Charlie Rose

keithg  08/18/2009 09:33 AM Report

You have to realize that ppl in france are generally healthier than ppl in america even without their health care system. France has one of the lowest rates of heart disease in the world. Many reasons have been attributed to such as better diet, consumption of blood thinning red wine etc. For universal healthcare to really work in America these issues must be addressed. Healthcare issue must be tied together with issues of American Lifestyle.

Christopher  07/06/2009 02:16 AM Report

I could not have said it better than doodahdaze. If the french can do it, America can do it...

Just to set the record straight about these so called Canadians that write on this website. Just to get the wait times straight (from a Canadian living in Montreal). Clinic: 1-4 hours. Emergency room with a non-emergency: 6-10 hours. Emergency room with real emergency: pretty much right away. Seeing a specialist for a specialist problem: 1-6 months. I think that is a fair assessment.

Also, Paul was very forthright about some of his failed predictions. He clearly is trying to honestly approach the economis downturn. Paul's last minute was his strongest.

Gregoryghica  07/05/2009 12:59 AM Report

Dear Mr. Rose

You shod have read the article written by Maria Cheng an AP Medical writer titled "Europe's free, state-run health care has drawbacks" before you talked with Paul Krugman and Tom Dashle. This would have given a better background to talk with those radical liberal thinkers.

Prof. Gregory Ghica

doodahdaze  07/04/2009 07:34 AM Report

The more I listen to this Krugman character speak, the less suspicious I am of him. He initially came across to me as just another glorified self promoter, trying to milk his Nobel Prize for whatever he could. But in this interview, he ACTUALLY seems truly concerned with what's happening in the world outside of himself, and not just playing devil's advocate to amuse himself and throwing little crumbs of his intellect at Mr. Rose and his audience. I say fooy to that.

Paulp_Nonfiction  07/03/2009 03:50 PM Report

Dear Mr. Rose:

Another great show, Sir! Come to think it ("Here's an idea!"), Mr. Rose, we should use the BMI as a benchmark. Or rather, institutionalize the BMI. That way, if a person manages to maintain (or for that matter, attain) a healthy BMI, the gvt should then reward that individual for taking/adopting preventative measures in order to remain healthy. The reward could be in the form of a tax credit when one files his/her tax return.

Dear Sir, I take this opportunity to you and yours (your family member, colleagues and friends) a great 4th of July and may God keep on blessing America!

Sincerely,

Paulpnonfiction

lulu35  07/03/2009 04:23 AM Report

O please as a Canadian, the system is great if you don't get sick or your not over 60. Paul Krugmen is a clown, every answer is larger government, saw him on British show saying he thinks America should have a VAT tax like Europe of 18% to 20% and higher income taxes, that Obama should have passed a 2 trillion dollar stimulus package, that America needs a Cap and Trade like Europe, So even though Europe's Cap and Trade has been a huge failure that doesn't effect him, their tax burden has strangled Europe to slower growth, higher unemployment, and a lower GDP per capita, still sees no problems. He still wants single payer when Europe has 2 tier healthcare, lived in Italy, German and Switzerland anyone who can, buys private insurance. Europe has been moving to the right these last years, tighter fiscal policies, less spending, less regulation, less union power, tighter immigration, lowering it's tax burden, that's why America has the second highest business taxes in the world after Japan. Paul Krugmen thinks he can bring America back to 1940, just with a lot more debt, a Great Society 2, as though the last 30 years hasn't happen and that America doesn't need to complete with the rest of the world for capital, jobs and a standard of living for it's citizens and what's the point of having a Great Socialist Society if in the end only one generation can afford to live it, as Europe is coming to realise.

fasteddie77  07/03/2009 04:03 AM Report

Two short comments: One, neither you or Mr. Krugman discussed the plans to effectively eliminate the role of the health insurance agent/broker. Two, in discussing the role of the Obama folks who are overseeing the auto industry bailout you failed to bring into the conversation the strong opinions of industry wonks who are having to deal with pols who know absolutely nothing about the auto industry and think that laws of physics can be altered by Congress. I think you have at least another show to do with guests to address these areas far beyond the scope of Mr. Krugman's fairly transparent afterglow of having been in the Presence of His Majesty.

Chris_Peterson  07/02/2009 10:45 AM Report

Some form of single payer system (i.e., Medicare for everyone) with optional levels of additional insurance coverage seems to be the best way to go, but it might be a mistake to try to get there in one step. The insurance and pharmaceutical companies and the congresspeople who receive large contributions from them are very effective at sowing seeds of doubt and fear in people about possible problems with such a system. An incremental approach to implementing a single payer system might be received better.

