Paul Krugman is a jackass (2 Viewers)

[humpback]

This kind of gotcha is dull. You all know Krugman doesn't consider SS a ponzi scheme. But you'll eagerly pretend that him saying 15 years ago that SS has a single "ponzi scheme aspect" proves he really believes it is a ponzi scheme and yet ... he supports it anyway.

Nobody thinks that Social Security is literally a Ponzi scheme. Paul Krugman doesn't, Rick Perry doesn't, you don't, I don't, etc. For one thing, Social Security isn't illegal. For another thing, governments have the ability to coerce payment from people, which Ponzi operators don't enjoy. We could go on, but you get the point. When people say "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme," they're invoking a metaphor to point out that Social Security shares some but not all of the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. This is actually not a controversial observation, or at least it used to not be controversial as we can see from Krugman's post. Like Krugman points out, Social Security stays afloat by using the payments of "new investors" (workers) to pay off "older investors" (retirees). And like Krugman acknowledges, this mechanism causes it to break down when the ratio of workers to retirees gets out of whack. Again, this is not even remotely controversial.The reason why people enjoy these "gotcha" moments with Krugman is because he always -- and I do mean literally always, as in 100% of the time -- attributes the worst possible motives to those who disagree with him. Some would say that this makes him a bit of a jackass. So it's lots of fun to see him saying the same stuff that he lambasts others for.

It's only "controversial" because of partisanship.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

You've hit the nail on the head. When someone calls SS a ponzi scheme, they are describing not merely the method but also the intent. It is the latter that makes this accusation absurd IMO.

Once again you project untrue characteristics onto the opposite side of to shore up your own argument.As IK points out - how Krugmanesque.

I believe the characteristics are true, but that is MY OPINION. That's why I wrote "IMO". You say they're untrue; that is your opinion. Neither of us is like Krugman, who arrogantly treats his own opinions as objective facts.

No. You didn't say that it was your opinion that those calling SS a ponzi scheme are meaning to say that it's intentionally fraudulent. You portrayed that as truth.Your opinion was in calling the accusation absurd.

The whole thing was my opinion. Do I really need to add IMO at the end of EVERY sentence? Who's being insufferable now?

it's still you

 

[timschochet]

You've hit the nail on the head. When someone calls SS a ponzi scheme, they are describing not merely the method but also the intent. It is the latter that makes this accusation absurd IMO.

Once again you project untrue characteristics onto the opposite side of to shore up your own argument.As IK points out - how Krugmanesque.

I believe the characteristics are true, but that is MY OPINION. That's why I wrote "IMO". You say they're untrue; that is your opinion. Neither of us is like Krugman, who arrogantly treats his own opinions as objective facts.

No. You didn't say that it was your opinion that those calling SS a ponzi scheme are meaning to say that it's intentionally fraudulent. You portrayed that as truth.Your opinion was in calling the accusation absurd.

The whole thing was my opinion. Do I really need to add IMO at the end of EVERY sentence? Who's being insufferable now?

it's still you

Since you didn't write, IMO, I'll assume that you believe my insufferability is an objective fact.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Alex Tabarrok quotes three Nobel prize winners in economics using the P-word to describe Social Security (Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, and Paul Krugman).

He concludes: "Of these, I agree the most with Krugman. Social Security is not necessarily a Ponzi scheme but it only generated massive returns in the past because of its Ponzi-like aspects. The Ponzi-like aspects are now over and social security is turning into what is essentially a forced savings/welfare program with, as Krugman recognizes, crummy returns for average workers."

Seems about right.

Krugman doesn't call the returns "crummy." The whole point is that the returns, while not lavish, are guaranteed.

Getting out less than you put in is a crummy return, and it's no more guaranteed than treasury bills.

 

[tommyboy]

I haven't read Perry's book, so I'll just say that if he really does believe that Social Security is literally a ponzi game in every respect, then he's wrong. This isn't difficult.

I haven't read his book either, but I saw the first debate Perry participated in. He not only said it was a "Ponzi scheme," he also said that it's a "giant lie" or something like that. He wasn't just using "Ponzi scheme" as shorthand for "new people pay for old people."

since congress has raided the social security funds, it has become a lie. There is no account that you or i have that has our money in it, its just paper. It is what you call unfunded liabilities.so people like to think they have this money set aside for them in a nice safe place that they've been giving to the gov't their adult working life and when they retire they'll get this money back plus interest. No one in gov't dispels this idea, they want you to believe that. Except there's no guarantee the funds will actually exist in 10 or 20 years when people my age retire. In effect what really is happening is they are collecting SS and using it in the general fund to pay for gov't expenses, through loans.

here is a very good article on the situation http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/ida_may_and_the_ponzi_scheme.html

 

[Joe T]

This kind of gotcha is dull. You all know Krugman doesn't consider SS a ponzi scheme. But you'll eagerly pretend that him saying 15 years ago that SS has a single "ponzi scheme aspect" proves he really believes it is a ponzi scheme and yet ... he supports it anyway.

