Krugman Confuses Bacchus, Baucus and Baloney with the Threshold for Healthcare.  Not Enough Big Government in the Latest Episode

Abstract: Krugman of the New York Times monotonously and tautologically restrokes the eternal quest for more government and higher taxes and criticizes the Baucus Plan. He is never satisfied if any corporation can make a profit off any product or service in North America or beyond.  He picks and prawns at the details of the plan and has no conclusion as to whether it will pass. The criticisms he offers shadow his fears that private co-ops or non-profit combines of providers and insurers might join forces [our[1] best option] and circumvent the government system and become successful. Reading between the lines as The Old Red Lady[2] can do with speech and writings, I can see that Krugman wants a 100% top-down, cram it in your orifice government plan like Cuba has to offer. The left will be satisfied with nothing else as they continue to pine for a 100% inheritance tax and %70 income taxes.

One of the most refreshing pastimes of life, particularly for those who survive in certain narrow political or cognitive channels, is to be constantly reinvigorated with tautological slogans and to have their little prejudices routinely rejuvenated with  sparkling illuminations like a Jack-in-the Box with a trick spring.  Paul Krugman provides this impetus for the cognitively disnimble. Each instance where  you sense fear or instability, you merely punch the feel-good button and get a refreshing dose of solace and joy from Jack, the latest intellectual findings from the left by watching the head bobble and also a little laugh to help your bowels keep regular. Such is the process provided, free of course, by the New York Times that is known affectionately as the Walter Duranty Papers[3] in honor of their Pulitzer Prize winner wh0se portrait proudly hangs on the wall in New York City to inspire all leftist journalists. The only thing better might be sniffing lotus blossoms or poking STP at parties.

In a previous exciting essay, our Dr. Paul Krugman of the Walter Duranty Papers [4] squeezed off another propagandistic offalette[5] defining the firm rudimentary requirements of healthcare for the masses.[6] Today he amplifies his amplifications.

He begins:

“So Senator Max Baucus, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, has released his “mark” on proposed legislation —…”[7]-- Baucus and the Threshold By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 17, 2009 [Emphasis is mine in all quotes.]

Is this like the Mark of Cain or the Mark of McCain? This opening salvo, somewhat unenthusiastic in tone, portends a poor review from the famous non-economist from the Times. Warts must have grown on the course of action since last we were all aligned on the proper thinking of funding of healthcare by this author.

He continues:

“You see, it has been clear for months that whatever health-care bill finally emerges will fall far short of reformers’ hopes. Yet even a bad bill could be much better than nothing. The question is where to draw the line. How bad does a bill have to be to make it too bad to vote for?”-- Baucus and the Threshold By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 17, 2009

This is like a wino’s stage whisper in some off Broadway comedy production choreographed by amateurs or perhaps parallels an opening comment on astrophysics directed to impress some hooker in a Tijuana bar by choice of the unfamiliar structure and composition.  Did the last bum that swilled from this Tokay Reservoir have AIDS or not? Frequently, one can mumble and jumble wax silly and appear to be profound and that impresses those with limited cognitive attributes. This sentence also has residual elements of the rarely used future past perfect tense, offers nothing but abuse and terminates in a negative conclusion while providing no facts.  Acceptable for Krugman.

The explanation for this affront now gushes forth:

“Now, the moment of truth isn’t here quite yet: There’s enough wrong with the Baucus proposal as it stands to make it unworkable and unacceptable. But that said, Senator Baucus’s mark is better than many of us expected. ”-- Baucus and the Threshold By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 17, 2009

“But while many reformers, myself included, would prefer a single-payer system if we were starting from scratch, international experience shows that it’s not the only way to go.”-- Baucus and the Threshold By Paul Krugman

Some false latitude is offered here as a concession to those with limited attention spans.

“And right here in America, we have the example of the Massachusetts health reform, many of whose features are echoed in the Baucus plan. The Massachusetts system, introduced three years ago, has many problems. ”-- Baucus and the Threshold By Paul Krugman Op-Ed Columnist Published: September 17, 2009

The MA plan is a disaster as the young didn’t want to waste their money. Many were exempted and the costs are soaring so the state is going broke and must mandate a fine of over $1000 per year.[8] Krugman’s conclusion was stated earlier as “single-payer system-- No more and certainly no less. Obama lied about this.[9] The salient fact that liberals are liars is not exactly newsworthy but it is praiseworthy in leftist circles.

Krugman krugmanically autopsies the Baucus plan for defects:

“[1] First, it bungles the so-called “employer mandate.”-- Baucus and the Threshold

The fees are apparently too low such that the employer is tempted to force employees to take the ‘public option’ if possible and that would encourage government control of most health care in the long run, an objective of big government in the first place.  The details of the Baucus plan are not out yet as I understand from this point. The ‘poor’ would be paid for under this scenario and the employers would partially subsidize the government [more taxes] along with the taxpayers, a group that shrinks every year. These low fees actually favor the left in many circumstances and scenarios so Krugman [“Mr. Baucus, however, gets too clever, trying to tie each employer’s fees to the subsidies its own employees end up getting.”] is probably  facetious.

“[2] Second, the plan is too stingy when it comes to financial aid.”-- Baucus and the Threshold

The disparity range in incomes of families, cost accounted out to some average or mean, now produces levels or cost zones that tend to act as barriers for those with lower incomes hence the need to offer unlimited HC at no cost and just tax the general population for the costs. This is what Moscow Central Planning did, the final objective and last word on government according to the left. There is no reason we cannot have free sex change operations and abortions for everybody.

[3] Third, the plan doesn’t create real competition in the insurance market. The right way to create competition is to offer a public option, a government-run insurance plan individuals can buy into as an alternative to private insurance. ”-- Baucus and the Threshold

This is double talk. If the government plan is lower in cost[or penalties] then people will be forced to get that plan if they are in the lower income strata and private plans cannot compete due to absent taxes and subsidized costs that government enjoys. The intent, need I repeat myself here, is to put up a phony ‘choice’ that works like crooked dice toward enticing people to ‘choose’ the socialized medicine option. Then, the government can hire about 300,000 people like in the ACORN organization to ‘administer’ the program.  Like Maureen Dowd[10], I have the gift of reading things that were not actually written in certain leftist ragzines.[11]

Continuing on with [3] “The Baucus plan instead proposes a fake alternative, nonprofit insurance cooperatives….The insurance industry, of course, loves the Baucus plan. Need we say more?”-- Baucus and the Threshold

This is puerile as well as deceptive. We all know that the insurance companies are the Evil Empire of the healthcare system according to Obama and his minions. As an additional threat, if these insurance providers can scoot across state boundaries and avoid the red tape and hokum of 51 different systems then they can save costs and offer a spectrum of coverages to all and still make money.  Worse, the providers might join in with the insurance companies and offer full spectrum service and that is a threat to the left. The young who would be forced to buy in to bloated and phony public options might escape the crude socialism offered by Krugman with very low premiums as they have little need of HC and could still satisfy the forced participation mandates.

Krugman chucks chum and chopped liver for the far left as usual and contributes nothing to the issues at hand. He is a two trick pony: Big government and bigger government.

rycK

Comments: ryckki@gmail.com