The defecit,healthcare,and economic policy as seen By Nobel prize winning economist

[stephkyle7]

paul krugman was on Morning Joe yesterday and proceeded to eviscerate Joe, Mika, and the entire panel on there opinions regarding our economic direction,and how top deal with the long term debt.

I love this guy. Hes a mess.
he has no social skills whatsoever,and he doesnt really care about tact,or dioplomacy.
here are some of his op eds hes penned on the subject and I think he is about the most insiteful person out in the media right now discussing this topic.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...41642243,d.cGE

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...41642243,d.cGE

Guys the bottom line regarding our long term debt is growing healthcare costs.The only way to stop this is to eliminate benefits, or regualte costs. Nothing else Regarding the Debt is nearly as important as addressing that fact.

[subroc]

Does the Nobel Prize still carry any weight?

They gave the Peace Prize to a President that hadn't even taken office. Isn't the entire Nobel organization a bit of a sham these days?

[FOBolous]

Does the Nobel Prize still carry any weight?

They gave the Peace Prize to a President that hadn't even taken office. Isn't the entire Nobel organization a bit of a sham these days?

it's only a sham to people that doesn't like who they gave it to.

[IndyFan]

Does the Nobel Prize still carry any weight?

They gave the Peace Prize to a President that hadn't even taken office. Isn't the entire Nobel organization a bit of a sham these days?

It always seemed to me that that Nobel Peace prize said more about the George Bush presidency than it did about either the committee or President Obama.

[subroc]

It always seemed to me that that Nobel Peace prize said more about the George Bush presidency than it did about either the committee or President Obama.

Then you are making my point.

[stephkyle7]

Hes been more acurate then nate silver(lol).,and his award was in the field of ecconomics.
Basically for people that dont LIKE reading,in a depressed economy,you continue defecit spending until you create economic growth,you cut defecits when you have a strong economy and a strong revenue stream.
The problem we ran intio was that when we had a strong revenue stream,we also had a budget surpluss,which prompted Republicans to push for the Bush Tax cuts.When Obama introduced the stimulus spending package he was blasted by the right,but the REAL problem was the stimulus WASNT BIG ENOUGH to get the job done.

Most of the EU that are trying to fix the problem through austerity are onl;y extending out their recession because when you make cuts it slows the economy MORE.

Long term spending Obviously must be dealt with,but now is not the time,16 trillion is a very messed up number, but fretting over it NOW,when we simply have to continue spending,is only going to make our situation worse.

also,accepting the fact that Healthcare must be dealt with by one of the two ways we have available must be confronted.When the RT says Cuts, the left goes nuts, when the left says regulate costs, the RT goes nuts.
There can be a combination of both if a compromise can be made, but these little piecemeal stop gap measures serve only to provide political cover for politicians afraid to make a target of themselves by the other side.

Much as we have seen the Hispanic population rise up and take the decision away from the Republican party, we,the people must come together on some consensus so that the polityical cowards can safely say they are doing the will of the people.Until then we will see a continued rise in our Healthcare costs and a continued increasing share of the revenue being consumed by it,there is no other solution and we must FORCE politicians to act.

[dbroncos78087]

Does the Nobel Prize still carry any weight?

They gave the Peace Prize to a President that hadn't even taken office. Isn't the entire Nobel organization a bit of a sham these days?

I believe the Nobel prize in economics is actually run separately.

[flips333]

Does the Nobel Prize still carry any weight?

They gave the Peace Prize to a President that hadn't even taken office. Isn't the entire Nobel organization a bit of a sham these days?

Why not address what he wrote?

[Angry Norwegian]

**** economists.

[jrice9]

**** economists.

Why? They're generally not that sexy

[bootleg42]

paul krugman was on Morning Joe yesterday and proceeded to eviscerate Joe, Mika, and the entire panel on there opinions regarding our economic direction,and how top deal with the long term debt.

I love this guy. Hes a mess.
he has no social skills whatsoever,and he doesnt really care about tact,or dioplomacy.
here are some of his op eds hes penned on the subject and I think he is about the most insiteful person out in the media right now discussing this topic.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...41642243,d.cGE

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...41642243,d.cGE

Guys the bottom line regarding our long term debt is growing healthcare costs.The only way to stop this is to eliminate benefits, or regualte costs. Nothing else Regarding the Debt is nearly as important as addressing that fact.

Thank you.

For those of us who are actually studying Economics (I'm getting my masters right now with the goal of a phd soon), we have respect for math and metrics, because they are necessary tools in order to make arguments (whatever that argument may be). The people who just say "no just free markets, lower taxes, etc" use almost no math models. I'm sorry, but if you're going to talk economics, you HAVE to talk to me with metrics, meaning regression models, calculus, linear and non-linear programming, matrices, etc. If you can't do that, then you don't even have a right to talk.

