Meeting famous people changes your opinion of them

[drwex]

Paul Krugman had seemed, to me, to be a somewhat abstract economic thinker. Nice guy, dense textbook, and that was about it.

Having had the chance to hear him talk about himself, his upbringing, and his economic theories at Worldcon I now have a much higher opinion of him and the way he thinks about problems. In many respects he's a geek like me and my friends - he wants to know WHY things are they way they are (*) not just describe situations, and he has a tremendous respect for good research and facts as best they can be found. Like a lot of the geeks I know he's willing to put facts-on-the-ground above ideology. I respect that a lot.

So, now I'm reading his columns more, including this one from the NY Times on the so-called "Swiss Menace": http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html?_r=2

(*) at Worldcon he told the story of how he originally wanted to get into history as a field of research but discovered that even though historians are great about the who/what/where/when they tend to shy away from the 'why' and that was what he wanted to do. One might argue that economics isn't very good at figuring out 'why' either, but at least they try.

Comments

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.

I am getting extremely tired of this line; Kristol made the mistake of saying it on The Daily Show, and it's been running away ever since.

It's only been two years since the Walter Reed neglect scandal broke. Things have not been turned back into Kristol's imagined utopia since then.

[pierceheart.livejournal.com]

As someone who has used both systems, please, quit comparing apples to oranges:

Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) is NOT run by the VA.

Never was.

Yes, but

[drwex]

I think I might not have stated my point clearly enough. I don't necessarily read Krugman because I expect to agree with him. I do get the sense that he and I share a number of views. The point of my post is that by seeing him in person at Worldcon I changed my view of him from "dry academic" to "geek like me."

I don't always agree with all the geeks like me - lord knows.

As to the substance of his Op Ed, I tend to agree with him. I'm strongly in favor of a single-payer system. I'd prefer it not be a government entity; I'd like it to be a non-profit of some kind but I'm extremely vague in my head about how that would work.

As to whether the debacle at Walter Reed is any more or less of an argument for/against government-provided health insurance I think it's irrelevant. What matters in this debate is not the standard of care at any given facility but rather what role does health insurance play in the way treatment is given, or not, to all people.

Re: Yes, but

[davidfcooper.livejournal.com]

For the past 40 years or so economists (academic and otherwise) have become more and more enthralled and preoccupied by mathematics, which from my humanities major afflicted with dyscalculia perspective makes them geeks.

In comparing the three models of health coverage Krugman points out that not including a public component, as is the case in Switzerland and Massachusetts, will fail to control costs. On Bill Moyers' show David Frum pointed out that this also hurts Republicans because it makes future tax cuts--the GOP's favorite campaign promise--all but impossible.

[(Anonymous)]

Am I missing something subtle about this post that makes it unsuitable for children?

Mostly your login

[drwex]

Welcome to "Default LJ view" land, a mythical place in which LJ thinks it's clever to warn everyone about kiddie porn in the very off chance someone might actually POST such a thing and someone under 14 might actually SEE it.

But I digress. Log in.

[chienne-folle.livejournal.com]

Interesting.