As many of you know, I teach economics. Through the years I've used Paul Krugman textbooks and, until about three or four years ago, I really thought the guy knew what he was talking about. I'm not sure when he jumped the shark, but I kinda feel like it was just after he won the Nobel Prize (now about as respected as the Milli Vanilli Grammy).
Some time after that Paul became quite the proponent of continued deficit spending and has even backed President Obama's assessment that we really don't have a debt problem so much as a healthcare problem. Okay, Paul, okay. I've got 16 and a half trillion reasons you're wrong, but whatever.
And then, this. Here we see a brief glimmer of a man who is possessed of awareness and reality. A man who sees reality for what it is and can actually make an assessment of what's happening and what has to happen to our economy and our debt at some point. You can watch the larger YouTube clip below, but honestly, it's almost entirely unintelligible and really just window dressing.
"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."
Whoa!!?? Did I just read that right!? Even the darling of the economic left is ready to admit that reality exists. Debts have to be paid? Medical care isn't infinite? That's funny, because for the last three years, Paul has been suggesting and practically saying quite the opposite. I never expected this and it's great to see Paul starting to come around. Only, I'm not sure he has.
After staring at the screen for about twenty seconds, something hit me like a ton of bricks: If they had planned this, it might still look just like this. He's not really raising the veil and having an epiphany. This could very easily be the next step in the plan.
Now that America's newest and biggest entitlement is in place and is set to survive through its initial implementation, changing things will require "taking healthcare away from those who can't afford it any other way." And that's exactly how it'll be phrased. I've said since the election that the left has commandeered the narrative and this is the next defensible position for them. It's safe, now, to admit that massive debt does, eventually, require action. But now, Obamacare is in place. We can't cut the program. The only choice left is to generate the revenue necessary for it. Is it a con!?! Did they know all along that the debt that would mount and was unstoppable, and simply not care? Did they just want to get this big giant program through before they dropped the other shoe and told us it was time to pay up!?
We fought loud and hard to stop that thing from happening and screamed that debt and rationing was part of the reason why. We were laughed off. We were patted on the head by the left and the fifth column, I mean fourth estate, told us we were overreacting and the debt was worth it and we could pay it off anyway. After all, Nobel economist Paul Krugman was there to assure us that this was the right move. This was wise. And now, Paul is ready to say, "Yeah, debt's bad now. So, you have to pay more taxes so we don't have too much debt." On some level I'm a little surprised they don't want to buy more votes with taxpayer dollars, but hey, count your blessings, I guess.
Now, the "death panel" thing is really only a sideline for me, but it's no less sinister. He's joking about the notion of a "death panel" and that's fine. He can mock that phrase if he wants, but the phrase means exactly what it meant when those on the right used it during the debate over this albatross. It means that creating Obamacare does NOT suspend the economic notion of scarcity. Right now health care is rationed. Money, insurance companies, lawyers, accountants and to a lesser degree patients are currently in charge of how health care is rationed. Private firms compete to produce and offer products that consumers select for the purpose of managing their health care. Under Obamacare some, or a lot, of that power shifts to government and these "death panels". Of course they're not going to be called that, but when you're focused on cutting costs, on some level you're going to make the decision to NOT treat someone. Some of those people will die. I'd rather someone I hired to work for me made that decision. And if I've got enough money to buy more time, I should be allowed to do so. Of course, I don't need that money as much as others do...
It's almost like they knew all along the debt was too high and health care would end up being rationed by some government bean counter. It's almost like they were willing to lie to us, all the while knowing we were right about the debt and the rationing. It's almost like they were willing to do all that lying just so they could get the big project. I just hope a ton of us don't end up paying for Obama's legacy with our lives or the lives of our loved ones.
This statement by Krugman is very telling, and it'll never be part of the debate because... the left controls the narrative.