss, toothbrushes, contact lenses, running shoes, and gyms. I could go on.

Mark Perry: And how about Lasik eye surgery (costs a third today of what it did 10 years ago), low-cost convenient retail health clinics (1,200 in the U.S. and growing), cosmetic surgery (stable prices despite a 6X increase in demand since early 1990s), medical tourism around the world, $10 prescription drugs at Wal-Mart for a 90-day supply of 300 different generic prescriptions, the No Insurance Club, medical savings accounts, etc.


  1. Robert, Krugman's choice of words provides him with an infinite number of escapes, since the term 'successful' is vague at best. Arguing with people like Krugman is akin to arguing with Jesuits. A great exercise for the brain, but ultimately futile.
    One could, of course, turn this around and say that there is no successful healch care based on the principles of government planning.

    We really have to learn to use the stupid rethoric of our opponents against them. Be bold, be blunt, be unapologetic. Call them names, if you must, use invectives, but be clever about them. So, avoid 'socialist', say 'antiquated', or 'simplistic', or 'naive'.


  2. Wenzel and Anon,

    This is something I've struggled with... when you realize someone is as asinine and apparently stupid or willfully-dishonest like Krugman, what do you do? Are they worth a response? Or is it better to just ignore them, for your own good and everyone else's?

    What's the best way to marginalize their idiocy? Silence? Invective? Reasoned debate?

    Is reasoned debate the way to argue with a stubborn child?

  3. Step 1: Assume your conclusion.
    Step 2: Defend your position based on misleading statistics and emotion instead of logic and reason.
    Step 3: Collect Nobel Prize.

  4. I had lasik a few years ago and it was brilliantly effective.

  5. Any argument with these willfull fools has to be public, as the goal is NOT to convince THEM, but to get the audience on your side. The most important thing is to get the audience to laugh at YOUR jokes at THEIR (the fools) expense.
    Don't feel bad about being unfair - this fight has to be fought to win, or not at all.
    This is no longer a debate, this is war.