tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post2644464320261434885..comments2024-03-18T07:36:28.100-04:00Comments on International Political Economy at the University of North Carolina: Why Does Krugman Have to Keep Doing This?Thomas Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14092437150746625670noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-36646130166048202832009-12-07T19:57:31.440-05:002009-12-07T19:57:31.440-05:00Gabby -
My proposal was clearly stated: take the ...Gabby -<br /><br />My proposal was clearly stated: take the savings from Medicare and put them in a trust fund. When the balance of the fund is large enough to cover the currently uninsured, then do it. <br /><br />This seems like the most transparent way to do it. Is it perfect? No. But it's better than what PK is proposing.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-74890088288355079652009-12-06T03:42:03.245-05:002009-12-06T03:42:03.245-05:00"Moreover, even if these cost savings were di..."Moreover, even if these cost savings were directly related to efficiency gains, that fact wouldn't be transparent: there would be no way to demonstrate that the amount cut actually saved the amount saved."<br /><br />i think thats the reason why it should be treated as a bundle. since its non transparent, doing what u proposed --do the cuts now, save, and spend more later, would be more difficult due to the transparency issue.... assuming the efficiency gains are real.GabbyDnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-26821099702442020922009-12-05T14:35:29.368-05:002009-12-05T14:35:29.368-05:00Because the median (AARP) voter isn't thinking...Because the median (AARP) voter isn't thinking in terms of efficiency gains. They're thinking in terms of whether the funding goes up or down. Moreover, even if these cost savings were directly related to efficiency gains, that fact wouldn't be transparent: there would be no way to demonstrate that the amount cut actually saved the amount saved.<br /><br />But even if *that* were possible, Medicare recipients could still argue that savings from Medicare should be reinvested in Medicare. anything else would be a "cut". even if you grant all of Krugman's premises, he still has to justify what that money should to go the "relatively healthy" rather than some other group.<br /><br />as i said before: if there are really that many savings to be had from Medicare, then by all means let's wrench them out. but that is not a prerequisite for anything else, it doesn't justify anything else, and it is perfectly rational to be skeptical of the claim.Kindred Winecoffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14330671232391851377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1331441403058020963.post-40552690515911697032009-12-05T14:18:47.655-05:002009-12-05T14:18:47.655-05:00"Because he knows, as I know, that cuts to Me..."Because he knows, as I know, that cuts to Medicare are politically impossible. "<br /><br />why are efficiency enhancing measures impossible?GabbyDnoreply@blogger.com