Nobody thinks that Social Security is literally a Ponzi scheme. Paul Krugman doesn't, Rick Perry doesn't, you don't, I don't, etc. For one thing, Social Security isn't illegal. For another thing, governments have the ability to coerce payment from people, which Ponzi operators don't enjoy. We could go on, but you get the point. When people say "Social Security is a Ponzi scheme," they're invoking a metaphor to point out that Social Security shares some but not all of the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. This is actually not a controversial observation, or at least it used to not be controversial as we can see from Krugman's post. Like Krugman points out, Social Security stays afloat by using the payments of "new investors" (workers) to pay off "older investors" (retirees). And like Krugman acknowledges, this mechanism causes it to break down when the ratio of workers to retirees gets out of whack. Again, this is not even remotely controversial.The reason why people enjoy these "gotcha" moments with Krugman is because he always -- and I do mean literally always, as in 100% of the time -- attributes the worst possible motives to those who disagree with him. Some would say that this makes him a bit of a jackass. So it's lots of fun to see him saying the same stuff that he lambasts others for.

Excellent, getting past the semantic argument of "ponzi scheme" and all it entails and getting to the common sense root of the issue. Well done, sir!

Posts like this make it worth wading through all the non-sense that others (timscochet) throw out.

 

[pantagrapher]

I haven't read Perry's book, so I'll just say that if he really does believe that Social Security is literally a ponzi game in every respect, then he's wrong. This isn't difficult.

I haven't read his book either, but I saw the first debate Perry participated in. He not only said it was a "Ponzi scheme," he also said that it's a "giant lie" or something like that. He wasn't just using "Ponzi scheme" as shorthand for "new people pay for old people."

since congress has raided the social security funds, it has become a lie. There is no account that you or i have that has our money in it, its just paper. It is what you call unfunded liabilities.so people like to think they have this money set aside for them in a nice safe place that they've been giving to the gov't their adult working life and when they retire they'll get this money back plus interest. No one in gov't dispels this idea, they want you to believe that. Except there's no guarantee the funds will actually exist in 10 or 20 years when people my age retire. In effect what really is happening is they are collecting SS and using it in the general fund to pay for gov't expenses, through loans.

here is a very good article on the situation http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/ida_may_and_the_ponzi_scheme.html

I don't think anyone believes SS is some warehouse full of actual cash somewhere.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

I haven't read Perry's book, so I'll just say that if he really does believe that Social Security is literally a ponzi game in every respect, then he's wrong. This isn't difficult.

I haven't read his book either, but I saw the first debate Perry participated in. He not only said it was a "Ponzi scheme," he also said that it's a "giant lie" or something like that. He wasn't just using "Ponzi scheme" as shorthand for "new people pay for old people."

since congress has raided the social security funds, it has become a lie. There is no account that you or i have that has our money in it, its just paper. It is what you call unfunded liabilities.so people like to think they have this money set aside for them in a nice safe place that they've been giving to the gov't their adult working life and when they retire they'll get this money back plus interest. No one in gov't dispels this idea, they want you to believe that. Except there's no guarantee the funds will actually exist in 10 or 20 years when people my age retire. In effect what really is happening is they are collecting SS and using it in the general fund to pay for gov't expenses, through loans.

here is a very good article on the situation http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/ida_may_and_the_ponzi_scheme.html

I don't think anyone believes SS is some warehouse full of actual cash somewhere.

oh for Christ sake you're worse than Krugman

 

[pantagrapher]

Alex Tabarrok quotes three Nobel prize winners in economics using the P-word to describe Social Security (Paul Samuelson, Milton Friedman, and Paul Krugman).

He concludes: "Of these, I agree the most with Krugman. Social Security is not necessarily a Ponzi scheme but it only generated massive returns in the past because of its Ponzi-like aspects. The Ponzi-like aspects are now over and social security is turning into what is essentially a forced savings/welfare program with, as Krugman recognizes, crummy returns for average workers."

Seems about right.

Krugman doesn't call the returns "crummy." The whole point is that the returns, while not lavish, are guaranteed.

Getting out less than you put in is a crummy return, and it's no more guaranteed than treasury bills.

A relatively small number of people over a short period of time could get less than they put in. The point is that it's social insurance. We lived in a world that didn't have it and poverty among senior citizens was rampant. SS has successfully alleviated that problem. I realize some people believe individuals should pay for their own financial decisions down the line. And if poverty is their lot, then so be it. I'm on the side that believes in the success of SS and I'd like to see it continue as a program. That I might possibly receive "less than I put in" does not detract from the guarantee that I'll receive it whether I experience unforeseen financial hardship before retirement or not. But this is turning into an argument about the efficacy of SS and the metaphysics of a "guarantee," which is probably best left to other threads.

 

[pantagrapher]

