Romney's Sick Joke

The New York Times ^ | 10/4/2012 | Paul Krugman

[pgyanke]

“No. 1,” declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No, they aren’t — as Mr. Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate.

[nascarnation]

If you haven’t read this aleady, you would enjoy it:

http://www.amazon.com/Last-Well-Person-Despite-Health-care/dp/0773527958

[Trailerpark Badass]

As a site old-timer, you are probably aware that even the most hardcore self-proclaimed conservatives turn into “gimme gimme gimme” liberals when it comes to pre-existing conditions and health insurance.

Sure, and they love trucking their children off to BigGov indoctrination factories rather than spend a few more bucks or a little time, and god forbid you tell them you're not cool with their daughter murdering her child if it makes her a little uncomfortable...

[levon]

Those are not very good analogies.....someone with a pre-existing condition is not asking for an insurance company to pay for the surgery they just had....while insured with another company. They are seeking insurance going forward...some pre-existing conditions will not require any major payouts going forward and some will. It is not right that a person (and their family) who has played by the rules has to go bankrupt because of something they never wished on themselves, and the insurance companys refuse to cover in the pool going forward.

[Gay State Conservative]

Krugman won the Nobel Peace Prize too,didn't he?

[flintsilver7]

Thanks for that recommendation. Bought it based on the intro printed.

Reminds me of my 96 year old grandmother complaining that she has Lyme disease, anemia, or another whole host of illnesses. She also complains that her wrist hurts and she can’t sleep through the night. She ignores the fact that she’s already lived at least 30 years longer than she was expected to. I also tell her I’d cut my arm off to sleep through the night and I’m 31.

[RaisingCain]

“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.

[ought-six]

Why should I have to pay for someone else’s chronic (i.e., not acute) medical condition? Insurance, by its very concept, is to obtain protection (i.e., coverage) against the POSSIBILITY or RISK of loss, and it is NOT intended to pay or indemnify someone for something that is already a loss. Thus, I have no problem sharing in the pool for someone’s CHANCE of suffering a loss (and that person shares in the same pooly for MY chance of suffering a loss), but I’ll be damned if I have to pay towards someone else’s already existent and ongoing loss, as that would not be insurance, but would be extortion.

Oh, by the way: I am a cancer patient. I developed my disease after I had been insured for years. If I lose that insurance coverage, I would not expect anyone to have to bear larger premiums to cover my joining another insurance program.

[4Liberty]

Yes, but most insurance has its limits. Most policies cap at some point, 1 million or what ever, depending on the plan.

There are worse things than dieing, such as violating others rights to keep their incomes. Benefits are of finite duration. People should work longer if the live longer, buy multiple coverages (like I have) for possible problems down the road.

I say this as the wife of a husband with advanced Parkinson’s Disease. He no longer qualifies for long term care. I take care of him - it’s my job. Not the taxpayers, my neighbors, or the other insurance-premium payers.

4L

[Wurlitzer]

Being able to move coverage from an existing plan to another is perfectly acceptable. That is no where near what I was discussing. I am referring to the low life vermin who spend their money on everything for their pleasure then when they have some illness think for some reason they should be able to purchase insurance. Screw them all.

Don’t allow the media communists to distort this all important difference.

A simple law, which actually exists in some states, to mandate that a person who is covered for a condition under company A to change coverage to company B is all that is needed not a 2000+ page document which does nothing but create another government program filled with typical government workers gleaned from every marginal sub group via preference in hiring programs.

The commies have distorted the dialog to such a point where too many people, even some Freepers, actually think there is a right to insurance. I maintain that health care costs would be much lower if true market forces were in play. Insurance just is carte blanche for doctors/hospitals to increase costs at a rate much higher than inflation.

[EternalVigilance]

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

-- James Madison

[WOSG]

Krugman is an inveterate liar and the Times has become a cesspool of the worst bias in liberal media.

Krugman’s problem is that he is a very smart Keynesian who believes in a lot of socialist rot, and to make his ‘case’ he is not above lying, misusing statistics, and creating strawman arguments (a favorite of Obama btw, who is so much for strawman arguments he literally decalred the ‘real Romney’ wasnt at the debate; um,nope, the real one was there, the guy who WASNT there was the strawman Romney that Obama has been running against.)

You could get lost in a thicket fighting every false premise, cherry-picked data point and bogus argument of Krugmans. Best you can do is point to some critiques of Krugman:
http://krugman-in-wonderland.blogspot.com/

An open mind might realize that Krugman is blowing smoke, as he often does. He is just cheerleading for Obama’s phony strawman arguments, and defending Obama on a basis of hope not reality. A closed mind ... well, why bother with a closed mind.

You can pass this along and see what he/she says. Latest blog post critiques Krugman’s latest.

[AndyTheBear]

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.

[Lexinom]

I think your concern is legitimate, and it's disturbingly telling that the only responses you've received are of precisely the variety of glib ostrich-head-in-the-sand ones that brought us ObamaCare.

Not everybody can afford "continuous coverage" for a long stint - esp. in Obama's economy.

[Gene Eric]

You’re a sick, pathetic scumbag, Krugman. You’re the # that held Palin responsible for the Tucson massacre. You’re #ing POS.

[RaisingCain]

“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.”

---

It depends on what time of day you catch Romney on this. In the debate, Romney presented it as being the same thing as Obama’s plan. There was no mention of continuous coverage. In other interviews, Romney has not mentioned it being dependent on continuous coverage, but has presented it as being identical to Obama’s plan. To be honest, it is impossible for me to really believe anything Romney says. Even on taxes, he was arguing throughout the primaries that he was going to bring down taxes for ALL. In fact, one of my weapons against him back then was that Romney was gimmicky, and that there were hints and suggestions that Mitt would just raise taxes through cutting alleged “deductions” and “loopholes” instead of going after spending.

Now, what was once a great secret, is apparently his mainstream opinion, and no one actually notices it. I’ve lost my respect and faith in Republicans and many so called “conservatives.” They are lemmings, nothing more, who now and then rebel against the GOPe, but always come crawling back at the expense of morality and principles.

[AndyTheBear]

You do sound like you have lost faith. I don’t put all that faith in men, and see all of us as flawed.

[Elsie]

Neither are post-existing ones...

Are there NO tents that the gov’t camel won’t stick his nose into?

[Puddleglum]

The real problem is not insurance, it is cost. Needing insurance for something you should be able to pay for out of pocket drives up cost, thanks to the invisible sugar-daddy middle-man, “insurance.” I am not talking about catastrophic health care, but basic things.

And a non-related point: who the hell thinks mandating coverage of kids through age 26 was a good idea? Mandate an expansion of coverage, express shock and moral outrage when rates go up. One was designed to cause the other and force people into a single-payer plan.

[Loud Mime]

Ask him if the Constitution means anything to him, especially the tenth Amendment. Or national debt?

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Outstanding answer.

:D