Skip to comments.Does Mitt Romney Want to Let People Die?
Posted on 10/20/2012 3:55:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
Have you noticed that The New York Times editorial page is becoming increasingly strident, increasingly emotional and increasingly irrational? Here is Paul Krugman in last Monday's column:
Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan want to expose many Americans to financial insecurity, and let some of them die, so that a handful of already wealthy people can have a higher after-tax income.
No, that's not a misprint. The Republicans actually want to let some people die so that they can reward their rich friends. It's not an isolated comment either. Under the heading "Death by Ideology," Krugman actually lists all of the ways in which a President Romney would proceed to kill people. For example:
Mr. Romney wants to repeal ObamaCare and slash funding for Medicaid actions that would take insurance away from some 45 million nonelderly Americans, causing thousands of people to suffer premature death.
And their longer-term plans to convert Medicare into Vouchercare would deprive many seniors of adequate coverage, too, leading to still more unnecessary mortality.
[M]any, and probably most, older Americans would be left with inadequate insurance, insurance that exposed them to severe financial hardship if they got sick, sometimes left them unable to afford crucial care, and yes, sometimes led to their early death.
So what, you may ask, is the basis for all this vitriol? Krugman is writing about health care a subject about which he has proved time and again he knows virtually nothing. On this occasion he lets loose with this bold assertion:
The overwhelming evidence, however, is that [health] insurance is indeed a lifesaver, and lack of insurance a killer there's no real question that lack of insurance is responsible for thousands, and probably tens of thousands, of excess deaths of Americans each year.
Krugman claims to have reviewed the economics literature. If he has, then he is an embarrassment to the economics profession, despite his Nobel Prize. Then again, if he claims to have done so but really hasn't, I suppose that's equally embarrassing. (And remember, while all this is going on he is invariably calling everyone who disagrees with him a liar.)
Let me briefly set the record straight. Some studies actually have claimed that tens of thousands of people have died prematurely because they lacked health insurance. But these studies were not done by economists and were never accepted in any credible, peer-reviewed social science journal. They are basically junk science and they have been thoroughly discredited on several occasions, most notably by Richard Kronick, an economist who served in the Obama administration and actually helped design HillaryCare. Kronick writes that "there is little evidence to suggest that extending insurance coverage to all adults would have a large effect on the number of deaths in the United States." I'll get to the children below.
In general, the economics literature has found no evidence that lack of health insurance has any substantial effect on mortality. Prof. June O'Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, thoroughly investigated this issue and found that among Americans above 250% of poverty, lack of health insurance does not affect mortality. Below 250% of poverty, people without health insurance have an 11% higher probability of dying. But the probability drops to under 3% when you take into account demographic differences in the two populations. In fact, it is likely that the differential probability would disappear altogether with a complete inclusion of all the demographic differences between the two groups. (See her PowerPoint slides.)
The most recent evidence on children comes from a paper posted by the National Bureau of Economic Research. It looks at the effects of Medicaid on mortality and finds:
Medicaid insurance leads to a substantial decline in mortality in older black children.
It has no effect on white children.
It has no effect on children black or white in states with the most Medicaid expansion.
The last finding is the most important. Krugman claims that by expanding Medicaid, ObamaCare will save thousands of lives and that by repealing ObamaCare, Romney would cause thousands of people to die. The evidence says otherwise.
Paul Krugman deserves the Nobel Prize for his clear thinking and advocacy of free trade. But on health care issues, he is a rank amateur.
This from the party which wants to FORCE people to die.
I volunteer to ride an ambulance. Not many days go by when people who have no isurance are picked up by us. Lower income people, people with no insurance use the ambulance for a taxi ride to the hospital. Middle income people use it in emergencies.
No matter insurance or not the hospital has never turned anyone away.
Obamacare is going to turn more Americans into people with no insurance as the cost of insurance is driven up and up. My own insurance has gone up this year as has everone elses.If anyone thinks that Obamacare will take care of seniors they are crazy. Seniors are about to become a dying breed,as rationing comes into effect.Obamacare will take care of the lower income people just fine, but if you are middle class you are screwed. Insurance will be too expensive to buy and Obamacare will be a death sentence.
I don’t think the New York Times really matters much out there in flyover land. They speak to the liberal elites who are already in the bag for Obama.
If Dems want to claim that people lacking health insurance will die in large numbers, they’ll have to answer to the fact that women with breast cancer have much higher survival rates in the U.S. than they do in the U.K.
My sister who is a nurse, and a strong Dem, says the hospital she works for has a very large list of patients with unpaid debts who still get treated.
It is not widely known, but I can reveal it to my friends if you promise not to let word get out. Chris Matthews is now in charge of their editorial page.
We can always say “Obama hates white people” (or anything else we want to fabricate); the left doesn’t have a monopoly on sensationalist BS...
The lower income class is responsible for the high price of insurance.
Not so much because they do not pay, but because they do not pay they abuse the system.
In other words they call the Ambulance because it is free, they go to the emergency room because it is free, Free meaning they do not pay, and have no intention of paying.
While you and I put off going to the doctor or hospital because we know of the expense, they do not, because they don’t pay anyway.
Now Obamacare wants to make us pay, to give the classes who do not pay even more freebies.Making health care even more expensive.
I hope that makes sense, because that is what is happening.
No, he doesn’t.
I, on the other hand, can spin out a whole raft of death-worthy vermin just at NYT.
Check out krugman’s Princeton mansion. He really, really cares about poor folk.
Sorry, Krugman is no longer a "clear thinking" man. He has become a socialist which clouds a persons thought process with their bleeding heart slanted conclusions. He made economic sense at one time; he has now drank the kool aide. Krugman could be a poster child for some people do not get wiser with age.
As far as a Nobel prize...I think most now see how worthless and political it has become. The "peace prize" alone has been relegated to a joke with Arafat, Obama, and now the United Nations receiving it for doing nothing, other than espousing intention through rhetoric.
When I saw Arafat proclaim his "jihad" against innocent Israelis get the peace prize after not getting some 2-3% of his demands at the Camp David accords, that told me all I needed to know about the Nobel committee. Unlike many, I have not forgotten the almost daily bombings of buses, weddings, cafes, clubs/restaurants that killed and maimed so many decent people until Israel built their wall.
It makes me wonder if the hard sciences awards are as politicized.
I don’t think so.
The peace prize is done by a country so sovietized that it can be seen as a test run for Obama, and the committee is leftwing loony-toons, ideologues and political-science hacks heavy on the antisemitism.
In the real world, there are actual criteria.