RSN May Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Cole writes: "After campaigning for months on repealing Obamacare, you suddenly say you want to keep 'parts' of it, including preventing insurance companies from declining to cover people for pre-existing conditions. The way Obamacare allows that provision, however, is to make all the healthy young people get insurance."

Republican presidential candid Mitt Romney delivers remarks on the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's health care reform bill, after the Supreme Court upheld a majority of the law, in Washington, D.C. on June 28, 2012. (photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI)
Republican presidential candid Mitt Romney delivers remarks on the Affordable Care Act, President Obama's health care reform bill, after the Supreme Court upheld a majority of the law, in Washington, D.C. on June 28, 2012. (photo: Kevin Dietsch/UPI)



Dear Mitt: *You* Don't Get to Say That

By Juan Cole, Informed Comment

09 September 12

 

ear Mitt Romney:

Your so-called Medicare reform is just a way of shifting health expenses from millionaires (whose taxes you want to lower) to middle class and working people (with whom you want to stick the bill). A 48-year-old today, who starts getting Medicare in 2030, would have to pay an extra $124,600 under your plan! Meanwhile, your running mate's tax plan would reduce your own income taxes, as a multimillionaire, to less than one percent a year. You don't get to say that!

You and your running mate are blaming Barack Obama for high gasoline prices. But you demand a stricter blockade on Iranian petroleum! Given that the present blockade has taken perhaps a million barrels a day off the market at a time of increasing demand in Asia, you don't get to slam President Obama for causing high gasoline prices. Prices, as your MBA courses might have informed you, Mr. Romney, are based on supply and demand. If you reduce Iran supply, and demand stays the same or rises, then prices will go up. Since you want to tighten the blockade, you don't get to say that!

After campaigning for months on repealing Obamacare, you suddenly say you want to keep "parts" of it, including preventing insurance companies from declining to cover people for pre-existing conditions. The way Obamacare allows that provision, however, is to make all the healthy young people get insurance or face a fine, thus increasing the pool size so as to allow those with known health conditions to also join the pool without bankrupting the companies. I mean, this is flip-flopping on an epic scale. First you invented Obamacare in Massachusetts, then you repudiated it as a national program, now you are embracing the key "parts" of it while pledging to repeal it! You don't get to say that!

You defend yourself for not mentioning the Afghanistan War, in which US troops are fighting and dying, in your acceptance speech, by saying that people should focus on policies, not on words. But, you didn't mention Afghanistan policy, either. What is your position on the US branding the Haqqani Network a terrorist organization? How will that affect US-Pakistan relations, given that we think the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence has links to the Haqqanis? What about the the US halt to training Afghanistan policemen because so many turned out to be … Taliban? But training up local security forces is the pathway the US has announced to exit from Afghanistan. Where do you stand on this policy, since you like policy? In fact you haven't told us what your foreign policy will be on almost any issue, except that you have managed for no good reason to anger Russia by branding it our number one enemy? I mean, I know Mormons don't like Vodka, but still… You don't get to say that!

Your running mate Paul Ryan all of a sudden says states should have the right to legalize marijuana for medical purposes and not be bothered by the Feds. But you've been campaigning for years on a 'war on drugs' platform. As with 'parts of Obamacare,' your campaign is now speaking out of both sides of its mouth to muddy the waters and perhaps attract some votes. You don't get to say that!

 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+132 # pernsey 2012-09-09 12:20
Wow! My head is spinning just reading this, hes for something, then against, then for, then for parts. He is walking talking contradiction, he would make the scariest president ever! After GWB thats something I never thought I would ever say. Bush was frightening, Mitt is down right terrifying. He has such a low moral compass, and just spins which ever way the wind blows. Damn! No wonder the teabaglicans want him in there so bad, they could make him do whatever they want, no matter what he actually says. His word means nothing...in a few days it will change, his approval and disapproval of something means nothing...his opinion changes more then most people change their underwear, meaning daily.
 
