Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Krugman's stance 'nonsense on stilts'

Published December 13, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

In his column of Dec. 3, "Obama's sorry plan," The New York Times' Paul Krugman wrote in support of universal health insurance, "letting people opt out if they don't feel like buying insurance would make insurance substantially more expensive for everyone else."

First of all, I consider it immoral to force people to pay for health insurance that they do not want.

Second, it is nonsense on stilts. Adding more people into an insurance pool will simply add their cost to the total. Dividing the insurance cost among more people will not save money, when their costs have to be accounted for as well.

Third, health insurance is not health care. It doesn't even insure health care. Its only purpose is to insure that people in the medical profession get their fees paid. It should not be the responsibility of taxpayers to guarantee a doctor's standard of living.

Fourth, a better approach would be to stop using health insurance to pay for minor medical care. When it's used for things like getting a vaccination, treating a hang nail, or having a routine checkup, that drives the costs of both insurance and health care higher for everyone.

Comments

  • December 13, 2007

    9:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    BrianSchwartz writes:

    Nice letter Dave. Right on. If you haven't already, check out the Colorado-based group Freedom & Individual Rights in Medicine at WeStandFirm.org. Also, economist Arnold Kling has some good insights on Krugman's style of argument (people who disagree with Krugman are bad people with unsavory motives - simple as that!) at TCSDaily.com.