Let's start with children. Every child should be covered for routine immunizations and doctor's visits. The more limited scope and natural appeal of providing all children with a healthy start in life ought to reduce political opposition. Costs in the first year or two could come from stimulus money. Income tax increases could be implemented after insurance companies reduce premiums to reflect savings for those avoided outlays.

As savings from administrative efficiencies begin to accrue and as people become comfortable with the growing single payer system, more people and more services could be added. The goal should be to provide universal care, but there would still be a place for insurance companies to provide added benefits, such as private hospital rooms or other services which are desirable but not essential.

Overall costs should be reduced under such a plan to a level more in line with those of other industrialized countries, and outcomes should improve. In addition, costs would be shifted away from businesses, and that should make American products cheaper and more competitive internationally.

In the end, even a perfect plan is worthless if you can't get it adopted. Starting with providing basic services for all children might be the best strategy for beginning to move in the right direction.

Ricardo_Amaral  07/01/2009 10:27 PM Report

In the last 15 years Paul Krugman has been among a hand full of economists that I read their writings on a regular basis and I respect their opinions.

The New U.S. National Healthcare System

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=152726

Every time the subject regarding a new US National Health System comes up I wonder why they have to reinvent the wheel?

Instead of reinventing the wheel they should extend Medicare coverage to the entire US population with minor adjustments to also include the 50 million Americans who are not covered by any health insurance – many of these people are already getting some kind of health coverage through Medicaid.

I wish Paul Krugman would write a column on The New York Times to explain to millions of Americans that have the following question: why the US government can’t extend the Medicare coverage to the entire US population including all the politicians in Congress?

RobertS  07/01/2009 08:32 PM Report

If you compare our healthcare system apples to apples to other systems you must take in consideration the cost of litigation and how is handled in other countries, plus the consequences it has on American doctors decisions on unnecessary tests. Also you have to take in consideration end of life issues, which Charlie asked that question of the last six months of life. Doctors in Europe negate state paid healthcare patients of certain tests that many american s patients get plus end of life. So there is my question.

RobertS  07/01/2009 07:22 PM Report

Cost of insurance. How does the legal system work in France? Do they have a Looser pays system? How do they deal with end of life issues? Here we pay a lot on legal protection and end of life is out of control. End of Life, I hear is a huge part of your entire life medical expenses.

REMant  07/01/2009 06:45 PM Report

How he can say that most any healthcare system from the French to the Swiss would be better than ours and then blithely discuss the wholly inadequate Congressional plans is beyond me, as is his continued insistence that we needed more "stimulus," by which I gather he means fiscal stimulus, but even then... Keynesians regard money as an absolute conveyed to its possessors by its very existence, as the worst of the mercantilists did, on the one hand, and thru a very primitivist and benevolent view of humanity, on the other. But it is debt, and its ultimate value depends entirely on productivity, which is a matter of moral hazard. By removing any remaining semblance of market discipline, the Keynesians will only assure our demise occurs long before the long-run. Contra Soros and nearly everyone else, IMHO, the fact we are in a depression is all the proof needed that markets are self-correcting. The best account of our economic situation and what we need to do about I have heard recently was given by Volcker in his Beijing speech. Regarding the mtg with the president, Holtz-Eakin noted Monday in a commentary on NBR that the toxic asset program seems to have been "quietly shelved."

Sugarland  07/01/2009 04:34 PM Report

Krugman seemed to say that we can afford 16 % of GDP for health care. Of course this number is from a political decision. Tom Daschle’s expression of the Obama goals of having a super healthy and highly educated population to go forward and do mighty things for the World would give one an appetite for an even larger number.

What industries do we decrease in size in order to make room for an increased health care system? The obvious choice is financial which occupies 40% of our GDP efforts. This mal-performer has failed in it’s main mission to direct the savings of the country to most productive capital investments. Larry Summers has listed eight recent instances where poor distribution of risk has created major crises. That is one every three years.

As Krugman pointed out, the present financial reform effort is guided by people that can only look at problems through the eyes of an investment banker. They want a system with reduced risk, no abuse or fraud but with innovation. Trouble is they only talk of financial innovation. This means they have blinders on and cannot see the real innovations that are possible if they would support the mass of ideas coming from the healthy educated population.

Wouldn’t it be reasonable to reduce the financial industry to say ½ while they get their act together to be a service to the innovative population. In the meantime we could have more people working in health, education, energy….. things that really matter to the population as a whole.

IRISH  07/01/2009 12:51 PM Report

Excellent interview. As a Canadian, the myths of single payer system need to be countered with the facts. Yes, there is some (extent undetermined) need for some greater private involvement in the system but has to be driven by quality aspects rather than pure money to enhance the incomes of the medical establishment. It remains unimaginable that the system America has can continue without catastrophic consequences greater than the recent bailouts of the financial oligarchs.