Social Security is a government program supported by a dedicated tax, like highway maintenance. Now you can say that assigning a particular tax to a particular program is merely a fiction, but in fact such assignments have both legal and political force. If Ronald Reagan had said, back in the 1980s, “Let’s increase a regressive tax that falls mainly on the working class, while cutting taxes that fall mainly on much richer people,” he would have faced a political firestorm. But because the increase in the regressive payroll tax was recommended by the Greenspan Commission to support Social Security, it was politically in a different box – you might even call it a lockbox – from Reagan’s tax cuts.The purpose of that tax increase was to maintain the dedicated tax system into the future, by having Social Security’s assigned tax take in more money than the system paid out while the baby boomers were still working, then use the trust fund built up by those surpluses to pay future bills. Viewed in its own terms, that strategy was highly successful.The date at which the trust fund will run out, according to Social Security Administration projections, has receded steadily into the future: 10 years ago it was 2029, now it’s 2042. As Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, and others have pointed out, the SSA estimates are very conservative, and quite moderate projections of economic growth push the exhaustion date into the indefinite future.But the privatizers won’t take yes for an answer when it comes to the sustainability of Social Security. Their answer to the pretty good numbers is to say that the trust fund is meaningless, because it’s invested in U.S. government bonds. They aren’t really saying that government bonds are worthless; their point is that the whole notion of a separate budget for Social Security is a fiction. And if that’s true, the idea that one part of the government can have a positive trust fund while the government as a whole is in debt does become strange.But there are two problems with their position.The lesser problem is that if you say that there is no link between the payroll tax and future Social Security benefits – which is what denying the reality of the trust fund amounts to – then Greenspan and company pulled a fast one back in the 1980s: they sold a regressive tax switch, raising taxes on workers while cutting them on the wealthy, on false pretenses. More broadly, we’re breaking a major promise if we now, after 20 years of high payroll taxes to pay for Social Security’s future, declare that it was all a little joke on the public.The bigger problem for those who want to see a crisis in Social Security’s future is this: if Social Security is just part of the federal budget, with no budget or trust fund of its own, then, well, it’s just part of the federal budget: there can’t be a Social Security crisis. All you can have is a general budget crisis. Rising Social Security benefit payments might be one reason for that crisis, but it’s hard to make the case that it will be central.But those who insist that we face a Social Security crisis want to have it both ways. Having invoked the concept of a unified budget to reject the existence of a trust fund, they refuse to accept the implications of that unified budget going forward. Instead, having changed the rules to make the trust fund meaningless, they want to change the rules back around 15 years from now: today, when the payroll tax takes in more revenue than SS benefits, they say that’s meaningless, but when – in 2018 or later – benefits start to exceed the payroll tax, why, that’s a crisis. Huh?I don’t know why this contradiction is so hard to understand, except to echo Upton Sinclair: it’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary (or, in the current situation, his membership in the political club) depends on his not understanding it. But let me try this one more time, by asking the following: What happens in 2018 or whenever, when benefits payments exceed payroll tax revenues?The answer, very clearly, is nothing.The Social Security system won’t be in trouble: it will, in fact, still have a growing trust fund, because of the interest that the trust earns on its accumulated surplus. The only way Social Security gets in trouble is if Congress votes not to honor U.S. government bonds held by Social Security. That’s not going to happen. So legally, mechanically, 2018 has no meaning.Now it’s true that rising benefit costs will be a drag on the federal budget. So will rising Medicare costs. So will the ongoing drain from tax cuts. So will whatever wars we get into. I can’t find a story under which Social Security payments, as opposed to other things, become a crucial budgetary problem in 2018.What we really have is a looming crisis in the General Fund. Social Security, with its own dedicated tax, has been run responsibly; the rest of the government has not. So why are we talking about a Social Security crisis?

 

[Willy]

I haven't read Perry's book, so I'll just say that if he really does believe that Social Security is literally a ponzi game in every respect, then he's wrong. This isn't difficult.

I haven't read his book either, but I saw the first debate Perry participated in. He not only said it was a "Ponzi scheme," he also said that it's a "giant lie" or something like that. He wasn't just using "Ponzi scheme" as shorthand for "new people pay for old people."

since congress has raided the social security funds, it has become a lie. There is no account that you or i have that has our money in it, its just paper. It is what you call unfunded liabilities.so people like to think they have this money set aside for them in a nice safe place that they've been giving to the gov't their adult working life and when they retire they'll get this money back plus interest. No one in gov't dispels this idea, they want you to believe that. Except there's no guarantee the funds will actually exist in 10 or 20 years when people my age retire. In effect what really is happening is they are collecting SS and using it in the general fund to pay for gov't expenses, through loans.

here is a very good article on the situation http://www.americant...nzi_scheme.html

I don't think anyone believes SS is some warehouse full of actual cash somewhere.

No, it's in a lockbox.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

The latest...

Free to Die

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series Free to Choose. In episode after episode, the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald Reagan.

But that was then. Today, free to choose has become free to die.

Im referring, as you might guess, to what happened during Mondays G.O.P. presidential debate. CNNs Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, Thats what freedom is all about taking your own risks. Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether society should just let him die.

And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of Yeah!

The incident highlighted something that I dont think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.

Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed or at least they would if they hadnt been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but thats a fantasy. People who cant afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have and sometimes they die as a result.

The second is that very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzers hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions.

So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding Yeah!

Think, in particular, of the children.

The day after the debate, the Census Bureau released its latest estimates on income, poverty and health insurance. The overall picture was terrible: the weak economy continues to wreak havoc on American lives. One relatively bright spot, however, was health care for children: the percentage of children without health coverage was lower in 2010 than before the recession, largely thanks to the 2009 expansion of the State Childrens Health Insurance Program, or S-chip.

And the reason S-chip was expanded in 2009 but not earlier was, of course, that former President George W. Bush blocked earlier attempts to cover more children to the cheers of many on the right. Did I mention that one in six children in Texas lacks health insurance, the second-highest rate in the nation?

So the freedom to die extends, in practice, to children and the unlucky as well as the improvident. And the rights embrace of that notion signals an important shift in the nature of American politics.

In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. Dont take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in The Road to Serfdom his support for a comprehensive system of social insurance to protect citizens against the common hazards of life, and singled out health in particular.

Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romneys health reform in Massachusetts.

Now, however, compassion is out of fashion indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.s base.

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society weve had for the past three generations that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the common hazards of life through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

Are voters ready to embrace such a radical rejection of the kind of America weve all grown up in? I guess well find out next year.

Holy demagoguery, Batman! He literally used "think about the children".

 

[bueno]

Bold #2:

SS contributions are not static.

