As I have noted before, I have a rule of thumb that has served me well in assessing public figures and policy ideas: Anyone or anything Paul Krugman dislikes can’t be all bad.
So, when I saw that Krugman had trashed John Goodman about a (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek post he had written about abolishing the term “uninsured,” I knew Goodman must have made some worthy point.
Goodman correctly points out that, like so many other terms used in today’s political and policy debates, “uninsured” has been rendered meaningless by misuse. Thus, he suggests dropping the misnomer:
Here is the idea: only people who are denied care are truly uninsured. Everyone who gets care is effectively insured by some mechanism. So instead of producing worthless statistics that people fling around in vacuous editorials and pointless debates, the Census Bureau should produce meaningful numbers, identifying all of the sources of funds people will draw on if they need medical care.
Krugman, with his trademark dishonesty, pretends not to understand what Goodman is getting at. Instead, he reduces the entire argument into one of his tired faux-progressive talking points:
Last week John Goodman, an influential figure in Republican health care circles, explained that we shouldn’t worry about the growing number of Americans without health insurance, because there’s no such thing as being uninsured. After all, you can always get treatment at an emergency room.
You would think that a guy like Krugman, who was once actually respected as an economist, could come up with some new material. But, alas, it is not to be. Instead we get “After all, you can …… zzzzzzzzzzzzz
In reality, Goodman’s post provides a pretty good blueprint for classifying “the uninsured” in a way that might actually be useful in clarifying the health care reform debate.
Not that Krugman and his fellow travelers are interested in clarity.
Comments 13
I have come to the same conclusion about Krugman. Any issue he takes a strong stance on, you would do well to be on the other side. As far as being an economist, I am convinced that he had to have dirt on some administrator, because he obviously never sat in an econ class. Maybe he read the liner notes from a biography on Keynes, but that would be the extent of his economic knowledge.
Posted 02 Sep 2008 at 3:51 pm ¶“I am convinced that he had to have dirt on some administrator.”
You may be on to something. It is indeed hard to believe that anyone with any real training as an economist would say some of the things he says.
Posted 02 Sep 2008 at 5:00 pm ¶Tongue in cheek indeed - Goodman’s post is utter nonsense. I can’t do better than one of the comments on his post:
‘Mr. Goodman, you have so little understanding of the realities of medical care in the USA that I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. When I first saw your comments on the uninsured I thought it was something from The Onion. Walk an ER shift in my shoes and leave your right wing reactionary ideology at home. You might learn something.’
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 4:12 am ¶Marc, try to leave your left wing reactionary ideology behind next time you leave a comment here. If I was Catron I would’ve banned you by now, since you’ve proven yourself to be unwilling to learn anything.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 12:23 pm ¶That wasn’t my comment Paul - it was one of your very own American doctors. Catron, to give him his due, allows most posts that stick to the issues and contain factual content. But he should really ban ad hominen attacks devoid of content, like yours.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 1:47 pm ¶Paul, I think it would be quite lame of David to block comments from his most avid reader. The back ‘n forth exchanges between the two have kept me amused on many a boring ass work day.
Posted 03 Sep 2008 at 5:23 pm ¶I agree Joe, it is important that this be a dialog, even if it does revolve around the occasional twisting of opinions. I would love to have a drink with Marc, even if we would give each other an aneurism during the ensuing arguments. I still think I would get better care.
Posted 04 Sep 2008 at 1:43 pm ¶‘I would love to have a drink with Marc, even if we would give each other an aneurism during the ensuing arguments. I still think I would get better care.’
No, I don’t think there would be much argument, thanks to this simple question. If you were an American under 65 with a pre-existing condition and out of work, where would you rather be for your healthcare?
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 2:55 am ¶That is the thing, I have never been out of work. Even when between carreers or building a new business, I always busted my hump doing everything from mowing lawns to running bobtails at a warehousing facility, to teaching myself how to code and writing software apps. I never expected anyone, government included, to take care of me or my family. I guess if I was an unmotivated slacker, I would love to live in your system.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 9:18 am ¶Matt, since when does being an “unmotivated slacker” have anything to do with employment status? Come visit my employer some day for many examples of this.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 9:36 am ¶‘I guess if I was an unmotivated slacker, I would love to live in your system.’
So that’s a backhanded way of saying we have no argument. Bear in mind that many you think are ‘unmotivated slackers’ are just hard working people who got ill and lost their jobs and insurance.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 10:03 am ¶Marc,
Thankfully we can always emigrate to England if we find ourselves in that situation. What cities would you recommend for having a nice standard of living on government assistance? I’ve only been to London and Sheffield, but I found Sheffield to be a dump.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 2:04 pm ¶I didn’t think there was anythink backhanded about it. It was a pretty direct statement. Many times (not all) the disability argument falls flat.
Posted 05 Sep 2008 at 4:17 pm ¶Post a Comment