NYT Econ Writer David Leonhardt's Simple Budgetary Solutions: Ration Health Care, Raise Taxes
New York Times chief economics writer David Leonhardt argued against the deficit-reducing House Republican budget written by Rep. Paul Ryan in his Wednesday front-page Business Day column “A Lopsided Proposal for Medicare.” Instead, Leonhardt called for higher taxes on "affluent Americans"(his reasoning: All wealthy countries do it). It’s one of his favorite arguments for redistributing the wealth.
While admitting the Republican budget was “a daring one in many ways” he faulted it for not reforming Medicare, which he interestingly admits is a “welfare program,” since people generally get more out of it in care than what they paid into the program in taxes. Leonhardt again called for rationing health care in the name of cost control.
A fairer, more fiscally conservative plan would not postpone dealing with Medicare. It would leave in place the cost control measures in the health reform bill and go even further to reward the quality of care rather than the volume. Obviously, these steps would run some risk of restricting good treatments, too. But, remember, we’re facing “an existential threat.” We can’t limit ourselves to solutions without risks.
Next, the federal government would raise taxes. As countries have grown richer over time, they have historically paid higher taxes -- to cover the costs of a strong military, good schools, comfortable retirements and other luxuries that the free market doesn’t provide.
Affluent Americans, in particular, can afford higher taxes. They have received far larger raises in recent decades than any other income group, and their tax rates have fallen far more. Yet Mr. Ryan would reduce them further.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Leonhardt: ration healtcare?? oh, death panels..
Submitted by Gary Hall on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 7:09pm.
So Leonhardt believes that we should ration healthcare. Hmm. I'd imagine that that would be done by something akin to a "death panel?"
(;~/ gary
"death panel?"
Submitted by Bob K on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 7:32pm.
No.....why, that's crazy right wing talk. Or so we have been told that since the Obamacare discussion started. And have been reassured on a nearly basis ever since. ***sarcasm, off***
Hello 'death panels'. How
Submitted by Slyrr on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 7:34pm.
Hello 'death panels'.
How does the Left feel, knowing that every word they speak proves that Sarah Palin was right?
They lefts gets even crazier
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 7:41pm.
They lefts gets even crazier every time Palin is proven correct. This would explain why they are foaming-at-the-mouth crazy these days.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Government Finances and Services are in Shambles
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 7:57pm.
And this guy's advice is to turn ever more money over to the government. Sir, the existential threat is big government. Get the government off our back and out of our lives and we'll do just fine.
Albert Camus was a medical expert?
Submitted by drsamherman on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 9:04pm.
Who in the hell else would refer to medical rationing and an "existential threat" other than some detached, reality-challenged NYT writer?
What????
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:05pm.
...to cover the costs of a strong military, good schools, comfortable retirements and other luxuries that the free market doesn’t provide.
Really??? Seems to me that if the private sector ran the military, then our fine soldiers would be better taken care of than they are now. As for military equipment, correct me if I'm wrong, but much of this is engineered and produced by private companies.
Also, private schools seem to outperform public schools.
As for retirement, yeah, public unions enjoy some nice bennies in this area, but the opportunity for even better retirements rests in the private sphere. Not all are guaranteed a life of luxury in retirement, but if you educate yourself, work hard, and produce, chances are good that you'll have one hell of a retirement.
Besides, those cushy retirements of the public unions are paid for on the backs of private workers.
Not all of the
Submitted by UpNorth on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:19pm.
retirements of public employees are paid for by citizens, or private workers, Restless.
My pension comes from a police-fire pension fund, wholly funded by members. The board makes the investments, and darn good ones too. For the last quarter of 2010, their return on the investment was $23M.
The city didn't match our contribution for the last 21 or more years of my working time, because the pension fund was "over funded", according to them. So, the tax payers are, and have been off the hook for the cost of our retirements.
However, now some "activists" and city leaders are moaning because, Horrors, they may have to make contributions in the future. Because, for the years they got a free ride, they didn't put a penny aside, looking down the road to when the gravy train might derail. However, they would like to get their hands on our pension, and raid it, much like the feds did with SS.
You're right Up
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 04/06/2011 - 11:43pm.
And I should have exempted fire/police in my rant. There are many pension funds for fire and police that are member paid, and run really well.
I was really railing against the idea that govt. can set up retirements better than the private sector. The private sector is paying for a lot of public retirements.
And, come to think of it, even in your case, the govt. had little to nothing with funding your pension. Your union members did it on their own, and the board made good use of the contributions. Sort of proves my point.
My wording was bad though, and I appreciate the heads up.
And then they collapse, completely, forever.
Submitted by CobraMan on Thu, 04/07/2011 - 12:09pm.
"As countries have grown richer over time, they have historically paid higher taxes."
And then they collapse, completely, forever, as anyone who actually LOOKS at history can tell you. Just ask the Romans, or the Greeks, about that. You know, the "rich" countries that raised taxes so high that the "barbarians" finally had enough and said: you're outta here!
I don't know about how the "chief economics writer" of the NYT's feels about it, but I don't think that causing the extinction of your own society is a wise idea for ANY government to try.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.