 
+110 # kelly 2012-09-09 14:44
I KNOW! If Rove thought GW was compliant what a time he'll have with Mitt. They want him in there because he is a CEO. What are CEO's known for the ability to delegate, delegate, delegate. Who will be in his cabinet? That scares me too. Like everyone says, he doesn't actually want to do the president's job he just wants the title. He'll leave petty little things like details to everyone else to iron out.
 
 
+57 # pwehrle 2012-09-09 20:10
It gets lots scarier when you learn of who the Mittster is actually considering for his cabinet positions...we will have no friends in the civilized world and will be at constant war..and have absolutely no middle class left...welcome to the world of Mittster.
 
 
+24 # brux 2012-09-09 21:12
I think Romney has very definite ideas, and he likes to do things his way ... obviously ... somewhat like a dictator. There can be benevolent dictators ... South Korea grew into an industrial powerhouse increasing the average wage 8 times in a generation and transforming the nation - the problem is we have no idea what he really thinks or wants to do, and who can trust him after the etch-a-sketch remarks.

Maybe I'm deluded, and I would not under any circumstances vote for Romney, but at this point I do not fear a Romney administration as much as I did the George W. Bush first administration. GWN scared the hell out of me, and still does, I tried to tell people at the time they did not listen to me. Seeing that guy get elected was an 8-year-long bummer.
 
 
+13 # Cassandra2012 2012-09-10 10:57
Yes, the GOP (Greedy oligarchs and polluters?) keeps harping on the few jobs that Obama has created and how THEIR tax policies and deregulation policies will help 'create' jobs....
Trouble is, their polkcies have been in effect for the last 12 years!! --so, where are the jobs?
 
 
+16 # Regina 2012-09-10 12:41
He wasn't elected. The buzz alleging voter fraud was in its early stages back then, but they managed to steal just enough electoral votes in 2000 (Florida's botchery via Katherine Harris) and 2004 (Ohio's shenanigans via Kenneth Blackwell) to succeed at their new enterprise. They're a lot more advanced now at their game and their gaming.
 
 
+6 # brux 2012-09-10 16:54
We need this incarnation of the GOP to go away for good and beware in the future of global corporate corruption
 
 
+53 # unitedwestand 2012-09-10 01:02
Just a reminder: Grover Norquist said something to the affect:
It doesn't matter who the GOP candidate is, as long as he can sign his name. Pernsey has it right, they just want a figurehead there so that the Cheney's etc, can still do whatever they want. It worked out so well for them with GWB that now they want more, so that they can finish ruining the country.
 
 
+10 # Cassandra2012 2012-09-10 10:58
Sounds lime Grover wants to be the neo-fascist dictator [behind the curtain] of the country, doesn't it?
 
 
+26 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-10 05:51
Kelly, You are correct in the analysis of Willard (Willie) Romney as a CEO. Of course, he never worked as a CEO of a company that made stuff, his role has been as a CEO that gave ultimatums at best and usually just made decrees. For example, any company that Bain took over, would have to show a profit for both Bain and itself or the dissection and work reassignments to China would commence.
But there is one this as a Bain CEO that he he did not have to deal with that a CEO of a company that makes stuff does deal with. Shareholders.
As President the shareholders that would be responsible for hiring him are the extreme right wing of American politics. They are extreme in both fiscal and social policies. These are the people that Willie will be indebted to, and they don't like being double crossed.
I know many would say that President Obama is also controlled by the same group, or at least the fiscal faction. Their control and influence over Obama is a fraction of how tightly Romney has tied himself to them, both fiscally and socially.
Right now, he has free rein to say anything to get elected; remember the etch-a-sketch? If he wins, the free rein gets replaced by puppet strings made of steel.
 
 
+8 # Cassandra2012 2012-09-10 11:02
He also 'managed' to 'downsize' GST Steel, making himself and his cronies millions, while TAKING TAXPAYER BAILOUTS. (cf. 'The Bailout Brothel' by Paul Begala in June's Newsweek)
 
 
+8 # robniel 2012-09-10 11:06
Is "Liar-In-Chief" part of the presidential resume?
 
