Krugman on VAT and End of Life

[HonestChieffan]

"Eventually we do have a problem. That the population is getting older, health care costs are rising…there is this question of how we’re going to pay for the programs. The year 2025, the year 2030, something is going to have to give…. …. We’re going to need more revenue…Surely it will require some sort of middle class taxes as well.. 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, doc 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."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...+Government%29

[King_Chief_Fan]

You are right.......La Litwhatshisname will be along to refute the term death panels as a GOP Jedi mind trick

[La literatura]

The last few months of a person's life can be very costly. I'm not against some regulations that shut off non-pallative aid to those who are going to die. We don't have those now (otherwise, Krugman wouldn't be arguing for implementing it).

Note that this doesn't mean a person can't privately pay for their own end-of-life care if they wish to hang on. It's only relating to public funding.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by La literatura

The last few months of a person's life can be very costly. I'm not against some regulations that shut off non-pallative aid to those who are going to die. We don't have those now (otherwise, Krugman wouldn't be arguing for implementing it).

Note that this doesn't mean a person can't privately pay for their own end-of-life care if they wish to hang on. It's only relating to public funding.

Good for the wealthy and piss on the poor people?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

Good for the wealthy and piss on the poor people?

I don't think non-pallative care for those who are in the last months of their lives is "good" for anyone, rich or poor. I also don't think buying a new $45K car every two years is good for anyone, but it's a free country, so if you can afford it and you have to have it, I'm not going to favor a law that says you can't get it.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

Good for the wealthy and piss on the poor people?

Conversely, do you think poor people should have everything wealthy people can afford? Who pays for it? Free McMansions for all?

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Conversely, do you think poor people should have everything wealthy people can afford? Who pays for it? Free McMansions for all?

not everything but maybe the basics...like health care.

shoot, we give entitlements for lots of things, including cell phones. Maybe we should wipe them all out....yes?

If you don't contribute in some way, you are on your own.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

not everything but maybe the basics...like health care.

shoot, we give entitlements in everything else. Maybe we should wipe them all out....yes?

"The basics" is a little vague, no? Is non-palliative care at the end of a dying person's life a "basic?"

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by La literatura

"The basics" is a little vague, no? Is non-palliative care at the end of a dying person's life a "basic?"

i think that is a fair question, but who decides that? I am not in favor of the government deciding that.

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

i think that is a fair question, but who decides that? I am not in favor of the government deciding that.

Well, I hope you're not in favor of the patient deciding that. Who should decide? Why not the government? It's a government program. The voters would have oversight. The government is not some mysterious medieval wizard behind a curtain that can't be touched.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by La literatura

Well, I hope you're not in favor of the patient deciding that. Who should decide? Why not the government? It's a government program. The voters would have oversight. The government is not some mysterious medieval wizard behind a curtain that can't be touched.

If the voters have oversight, maybe they need input?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by King_Chief_Fan

If the voters have oversight, maybe they need input?

It might seem a little far out, but that's the nature of a representative democracy.

[King_Chief_Fan]

Originally Posted by La literatura

It might seem a little far out, but that's the nature of a representative democracy.

I see that you and I are zeroing in on something we agree on.

[donkhater]

Whattaya know? Champion the wrong ethical decision with regards to socialism vs. free enterprise and a whole new batch of ethical challenges arise.

Never saw that coming at all.