Health care lies and the stupidity of Paul Krugman

The story of Trina Bachtel, an Ohio woman supposedly denied health care because of a lack of insurance has gotten attention because it became part of a Hillary Clinton stump speech (later retracted because Clinton’s facts were wrong).

The amazing thing is that even when the full story is known, it’s being twisted to serve an agenda. Take Paul Krugman of the N.Y. Times, who’s written frequently about the need for a national health insurance program. In today’s column he says:

*"Not long ago, a young Ohio woman named Trina Bachtel, who was having health problems while pregnant, tried to get help at a local clinic.

Unfortunately, she had previously sought care at the same clinic while uninsured and had a large unpaid balance. The clinic wouldn’t see her again unless she paid $100 per visit — which she didn’t have.

Eventually, she sought care at a hospital 30 miles away. By then, however, it was too late. Both she and the baby died.

You may think that this was an extreme case, but stories like this are common in America."*

Krugman now claims that “the essentials” of Hillary’s secondhand story were correct, and that the news media and Obama supporters are guilty of a “disgraceful episode” in jeering at Hillary.

Oh, really?

Using updated information from the Washington Post and today’s Columbus Dispatch, we find that the following happened:

Ms. Bachtel worked at a southern Ohio Pizza Hut where her benefits included health insurance (contrary to the Clinton account). After she became pregnant, in 2007 she visited the local clinic where she’d been previously seen (and run up unpaid bills). The clinic wanted her to pay $100 a visit to help retire her debt. She was unable or unwilling to do that and instead went to a clinic 30 miles away (the O’Bleness clinic, which is affiliated with and just across the parking lot from the Athens, Ohio hospital of the same name). She was seen regularly there for a total of 14 visits (including outpatient stops at the hospital itself). The day after the last visit she was admitted to the hospital where her baby was stillborn. A couple days later she was transferred to a Columbus hospital and died of several complications two weeks later.

She didn’t lack health insurance, she was not denied care, she had regular prenatal visits, and was cared for on both an outpatient and inpatient basis. Paul Krugman is claiming that after her local clinic wouldn’t see her unless she made payments on the old debt:

“Eventually, she sought care at a hospital 30 miles away. By then, however, it was too late. Both she and the baby died.”

It is hard to escape the conclusion that Krugman is lying through his teeth or incredibly sloppy about a story that’s already caused major embarassment.

Krugman obviously is dismayed that there has been a distraction, however brief, from the mission to develop a national health care plan. What he and others of like mind have a giant blind spot about is this: There’s already been a big setback to health care planning due to secrecy (the Clinton Administration closed-door debacle), and many people are justifiably skeptical about the cost and availability of care under a federal program. Spinning and telling lies in order to dramatize the subject are just going to turn more people off, and damage prospects for genuinely needed reforms.

Paul Krugman is an ass.

Yep, he fucked up. All in all, though, the man does good work. Give him a good scolding, and send him back to it.

I get where you’re coming from, and I don’t disagree.

Here’s the thing. Our national apathy and 3rd grade attention span is at the point where making reasonable statements explaining the miserable state of our healthcare system is met with “Eh. It could be worse. Other places aren’t great either.”

It seems we just don’t get worked up about how bad things are unless we have examples we can point to and say “LOOK! Look at what is happening! This is why we need to make it better.”

None of this excuses the lying. I do wonder, however, how bad it has to get before people will demand that the problem gets corrected.

I’m disappointed in this episode because, in general, i think that Paul Krugman is most definitely not an ass. There are plenty of good arguments that could be made to support his position on health care, and this sort of thing isn’t necessary.

I hope he eats some humble pie and makes clear that he fucked up.

If she had health insurance through her work, how did she manage to run up the huge unpaid bill at the clinic?

Perhaps her ‘insurance’ didn’t cover something that she needed care for?

The basic assertion is that ER care is no substitute for regular care. And that people without insurance or incomplete insurance, will delay care. Hoping to get better, and that althought an ER will give care to anyone with an acute case, the ER will still bill you and FEAR of that bill keeps people away untill they absoultly can’t stand the pain.

This does not happen every now and then to people who are ‘bad with money’, (stupid is what you want to call them). It happens everyday in every state of the union, to people who work hard and yet, they don’t have coverage or their coverage is ‘incomplete’ or their insurance compay is run by a bunch of fucking weasles.