 
+36 # 666 2012-09-10 03:36
but remember the primaries? the t-baggers didn't want romney. he's the "choice" forced on them by the wall street elite. ryan is an attempt to reconcile with the ultra extremist wing of the party. and besides, the gop core has been whipped into far more hysteria over a black "socialist" than reality. it's not the t-bags that are controlling. it's the rich ultra-elites. the t-bags are just their barking dobermans (at best their brown shirts).
 
 
+13 # cabotool 2012-09-10 09:41
I was Stanford Class of '57 and then my masters degree from Stanford was in 1960. Mitt graduated from Stanford with a major of "unspecified" in 1969. One of the required courses at Stanford was, "History of Western Civilization" which presents the history of Western civilization from the Greeks forward. How can Romney take his present positions with the foundation he should have gotten at Stanford? Was he asleep in class or out partying and hazing innocent students?

I have a constructive suggestion for moving jobs back to America. Companies like Costco could have a "Kirkland #" on the products that they sell. the "#" is the percentage of the product that was made in the USA. The containers that bring Chinese goods to the USA, probably return empty. These empty containers could be carrying things like the bolts in the chair I just bought from Costco. If the nuts and bolts were made in the USA, taken to China and installed in the chairs and they were 5% of the parts in the chair... the chair would be a "Kirkland 5". I would be happy to pay a dollar or two more for a chair that had 5% USA parts. This could be the start of bringing jobs back to America.
 
 
+52 # Susan1989 2012-09-09 13:19
I am only guessing, but from what I have read Mormon young people do not get the oportunity in their twenties to differentiate from their parent's belief system...and, as a result many grow up with only the word view they have been taught....which is basicallt to live acording to very strict rules laid out by their church. Kind of like a programmed life. I could be wrong, but possibly Romney never got had the opportunity to fom his own beliefs. The only thing he may know how to do is say whatever is necessary to become the "success" that was carved out for him by his family. Possible that is why he seems robotic...and may I add self-involved.
 
 
+66 # kelly 2012-09-09 15:01
That may be. But Harry Reid is also a Mormon. And don't forget that during his twenties he was in France, squandering a chance to become worldly in order to convert the French to his way of thinking. Just because you are a Mormon doesn't give you a pass to stop thinking for yourself...once you become an adult, that's a decision you make on your own.
 
 
+34 # dipierro4 2012-09-09 20:14
The Udalls are Mormons as well, I believe. Their family has given us excellent public servants: Morris Udall, a progressive for many years in the House; Stewart Udall, who served in JFK's cabinet; and the present Senator Tom Udall.
 
 
+28 # wwway 2012-09-10 07:39
My husband went to school with Harry in Searchlight Nevada. That boy and his family had it HARD. Searchlight was a rough mining town and my husband, like Harry, lived in houses made of rail road ties and their fathers worked the mines. Harry's dad committed suicuide and, thanks to the brothels, his mother supported the family by taking in laundry from those brothels. To attend school, Harry had to hitch hike to Henderson to attend school. He arranged to stay with the boxing coach during the week. In his books Harry describes his life and values and as a politican he's both fair and ruthless. Softspoken he can seem a bit wimpy but I was gald to hear him at the DNC. Give em Hell, Harry!
 
 
+6 # Regina 2012-09-10 12:44
He was in France to avoid the draft, with a deferment on religious grounds.
 
 
+17 # brux 2012-09-09 21:07
Super rich people like Romney do not really fit into the normal rules everyone else has to follow. That can be good, like say JFK/RFK, or bad like GWB ... most change by necessity is driven by people who come from the upper classes, not all, but these are the people who have the opportunities for power ... like FDR ... the so-called traitor to his class.
 
 
+17 # wwway 2012-09-10 07:42
The Kennedy boys were very conservative. We all can be grateful that they had open minds and hearts. There's a very good documentary on Bobby that describes how those rich boys changed.
 