Perhaps I misunderstood what he was saying. But that's still BS because that fact alone doesn't discount it from being a Ponzi scheme. I like how he covered his bases by inserting the word "classic" there.

Well, a classic ponzi scheme intends to defraud contributors at some point. SS doesn't intend to do that. The intent is to continue paying subsequent contributors, tweaking contributions along the way, as necessary. Nobody gets rich. Nobody gets screwed.

Nobody gets rich, everybody gets screwed.

 

[bueno]

You've hit the nail on the head. When someone calls SS a ponzi scheme, they are describing not merely the method but also the intent. It is the latter that makes this accusation absurd IMO.

Once again you project untrue characteristics onto the opposite side of to shore up your own argument.As IK points out - how Krugmanesque.

I believe the characteristics are true, but that is MY OPINION. That's why I wrote "IMO". You say they're untrue; that is your opinion. Neither of us is like Krugman, who arrogantly treats his own opinions as objective facts.

No. You didn't say that it was your opinion that those calling SS a ponzi scheme are meaning to say that it's intentionally fraudulent. You portrayed that as truth.Your opinion was in calling the accusation absurd.

The whole thing was my opinion. Do I really need to add IMO at the end of EVERY sentence? Who's being insufferable now?

it's still you

Since you didn't write, IMO, I'll assume that you believe my insufferability is an objective fact.

I don't think you are as insufferable as slapdash.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Think, in particular, of the children.

He didn't really say this, did he?

Think, in particular, of the children.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Think, in particular, of the children.

He didn't really say this, did he?

Think, in particular, of the children.

I know, right?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Before pantagrapher shows up, let me add that I don't think this column is particularly objectionable, especially by Krugman's standards. But the inclusion of "Won't somebody please of the children?" is priceless.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Before pantagrapher shows up, let me add that I don't think this column is particularly objectionable, especially by Krugman's standards. But the inclusion of "Won't somebody please of the children?" is priceless.

What's objectionable is how he takes the circumstances surrounding a 30 year old and applying it to children and uses it to flog the "heartless" conservative side.

 

[pantagrapher]

Before pantagrapher shows up, let me add that I don't think this column is particularly objectionable, especially by Krugman's standards. But the inclusion of "Won't somebody please of the children?" is priceless.

I don't think there's much to say about it. Pretty obvious he's aware of the cliché.

 

[scoobygang]

Before pantagrapher shows up, let me add that I don't think this column is particularly objectionable, especially by Krugman's standards. But the inclusion of "Won't somebody please of the children?" is priceless.

I think the fact that he modified the construction is meant to call ironic attention to the fact that it's a cliche.To wit, while people often say to "think of the children", the problem of the uninsured is one that disproportionately affects children. It's the rare case where the cliche is applicable.I have my own problems with using Yahoos from a Tea Party audience as a proxy for the political movement that is going nominate Rick Perry or Mitt Romney, but I thought that was an effective rhetorical device.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Before pantagrapher shows up, let me add that I don't think this column is particularly objectionable, especially by Krugman's standards. But the inclusion of "Won't somebody please of the children?" is priceless.

I think the fact that he modified the construction is meant to call ironic attention to the fact that it's a cliche.To wit, while people often say to "think of the children", the problem of the uninsured is one that disproportionately affects children. It's the rare case where the cliche is applicable.I have my own problems with using Yahoos from a Tea Party audience as a proxy for the political movement that is going nominate Rick Perry or Mitt Romney, but I thought that was an effective rhetorical device.

Of course he meant it to be ironic. No argument there.But the problem is that the situation for which he's calling out those in the debate crowd was nothing about the children.

 

[Joe T]

The latest...

Free to Die

By PAUL KRUGMAN

Back in 1980, just as America was making its political turn to the right, Milton Friedman lent his voice to the change with the famous TV series “Free to Choose.” In episode after episode, the genial economist identified laissez-faire economics with personal choice and empowerment, an upbeat vision that would be echoed and amplified by Ronald Reagan.

But that was then. Today, “free to choose” has become “free to die.”

I’m referring, as you might guess, to what happened during Monday’s G.O.P. presidential debate. CNN’s Wolf Blitzer asked Representative Ron Paul what we should do if a 30-year-old man who chose not to purchase health insurance suddenly found himself in need of six months of intensive care. Mr. Paul replied, “That’s what freedom is all about — taking your own risks.” Mr. Blitzer pressed him again, asking whether “society should just let him die.”

And the crowd erupted with cheers and shouts of “Yeah!”

The incident highlighted something that I don’t think most political commentators have fully absorbed: at this point, American politics is fundamentally about different moral visions.

Now, there are two things you should know about the Blitzer-Paul exchange. The first is that after the crowd weighed in, Mr. Paul basically tried to evade the question, asserting that warm-hearted doctors and charitable individuals would always make sure that people received the care they needed — or at least they would if they hadn’t been corrupted by the welfare state. Sorry, but that’s a fantasy. People who can’t afford essential medical care often fail to get it, and always have — and sometimes they die as a result.

The second is that very few of those who die from lack of medical care look like Mr. Blitzer’s hypothetical individual who could and should have bought insurance. In reality, most uninsured Americans either have low incomes and cannot afford insurance, or are rejected by insurers because they have chronic conditions.

So would people on the right be willing to let those who are uninsured through no fault of their own die from lack of care? The answer, based on recent history, is a resounding “Yeah!”

Think, in particular, of the children.