THAT is the issue. Hilllary gave an individual example, when the press founda discrepency, they choose to talk about the descrepency, instead of the ISSUE. Where people FUCKIN DIE because of the way we run our health care system.

Why is the media trying to find fault in the story instead of covering the ISSUE?

I think the problem faced by both Hillary Clinton and Paul Krugman is that they need concrete examples to argue the case for health finance reform. People can’t identify with arguments like “X% of people are uninsured” or "health care costs y% more in the US, but people have z% less life expectancy: they need a story that they can identify with. However, both should have checked the facts before running with this story, because the falseness will damage the big case that they are trying to make. It’s very sad for that reason.

(And Deputy Sheriff Bryan Holman deserves to be shot for his part in starting the story going: as a law-enforcement officer he should have known that deviating from the truth can only cause problems, no matter how good your intentions are.)

Which is very often what happens when politicians say what isn’t true.

IOW, if you truly want to focus attention on some issue, it’s incumbent on you to get the facts right.

According to the WaPo article, she ran up the unpaid bills before she was insured.

It was a tad more than a “discrepancy.” It was a lie. And a major presidential candidate using a blatant lie in a campaign speech is also an issue worthy of the media’s attention.

They are, and should be, doing both.

Where’s the evidence that it was a lie, rather than just being untrue? A lie implies that the speaker knows that the allegation was untrue. All that I can see here is that Clinton (and Krugman) should have checked things more thoroughly, not that she knew the story was false.

Fair enough. I don’t know if HRC or Krugman deliberately lied. It’s worth trying to find out though, isn’t it?

As opposed to finding out why our healthcare system sucks ass and how to fix it? How can it be less important than finding out something as petty as whether or not Krugman and HRC deliberately lied about the woman’s circumstances, instead of just perusing the story and thinking “PERFECT! A story we can use as a focus to get a wellspring of support to fix a very busted machine.”

For the second time, there is no reason why these things are mutually exclusive.

Boo hoo.

Life is not fair. Americans already have enough help from society. You want better health care? Get a job with good insurance or make enough money that you can get your own insurance/pay for your health care. Or use the services that are already out there.

There are better things to do with the wealth of American society than waste it on people who could enjoy the bounty of this country if they would just get their shit together. If you really want to talk about people that need our help, look at the refugees around the world. Even the worst off in America live in a paradise compared to the people in the Kakuma Refugee Camp.

It’s not that the system is unfair. The problem is that the system is inefficient and wasteful. The evidence for that is that (on an average) Americans pay more for health care than people in other advanced industrial economies, but (again on an average) they get worse results.

For the sake of truth, I think you should change your handle to “Two and a Half Yards of Turds” or simply “Pantsload” for brevity.

Obviously Katrina blew right by you, because the scenes that came out of that particular mess rival many I’ve seen from Third World Nations. Of course, I’m sure none of those people “had their shit together.” :rolleyes:

Well, they had their shit together but it floated away.

Thank you so much for exemplifying the very attitude I outlined earlier. I would hate to not have a handy post to reference when someone came in demanding a cite that people are apathetic to the state of our healthcare system.

The problem is not only that people are unable to afford quality care. The problem is also that standards of care have decreased. In the time that I have been a nurse, I have seen nurse to patient ratios drop to dangerous levels. Medical assistants and nursing assistants tasked with procedures that once only an RN could administer. Discharging patients in 24 hours or less after a majory surgical procedure. An increased incidence of writing a prescription instead of treating an illness until there was no alternative to surgery. Reduced nursing classes and wait lists for nursing schools when the need for nurses is dire.

The system is broken. Saying “it’s bad other places, too” is hardly an excuse for not fixing it.

And unfortunately a belief that it’s broken is hardly an excuse for attempts to focus attention that depart from the facts.

Which is precisely why I said in my very first post:

But hey. Don’t let that fact detract from your sanctimony party.

Sorry if you found sanctimony in my posts - it wasn’t intended.

You did offer this:

which seems to imply that you find the errors of Krugman & HRC not very important.

I’d suggest they are quite important, since such errors invariable become a lightning rod for criticism and thus strongly tend to derail honest debate. Perhaps the worst thing to have in any discussion is an ally who spouts nonsense.