Krugman’s column and comments
Paul Krugman has a particularly good column today, and the comments are also worth reading. Take this one, by JIMM. of Ballston Lake, NY:
I have read many autopsy articles about Wednesday night’s debacle. None have analyzed what is wrong with US that we declare victory to the man who by all accounts LIED for 90 minutes – and despite everyone else’s opinion – struck me as a hopped up car salesman who would say anything to close the deal and I can’t wait to get away from.
What is wrong with the Press? What is wrong with us? Why do we scream and holler about “scab” football referees and the unfairness of a football game, but we’re completely good with politicians who lie constantly? Why do we have instant replays to ensure fairness in all sorts of sporting events, but we call the in-your-face liar a winner and a sitting president who looked down too much and tried to verbally call his opponent out on the lies without drama, a loser? What is wrong with US that we embrace the blow hards who tell us ANYTHING as “confident?”
Do we not have the ability to appreciate that Mr. Obama DID in fact call Mr. Romney a liar on that stage because he didn’t scream it 50 times?
Sorry folks – the Romney I saw turned me off more than the clueless nerd I saw throughout the campaign. He was a jacked up Eddie Haskell who has absolutely no respect for the electorate. His pathological lying insults my intelligence because he seems to feel he is ENTITLED to the lies due to his ENTITLEMENT to the presidency.
Krugman’s column begins:
“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, . . .