 
+31 # zachwes 2012-09-10 03:53
Susan--This is a plausible theory except for one important thing: Romney's father made public something like ten years worth of his tax returns when he ran for the GOP Presidential nomination because it was the moral and right thing to do. Mitt is not cut from the same cloth and clearly does not share his father's principles.
 
 
+6 # Cassandra2012 2012-09-10 11:12
Yes, Mitt does not seem to understand what "PUBLIC" service means. He is an elitist who has no problem with HOARDING money in the Caymans or in Swiss banks, or offshoring profits to places like Bermuda. No problem with NOT paying his 'FAIR SHARE' of taxes either.
 
 
+22 # AMLLLLL 2012-09-10 05:48
Romney also has the W complex; he needs to top his father. It's pretty pronounced, and as he himself said, his goal is to get 50.1% of the vote (however he can). He's not even aware of his hypocrisy. As a result he will never be the man his father was, or his mother, for that matter.
 
 
+11 # wwway 2012-09-10 07:49
We don't need another Republican on a quest for revenge or to prove something because of Daddy! But I disagree that he's not aware of his hypocrisy. People like them know they are hypocrits and that's part of their appeal.
There's something liberals miss about their middle class republican friends motives. Like little boys dreaming of football fame, they dream of being rich and believe they will be. They want to be tax cheats like Romney. They do want their church and sleeze too. That's what's wrong with them. It's also why they aren't thinking critically about their own party and why they aren't listening. It's why they want social/politica l/economic anarchy. They really beleive they will get rich that way.
 
 
+6 # wwway 2012-09-10 07:32
did you all see the special a few weeks ago about the Mormon tradition in education. Putting your shoulders to the wheel or something like that is the slogan of Mormons because their ancestors worked hard. Well, it seems the Mormon mission is no longer helping others, it's helping yourself to make big money like Romney. It's their version of "work ethic."
 
 
+3 # Cassandra2012 2012-09-10 11:08
And they get to be 'missionaries' thereby getting a pass on military service! Wonder why those religions that have 'missionaries' [ essentially selling/ and sometimes forcing their religion to/on other cultures!! as 'superior' should get to avoid service to their country?) Also, when Mitt and familly 'tithe' they only do so to those of their Mormon faith, not, apparently, giving much of anything to other (secular?) causes.
 
 
+65 # papabob 2012-09-09 15:05
Although I'm getting the feeling that Obama "gets it", and Romney doesn't, I'm a little confused by the charges being made - example: this program will be the first to go vs. this is the one program that provides the health insurance we need.

I'm not in a position to comment on the policy decisions, but I am able to do some of the arithmatic behind those claims.

If, as Juan Cole suggests, "A 48-year-old today, who starts getting Medicare in 2030, would have to pay an extra $124,600 under your plan!".

If he's right, my vote is already decided. I don't need a whole lot of convincing on which way to go. I can read the dollars and cents more easily than I can weigh the pros and cons of the policies being presented.

Looks like Obama is the only one who gets it.
 
 
+45 # CAMUS1111 2012-09-09 15:10
if it wasn't clear before, it is now: the gop is nothing more or less than a party of goose-steppers that deserves to be carted out with the rest of the garbage.
 
 
+20 # pwehrle 2012-09-09 20:07
In case you haven't cracked the code yet, the Mittster is one of the dumbest and most spineless humans ...if he's that...who has ever tried to be our president.
 
 
-77 # egbegb 2012-09-09 20:09
Juan Cole
+ Guaranteed Issue
+ Community Rating
Those are the only problems America's health care system had before ObamaCare.

Now we have government death panels, an HHS secretary that is "beyond judicial review" (read the ObamaCare law - all 2700 pages of it; "beyond judicial review" ocurrs 17 times) and a significant hindrance to small business growth.
 
