![\"\"](\"http:\/\/upload.wikimedia.org\/wikipedia\/commons\/thumb\/5\/54\/Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg\/220px-Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Paul Krugman<\/a> puzzles over a dazzling bit of dishonesty in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Oregon’s Medicaid program.\u00c2\u00a0 Here’s the basic issue:<\/p>\n Aaron Carroll<\/a> reads the Wall Street Journal<\/a>, which is outraged, outraged, at the prospect that Oregon\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Medicaid system might seek to limit spending on treatments with low effectiveness and\/or patients who aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t going to live much longer in any case. Death panels!<\/p>\n Carroll points us to the actual staff recommendation<\/a>, which is far milder than the WSJ blast would have you believe. But as Carroll points out, the larger point is the absurdity of the Journal\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s position<\/strong>. On one side, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s fanatically opposed to Medicaid expansion \u00e2\u20ac\u201d that is, it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s eager to make sure that millions have no health coverage at all. On the other side, it claims to be outraged at the notion of setting priorities in spending on those who do manage to qualify for Medicaid. It\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s OK for people to die for lack of coverage; it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s an utter horror if taxpayers decline to pay for marginal care.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Krugman (and the Aaron Carroll<\/a>, whom he is citing here) doesn’t quite\u00c2\u00a0put the matter this way, but it seems to me that you have a basic issue of scarcity here: in part on account of objections from conservatives, money for Medicaid is short.\u00c2\u00a0 So best to distribute what little there is to those who need it, not everything can be covered.\u00c2\u00a0 So the discussion ought perhaps to be about that.\u00c2\u00a0 That’s not, sadly, what the Wall Street Journal was interested in.\u00c2\u00a0 Their interest, rather, was in using such perennial problems as evidence that Big Government will put you to death.\u00c2\u00a0 That is\u00c2\u00a0a rather different issue.<\/p>\n So Krugman wonders:<\/p>\n So I understand what\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s going on here. What I don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t understand is the mindset of the editorial writers<\/strong>. At some level they have to know that they\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re engaged in an act of grotesque cynicism. Do they admit that to themselves? Do they rationalize it by saying that truth is a secondary consideration when you\u00e2\u20ac\u2122re engaged in a crusade against the evils of big government? Have they mastered true Orwellian doublethink, managing to believe things they know aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t true?<\/p><\/blockquote>\n My vote is they are probably capable of knowing the difference, but have long ago confused success at selling an idea with the idea’s being true.\u00c2\u00a0 Or perhaps something else: they believe their are better arguments out there, and though the one they offer may be a stinker, you argue with the arguments you have, not the\u00c2\u00a0ones you’d like to have.\u00c2\u00a0 Someone, after all, will come along an iron man them out of this one.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Paul Krugman puzzles over a dazzling bit of dishonesty in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on Oregon’s Medicaid program.\u00c2\u00a0 Here’s the basic issue: Aaron Carroll reads the Wall Street Journal, which is outraged, outraged, at the prospect that Oregon\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s Medicaid system might seek to limit spending on treatments with low effectiveness and\/or patients who aren\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t … Continue reading Scarcity of arguments<\/span>