Tuesday, June 10, 2014

Krugman Confuses Healthcare Coverage With Good Quality Healthcare

Don. Boudreaux tries to set Krugie straight:
Dear Mr. Krugman:
On your blog today you document that the percentage of Americans without health insurance has fallen since Obamacare kicked in.  You conclude that “[t]his is what success looks like.”
You miss the point of Obamacare’s most careful critics.
None of these critics denies that government can successfully use a mix of regulations, taxes, and subsidies to effectively mandate an increase in the number of Americans who have health-insurance policies.  Instead, the real concern is that Obamacare will either diminish the quality or the accessibility of actual health-care provision (rather than of health insurance) or that the costs of the extra health-care provision made possible by Obamacare - costs reckoned as the value of other goods and services sacrificed as a consequence - will be excessive.


  1. RW,

    Perhaps you haven't taken into consideration that Krugman is drawing on his well modeled baby sitting co-op and its successful run? (really, it happened right?) Doesn't it apply directly to Obamacare?

    See, it's very simple:

    Instead of baby sitting scrip, it's now healthcare scrip, via Federal subsidies. No matter the resources at hand, just create more Obamacare scrip!

    LMAO! The stupidity of the whole thing is astounding. Krugman helps to make the case that the Nobel Prize in anything should be awarded by a committee wearing clown shoes, a clown nose, and with a hand shake from those wearing a joy buzzer.

  2. I wonder when the Left will figure out that health insurance is not healthcare. Obamacare has done a lot on the demand side of the equation but he has done nothing for supply. If he wanted more people, especially the poor and middle class, to have improved accessibility to medical care, he should have sought to either elimination or significantly reduce government imposed barriers to getting medical care providers, medicine and medical equipment to the market.

    For those who suggest that the US convert to the European model, I wonder if any of them are willing to provide a comparison of the regulatory barriers that exist in Europe for the licensing of medical care professions, and approval of medial equipment and drugs.

    1. "I wonder when the Left will figure out that health insurance is not healthcare."

      The idiot shit turd left will NEVER get it. Why? Because they can't even grasp econ 101 at the grade school level. They think that all you need is some philosopher (that is, idiot) king to issue a command and magically all will be well.

      The idiot left will only learn when they put away their childish superstitions and embrace real economics, not this emotion-laden BS they so desperately cling to. It's laughably idiotic.

  3. Not surprising. Krugman and many confuse health care with health insurance.

  4. Has krugman tried to explain away how horribly wrong he was about the VA being a model healthcare system?

  5. I'm not sure that Krugman or Obama are *idiots*. I think they know perfectly well that health insurance is not the same as health care *service*.

    As with the VA, the goal is not to provide benefits to patients. The goal is to provide benefits to *politicians* by suckering the ignorant into believing that all it takes to eliminate scarcity and poverty is a few strokes of the pen.

    Krugman is not an economist. He's a propagandist for the regime. His salary depends on writing stuff to bolster the regime's ability to consolidate power. (Such as deliberately blurring the line between health coverage and health care.)

    These guys have no intention of increasing health care access for anyone. It is simply another lure by which they can draw more votes and money into their nets.

  6. I wouldn't even go so far as calling it "insurance."