October 6 2012
Romney’s sick joke, Go Forward with Obama
by Paul Krugman
“NO. 1,” declared Mitt Romney in Wednesday’s debate, “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No, they aren’t — as Romney’s own advisers have conceded in the past, and did again after the debate.
Was Romney lying? Well, either that or he was making what amounts to a sick joke. Either way, his attempt to deceive voters on this issue was the biggest of many misleading and/or dishonest claims he made over the course of that hour and a half.
Yes, President Barack Obama did a notably bad job of responding. But I’ll leave the theatre criticism to others and talk instead about the issue that should be at the heart of this election.
So, about that sick joke: What Romney actually proposes is that Americans with pre-existing conditions who already have health coverage be allowed to keep that coverage even if they lose their job — as long as they keep paying the premiums.
As it happens, this is already the law of the land. But it’s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, because it applies only to those who manage to land a job with health insurance in the first place (and are able to maintain their payments despite losing that job).
Did I mention that the number of jobs that come with health insurance has been steadily declining over the past decade?
What Romney did in the debate, in other words, was, at best, to play a word game with voters, pretending to offer something substantive for the uninsured while actually offering nothing. For all practical purposes, he simply lied about what his policy proposals would do.
How many Americans would be left out in the cold under Romney’s plan? One answer is 89 million.
According to the non-partisan Commonwealth Foundation, that’s the number of Americans who lack the “continuous coverage” that would make them eligible for health insurance under Romney’s empty promises. By the way, that’s more than a third of the US population under 65 years old.
Another answer is 45 million, the estimated number of people who would have health insurance if Obama were re-elected, but would lose it if Romney were to win.
That estimate reflects two factors.First, Romney proposes repealing the Affordable Care Act, which means doing away with all the ways in which that law would help tens of millions of Americans who either have pre-existing conditions or can’t afford health insurance for other reasons.
Second, Romney is proposing drastic cuts in Medicaid — basically to save money that he could use to cut taxes on the wealthy — which would deny essential healthcare to millions more Americans. (And, no, despite what he has said, you can’t get the care you need just by going to the emergency room.)
Wait, it gets worse. The true number of victims from Romney’s health
proposals would be much larger than either of these numbers, for a couple of reasons. One is that Medicaid doesn’t just provide healthcare to Americans too young for Medicare; it also pays for nursing care and other necessities for many older Americans. Also, many Americans have health insurance but live under the continual threat of losing it.
Obamacare would eliminate this threat, but Romney would bring it back and make it worse. Safety nets don’t just help people who actually fall, they make life more secure for everyone who might fall.
But Romney would take that security away, not just on healthcare but across the board.
What about the claim made by a Romney adviser after the debate that states could step in to guarantee coverage for pre-existing conditions?That’s nonsense on many levels. For one thing, Romney wants to eliminate restrictions on interstate insurance sales, depriving states of regulatory power.
Furthermore, if all you do is require that insurance companies cover everyone, healthy people will wait until they’re sick to sign up, leading to sky-high premiums.
So you need to couple regulations on insurers with a requirement that everyone have insurance. And, to make that feasible, you have to offer insurance subsidies to lower-income Americans, which have to be paid for at a federal level.
And what you end up with is — precisely — the health reform Obama signed into law.
One could wish that Obama had made this point effectively in the debate. He had every right to jump up and say, “There you go again”. Not only was Romney’s claim fundamentally dishonest, it has already been extensively debunked, and the Romney campaign itself has admitted that it’s false.
For whatever reason, the President didn’t do that, on healthcare or on anything else. But, as I said, never mind the theatre criticism. The fact is that Romney tried to mislead the public, and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. —New York Times-The New Straits Times
Dato, I watched the debate live and when I heard what Romney said, I straightaway knew he was lying and contradicting himself on a few points.If I were an American, I would have no doubt to give my vote to Obama without hesitation and give him another term.
I think all insurance companies work in the same way. When one has a pre-existing condition, the insurance company would not sell him the policy. And after a certain age, like 70 years , the insured would no longer be covered. And from 70 – 80 years old, the insurance company may devise another scheme with exorbitant premiums like RM500 per month. [Real situation in Malaysia. At this age, how many people can afford this sum of monthly premium? So at the most critical time when one needed the doctors most, you would find that you are no longer covered by insurance and you will be left in the lurch.
Many people are simple-minded and take things at face value. I was shocked when 65% voted in favour of Romney after the debate against 25% for Obama. It is so easy for one to say, about creating more jobs, cutting deficit, etc without giving the specifics. People are not reading the fine prints. It is a sad thing all over the world. Malaysians too are very simple-minded.