The day after the debate, the Census Bureau released its latest estimates on income, poverty and health insurance. The overall picture was terrible: the weak economy continues to wreak havoc on American lives. One relatively bright spot, however, was health care for children: the percentage of children without health coverage was lower in 2010 than before the recession, largely thanks to the 2009 expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, or S-chip.

And the reason S-chip was expanded in 2009 but not earlier was, of course, that former President George W. Bush blocked earlier attempts to cover more children — to the cheers of many on the right. Did I mention that one in six children in Texas lacks health insurance, the second-highest rate in the nation?

So the freedom to die extends, in practice, to children and the unlucky as well as the improvident. And the right’s embrace of that notion signals an important shift in the nature of American politics.

In the past, conservatives accepted the need for a government-provided safety net on humanitarian grounds. Don’t take it from me, take it from Friedrich Hayek, the conservative intellectual hero, who specifically declared in “The Road to Serfdom” his support for “a comprehensive system of social insurance” to protect citizens against “the common hazards of life,” and singled out health in particular.

Given the agreed-upon desirability of protecting citizens against the worst, the question then became one of costs and benefits — and health care was one of those areas where even conservatives used to be willing to accept government intervention in the name of compassion, given the clear evidence that covering the uninsured would not, in fact, cost very much money. As many observers have pointed out, the Obama health care plan was largely based on past Republican plans, and is virtually identical to Mitt Romney’s health reform in Massachusetts.

Now, however, compassion is out of fashion — indeed, lack of compassion has become a matter of principle, at least among the G.O.P.’s base.

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

Are voters ready to embrace such a radical rejection of the kind of America we’ve all grown up in? I guess we’ll find out next year.

Holy demagoguery, Batman! He literally used "think about the children".

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.Here's a little test, go to any children's hospital in the country. Go to a level of the hospital where children are seriously ill and take a poll on how many have medical insurance. I would be willing to wager that over half do not have medical insurance. Guess what? They are on the exact same floor with and receiving the exact same care as those who do have medical insurance.

I've bolded the above part that is complete bull ####. I've got news for him. Hospitals and medical professionals aren't letting people die because they don't have insurance.

His argument as usual is terribly uniformed and lacking in basic knowledge of real life.

 

[tommyboy]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.Here's a little test, go to any children's hospital in the country. Go to a level of the hospital where children are seriously ill and take a poll on how many have medical insurance. I would be willing to wager that over half do not have medical insurance. Guess what? They are on the exact same floor with and receiving the exact same care as those who do have medical insurance.I've bolded the above part that is complete bull ####. I've got news for him. Hospitals and medical professionals aren't letting people die because they don't have insurance.His argument as usual is terribly uniformed and lacking in basic knowledge of real life.

the problem the Krugmans and the Wolf Blitzers of the world have is that they think that only government can provide things. This is the primary point at which their thinking breaks down into absurdity

 

[tommyGunZ]

Here's a little test, go to any children's hospital in the country. Go to a level of the hospital where children are seriously ill and take a poll on how many have medical insurance. I would be willing to wager that over half do not have medical insurance. Guess what? They are on the exact same floor with and receiving the exact same care as those who do have medical insurance.

You've done this "little test"? Is there any data to back up your assertions?

 

[tommyGunZ]

the problem the Krugmans and the Wolf Blitzers of the world have is that they think that only government can provide things. This is the primary point at which their thinking breaks down into absurdity

I find educated and substantive disagreements with Krugman interesting. Arguing that Krugman "thinks only the gov't can provide things" is neither. Why do you make up extreme positions and attribute them to people who don't believe it?

 

[tommyGunZ]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Here's a little test, go to any children's hospital in the country. Go to a level of the hospital where children are seriously ill and take a poll on how many have medical insurance. I would be willing to wager that over half do not have medical insurance. Guess what? They are on the exact same floor with and receiving the exact same care as those who do have medical insurance.

You've done this "little test"? Is there any data to back up your assertions?

Having someone run those numbers right now (no shtick). Will report back.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Here's a little test, go to any children's hospital in the country. Go to a level of the hospital where children are seriously ill and take a poll on how many have medical insurance. I would be willing to wager that over half do not have medical insurance. Guess what? They are on the exact same floor with and receiving the exact same care as those who do have medical insurance.

You've done this "little test"? Is there any data to back up your assertions?

Having someone run those numbers right now (no shtick). Will report back.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Okay, here is their response. Some quick background on this person, should someone want some credentials. Works in the financial department of one of the larger trauma hospitals in the US. Politically agnostic. If you had him take some kind of political quiz, he'd come up liberal IMO. Works with these types of numbers on a daily basis.

~25% of child "visits" are insured. A visit can be in or out patient. One person can have multiple visits, so this isn't showing what percentage of people are insured. The insured visits include medicaid. About 50% of those 25% would be uninsured initially. The hospital goes out and gets the patient enrolled in the state's medicaid program. Medicaid pays about 30% of the total bill. The rest is written off. The amount Medicaid pays varies per state.

Doctors and nurses don't have access to patient financial data. They have no clue that the person they are treating is w/o insurance and much of the time, the financial side isn't even allowed to get that info from the patient until the doctors decide the patient is stable. The patient treatment side doesn't give two ####s about the financial side. They are there to provide care to anyone who comes in the door. Sometimes the financial side won't even know that a patient was treated because it will be an emergency situation and after the recovery, the patient will just be discharged. This happens a LOT at hospitals all over the country (this is a management/technology flaw in his opinion).

