Krugman: Pay for Health Care With Death Panels

NY Times columnist and Nobel prize-winning economist Krugman spoke at a synagogue in Washington D.C. recently. In the question-and-answer period, he responded to a question about the national debt and whether or not there will be a moment when it becomes too big. He said that although there is no immediate cause for alarm, it will eventually become a problem maybe in the next 15 or 20 years because we have an aging population, and health care costs are rising. The programs that are meant to pay for people’s health care will have to be funded by additional revenue, such as higher taxes on the middle class. (He’s referring to the unfunded liabilities that are likely to be nearly $100 trillion.) “Something’s going to have to give,” he said.

And in a rare glimpse of candor, Krugman appealed to a more “progressive” way of keeping health care costs down:

 “We won’t be able to pay for the kind of government the society will want without some increase in taxes on the middle class, maybe a value added tax. And we’re also going to have to make decisions about health care, not pay for health care that has no demonstrated medical benefits. So the snarky version, which I shouldn’t even say because it will get me in trouble, is death panels and sales taxes is how we do this.”

 First of all, what is this “kind of government the society will want?” One where the government “provides” everything for us from cradle to grave? One that takes watchful care of us by documenting our every move? One that promises to give us free health care, education, job security, housing, welfare? He’s right that we won’t be able to afford that. We already can’t afford it. But, I don’t want that kind of society. Obama supporters want it, and they want it at the expense of the rest of us.

take our poll - story continues below

Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?

  • Who should replace Nikki Haley as our ambassador to the U.N.?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: College Expels Disabled Boy Over Sex Assault Despite Girl Admitting SHE Molested HIM!

Second of all, this economist is advocating the very thing that the media destroyed Sarah Palin over. They’d have us believe that death panels don’t exist, haven’t existed and never will. That was all just a right-wing conspiracy theory. But when someone like Paul Krugman talks about them, it’s looked as a sensible way to keep health care costs down.

He may acknowledge that abortion, sterilization and contraception have done a lot to advance the liberals’ agenda of reaching a more “manageable” population size, but those measures only go so far. Caring for the elderly is expensive, and in old age, people just aren’t all that useful. Neither are the disabled and the chronically ill. In fact, it might be better for everyone if we just let them die. At the discretion of a panel of “experts.” This not only would make society more manageable, but health care for the rest of the people would be less expensive. See? They’re compassionate people. They’re just looking out for what’s best for us.

Furthermore, this hasn’t really been about “what kind of government the society wants.” It’s been the other way around for a long time. It’s been about what kind of society the government wants. They’ve helped create a society of leeches and mindless slaves, and they want more of it. A nation of Obamatons is exactly the kind of society our government wants.

Previous Hottest Idea In Immigration Reform: Turn US Into Giant Prison
Next Is the Department of Homeland Security Obama’s Gestapo?


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.