PDA

View Full Version : ROMNEY'S SICK JOKE



Gayle in MD
10-07-2012, 01:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Op-Ed Columnist

Romney’s Sick Joke

By PAUL KRUGMANPublished: October 4, 2012 591 Comments



“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.

Was Mr. 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 Obama did a notably bad job of responding. But I’ll leave the theater criticism to others and talk instead about the issue that should be at the heart of this election.

So, about that sick joke: What Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Mr. Romney’s plan? One answer is 89 million. According to the nonpartisan Commonwealth Foundation, that’s the number of Americans who lack the “continuous coverage” that would make them eligible for health insurance under Mr. Romney’s empty promises. By the way, that’s more than a third of the U.S. population under 65 years old.

Another answer is 45 million, the estimated number of people who would have health insurance if Mr. Obama were re-elected, but would lose it if Mr. Romney were to win.

That estimate reflects two factors. First, Mr. 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, Mr. 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 health care 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 Mr. 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 health care 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 Mr. 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 Mr. Romney would take that security away, not just on health care 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, Mr. 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 President Obama signed into law.

One could wish that Mr. 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 Mr. 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 health care or on anything else. But, as I said, never mind the theater criticism. The fact is that Mr. Romney tried to mislead the public, and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. </div></div>

Qtec
10-07-2012, 02:45 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> “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.

Was Mr. 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.</div></div>

Its amazing! Mittens lies throughout the debate, changes positions he has held for 18 months and he wins the debate!

This was not a debate, not even close. A debate is when you ask follow up questions.

link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-572077907195969915)
Q

Qtec
10-07-2012, 04:37 AM
Obama should have said,

"Gvnr Romney's plan is to repeal Obamacare and tell the people to head for the emergency room if they are really in danger of dying."

Check this out, its a new doc.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">the waiting room link (http://www.whatruwaitingfor.com/2009/07/lives-on-the-line/)
</div></div>

See how many people there are in the waiting room?


Q

llotter
10-07-2012, 10:20 AM
It should be left up to the insurance companies whether they want to insure pre-existing conditions, at the same or higher premiums. Otherwise, it should be left up to family and charities to cover them.

I don't there are many examples of people suffering with pre-existing conditions that have been unable to find any help even without government aid.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 10:23 AM
I don't there are many examples of people suffering with pre-existing conditions that have been unable to find any help even without government aid.

About 40,000 dead each year from lack of access to health care. Not all would be from pre-existing conditions, but some would be.

How many DEAD PEOPLE need be the result of our current health care and insurance arrangements for you to agree something should be changed?

llotter
10-07-2012, 12:47 PM
You fact that the question you have asked is difficult means that there can be no one answer that bureaucrats can plan for to satisfy everyone. Freedom means that individuals must solve their own problems within their own situation. In fact, it is this process of overcoming the hardships of life that builds character in the population and the desire to help others, knowing that they themselves may be in need of help at some point. When the Nanny State steps in to usurp the personal responsibility, you develop not only a society of irresponsible citizens but all one lacking in empathy for the problems of others. I see this callousness everywhere in today's dependent-on-strangers society.

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 01:09 PM
In general, people cannot learn how to do surgery on themselves, or gain a pharmacists or doctors knowledge of the pharmacopeia to treat themselves with the proper medication.

I suppose they can get a gun and shoot themselves in the head, or a bottle of aspirin to overdose and die that way.

When possible, it is smart for an average person to buy insurance for these necessities before they arise. There is nothing wrong with the use of such society inventions as insurance, whether privately obtained, or as we agreed as a country many decades back, through a social program.

The day when the rugged individualist could go to the frontier and live self-sufficiently is mainly past. Even in those times, the city dwellers relied on social networks, and many of the pioneers relied upon community efforts both to get out west (wagon trains) and to make social networks for their betterment. Not to mention land giveaways in the land grants, courtesy of the government at the time.

llotter
10-07-2012, 02:40 PM
I know you have the habit of saying really stupid things but if you keep it up, people will start believing that you actually you are as stupid as you sound.

Exhibit A:
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In general, people cannot learn how to do surgery on themselves, or gain a pharmacists or doctors knowledge of the pharmacopeia to treat themselves with the proper medication.

