Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney's Sick Joke
The New York Times ^ | 10/4/2012 | Paul Krugman

Posted on 10/05/2012 1:18:09 PM PDT by 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.

(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: preexisting; presidentialdebate; romney; romneylies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 next last
A friend sent this to me for comment. I'd like to get FReeper input before I do. How well do we know Gov Romney's healthcare proposals?
1 posted on 10/05/2012 1:18:11 PM PDT by pgyanke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Oh heck. The New York Slimes written by Krugman.


2 posted on 10/05/2012 1:21:13 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

I understand the bias. However, the guy who sent this to me is a fence-sitter who is trying to make heads and tails of the MSM spin. Unfortunately, I don’t know the facts on this one by myself to help explain. Can you?


3 posted on 10/05/2012 1:23:18 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

NY Times, Are you going to listen to Romney or some staffer? I know, whatever fits your agenda.


4 posted on 10/05/2012 1:23:27 PM PDT by Roklok
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

“pre-existing conditions” is not a legitimate concern for any President.


5 posted on 10/05/2012 1:25:08 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Obama at the UN: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

It normally takes about 24-48 hours for a conservative economist to demolish Krugman. I’ll keep an eye out for you.


6 posted on 10/05/2012 1:26:22 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Krugman is, like the liberal he is, saying insurance companies should give everyone from 18 a policy covering pre-existing solution. He says “ But it’s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, “ -— phooey, he speaks for himself.


7 posted on 10/05/2012 1:26:27 PM PDT by Cronos (**Marriage is about commitment, cohabitation is about convenience.**)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Berlin_Freeper

I agree. I don’t want the government involved in my healthcare at all... but they are there. The question at hand is whether or not Romney was truthful... do you know his plan?


8 posted on 10/05/2012 1:26:33 PM PDT by pgyanke (Republicans get in trouble when not living up to their principles. Democrats... when they do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Depends on the meaning of ‘plan’. Romney recently stated that he wants to repeal Zerocare and replace it with a plan that does include preexisting condition coverage.


9 posted on 10/05/2012 1:26:45 PM PDT by rfp1234
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Has Krugman reopened the comments/discussion of his column? Iirc he shut it down because too many of the unwashed masses were too effective in challenging what hecwas writing, making him look bad and hurting his frail and sensitive ego.


10 posted on 10/05/2012 1:26:50 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

I don’t know about pre-existing and it would be interesting to find out but regardless of the answer I’m voting Romney. Does your friend know what zero already signed into law?

From a George Will column:

Late in the debate, when Romney for a third time referred to Obamacare’s creation of “an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of [medical] treatment you ought to have,” Obama said, “No, it isn’t.” Oh?

The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism’s itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability. Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB’s proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.

These facts refute Obama’s Denver assurance that IPAB “can’t make decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare’s language that IPAB’s proposals “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.”

By Obamacare’s terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from ever altering IPAB proposals.

Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a Cato Institute study as “the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress.” But unless and until the Supreme Court — an unreliable guardian — overturns it, IPAB is a harbinger of the “shock and awe statism” (Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels’s phrase) that is liberalism’s prescription for curing the problems supposedly caused by insufficient statism.


11 posted on 10/05/2012 1:27:08 PM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Only when Unicorns start pooping Skittles will covering pre-exiting conditions make sense.

Don’t carry homeowners insurance until your house burns down then call Allstate to insure it and expect to get paid. What do you think the agent will say?

Don’t carry car insurance and crash your car into another causing injuries and then call State Farm to insure it and cover your loss. What do you think the agent will say.

With the same logic, doctors should not waste their money carrying malpractice insurance until they cause the death of someone then they can pick up coverage and get that claim covered.

How about none of us pay into Kenyan CommieCare until we get sick? For that matter maybe we should all register as democrats, not pay our taxes and we can become head of the Treasury or maybe a US Representative.


12 posted on 10/05/2012 1:28:46 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Here’s the most honest answer I could find.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/329568/no-romney-didnt-tell-lie-after-lie-debate-katrina-trinko

This does worry me. My son, daughter and I all have PECs. It is a serious problem. IMHO, Republicans’ failure to address these issues (also healthcare for college-age people) is what drove the nation into accepting Obamacare.