 
+48 # Ralph Averill 2012-09-10 02:54
"Now we have government death panels..."
If those death panels really existed would they so much worse than insurance company death panels, that really do exist? Insurance companies dedicate acres of office space for people whose sole function is to figure out ways of denying coverage to their customers when they need it. Likewise, hospitals spend millions on staff whose only job is to dicker with insurance companies over coverage for their patients. The elimination of all of that would save billions.
 
 
+21 # panhead49 2012-09-10 07:32
Quoting egbegb:
Juan Cole
+ Guaranteed Issue
+ Community Rating
Those are the only problems America's health care system had before ObamaCare.

Now we have government death panels, an HHS secretary that is "beyond judicial review" (read the ObamaCare law - all 2700 pages of it; "beyond judicial review" ocurrs 17 times) and a significant hindrance to small business growth.


WRONG on so many levels. I just spent the last 6 years with no insurance and no way to get any because of pre-existing conditions - now THAT is a death panel. It wasn't even a week after SCOTUS ruling came out that our agent called me saying "I have some really good news for you".

A "...hindrance to small business growth." - hardly. CA PCIP for me, closing in on 60, with many PreExCon can now get a policy for $492 a month, $1,500 deductible. Many local providers, even my own family doc are on that list. The former PreCon was (and there still is) a MRMIP program with a huge premium, huge deductible and taps out at 75k - and that ain't annual. There is your damned Death Panel and that happened under Ahnuld and The Shrub.
 
 
+12 # James Smith 2012-09-10 08:11
HMOs have always had "death panels" that decide when treatments should be denied because of "the unlikely event of favorable outcome."

Other health insurance plans also have provisions for denying care.

What the ACa does is provide assistance to those who want to decide for themselves when "heroic measures" should be applied and when not. But lying about this is the Republican way. Some of them seem to prefer to lie even when the truth would serve them better. Yes, Romney & Ryan, I'm looking at you.
 
 
+11 # dipierro4 2012-09-09 20:22
As exasperating as it is to see them lie, distort facts, contradict themselves, it remains that Americans have a very little historical memory or interest in complicated facts, and they respect someone who is strong and tough, or clever and ruthless -- a strong leader who will look out for us in a tough world. If these guys keep doing it, shamelessly, it may get them elected.
 
 
+30 # grandone@charter.net 2012-09-09 20:30
Not to mention that you have alienated our most critical ally, Great Britain, by criticizing their most important event of the year, after her majesty's anniversary, by insulting their people and government. You do not get to say that.
 
 
+17 # grouchy 2012-09-09 20:51
WHAT? Could it be the Mittster may be doing a flip-flop? How unusual an act for him! Maybe we should call him the "Flipster"?
 
 
+32 # brux 2012-09-09 21:04
Just what Bill Clinton said, Mitt Romney is not pro-choice or anti-choice, he's multiple choice.

This is the most bizarre thing I've seen in this election cycle, and that includes a lot so far.

I wonder now that Romney has gotten past the far right if he is suddenly going to start to poping out with more statements like this on different issues to try to appeal to moderates and independents?

Can that work after all his flip-flopping and hedging?
 
 
+35 # cynnibunny 2012-09-09 21:25
Why are Liberal commentators whining about the two-facedness of the GOP? So what if they propagandize one way one day, and do just the opposite the next day? If they do so with the same amount of conviction each day, then why would the public ever think that there is a logical disconnect?

Are you missing the point? The very power of the Rove-Luntz-Aile s machine is that it repeats the BIG LIE over and over again, a simplistic, quotable, and usually emotion-laden tidbit. It works along with the power of media control: the BIG LIE is asserted on FOX, then a right-wing 'guest' appears on a CNN or CBS or even an NPR show, and gets to repeat the same line. Remember 'Weapons of Mass Destruction', 'Anchor Baby', 'Obamacare' [that was more subtle, linking Health Care Reform with the visage of Obama, a blackman, which the Tea Party had already 'enhanced' with the Hitler Mustache]?

The BIG MISTAKE with the Liberal - or let me just call it the rational - response to the BIG LIE, is that it presumes that the BIG LIE is policing itself with a rational underpinning. And, of course, it is not!