I suppose they can get a gun and shoot themselves in the head, or a bottle of aspirin to overdose and die that way.
</div></div>

Specialization of labor is a hallmark of capitalism and freedom, not self-sufficiency and that was not what I said or implied. Another diversionary straw man form the Left.

Family and friends, yes. Social networks, yes. Community efforts, yes. Charity, yes. Insurance, yes. Maybe even local and state gov. (though I think that is also a major mistake at least people could move to more enlightened states) but federal intrusion, NO.

eg8r
10-07-2012, 03:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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 Obama did a notably bad job of responding.</div></div>I am in no way condoning lying at all, but just wanted to see what you think about the last part of this quote? Since it is quite evident that the majority of voters will not be hitting the fact-check sites to see what were lies or not, do you think Obama will attempt to change his strategy and go after these incidents a bit more aggressively?

eg8r

eg8r
10-07-2012, 03:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">changes positions he has held for 18 months and he wins the debate!</div></div>Which positions were these?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
10-07-2012, 04:35 PM
I know you have the habit of saying really stupid things but if you keep it up, people will start believing that you actually you are as stupid as you sound.

If you've never seen anyone reference the pharmacopeia, or you don't know what it means, that hardly means you need lash out. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif Not a term used by many stupid people, in any event.

What's stupid is a claim that a free people cannot empower their national governmental authority to perform necessary services, in either the breach of any other actor's ability to do so, or for the reasons of efficiency of a national program. Because we have done exactly that, for decades now, and the major federal programs of the sort you decry, SS and MC, not only work well, but have a super-majority of support among our people because they work well.

Prior to the national level programs, the elderly and infirm were supported often at the county level, when receiving governmental support was known as 'being on the county.' This, even in combination with family and religious organization and other charitable organization support, led to horrible outcomes.

Just as the original food support programs were put in place out of national security concerns. Under the freer market that prevailed prior to this, some largish fraction of the alleged 'able bodied men' population was unfit for service, due to malnutrition and nutrition-related conditions like rickets. Your free market at work.

I know you believe in the market fairy, by which a lack of money (with no subsidization) will lead food prices to be low enough that everyone will get enough to eat. That's never been true, or there would be no starvation in the world, or earlier, in the US.

llotter
10-07-2012, 07:57 PM
Yes, free people to give up their freedom for security but they will end up with either, as B. Franklin said. That is exactly where we are, on the Road to Serfdom, thanks to good folks like you.

Gayle in MD
10-08-2012, 06:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, free people to give up their freedom for security but they will end up with either, as B. Franklin said. That is exactly where we are, on the Road to Serfdom, thanks to good folks like you.

</div></div>

That is completely absurd. We are on the road to Fascism, and corporate Oligarchy. Too much money and power in the hands of too few, and it is all because Repiglicans have set the government up to reward crooks, polluters and thieves, and take away from the rest in order to do so.

Opportunities must be preserved for all citizens to rise, economically, not policies which enhance the ability of the wealthy to exploit the rest, for their own gain, regardless of the devastation which that creates for any and every society.

And, on religion, and the Separation Of Church and State, do you know who wrote this:

"The Separation must be perfect annd complete, or neither will survive."



Name one single American President who would not fit your accusations of socialism. Just one.

Libertarianism is a fantasy, which assumes a brand of self-reliance which is impossible in the world we live in today. Do you think whhen a state is flooded, the churches can all get together and handle it? Do you think you would want to live in a society where hundreds of thousands of people could die in a week, because there were no regulations in place to protect our food, water, and the air we breath?

The econmic world has changed, and many of the changes were Republican policies, and they failed miserably. The proof is in the numbers, which Repiglican continue to deny.

Libertarianism is, of all ideologies, the least rational, and the most ignorant, because no society has ever survived as a Libertarian nation, nor ever could survive, under the ideology of Libertarianism.

The safety net of the Federal Government, is a good thing, not a bad thing.

Why do you think so many people in the world want to live here in the first place?



G.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 11:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: llotter</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes, free people to give up their freedom for security but they will end up with either, as B. Franklin said. That is exactly where we are, on the Road to Serfdom, thanks to good folks like you.

</div></div>

That's the PATRIOT Act and other incursions on the Bill of Rights for you.

No need to imagine that SS or MC did this. It's the national security state that is doing it. For fun and profit and the slow encirclement of the republic by the boa constrictor of private capital crushing out its life.

llotter
10-08-2012, 12:35 PM
On the one hand, there is the Patriot Act that I am not even aware of any adverse effects to me.