Healthcare issues have driven ALL of my children’s first life-choices. More than money, desire for a family, everything.


13 posted on 10/05/2012 1:30:02 PM PDT by Marie ("The last time Democrats gloated this hard after a health care victory, they lost 60 House seats.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Romney's plan will cover pre-existing conditions for those who have been "continuously covered" by insurance. That is, you can change jobs and, therefore, insurance coverage and be covered. What you can't do is wait until you're sick and then buy insurance.
14 posted on 10/05/2012 1:31:59 PM PDT by Timmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Yes, under Romney’s plan, pre-existing conditions are covered, PROVIDED that you had health insurance in the first place.

Thus, if you have a significant condition and change insurance companies, the new insurance agency must cover you.

I believe it’s called “continuance”. Many states already require this for people who switch employers.

This differs from Obama’s plan, where you do not need to have insurance in the first place. Under Obama’s plan, people will not need to get insurance UNTIL they have a serious health issue. The result is that insurance companies will quickly go out of business.


15 posted on 10/05/2012 1:31:59 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Tell him if he is a moron to go ahead and vote for Obama. It seems he is leaning Obama anyway or he wouldn’t even be asking this stupid question.


16 posted on 10/05/2012 1:32:37 PM PDT by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Truthful. A plan can be anything you want it to be.


17 posted on 10/05/2012 1:33:53 PM PDT by Berlin_Freeper (Obama at the UN: The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Too late - comments closed. How convenient for Krugman...


18 posted on 10/05/2012 1:34:27 PM PDT by Samogon (Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. - Plato)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Romney pretending to be a conservative is sick enough!


19 posted on 10/05/2012 1:38:01 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (The world continues to be stuck in a "all leftist, all of the time" funk. BUNK THE FUNK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marie
...is what drove the nation into accepting Obamacare.

Sorry. America has not accepted Obamacare.
Nice try, though...

20 posted on 10/05/2012 1:38:55 PM PDT by Cowboy Bob (Greed + Envy = Liberalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Samogon

I’ve noticed on CNN today that they keep closing story’s to comment.


21 posted on 10/05/2012 1:41:31 PM PDT by linn37 (Newt supporter here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kidd; All

Great explanation. Thanks!


22 posted on 10/05/2012 1:41:31 PM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kidd; pgyanke
Yes, under Romney’s plan, pre-existing conditions are covered, PROVIDED that you had health insurance in the first place.

Car insurance companies are effectively the same. You will find it very difficult to get car insurance if you don't already have it.

The problem lies with how the insurance company quotes your premium, and I don't know the details in Obamacare, or what would be RomneyCare. Are they required to offer you the same premium they would offer to someone without a pre-existing condition?

To use the car insurance analogy: if I have an at-fault accident on my record, a new car insurance company isn't likely to offer me coverage for a reasonable premium. However, my existing insurance company is probably going to jack up my premium, too.

How does this work with health insurance? If I become seriously ill with a chronic condition, can they increase my premium?

23 posted on 10/05/2012 1:42:10 PM PDT by justlurking (The only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good WOMAN (Sgt. Kimberly Munley) with a gun)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Marie

See post #15.


24 posted on 10/05/2012 1:42:44 PM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Pre-existing conditions are covered (sometimes with limits) with Romneycare.


25 posted on 10/05/2012 1:49:08 PM PDT by proudpapa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

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.


26 posted on 10/05/2012 1:51:23 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kidd

“insuring” a pre-existing condition isn’t insurance.


27 posted on 10/05/2012 1:52:35 PM PDT by 4Liberty (Some on our "Roads & Bridges" head to the beach. Others head to their offices, farms, libraries....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: kidd

“insuring” a pre-existing condition isn’t insurance.


28 posted on 10/05/2012 1:53:23 PM PDT by 4Liberty (Some on our "Roads & Bridges" head to the beach. Others head to their offices, farms, libraries....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!


