Why Romney's "Firing" Gaffe Resonates

[phantom power]

Last edited Tue Jan 10, 2012, 02:01 PM - Edit history (1)

Another good post in the same vein:
http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/lots-of-people-cant-fire-their-insurance-companies/

The key part of what's off-putting about the gaffe isn't the first part about liking to fire people, so much as the second part about "who provide services to me." Liking to fire people is bad enough, but this is the real kicker.

...

we don't see the health insurance company as providing us a service. We see ourselves, rather, as indentured supplicants forced to pay exorbitant monthly rates for a basic need that responsible people with means can't get out of paying for if we can help it. We don't see ourselves as in control of the relationship with them. They are in control of us--and no more so than when we get sick and need the insurance most. If the company decides to restrict our coverage or tell us we have a pre-existing condition after all, we're in the position of begging a capricious and heartless corporation to cover costs we assumed we were entitled to based on a contractual obligation. It's precisely when we need insurance most that we're least able to "fire" the insurance company.

...

Romney talks about paying for health insurance as if it were the same as getting a pedicure, hiring an escort or getting the fancy wax at a car wash. It's a luxury service being provided to him, and he doesn't like it, he can take his business elsewhere. Romney's is the language of a man who has never wanted for anything, never worried about where his next paycheck would come from, never worried about going bankrupt if he got sick.

It is the language of an entitled empowerment utterly alien to the experience of most Americans, who feel victimized and bled dry without recourse by these rentier corporations. Romney sees himself as in charge of the relationship between himself and these entities. Most Americans don't. That's why the statement rankles and feels so off-putting to us. The mention of enjoying the act of "firing" them is just icing on the cake.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/why-romneys-firing-gaffe-resonates-by.html

[Raven]

1. When I heard him make that statement

I immediately thought of the maid who cleans his house or the guy who mows his lawn. I didn't think about some faceless company. So, I think you're absolutely correct.

[phantom power]

4. The more money you have, the more things become "commodities" ...

Health insurance isn't a "commodity" for me: Exchanging one policy for another is not an economically frictionless process. I get the health insurance my employer chose to provide. If I want to "change" it, I can either go through the risk and difficulty of finding a new job (with the great probability that whatever insurance the new employer provides is no better or maybe worse), or I could attempt to directly pay for a better policy, which of course would cost me extra tens of thousands of dollars a year.

I suppose that if you are sufficiently rich, it *is* economically frictionless. Because you would have those extra tens of thousands of dollars to say "fine, I'll just pay these other guys directly."

This explains some things about the 1%. For them, everything really is a commodity. For the 1%-ers without any imagination or empathy, you can sort of see why they look at us and think "why don't they just solve their problems on the free market like god intended?" Because that strategy actually works for almost anything when you're rich.

"My god, just eat cake, what's the matter with you people?"

[JHB]

8. "the free market like god intended" indeed. The modern Divine Right of kings n/t

[grantcart]

2. the reason it resonates is that even though the context is different you can tell by the way that

he joyfully gives an 'excited utterance' that the language he uses reflects a wider truth about the guy.

He borrowed a general idea that he has to make a specific point. Yes the specific point has a wider context but the fact that it rolls of his tongue so smoothly shows that it is 100% Romney.

[dkf]

3. No...it's not the health care part that rankles, it's the idea of someone enjoying firing you

Everyone either has a boss or a client so pretty much everyone understands how awful it is to be let go. This is usually done with regret you would think, not with enjoyment.

[phantom power]

5. no doubt, the 1% has also become highly enriched with socipaths

Above the background concentration, as it were.

But I also think that when you're rich, every transaction is a commodity, because you can immediately afford to make direct substitutions. Mitt-ster can literally afford his own individual health insurance, at a cost of many thousands per year. For the 99%, that's not possible. You get the health insurance your employer chose, assuming you're lucky enough to get that, or whatever govt assistance you can manage.

"Substitution" simply isn't an option. For the rich, substitution is almost always possible, and easy.

[dkf]

9. It's people as commodities that rankles.

And the attitude is pure asshole. It's like tipping the waiter zero because he wasn't fast enough with the water. If you enjoy doing that, it's a little sick.

[Raffi Ella]

6. Yes, exactly.

We were discussing this last night at dinner- His perspective/wording is totally from the 1% world.

If i changed my health insurance provider or a contractor I would say just that, that I changed contractors, NOT that I fired them; in my world, they were not my employee in a way that using the word "firing" would make sense.

He can not hide his 1% world perspective because it's the only one he knows. That's why he makes so many gaffes that are so obvious to us.

[MH1]

7. I just wish it was resonating AFTER he had the nomination locked up.

He probably does anyway, but this makes it more interesting, and I'm not sure I want it to be interesting in that way.