 

[tommyboy]

the problem the Krugmans and the Wolf Blitzers of the world have is that they think that only government can provide things. This is the primary point at which their thinking breaks down into absurdity

I find educated and substantive disagreements with Krugman interesting. Arguing that Krugman "thinks only the gov't can provide things" is neither. Why do you make up extreme positions and attribute them to people who don't believe it?

i'm using their own words as my reasoning:Krugman:

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

Blitzer:

should society allow him to die

Krugman specifically mentions the role of the gov't in his mind, Blitzer implies society = gov't in his question.

 

[SacramentoBob]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

He responded to this post also. This probably isn't as big as a deal as you think numbers wise, although it does happen.This happens more at doctor's offices or privately owned hospitals. You'll get better care at a privately owned hospital, but will be denied if you don't have insurance. At a public hospital you will get treated. However your initial encounter with a nurse or hospitalist can determine if you get properly diagnosed or not. If they decide they don't like you because of how you look (homeless, poor) or for some weird political reason, they may just go through the motions and try to get you out of there ASAP. He has heard nurses make comments like "he stinks I want to get him out of here right away". Nurses at county owned hospitals don't get paid as much and may be less inclined to give good customer service. In his opinion this is a vicious cycle. The hospital doesn't make as much money b/c of all the uninsureds they treat, therefore they can't afford to pay their staff as well. Which means the staff will have less incentive to give the best care.The biggest problem may be with people who need a long term care facility for mental or physical issues, which generally are privately owned. If you are uninsured, you won't get accepted and public hospitals generally don't have the resources to treat people who need special care. The reason people die isn't because they need immediate treatment, it's because they need special long-term care. It's very difficult to treat homeless people with mental illness because you can't force them to get help. There are resources out there that they can utilize, but they have to be willing to accept the help, fill out paperwork, etc.

 

[pantagrapher]

the problem the Krugmans and the Wolf Blitzers of the world have is that they think that only government can provide things. This is the primary point at which their thinking breaks down into absurdity

I find educated and substantive disagreements with Krugman interesting. Arguing that Krugman "thinks only the gov't can provide things" is neither. Why do you make up extreme positions and attribute them to people who don't believe it?

i'm using their own words as my reasoning:Krugman:

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we’ve had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the “common hazards of life” through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

Blitzer:

should society allow him to die

Krugman specifically mentions the role of the gov't in his mind, Blitzer implies society = gov't in his question.

Government can provide things ≠ ONLY government can provide things

 

[tommyboy]

the problem the Krugmans and the Wolf Blitzers of the world have is that they think that only government can provide things. This is the primary point at which their thinking breaks down into absurdity

I find educated and substantive disagreements with Krugman interesting. Arguing that Krugman "thinks only the gov't can provide things" is neither. Why do you make up extreme positions and attribute them to people who don't believe it?

i'm using their own words as my reasoning:Krugman:

And what this means is that modern conservatism is actually a deeply radical movement, one that is hostile to the kind of society we've had for the past three generations — that is, a society that, acting through the government, tries to mitigate some of the "common hazards of life" through such programs as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicare and Medicaid.

Blitzer:

should society allow him to die

Krugman specifically mentions the role of the gov't in his mind, Blitzer implies society = gov't in his question.

Government can provide things ≠ ONLY government can provide things

since krugman assumes people that don't think like him are heartless radicals, one can only assume he believes it is the gov'ts role solely to provide things in a proper world. Based on Blitzers stunned reaction to Paul in the debate, you could tell the idea that going back to the past where churches, charities and private organizations provided the safety net for society, not the gov't, was either abhorrent to him or shocking, that Blitzer probably thinks the same way. Although to be fair, i think Krugman is much much more transparent in this respect than Blitzer.

 

[Joe T]

Here's a little test, go to any children's hospital in the country. Go to a level of the hospital where children are seriously ill and take a poll on how many have medical insurance. I would be willing to wager that over half do not have medical insurance. Guess what? They are on the exact same floor with and receiving the exact same care as those who do have medical insurance.

You've done this "little test"? Is there any data to back up your assertions?

Yes, have you?

 

[Joe T]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

This is completely manufactured fear mongering. Again, the medical community does not forego treating sick people because of a "lack of insurance." Go spend a day in an E/R or in any children's hospital. You'll see reality. Or just keep reading Krugman and stay in some uninformed fantasy world.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

This is completely manufactured fear mongering. Again, the medical community does not forego treating sick people because of a "lack of insurance." Go spend a day in an E/R or in any children's hospital. You'll see reality. Or just keep reading Krugman and stay in some uninformed fantasy world.

It's not manufactured. The question was how many people die or suffer because of lack of insurance, and the answer is a substantial number. Various studies have looked at this over the last decade and the number of estimated deaths ranges from 18,000-45,000 per year (here's a link to a recent one from Harvard). When you consider people who are enduring otherwise treatable chronic pain or illness the number would obviously be higher by many factors. Of course Millions of people are getting care from public clinics and hospitals, but of course we all pay a cost for that care as well. As do the people who are forced to get care that way as it essentially cripples them financially, which I would consider another form of suffering.

 

[tommyGunZ]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

This is completely manufactured fear mongering. Again, the medical community does not forego treating sick people because of a "lack of insurance." Go spend a day in an E/R or in any children's hospital. You'll see reality. Or just keep reading Krugman and stay in some uninformed fantasy world.

Are you saying that uninsured folks do not forego treatment? I don't need to read Krugman to know that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. As usual.