Furthermore, by starting each little crazy episode with a newness and crazed forwardness EACH TIME, without reference to the old BIG LIE or the last BIG LIE, the right-wing propaganda machine's BIG LIE strategy seems forever on the offensive.

In the meantime, the rational people are left in the dark.
 
 
+13 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-10 03:10
Very well and succinctly put.
Obviously, you get it!
 
 
+7 # capierso 2012-09-09 21:50
Can someone please ask Dr. Cole or explain where he came up with that 2nd sentence? It is so shocking, that I hope it is really accurate. I don't want to repeat it unless I understand....a nd, I don't understand very much about the ACA.
 
 
+12 # Barbara K 2012-09-10 04:12
capierso: The second sentence is referring to Medicare, not the ACA. The high price to Medicare would be the result of the gutting of Medicare by Romneyhood. It is the present system for retirees and disabled. The ACA is the new Health Insurance Plan, or what they refer to as Obamacare, and are presently done thru insurance companies that you choose. They are 2 different programs.
 
 
+8 # zachwes 2012-09-10 04:35
The study was conducted by David Cutler, a Harvard professor and health policy expert who served in the Clinton administration and was Obama’s top health care adviser during the 2008 presidential campaign. Cutler conducted the study for the liberal Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Read more: http://www.vosizneias.com/113209/2012/09/09/washington-obama-hits-romney-with-new-medicare-study/
 
 
+22 # Old Uncle Dave 2012-09-09 21:53
Romney says, "I will repeal Obamacare!" as if the President has the power to unilaterally repeal an Act of Congress. It's all theater. Romney doesn't stand a chance. On the plus side for him, though, he will probably be able to make some money next year as a result of having been the GOP candidate.
 
 
+6 # pernsey 2012-09-10 09:42
Quoting Old Uncle Dave:
Romney says, "I will repeal Obamacare!" as if the President has the power to unilaterally repeal an Act of Congress. It's all theater. Romney doesn't stand a chance. On the plus side for him, though, he will probably be able to make some money next year as a result of having been the GOP candidate.


Today in the paper I read, it said Romney now wants to keep parts of Obama care...hes such an etch-a-sketch. So you can just shake and clear what he said before...today is a new day in Mitt town. Just another flip flop, arent the right wingers getting sick of it? They spout his crap one day as if its rational and the next day he changes it, its got to be hard to keep on defending him. I suppose all they really do have is the attacks on Obama, who can keep up with the rest?
 
 
+5 # BradFromSalem 2012-09-10 10:36
Etch-a-sketch!

Romney isn't flip flopping. Its all about getting you to turn over the reins of your company, whoops, I mean country, into his hands. The tea baggers actually are right about him. He only believes in one thing. That is that he, Willie Mitt Romney, must be President. Do you actually know why? I don't.
 
 
+5 # Regina 2012-09-10 13:02
It's the old male ego thing, magnified by the drive to one-up a successful Poppy, just like Dubya. Mittens has been obsessed with that urge for a decade -- this isn't his first run, it's just the first time he made it through the primary. And unlike Dubya's Poppy, Mitt's Poppy did not make it to the presidency. However, we can distinguish Mitt from his Poppy by comparing their tax return submissions.
 
 
+29 # brenda 2012-09-09 22:09
What you have to remember about Romney, is that beneath all of his public statements, lies a person who thinks, "What's good for the billionaire's business, is good for the USA".
If anyone thinks he's for the working man, they're under a Republican mind warp. The Republican politicians have entered into treasonious territory.
 
 
+21 # lourdmar 2012-09-09 22:51
Bravo Juan Cole, you're right on the money!

One of the contributing factors to Mitt's game is the unwillingness of some members of the press to press for clarification and explanations.