On the other hand, we have the Nanny State that consumes a significant portion of what I earn every year of my life... say approx. 25% for me and even higher for others. So on average, the entire population become indentured servants for three to four months a year. This makes saving and investing and providing for your dependents and all the other things that people work for, much harder.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 01:51 PM
.0765 x 12 = 0.918 (months) = 27.5 days

That's your MC/SS tax payment share of an annual wage, if all the wage is under the cap amount.

Except now the calculation is .0565 x 12 = .678 months = 20.3 days (since Obama cut the payroll tax by 2%).

The median federal income tax (half the wage earners above it, half below it) used to be 5% on top of the payroll taxes.

Now, as we have heard, the median federal income tax rate is about 0% (half below it, half above it).

This is a quite small part of the year I should think for the titanic SS and MC programs, and for what is the overwhelming majority of the nanny state.

Excepting the payroll tax and the entitlement spending it goes to, about half of all the rest of the spending is on the military and military-related expenditures (cleaning up nuclear weapon production sites, paying veterans benefits, etc.).

What we have is a nanny state, but one coddling huge defense contractors who have apparently stolen $2.3 trillion dollars, according to SecDef Rumsfeld on 09/10/01.

llotter
10-08-2012, 05:21 PM
Any federal confiscation in excess of 7% is equivalent to slavery. So, by your calculation, that should free us around Jan 22nd or so. However Tax Freedom Day landed on Apr 17th so that is about three months beyond what is should be.

You failed to include employer's share that they send to the fed. gov. and not to you, another subterfuge by our masters. you also forgot what totals 66% of total federal spending, a full 50% more than than what goes for SS and MC. It is not merely direct taxes paid but all taxes collected. In the end, only people pay taxes, either directly or through higher prices that corporations and other taxpayers pass along.

http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/UserFiles/Image/Tax-Freedom-Day/calendar_small.png

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 05:57 PM
The Tax Freedom Day is a crap calculation, and always has been.

It's based on AVERAGES, not the median. If you, me and Bill Gates are in a room, we have an average of $20 billion in net worth. The median net worth among us would probably be mine (maybe yours, but most likely mine), and believe me, that would be nowhere's close to $20 billion. In other words, averages mislead as to 'average' people, and anything but median is crap for wildly disparate populations.

The same is true for the tax burden. Averaging it, as the TFD people do, badly overstates, CRIMINALLY overstates, what an actual average person pays.

However, if you notice, they back up my rough time frame for how long it takes to pay payroll tax.

They're showing an 'average' FIT rate of about 8.5% (1 out of 12 months), and as I said that is way too high. 0% is the median, and others pay a negative FIT rate (with the refundability of the SS/MC tax represented by the EITC).

Your original claim was how long it took to pay the taxes for the nanny state. For your claims here to work, you are counting ALL OF GOVERNMENT (at all levels) as a nanny state. That's more than a little over-broad. As your arbitrary mention of a magic 7% threshold for total federal tax as slavery is absurd.

Taxation without REPRESENTATION is tyranny. WITH representation? Not tyranny, let alone slavery, in my view.

llotter
10-08-2012, 06:12 PM
I was referring to my taxes and the millions of others better off than myself.

Taxation for the Nanny State is tyranny of the majority, something our Constitution was designed to prevent but is now considered obsolete by that same majority.

Soflasnapper
10-08-2012, 06:22 PM
How did that happen by duly passed laws under regular order that passed COTUS scrutiny, and many many presidents from the party that has opposed SS and MC from the beginning?

You don't like the outcome, I get that. It's hardly tyranny.

And unless you think the military budget is the nanny state, cut the federal taxation load shown at least in half, and that presumes everything else the government does (FBI, INS, DHS, maintaining the interstate highway system) is nanny state meddling. It is not. It's providing necessary services like police, firefighting, schools, contracted for by society on the citizens' behalf.

Is the freedom you seek the right to try to round up a fire brigade if your house catches on fire? How would you go about individually protecting your right to your property or possessions if we had no court system or police? Do you pretend to be able to privately contract all these things, and wish to force others to do that as well?

llotter
10-08-2012, 07:21 PM
I don't need any effing scrutiny by presidents or justices to read and understand the Constitution. The color of law is not the law.

I allowed 7% for the military and the other minor expenses.