The threat of racial riots, the devil you know is better than the angel you don’t , etc , make all the voters go on electing a govt that scoundrels away all the nation’s wealth. I am past 60 yrs old and I for one never fall for such nonsense. And I am glad that many articles I now read in your blog show that more people are having that same sentiment of mine.
____________
You are still in the 6-series, I belong to the 7-series. Mahathir is 8+-series. Welcome.–Din Merican
Romney may be a sick joke… but go forward with Obama? No!
Neither Romney nor Obama and their respective parties are equipped to dealing with the problems facing their countries and their first so-called debate only goes to confirm this. Why they continue with such “shows” is beyond belief.
The entire US political system has been allowed to be taken over by the “one percent” whose crimes more and more US citizens want investigated. Until this issue is confronted head-on, people like Romney and Obama will have nothing of value to say to their people.
We Malaysian are indeed very generous with our time. In the midst of all the issues that we are faced with we still have time for the US. That is a good thing. It only goes to show that the Third World does not have the monopoly on the art of deception by leaders who are deceived by their own deception.
____________
Lie to obtain power, that is not new. Make people feel good, you can hold the highest office in the Land. That said, Obama is a good man and should be given his second term to finish what he started. Americans, of course, can vote for the return of Bush 2 policies with Romney.–Din Merican
K.DOLLAH – It is not only about the devil we know that is at stake here. Political stability and civil order are pre-requisites of any country moving forward, as many in the Arab Spring situations will soon find out.
From what the country has seen since the tsunami, BN is the only party that can guarantee both. The only question remaining is… how do we go about reforming BN? There ARE ways, but throwing them out is not one of them.
Obama losing out to Mitt Romney the first round is not unexpected. The odds of winning that first round are stacked against the sitting incumbent (any incumbent) because he has his track record to defend whereas his challenger has none of the track record as U.S. President. Bush Jr lost the first round to Kerry and went on to win the next two rounds and the presidency.
It could be a brilliant strategic move by his campaign. The problem facing Obama today is that the energy that swept him to power four years ago is acutely lacking. You see him go on the stump and rock the crowd still with his speeches among young voters but the feeling is that many of the voters are not expected to go out there and vote like they did in 2008. They have lost much of their enthusiasm because of the bleak jobs market. It is not only about riling the base of the party but to make sure his supporters walk the last hundred meters to the polling station and cast their votes. When they see their idol, listless and recovering from a flight with only two hours behind him in Denver (when his opponent has been prepped up by professionals for the debate over days in Denver) being beaten up unfairly and with the aid of the moderator, they are likely to wake up from their slumber and make that walk.
Obama is at his best fighting when he is the underdog. With the first round loss he becomes the underdog and the bar has been lowered for him. Not so for Mitt Romney, the little rich kid who never knew what it is like to be poor. and who merely wants to be President. For him the bar has been raised.
Folks, now watch the next debate and you will see Barack Obama in his elements. Mitt Romney would have his ass kicked so hard that he wished he had never been born, that would make an hour’s job with Dato’s sidekick Bendover Singh seem like licking ice cream in the park.
____________
Bean, I hope you are right. Obama looks exhausted and greying. He cannot look like Nixon when the latter faced JKF in 1960 debates.He should be strong on Foreign Policy and national security (Osama Ben Laden Factor). As I said before, and speaking from this part of the world (Asia), Obama is good for us in Asia.
John Snowwho (Sununu)? That guy was in Bush 1′s White House? With him around, imagine what the Mitt White House will be– a circus with a resident clown called Sununu.–Din Merican
you have to throw them into icy cold water to reform them i.e., put them in the opposition first.
”From what the country has seen since the tsunami, BN is the only party that can guarantee both” – Isa
you are just seeing things as Perkasa and BN does and you are just spewing old BN propaganda. civil order and political stability – monopoly of umno/bn and rest of the malaysians are idiots???
and don’t worry about the USA. they are smart enough not to vote in the same party for 55 years.
K dollah, you are optimistic about the malaysian voters, but do you notice that those steeped in umno-bn politics for the past half century still sticking to their old habits? it is actually the younger voters who are going to make a difference this time.
Spewing propaganda perhaps, friend,, but much better than throwing caution to the winds and destroying what we have… which is a lot, despite our sorry condition.
I am only too well aware that there are many crying out for change at any price, but that is not what we need.
I said a long while back that a coalition approach is what we ought to try. Confrontation will mean more trouble than we can handle.
As for the USA… they can hold a hundred such televised shows. It will not get them out of the mess that has been created. They too must come together and start thinking about their own people for a change.
I live in Selangor but vote in Wilayah. My kids will vote in Selangor. Was there a great civil disruption in Selangor, Penang, Kedah or even Perak when the Opposition took over after the first Wave? Was economic stability threatened? Were there streets of slaughter and mayhem? The only disruptions were by the antics of some gangster characters in the pay of their masters. Do these guys actually know what they were doing? No. Mercenaries for hire seldom bother about inconsequential things like that.