Paul Krugman is a legit economist, and though I don't always agree with him (and even sometimes spots mistakes he makes), his overall statement about us having a healthcare problem, NOT a debt problem, is 100% correct.

Every mathematical model has shown that in the long run (a good ~30-35 years, it depends which model you run) our healthcare costs are unsustainable, but it's not because of medicare, but it because of the inflated costs in the private sector of the healthcare industry. Regardless of what you do to medicare (even if you eliminate it, which of course is NOT the right thing to do), the problems of health COSTS still remain. Therefore, it's not the actual concept of medicare that's the problem, it's the fact the health insurance companies can artificially drive up costs, and that big pharma can maintain monopolies thanks to patents that is the problem.

What's the solution???? Simple. We have to have a healthcare system that is just like every other industrialized country on the planet that has longer life expectancies than we do (Northern Europe, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia). In fact, if we had a healthcare system like any other industrialized country with a longer life expectancy, we wouldn't have budget deficits, we'd have budget surpluses. The following is an excellent calculator that allows you to compare healthcare costs in relation to our budget and those countries (warning, math NECESSARY):

http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html

So in all, we DON'T have a debt problem. We have a healthcare problem.

[cabernetluver]

Thank you.

For those of us who are actually studying Economics (I'm getting my masters right now with the goal of a phd soon), we have respect for math and metrics, because they are necessary tools in order to make arguments (whatever that argument may be). The people who just say "no just free markets, lower taxes, etc" use almost no math models. I'm sorry, but if you're going to talk economics, you HAVE to talk to me with metrics, meaning regression models, calculus, linear and non-linear programming, matrices, etc. If you can't do that, then you don't even have a right to talk.

Paul Krugman is a legit economist, and though I don't always agree with him (and even sometimes spots mistakes he makes), his overall statement about us having a healthcare problem, NOT a debt problem, is 100% correct.

Every mathematical model has shown that in the long run (a good ~30-35 years, it depends which model you run) our healthcare costs are unsustainable, but it's not because of medicare, but it because of the inflated costs in the private sector of the healthcare industry. Regardless of what you do to medicare (even if you eliminate it, which of course is NOT the right thing to do), the problems of health COSTS still remain. Therefore, it's not the actual concept of medicare that's the problem, it's the fact the health insurance companies can artificially drive up costs, and that big pharma can maintain monopolies thanks to patents that is the problem.

What's the solution???? Simple. We have to have a healthcare system that is just like every other industrialized country on the planet that has longer life expectancies than we do (Northern Europe, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia). In fact, if we had a healthcare system like any other industrialized country with a longer life expectancy, we wouldn't have budget deficits, we'd have budget surpluses. The following is an excellent calculator that allows you to compare healthcare costs in relation to our budget and those countries (warning, math NECESSARY):

http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html

So in all, we DON'T have a debt problem. We have a healthcare problem.

As an expert on healthcare costs and systems, but, not an expert macro economist, glad to have your input. We used to have a PhD Econ professor on this board, and I look forward to your writing on the subject.

To give a summary of the problem with our healthcare system..... we don't have one, unlike all those other places you noted. Healthcare is an asymmetric system economically, with the patients on the short end. Keep up the good work.

[stephkyle7]

Thank you.

For those of us who are actually studying Economics (I'm getting my masters right now with the goal of a phd soon), we have respect for math and metrics, because they are necessary tools in order to make arguments (whatever that argument may be). The people who just say "no just free markets, lower taxes, etc" use almost no math models. I'm sorry, but if you're going to talk economics, you HAVE to talk to me with metrics, meaning regression models, calculus, linear and non-linear programming, matrices, etc. If you can't do that, then you don't even have a right to talk.

Paul Krugman is a legit economist, and though I don't always agree with him (and even sometimes spots mistakes he makes), his overall statement about us having a healthcare problem, NOT a debt problem, is 100% correct.

Every mathematical model has shown that in the long run (a good ~30-35 years, it depends which model you run) our healthcare costs are unsustainable, but it's not because of medicare, but it because of the inflated costs in the private sector of the healthcare industry. Regardless of what you do to medicare (even if you eliminate it, which of course is NOT the right thing to do), the problems of health COSTS still remain. Therefore, it's not the actual concept of medicare that's the problem, it's the fact the health insurance companies can artificially drive up costs, and that big pharma can maintain monopolies thanks to patents that is the problem.

What's the solution???? Simple. We have to have a healthcare system that is just like every other industrialized country on the planet that has longer life expectancies than we do (Northern Europe, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia). In fact, if we had a healthcare system like any other industrialized country with a longer life expectancy, we wouldn't have budget deficits, we'd have budget surpluses. The following is an excellent calculator that allows you to compare healthcare costs in relation to our budget and those countries (warning, math NECESSARY):

http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html

So in all, we DON'T have a debt problem. We have a healthcare problem.

