Paul Krugman, "The Obamacare Shock": No, We're Not Talking Sepsis

Some three years ago, I traveled overseas to meet with clients. Dinner included an appetizer of raw oysters, and not wishing to insult my hosts, I swallowed a few. To make a long story short (I can hear in the background several of my coreligionists saying, "I told you so"), several weeks later I ended up in a hospital in Israel with a severe E. coli infection. How severe? Had I not arrived in the hospital within 24 hours, I was told that sepsis would have set in, and I would not be here to tell the tale (I can hear in the "Opinion Pages" offices of the New York Times a certain someone cynically saying, "What a shame"). My treatment with intravenous antibiotics is of little significance. More interesting is the fact that Israel has socialized medicine, and I was placed in a room with three other persons, including a psychiatric patient, given to screaming, who "slept" next to me. I got over the E. coli, but at the end of my stay, they were beginning to wonder whether they should keep me in the hospital for a few more days, because my blood pressure had begun to skyrocket. "Over my dead body," I responded.

The point of this tale?

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Obamacare Shock" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/opinion/krugman-the-obamacare-shock.html?_r=0), Paul Krugman tells us:

"The Affordable Care Act, a k a Obamacare, goes fully into effect at the beginning of next year, and predictions of disaster are being heard far and wide. There will be an administrative “train wreck,” we’re told; consumers will face a terrible shock. Republicans, one hears, are already counting on the law’s troubles to give them a big electoral advantage.

No doubt there will be problems, as there are with any large new government initiative, and in this case, we have the added complication that many Republican governors and legislators are doing all they can to sabotage reform. Yet important new evidence — especially from California, the law’s most important test case — suggests that the real Obamacare shock will be one of unexpected success."

Krugman goes on to explain:

"Well, the California bids are in — that is, insurers have submitted the prices at which they are willing to offer coverage on the state’s newly created Obamacare exchange. And the prices, it turns out, are surprisingly low. A handful of healthy people may find themselves paying more for coverage, but it looks as if Obamacare’s first year in California is going to be an overwhelmingly positive experience."

Notwithstanding the surprise in Sacramento described by Krugman, we are being told by The Hill (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/300881-labor-unions-break-ranks-on-health-law#ixzz2TvBNAzaD):

"Labor unions are breaking with President Obama on ObamaCare.

Months after the president’s reelection, a variety of unions are publicly balking at how the administration plans to implement the landmark law. They warn that unless there are changes, the results could be catastrophic."

In addition, the results of a recent Associated Press-GfK poll (see: http://news.yahoo.com/poll-trust-government-obama-approval-slip-164950163--politics.html):

"With more and more components of the 2010 'Obamacare' health law taking effect, 41 percent of Americans approve of the president's handling of health care. That's the lowest level during his time in office."

And if Obamacare is such a success, why is the Obama administration spending tens of millions of dollars on a public relations campaign intended to highlight its benefits (see: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/228699-hhs-inks-20m-contract-with-pr-firm-to-tout-preventive-benefits)?

At least with respect to union opposition, many unions believe that they engaged in hard-nosed negotiations to obtain better health care services, often at the cost of higher wages, and union members are afraid of being forced out of their plans. Can you blame them?

And if California pricing is lower than expected, all is not so sanguine involving the costs for "high-risk pools" established by Obamacare (see: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-02-15/national/37115717_1_high-risk-pools-insurance-oversight-health-insurance).

Me? I believe in some form of socialized medicine. There needs to be a safety net for the poor, whose number is growing owing to a savage economic downturn that has not responded to Obama's care. And although I would need to be carried back to that same hospital room bound and sedated, I am hopeful, but not confident, that Obamacare can be adapted to suit the needs of most Americans without sending the federal deficit into the stratosphere. Surely, there is some middle ground for middle class, middle of the road Americans, of whom there are still a few.

How to begin controlling costs? For starters, health care fraud, totaling some $80 billion annually, needs to be reined in (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/thomas-friedman-obamacares-other.html). Why isn't this being done? Darned if I know.