Update on Krugman: I Didn’t Really Mean Death Panels, I Meant the Government Should Refuse Treatment
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that
(a) health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care
(b) we’ll need more revenue — several percent of GDP — which might most plausibly come from a value-added tax
Oh, and by the way, in the past he has said that death panels will save money.
So are we supposed to really think this was a slip of the tongue? Would it really have been so hard to say it the way he describes his intentions as being?
Well, you can make up your own mind, but I think he meant what he said and said what he meant. He wants to decide that sometimes it is better to let someone die than to spend more government money. And I will note for the record, his “clarification” didn’t actually contradict that impression. I mean how hard would that have been? All he would have had to say was “still, I feel that no cost should be spared when a person’s life is on the line.” But he didn’t say that, now did he?
And, by the way, for your own reference, here is a link to Palin’s facebook page where she first popularized that phrase. You have to give it to her: she has rocked that facebook.
And also for your reference “Dr. Drew” has very similar thoughts.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]