On the contrary sir, THANK YOU.
I have no degree in economics,but have been liberated from the corporate mindcontrol that enshrouds most people.Simple put,people only champion things that benefit them,the ones that have access to mass media sell concepts and notions to enrich THEIR lives and noone elses.So when you hear someone of wealth(like most Republicans are) complaining about something "not working" or being a bad Idea, what they usually mean is ,its bad FOR THEM.

Much like in criminal justice,when you begin investigating a crime you start with who benefits the most from what has happened.

I have debated economic theory with others in here and I would really appreciate your insite and correcting of my understanding on this topic.

supply side economists have pointed to the constant growth of GDP and the average median income as proof of the success of Reaganomics.
But That success is viewed on a macrolevel and we live on a micro level,meaning while large corporations and the ultra wealthy have continued to enjoy record growth,the lower quintiles of american workers has seen their share of that income actually stagnate and in some cases are making less in adjusted dollars then their counterparts of the early to mid 20the century.

The average salary was tied to productivity until Voodooo econmics was employed,since then they have been divested,causing more and more people to live closer to poverty levels which is "hidden" by the every increasing overall GDP.Can you address the accuracy of my understanding of this?

In addition,can you provide an analysis of the ever increasing Healthcare problem.
When ACA was proposed the RT talked about death panels and Goverment coming between You abd your doctor,ignoring the fact that INsurance companies do thatn exact thing they are claiming,but have a profit margin to protect.Wouldnt a non profit be a better facilitator for decisions then a entity answering to corporate shareholders?

Money is the central issue regarding almost everything.It is my contention that the Rs have been calling for spending cuts simply because it has been a long term goal to curtail healthcare spending BEFORE people realize that costs are unsustainable.If they allow things to get to that point ,there will no longer be a debateable perspective to argue for the freedom of the market.If they can "kill" the benefit spending before that point,then costs can continue to soar, then only the poor and the old who have no political voice will be effected(initially) and the revenue generating stream is protected.

I have been accused of being Hyperpartisan,but My problem isnt with conservatism,its with the croney capitalism that is now the core of the Republican agenda.I would love to see some truley responsible conservative Ideas that arent simply various conveluted schemes to keep wealthy people getting welathier.

[AmsterNat]

Thank you.

For those of us who are actually studying Economics (I'm getting my masters right now with the goal of a phd soon), we have respect for math and metrics, because they are necessary tools in order to make arguments (whatever that argument may be). The people who just say "no just free markets, lower taxes, etc" use almost no math models. I'm sorry, but if you're going to talk economics, you HAVE to talk to me with metrics, meaning regression models, calculus, linear and non-linear programming, matrices, etc. If you can't do that, then you don't even have a right to talk.

Paul Krugman is a legit economist, and though I don't always agree with him (and even sometimes spots mistakes he makes), his overall statement about us having a healthcare problem, NOT a debt problem, is 100% correct.

Every mathematical model has shown that in the long run (a good ~30-35 years, it depends which model you run) our healthcare costs are unsustainable, but it's not because of medicare, but it because of the inflated costs in the private sector of the healthcare industry. Regardless of what you do to medicare (even if you eliminate it, which of course is NOT the right thing to do), the problems of health COSTS still remain. Therefore, it's not the actual concept of medicare that's the problem, it's the fact the health insurance companies can artificially drive up costs, and that big pharma can maintain monopolies thanks to patents that is the problem.

What's the solution???? Simple. We have to have a healthcare system that is just like every other industrialized country on the planet that has longer life expectancies than we do (Northern Europe, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia). In fact, if we had a healthcare system like any other industrialized country with a longer life expectancy, we wouldn't have budget deficits, we'd have budget surpluses. The following is an excellent calculator that allows you to compare healthcare costs in relation to our budget and those countries (warning, math NECESSARY):

http://www.cepr.net/calculators/hc/hc-calculator.html

So in all, we DON'T have a debt problem. We have a healthcare problem.

I'd just like to echo Mr. Kyle in thanking you for this wonderful post of reason, clarity and common sense! I've seen this calculator before, alas my math sucks....

To give a summary of the problem with our healthcare system..... we don't have one, unlike all those other places you noted.

Bingo! More truth and common sense. I think I'm gonna faint.

[gcoll]

What's the solution???? Simple. We have to have a healthcare system that is just like every other industrialized country on the planet that has longer life expectancies than we do (Northern Europe, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia). In fact, if we had a healthcare system like any other industrialized country with a longer life expectancy, we wouldn't have budget deficits, we'd have budget surpluses.

Doesn't the fact that we have roughly 10x the population of most of those other countries throw a wrench into your analysis?

We used to have a PhD Econ professor on this board

Yeah. But, Ari would have never made this statement:

you HAVE to talk to me with metrics, meaning regression models, calculus, linear and non-linear programming, matrices, etc. If you can't do that, then you don't even have a right to talk.

That's what I really respected about that guy. He always relied on his argument to do the talking for him. Even when he thought something I said was really stupid, he never talked down to me.