This morning on Meet the Press Mitt spouted absurdities and contradictions regaling the masses with monopoly money while some cheered. It's more dangerous when the lie is allowed to be aired without proper debate - hard hitting questioning is more often saved for President Obama.
Why did Gregory fail to make Mitt explain his improvised often contradictory non-solutions? Why is serious discussion avoided ? And why oh why does Mitt get featured for half a show when it's the Democratic Convention that just took place? Isn't it enough we suffered the GOP the previous week? Does Mitt need more PR?
He must see himself as a modern Moses with a new improved tablet every day. Maybe that's how he adds spice to his life but there's too much at stake for games.

In the end even with his inexhaustible collection of masks and costumes Mitt remains a non-entity.
 
 
+7 # AMLLLLL 2012-09-10 06:00
I'm not a big fan of David Gregory (he's no Tim Russert!), but it could be msnbc's way of peeling off Fox Noise viewers. MSNBC was the most watched channel for the DNC. That said, Gregory is a wimp who can't think on his feet, and when he does it sounds whiney.
 
 
+5 # pernsey 2012-09-10 09:44
My hunch is Mitt wouldnt come on the show, unless they let him spout his crap, and be unchallenged.
 
 
+13 # cassandrapt 2012-09-09 23:04
Mitt Romney apparently likes the parts of Obamacare that are already in effect. I'll bet when the rest of it gets implemented, he'll like it too, because most people will like it, and he will go along, just as he has now on pre-existing conditions and having adult children covered.
 
 
+34 # Charles3000 2012-09-10 01:26
I liked Ted Kennedy's comment on Mitt during the 1993 campaign for the Senate. Ted said "Mitt changes so much he might end up voting for me."
 
 
+25 # overanddone 2012-09-10 02:57
To Quote Barney Frank
" Anything Mitt Romney says comes with an expiration date"
 
 
+22 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-10 03:06
Juan Cole, what do you mean he doesn't "get to say that?"
Of course he gets to say "that," or anything else he wants to say. He's paying good hard cold cash, and lots of it, to say whatever he wants to say!
If we don't consider him human, all he has to do is incorporate himself, and then by the power of SCOTUS, he becomes a human person.
I find fault with the corporate interviewer who doesn't smack him upside the head for his lies, lies and more lies. But, that corporate interviewer knows who pays his salary, and his bonus.
When your boss is General Electric, the company that makes nuclear power plants, you don't usually step out of line for fear of being nuked right on the spot!

To hear Mitt & Paul talk these days, they are the ones who invented the Internet, are going cure cancer, know where Jimmy Hoffa is buried and came up with the idea of sliced bread.

Ah, if only Pinocchio was around today, we could rebuild our decaying bridges by just seating Mitt on one side and Paul on the other, aim their proboscises correctly, and start interviewing them on any subject. Offset the aim a bit and you'll get a two lane crossing. I'm serious! This would work...wouldn't create that many jobs, but it would solve the infrastructure problem!
 
 
+2 # Cassandra2012 2012-09-10 11:21
Maybe some of the GOP non-thinkers will finally wake up when one of their mamebers end up on a bridge that fails like the one in Minnesota, because there was money for tax cuts for billionaires , but none for jobs to repair the failing infrastructure. .. .
 
 
+7 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-10 13:37
There was money for all this in Obama's 'Jobs Bill' sent to Congress a year ago. But them GOP guys blocked it. They blocked it so that they could now say that Obama 'failed' at creating more jobs. It was all part of the blood pact they made in January of 2009, along with the signed pledge to Grover. Slick, aren't they!? I wouldn't necessarily want to play chicken with any of them on a dark stretch of flat highway in Utah one night. These dudes scare me, in a most intellectual way, if you know what I mean.

But, you do agree with me...this proboscis thing would work. It might get a bit ugly if either one of them got a cold, but hey, what the hell; a bridge over troubled waters, is a bridge nonetheless.
 
 
+21 # walt 2012-09-10 03:58
At what point do we all simply say "enough" to Romney and Ryan?
They are liars and cannot provide any specifics about anything other than they want to accommodate the 1% and take us to a war with Iran.

Their entire party has had only one goal- to remove the black president at any cost.

Enough said?
 