As for the US politicking, Obama doesn’t look good and may be whup by a hardwired Mormon Bishop. Good grief! I certainly shall be aghast when that happens, cuz the incoming PRC top dogs have no sense of humor.. They even growl like Tibetan Mastiffs! The Pacific Century? Yeah.., lots of spilled gore, guts and rivulets of young blood.
See Isa, we have bigger things things to worry about! Also, as far as i know, the LDS is banned in this patch of heaven/hell. So how?
Bigger things to worry about?… like it will be all roses if only we could put in a new government? I think it is such thinking that is the problem. Running a few states – no, even ALL states – is not running the country and you sir, of all people, should know that.
But we have been through all this before – you might recall soon after our host started the blog, there were exchanges in which I responded to several views to say that “big bang” solutions will not work in our country… because we have too much to lose. Some retorted that it was supporting status quo.
The long and short of it is that peace and stability (like freedom) are only missed when they are taken away from you. Those who miss this point have, I suspect, never been in such situations themselves nor benefitted from history books.
There ARE other ways to change our situation.
”I am only too well aware that there are many crying out for change at any price, but that is not what we need.” – Isa
if you are sitting in your favourite armchair and enjoying the warmth of the fire then you won’t want a change but if you are out in the cold stormy autumn night you’ll definitely want a change. I hope you don’t have much to lose in case of a government change.
wanting a change of government is perfectly democratic and should be encouraged.
some kind of coalition? PR is a coalition – unstable? sub continent India, a multiracial, multireligious and multilingual country is ruled by a coalition now and previously by a coalition of more than 200 parties!
if we keep on going the Barisan Nasional way we won’t be one of the Tigers of SEA but the pussycat of PRC.
we’re gonna make Jibby a big star!
Well Isa, Change is usually difficult, onerous and even dangerous.
As we go into the final lap of the Mother of all Elections, it’s incumbent to know that UMNO is unable to change and their lapdog lackeys are as irrelevant as ever. Try as he might, Jibs persists in consulting mercenary ‘consultants’ of dubious veracity. There is obvious dearth of talent and new blood in tired old parties who are more interested in self edification, sustenance and preserving their ‘Way of Life’.
I would be the first to admit that there are a few good men in the Cabinet who diligently work their butts off. But there are too few. UMNO can’t and won’t change. Instead they use techniques of a by-gone feudal era. Even their mud-slinging smacks on archaic reasoning that relies on sheer human lust of gossip and scapegoating. Instead of positive personal appeal, they prefer to tar and feather their Opponents. This causes inescapable accusations of hypocrisy, not only by their targets but also any fair minded observers. I feel that the Opposition leader was in a sense, goading them to to tarnish him directly to distract them from even more nasty shenanigans against his people.
Jibs is not a natural born leader. His prevarication and dependence on ‘opinions’ may be due to political expediencies – but he basically has no street smarts, nor is he seen as a dynamic, charismatic, willful Man of Ideas. What ideas he has are borrowed and plagiarized, often in response to the Opposition. He is unable to usher in new values or articulate original visions. In fact, with all the powers invested in him, he behaves like a school yard bully towards his detractors. His fear of, and respect to Octo and the old guard is well known. After all he is a creature of habit and entitlement.
The Opposition, although not keyed into Federal governance has shown remarkable tenacity and efficiency in running the states under their control. Due to their lack of understanding on how the system works, they sometimes stumble only to recover rapidly. What they do have is lots of energy and intellectual capital. They have a very steep learning curve, and it is incumbent upon them to act magnanimously, carefully and humbly – should the ‘unthinkable’ happen.
Sometimes being ‘rag-tag’ is better than wearing fashionable suits acquired on the back of blood and sweat of slaves.
Those of us here
So we all agree that change is needed but agree to disagree on how best to go about it.
Engagement and a coming together seems, to me at least, a far better option than a stand-off. Which is why I am so hopeful for Myanmar. It took the lady two full decades to realise this but now that she has, her country suddenly is in with a good chance to move forward with PEACE and STABILITY. Once you have crossed this all-important hurdle, the rest comes somewhat easier,
On this Mtt Romney’s claim ” pre-existing conditions covered in my plan….” simply to fool and win over sitting-on-the-fence voters, which can be critical in winning or loosing Election, gimmick.
Krugman – either he was lying or a sick-joke….misleading & dishonest….simply BECAUSE pre=existing conditions as applicable to health-coverage is already the law of the land : getting a job & then paying mandatory premiums in the first place ! ! Pretending to offer something substantive, whilst actually offering nothing….