29 posted on 10/05/2012 1:53:35 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 4Liberty

“Hello, Allstate? Yeah, my house is burning down right now, can I get some insurance?”


30 posted on 10/05/2012 1:55:14 PM PDT by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter admits whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kidd

Thank you for clarifying kidd. That makes sense. I am relieved Romneycare did not have Obama’s definition of pre-existing coverage...which is insane.


31 posted on 10/05/2012 2:00:50 PM PDT by AndyTheBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Question for Krugman: Let’s say I total my car, then go to buy auto insurance. Can Allstate be forced to cover that preexisting condition?


32 posted on 10/05/2012 2:12:10 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Doesn’t Krugman have a saucer to go fly, somewhere?


33 posted on 10/05/2012 2:27:52 PM PDT by Hardraade (http://junipersec.wordpress.com (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4Liberty

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.

What they want is to have their medical care - care that, with a pre-existing condition, has a well-known and predictable value - subsidized by somebody else. If you have diabetes and you will automatically require approximately $5,000 in medical care during the year for that diabetic condition, then your premiums should reflect this. Why they or anybody else think somebody else should pay for this is beyond me.


34 posted on 10/05/2012 2:46:52 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
Why they or anybody else think somebody else should pay for this is beyond me..

Tying medical insurance to employment and insulating the patient from both insurance and direct medical costs has been a disaster.

35 posted on 10/05/2012 2:52:24 PM PDT by nascarnation (Defeat Baraq 2012. Deport Baraq 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

Group insurance in general is an enormous scam. I personally think that the relatively constant costs for health insurance - both a result of group rates and employer-linked insurance - have led people to do far less for their own health (including over-reliance of doctors).

There are two things most people don’t seem to remember. One, the human body has a very effective immune system. Two, you can take care of yourself.


36 posted on 10/05/2012 2:57:04 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
World's best health plan
37 posted on 10/05/2012 3:24:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: 4Liberty

The idea of insuring health was originally to level the costs associated with the possibility of the onset of a serious health issue.

It has since morphed into a quasi-discount pre-paid medical care plan.

You’re right, “insuring” a pre-existing condition isn’t insurance. It’s continuance of treatment. But at some point prior to the onset of the condition, it was insurance.


38 posted on 10/05/2012 3:28:43 PM PDT by kidd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: kidd
Pre-existing Condition Coverage
39 posted on 10/05/2012 3:39:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

>> “There are two things most people don’t seem to remember. One, the human body has a very effective immune system. Two, you can take care of yourself.” <<

.
Nah! - That personal responsibility stuff just doesn’t fly with the Bread-and-Circus crowd.


40 posted on 10/05/2012 3:41:34 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7

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

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


41 posted on 10/05/2012 3:51:00 PM PDT by nascarnation (Defeat Baraq 2012. Deport Baraq 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: flintsilver7
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...

42 posted on 10/05/2012 3:55:10 PM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (So)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Wurlitzer

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.


43 posted on 10/05/2012 4:21:37 PM PDT by levon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
Krugman won the Nobel Peace Prize too,didn't he?
44 posted on 10/05/2012 4:21:42 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (Ambassador Stevens Is Dead And The Chevy Volt Is Alive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nascarnation

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.


45 posted on 10/05/2012 5:40:03 PM PDT by flintsilver7 (Honest reporting hasn't caught on in the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“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.


46 posted on 10/05/2012 6:39:56 PM PDT by RaisingCain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: levon

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.


47 posted on 10/05/2012 6:55:41 PM PDT by ought-six ( Multiculturalism is national suicide, and political correctness is the cyanide capsule.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: kidd

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


48 posted on 10/05/2012 7:10:52 PM PDT by 4Liberty (Some on our "Roads & Bridges" head to the beach. Others head to their offices, farms, libraries....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: levon

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.


49 posted on 10/05/2012 7:13:37 PM PDT by Wurlitzer (Nothing says "ignorance" like Islam!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke
"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

50 posted on 10/05/2012 7:14:39 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (Congratulations on your big 'win.' Obviously, Romney is a much more capable socialist than Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson