Energy Inventories Higher Than Expected
15 minutes ago
Sunday, December 9, 2012
A thought for Sunday: PEOPLE WILL DIE
- by New Deal democrat
In connection with the idea floated to raise the Medicare eligibility age from 65 to 67,touted by Ezra Klein (who, when it comes to Social Insurance programs is nothing more than Young-Broder-in-Training, ever willing to throw granny and grampa under the bus to prove his economic Seriousness), Prof. Brad DeLong notes that it isn't just poor fiscal policy, but also sends us to Duncan Black who inconveniently points out that "raising the Medicare eligibility age will cost money, not save money, and also kill people;" and to Adele Stan who writes, quite starkly and correctly that PEOPLE WILL DIE.
When was the last time you ever saw an economic model that took into account the number of people who will, ahem, exit the simulation because they starve to death or otherwise die? Probably never. Certainly Ohanian and Cole never took it into account in their fairy tale that presumes to show that the New Deal set back recovery, despite the fact that death by starvation during the 1929-32 "great onntraction" was not uncommon, and studies showed that about 1/4 of all American children were malnourished.
If you make the simple, straightforward, and eminently reasonable assumption that people prefer to live rather than die, then the economic situation which saves lives is always an efficient, Pareto-optimal solution.
You'll never hear that simple fact pointed out no matter how far you go in your academic economic training. I'll bet Ezra Klein doesn't know that. It used to be that we had a political culture that knew that, but no more.
-----------
P.S.: I will be personally and significantly impacted by raising the Medicare eligibility age. If that happens in return for raising taxes on a few people that doesn't even return their taxes to Clinton-era rates -- i.e., if Obama et al are ready to give up the family jewels just to roll back some of the Bush tax cuts for billionaires, I will take that very personally. Do they really think I won't remember who they are in two or four years? Do they really think they can scare me in 2014 by telling me that kicking them out of office will allow the GOP to maintain control of the House of Representatives for the next two years (i.e., what we have already)?!?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
In fairness to Ezra, he specifically points out that he does not agree that raising the medicare age is good policy (quite the opposite). He was reporting on what appears to be the politics of the situation, and perhaps serving as a mouthpiece for a trial balloon.
Ekshewally, I regularly run simulations where one pf the factors is how many people will die. It's common in cost-benefit analysis in engineering. Cost of a life in Canada right now? About $2m.
Also it's a bit of an empty threat at the end there ... who you gonna vote for next time? Jello Biafra?
In this cost-benefit analaysis of yours, did you ever calculate the productivity or surplus this person does for the society? I guess not because that it not computable. For all those in development country (US, CA, Europe, Japan, etc), the economic model on the other side, is you work like a slave (very close) and get paid insignificant amount. If you are sick and you don't have the fund, you die. If you are old, you can't work, you die. This system has been with us since the dawn of time. Only recently have that change but now we are moving back to the good old days. Before you talk about cutting entitlements which is a surplus, please tell us they don't have the money. We have money for the corporate barons (Oil, Defense, etc.) but not for people who pay in. If the argument is these corporate baron will go some where else. Please tell me where else because the tax rates are so good, they are just dying to go to "lala" land. Let me repeat, the "US" multinational are making billions of dollars by not paying their fare share of taxes. This growth is much better than productivity or market share gains.
I think raising the Medicare eligibility age is one of those dumb rob Peter to pay Paul ideas. However, I am working on Obamacare from both a policy and implementation standpoint and many of the people cited in the article -waitresses, retail workers, etc - will be eligible for subsides which are quite generous. Also community rating insurance premiums will help people between ages 65-67 be able to buy affordable coverage.
Again I think this is a silly idea b/c any savings from Medicare will be eaten up in ACA costs but I am not sure people will die. Pre-ACA no doubt they would have died. Post-ACA this is more likely to be a budgetary shell game moving money from one cost center to another.
Post a Comment