 

[Maelstrom]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

This is completely manufactured fear mongering. Again, the medical community does not forego treating sick people because of a "lack of insurance." Go spend a day in an E/R or in any children's hospital. You'll see reality. Or just keep reading Krugman and stay in some uninformed fantasy world.

Are you saying that uninsured folks do not forego treatment? I don't need to read Krugman to know that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. As usual.

I think this is more likely, I know that doctors/ER/etc won't deny care that is required immediately, but people make decisions not to go to the doctor, or not to follow through on specific care instructions (i.e. prescriptions), due to lack of insurance. Sure that is their choice, but often it is dictated by cost - they literally can't afford to follow through on the care the need. I believe in people taking personal responsibility, but I also believe that part of the govt's job is providing a safety net for those that truly need it. There should be a balance between those two positions.

 

[Joe T]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

This is completely manufactured fear mongering. Again, the medical community does not forego treating sick people because of a "lack of insurance." Go spend a day in an E/R or in any children's hospital. You'll see reality. Or just keep reading Krugman and stay in some uninformed fantasy world.

Are you saying that uninsured folks do not forego treatment? I don't need to read Krugman to know that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. As usual.

I'm not saying that at all. And neither is Krugman. I'm pointing out the faults in Krugman's original argument. I'm ignoring your moving target.

 

[Black Box]

Thanks for the posts, SacBob.

 

[pantagrapher]

Couple good posts on the blog recently, especially the one about hysterisis, which I'd never heard of:

Stimulus, Austerity, and Double Standards

Just a quick thought: in much discussion of economic policy these days, the presumption is that stimulus had its chance, it failed, and that’s that. Never mind those of us who say that we actually didn’t do nearly enough — and were saying that from the beginning, not as an after-the-fact rationalization. It’s one strike and you’re out.

Meanwhile, the pain caucus keeps telling us that austerity is the way to restore confidence; and confidence keeps not being restored. Ireland, for example, has imposed savage austerity, yet the interest rate on its 10-year bonds is still 6.7 percentage points higher than Germany’s, down from recent peaks but still far above its level when the austerity program began.

Yet somehow nobody in the pain caucus says hey, this was supposed to work but it didn’t, so our theory is all wrong. Instead, they just insist that we double down, continuing the beatings until morale improves.

Just saying.

Hysteresis Begins

The slump in the United States and other advanced economies is the result of a failure of demand — period, end of story. All attempts to claim that it is somehow structural, or maybe the result of reduced incentives to produce, have collapsed at first contact with the evidence.

But there is a real concern that if the slump goes on long enough, it can turn into a supply-side problem, because investment will be depressed, reducing future capacity, and because workers who have been unemployed for a long time become unemployable. This is the issue of hysteria “hysteresis”.

And if you look at manufacturing capacity, in particular, you can already see that starting to happen.

The WSJ Real Time Economics blog — about the only part of the Journal I find worth reading these days — noted this the other day. Here’s a longer-term perspective (I divided the FRED manufacturing production series by the capacity utilization series to back out capacity, rather than using the inconveniently formatted data from the Board of Governors):

link to graph

Manufacturing capacity

You can see that there was a mini-version of the current decline in manufacturing capacity after the 2001 recession: capacity basically stopped growing in the face of a protracted weak economy. But this time around, with manufacturers operating way below capacity with little prospect of needing more capacity any time soon, they’re both scrapping equipment and failing to expand. The result is that when we finally do have a real recovery, we’ll run up against capacity constraints much sooner than we would have if there had been no Lesser Depression.

Arguably the same thing is happening in other sectors of the economy, as the long-term unemployed begin to become unemployable, as the long shortfall in residential construction leads to rising rents (and a small uptick in core inflation) even though demand remains deeply depressed.

Hysteresis can mean that the costs of failing to pursue expansionary policies are much greater than even the direct effects on employment. And it can also mean, especially in the face of very low interest rates, that austerity policies are actually self-destructive even in purely fiscal terms: by reducing the economy’s future potential, they reduce future revenues, and can make the debt position worse in the long run.

Still more evidence, then, of the awesome folly of the current direction of policy in Europe and America.

 

[tommyGunZ]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

This is completely manufactured fear mongering. Again, the medical community does not forego treating sick people because of a "lack of insurance." Go spend a day in an E/R or in any children's hospital. You'll see reality. Or just keep reading Krugman and stay in some uninformed fantasy world.

Are you saying that uninsured folks do not forego treatment? I don't need to read Krugman to know that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. As usual.

I'm not saying that at all. And neither is Krugman. I'm pointing out the faults in Krugman's original argument. I'm ignoring your moving target.

Krugman is talking about "uninsured" Americans in his original post, which most certainly includes folks who forego medical treatment b/c they lack insurance.

 

[pantagrapher]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

This is completely manufactured fear mongering. Again, the medical community does not forego treating sick people because of a "lack of insurance." Go spend a day in an E/R or in any children's hospital. You'll see reality. Or just keep reading Krugman and stay in some uninformed fantasy world.

Are you saying that uninsured folks do not forego treatment? I don't need to read Krugman to know that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. As usual.

I'm not saying that at all. And neither is Krugman. I'm pointing out the faults in Krugman's original argument. I'm ignoring your moving target.

Krugman is talking about "uninsured" Americans in his original post, which most certainly includes folks who forego medical treatment b/c they lack insurance.

You're wasting your time.