He is being sly. how ? Remember his ” actual” pre-existing conditions : He seeks power to put in place institutions & policies , without so much as saying it, to discriminate against the Black, and later blame their Culture for failing them….
See how his ” Statement ” cuts both ways…..tricky really.
What more can I say man? Romney must not become president. If Romney lost his deposit even better. Send a message to politicians around the world that social justice is one important factor in good governance
Isa,
Sometimes your words amaze us. Question 1 : is our country under attack from aliens? No. Then what grand coalition you are talking about. Wait a minute, was that najib daddy grand design in forming bn?
What it has achieved since its inception since 1974? Kindly enlighten us!
I would rather choose one group of leaders who cherish rule of law & social justice. Serious the present devil is devoid of any. So away from you beep beep devil or Satan. Depart from Malaysia, now. Hahahaha!
Malaysia is in no way comparable to Myanmar, Isa.
The only parallels that can be drawn is the heavy handedness of the respective Establishments. But in even Myanmar, they don’t stoop to crass personal attacks and gross insinuations, except in the Case of the Lady’s foreigner spouse. Over here the Goons are really over the top in attempting character assassination. Their hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.
To redeem UMNO is impossible without changing it’s moral compass which had been severely compromised. It will not survive the Fall, but since there are a few good people there (scanty, no doubt – but Ku Li, Tok Pa, Husni, Saifuddin and even SiL comes to mind) they can resurrect it without the racist/religious hubris that bedevil their cause. But they first have to be in the metaphysical equivalent of Purgatory, where Sins and Corruption are scourged.
When the Opposition really does take over, the same rules apply – in that the Goons be magnanimous in defeat.They must not disrupt good policies for the sake of disingenuous self interests.
Retribution must be limited to major corruption, nepotism and cronyism – otherwise the country cannot go forward. The Civil Service will have to be revamped, as they remain the bastion which implements. They need Professionalism, not Pembodekism – practitioners of whom, can’t find their own backside. Purges should be minimized, but the cold storage facilities will be severely taxed.
Perhaps, I have more faith in the Malaysian identity and goodwill than you. That’s because i’m an Optimist.
Exactly… we need to change the moral compass and anyone with common sense would agree. The question is how do we do it?
And I too would prefer a group of people who “cherish rule of law and social justice”. But which group is that? The current Opposition?
And yes, Malaysia and Myanmar are not comparable… the example was to show how engagement CAN be positive.
Sorry if my words amaze some friends. But you know what? I, too, am often amazed that many cannot see that engagement is by far the better option than confrontation.
No, my friend. Our Quest is endless but not thankless.
The nature of Man is in Opposites – it is a dyadic world.
The present Opposition, if it manages to wrest control becomes the Establishment.
Should their moral compass fail, they become the Goons.
”many cannot see that engagement is by far the better option than confrontation”. – Isa
that is what we mean by diplomacy. we are very aware of that but the question is how do you engage with someone who doesn’t play by the books? mein freund Isa, with your persistent – engagement, coalition government and peace and stability a la BN – you seem to be oblivious to everything that happens in Malaysia, why?
all the exposed scandals don’t leave an impression on you?
our history, even the recent history has shown us that some leaders are not to be brought to engage in anything – e.g. the arab spring. with religious radicalism on the rise we are not far from it. the best way to go forward is to put pressure on the present goons to implement the proposed election reforms and vote the present scoundrels out.
”Should their moral compass fail, they become the Goons” – CLF
yes, implement the election reforms immediately so that we can boot out PR once they become rogues otherwise they’ll remain in power for another 55 years!
If I were oblivious to the many issues facing our countyry I would not keep repeating my few words. And I certainly am NOT certain that my suggestion of a coalition arrangement is the best solution. All I know is that there must be ways to deal with problems other than through confrontation politics. That is why I gave the current example of Myanmar.
But what is really worrying is that so many feel that things can hardly get any worse and that if we can only replace the current government it will mean plain sailing ahead. This is simply not the case. A leap into the dark is not what Malaysia needs.
A leap in the Dark? No. A Leap of Faith.
Read Soren Kierkegaard. There you find a reason for ‘Existing’..
Cheers.
plain sailing; it is not going to be, after a change of government but it will get worse the longer the malaysian public waits. if it is difficult to change after 55 years how difficult would it be to change after 75 years?? and how are we going to finance the exorbitant living cost of this government for another twenty years?
Kierkegaard and existing? Now I know why not many read his stuff.
Existing is good.
Non-existing is well.., leaping the dark.
Kierkegaard is the Father of Existentialism, a very sorrowful fella. Died a pauper. His influence on philosophy/theology/psychology is all pervading because he emphasizes ‘individuality’ and personal responsibility. His nemesis was Hegel, whose theories found maximum expression in Nazism. Comprendo?
Kierkegaard / Hegel ? I pass.