How is it possible that a well-educated, Nobel winning economist can be so corrupted by his ideology? It appears supporting the political liberal agenda is more important than a full evaluation of the facts.
Here is what he said in a July 13 Op-ed:
What about the cost? Last year there were many claims about “rate shock” from soaring insurance premiums. But last month the Department of Health and Human Services reported that among those receiving federal subsidies — the great majority of those signing up — the average net premium was only $82 a month.
Yes, there are losers from Obamacare. If you’re young, healthy, and affluent enough that you don’t qualify for a subsidy (and don’t get insurance from your employer), your premium probably did rise. And if you’re rich enough to pay the extra taxes that finance those subsidies, you have taken a financial hit. But it’s telling that even reform’s opponents aren’t trying to highlight these stories. Instead, they keep looking for older, sicker, middle-class victims, and keep failing to find them.
Yes, Mr Krugman, what about the cost? Are you saying we should measure all this based only on the subsidized premium and not the real cost, the bulk of the cost? We should simply ignore the cost paid for by taxpayers because that is not a real cost?
Should we also ignore the premium increase requests that are coming in now ranging from around 8% to 27% in some cases? Right, that doesn’t matter because all it means is that the federal tax subsidy will increase and that’s not real money. For shame Mr Krugman, it is you who is misleading and misinforming.
Stick to one fact we can agree on, millions of Americans have gained health insurance. Whether they are mostly newly insured, whether they are all entitled to the subsidizes they are receiving and whether their coverage is “affordable” are still open questions.
QUINNSCOMMENTARY 