 

[Slapdash]

Couple good posts on the blog recently, especially the one about hysterisis, which I'd never heard of:

Yeah it was an interesting concept and we are already seeing it take hold. You will be hearing a lot about it while we settle into this under-employment equilibrium for the next decade or so.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm not saying that at all. And neither is Krugman. I'm pointing out the faults in Krugman's original argument. I'm ignoring your moving target.

Krugman is talking about "uninsured" Americans in his original post, which most certainly includes folks who forego medical treatment b/c they lack insurance.

You're wasting your time.

"Arguing with fools..."

 

[SacramentoBob]

Thanks for the posts, SacBob.

No problem.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Okay, here is their response. Some quick background on this person, should someone want some credentials. Works in the financial department of one of the larger trauma hospitals in the US. Politically agnostic. If you had him take some kind of political quiz, he'd come up liberal IMO. Works with these types of numbers on a daily basis.~25% of child "visits" are insured. A visit can be in or out patient. One person can have multiple visits, so this isn't showing what percentage of people are insured. The insured visits include medicaid. About 50% of those 25% would be uninsured initially. The hospital goes out and gets the patient enrolled in the state's medicaid program. Medicaid pays about 30% of the total bill. The rest is written off. The amount Medicaid pays varies per state.Doctors and nurses don't have access to patient financial data. They have no clue that the person they are treating is w/o insurance and much of the time, the financial side isn't even allowed to get that info from the patient until the doctors decide the patient is stable. The patient treatment side doesn't give two ####s about the financial side. They are there to provide care to anyone who comes in the door. Sometimes the financial side won't even know that a patient was treated because it will be an emergency situation and after the recovery, the patient will just be discharged. This happens a LOT at hospitals all over the country (this is a management/technology flaw in his opinion).

Not sure how I missed this the first time - but thanks for this post Bob.

 

[tommyGunZ]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

He responded to this post also. This probably isn't as big as a deal as you think numbers wise, although it does happen.This happens more at doctor's offices or privately owned hospitals. You'll get better care at a privately owned hospital, but will be denied if you don't have insurance. At a public hospital you will get treated. However your initial encounter with a nurse or hospitalist can determine if you get properly diagnosed or not. If they decide they don't like you because of how you look (homeless, poor) or for some weird political reason, they may just go through the motions and try to get you out of there ASAP. He has heard nurses make comments like "he stinks I want to get him out of here right away". Nurses at county owned hospitals don't get paid as much and may be less inclined to give good customer service.

In his opinion this is a vicious cycle. The hospital doesn't make as much money b/c of all the uninsureds they treat, therefore they can't afford to pay their staff as well. Which means the staff will have less incentive to give the best care.

The biggest problem may be with people who need a long term care facility for mental or physical issues, which generally are privately owned. If you are uninsured, you won't get accepted and public hospitals generally don't have the resources to treat people who need special care. The reason people die isn't because they need immediate treatment, it's because they need special long-term care. It's very difficult to treat homeless people with mental illness because you can't force them to get help. There are resources out there that they can utilize, but they have to be willing to accept the help, fill out paperwork, etc.

Thanks again Bob. W/re to the bold, I wonder how we would even know that "it isn't a big deal"? I'm extremely biased so I have no doubt that I may be overestimating the problem, but I would love to see data. My family was uninsured when I was growing up, and had a sibling found curled up on the floor in a bedroom trying to "tough out" stomach pain, that turned out to be a burst appendix that could have resulted in death. I imagine similar stories aren't rare.

 

[Joe T]

He has zero touch with reality. There is a clear difference in medical care and covered by medical insurance. Just because someone is denied insurance does not mean they are denied care.

Speaking of out of touch with reality - how many people die each year, or suffer needlessly because they are un/underinsured? I'm talking people who don't get the medical attention they need b/c they don't have insurance and forego treatment or even being seen by a doctor b/c of the associated costs?

This is completely manufactured fear mongering. Again, the medical community does not forego treating sick people because of a "lack of insurance." Go spend a day in an E/R or in any children's hospital. You'll see reality. Or just keep reading Krugman and stay in some uninformed fantasy world.

Are you saying that uninsured folks do not forego treatment? I don't need to read Krugman to know that you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about. As usual.

I'm not saying uninsured folks do not forgo treatment. I'm sure they do. I'm also certain that insured folks forgo care as well. Should we be worried about them too because you failed to mention them? You cannot make someone go to the doctor.

The difference that you are missing as are many in this thread is that forgoing care is not the same as denying care. Krugman's post if you care to get back on topic stated / implied that uninsured are denied care. That is a complete fabrication. You can move the target all you want, change the subject, and ignore it. But anyone that goes around saying children who are uninsured are being denied care has no grip on reality. In fact, I doubt they have ever stepped foot in a hospital which for them is good news.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'm not saying uninsured folks do not forgo treatment. I'm sure they do.

I'm also certain that insured folks forgo care as well. Should we be worried about them too because you failed to mention them? You cannot make someone go to the doctor.

The difference that you are missing as are many in this thread is that forgoing care is not the same as denying care. Krugman's post if you care to get back on topic stated / implied that uninsured are denied care. That is a complete fabrication. You can move the target all you want, change the subject, and ignore it. But anyone that goes around saying children who are uninsured are being denied care has no grip on reality. In fact, I doubt they have ever stepped foot in a hospital which for them is good news.

The words "deny" or "denied" do not exist in Krugman's post. Your argument is semantical anyway; people who forego health care because they can't afford it are essentially being "denied" care. But if it makes you happy to ignore the real issue, keep on keepin' on JoeT.