Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does Mitt Romney Want to Let People Die? ^ | October 20, 2012 | John C. Goodman

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.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: death; healthcare; healthinsurance; medicare; mittromney; paulkrugman; ryanplan; thenewyorkslimes

1 posted on 10/20/2012 3:55:19 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
paul krugman will be a shunned man one day... he will become an outcast and move to Tajikastan... he is as guilty for the destruction of America as the obamaroid is.


[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

This from the party which wants to FORCE people to die.

3 posted on 10/20/2012 4:01:59 AM PDT by MestaMachine (obama kills and none dare call it treason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.

4 posted on 10/20/2012 4:06:36 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.

5 posted on 10/20/2012 4:34:17 AM PDT by Russ (Repeal the 17th amendment)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Liberal Democrats say: "We want to kill millions of babies -- because we care."
Liberal Democrats say: "We want Death Panels for old people -- because we care."
Liberal Democrats say: "Don't vote for Mitt Romney -- he'd let people die."
6 posted on 10/20/2012 4:39:15 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Global Warming is a religion, and I don't want to be taxed to pay for a faith that is not mine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.

7 posted on 10/20/2012 4:40:14 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

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.

8 posted on 10/20/2012 4:41:55 AM PDT by driftless2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

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.

9 posted on 10/20/2012 4:43:42 AM PDT by Right Wing Assault (Dick Obama is more inexperienced now than he was before he was elected.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

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...

10 posted on 10/20/2012 4:47:17 AM PDT by kearnyirish2 (Affirmative action is economic war against white males (and therefore white families).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Sir Alexander Fleming earned and deserved a Nobel prize. Krugman and Obama did not.
11 posted on 10/20/2012 5:22:48 AM PDT by JPG (Make it happen)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftless2

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.

12 posted on 10/20/2012 5:23:17 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

No, he doesn’t.

I, on the other hand, can spin out a whole raft of death-worthy vermin just at NYT.

13 posted on 10/20/2012 6:06:51 AM PDT by Hardraade ( (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Check out krugman’s Princeton mansion. He really, really cares about poor folk.

14 posted on 10/20/2012 6:16:43 AM PDT by sergeantdave (The FBI has declared war on the Marine Corps)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"Paul Krugman deserves the Nobel Prize for his clear thinking..."

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.

15 posted on 10/20/2012 6:47:20 AM PDT by A Navy Vet (An Oath is Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A Navy Vet

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.

16 posted on 10/20/2012 7:59:36 AM PDT by Hardraade ( (I will fear no muslim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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