“I do not know what debate Krugman was watching, in the one I watched the only specifics Romney gave on medical coverage plans were for the state plan when he was Governor. I am guessing Krugman got confused, but since he does not give much context of what “my plan” means in his quote of Romney, I can’t know for sure.”
In the debate I watched, Romney responded to Obama by stating that his plan has these same “good parts” that Obama’s plan has, which included coverage for pre-existing conditions. He did that several times, even on tax policy when he switched up from declaring he would cut taxes for all, to claiming he isn’t cutting taxes “on the eeeevil rich” like he claimed in the Primary’s back when conservatives cared about tax policy.
I think Romney is purposely vague on his plans so he can literally have it both ways. You can believe that Romney was truthful in the debate, or you can believe that he meant something totally different.
I distinctly remember Romney highlighting differences in his plan as well. Also, from another post here it seems that “pre-existing conditions” had a different scope in the two plans. Romneycare requiring continuance of coverage between employers for those who got a condition while insured, and Obamacare forcing insurance carriers to sell to people who had no insurance and then bought after they got a condition. Which is of course why Obamacare includes a penalty (tax) on people who don’t have insurance in an effort to stop the most obvious abuse.