 
+13 # AMLLLLL 2012-09-10 06:03
At what point? November 6th. Drag an eligible voter along to the polls with you!
 
 
+6 # Cassandra2012 2012-09-10 11:22
Quoting AMLLLLL:
At what point? November 6th. Drag an eligible voter along to the polls with you!

Better yet, start helping the diabled, elderly, minority and poor to get IDs in your state!
 
 
+2 # AMLLLLL 2012-09-10 18:50
Amen, Cassandra, and show up at the polling station with a wheelchair (complete with Obama logo) and and an umbrella and maybe some water bottles; whatever makes it tolerable for folks to stand in long lines. Save people's places, engage; it's a community effort!
 
 
+18 # stevekirn 2012-09-10 04:47
Oh, wait! It turns out that Mr. Romney's campaign stafff "clarified" his remarks re: pre-existing conditions. He only meant to say that people who had continuous coverage should be able to keep the coverage if they had a "pre-existing" condition. (I guess that means that you shouldn't have your insurance canceled if you become ill with what might have existed as a risk factor earlier. But if the pre-existing condition kept you from even being able to purchase insurance on our marvelous, customer-focuse d, market-driven system, you are out of luck. Personal example: My doc suggested statin medication for cholesterol, then around 190 total. He felt that we should test to see how I tolerated the drug, BEFORE getting higher levels. It went fine -- until my taking that med meant that I becamoe uninsurable on the "open market" og individual health insurance. And even if I stopped the statin meds, I had to report that I did, indeed, take them for a while, so "Pre-existing condition! No insurance for you, buddy!". What a system!
 
 
+14 # wwway 2012-09-10 07:29
Right on! Basically Romney wants the same system we had before and on the "pre-existing" condition he's talking HIPPA which permits insurance companies to charge exhorbadant premiums. The new law doesn't help me yet but because of the old rules just being 15 lbs overweight is a reason to deny health insurance or force one off of COBRA onto HIPPA. I pay $1,000 a month because of those old rules. From this day until I turn 65 and am eligable for Medicare, I will have spent $60,000 for insurance that doesn't cover perscription and requires a $1500 annual deductable. Romeny wants a "free market" solution. Well, he and Republicans are lying. the principles of a free market are 1) no barriers to entry 2) NO DISCRIMINATION 3) perfect information 4) protection of property rights. The Affordable HealthCare Act places free market principles at the top of it's plan.
 
 
+9 # Dave_s Not Here 2012-09-10 12:03
I live in Canada. I read the above and my jaw drops.

I've never had any heart trouble and it's been checked as OK. I'm a senior and, when I hit 65 my doctor put me on statins. Because I'm considered low income, the government pays for my prescription as well as paying totally for the doctoring and the diagnostics, the same as it would do for everyone else.

I can't imagine why the citizens of the USA permit this situation to exist. Is everyone cowed into subservience to the HMOs down there? Whats the matter with you people? Get with the 21st century.
 
 
+19 # James Smith 2012-09-10 04:58
The IRanian blockade has done exactly nothing. DOes anyone actually believe that it is preventing them from selling that oil? Someone is buying it and might even be selling it to the USA at an even higher price.

Blaming Obama for gas prices is like blaming Santa Claus for winter.

Then slamming "Obamacare" is like shooting your own foot for wearing shoes. The ACA is basically "Romneycare" that Mitt supported in MA. BBut Mitt is a liar and a tax dodger, so why should we expect anything better from him?
 
 
+13 # Interested Observer 2012-09-10 07:02
Further proof, as Ted Kennedy observed, that Romney is not pro-choice nor anti-choice but multiple-choice .
 
 
+11 # wwway 2012-09-10 07:19
Ever watched a fish on the shore line? Out of water and desperate it flips and flops frantically, it's gills pulsating in a desperate attempt for water. Romeny is a fish out of water. He's hoping to be President?
 
 
+5 # BicParker 2012-09-10 08:00
Myth Romney and Lyin' Ryan at it again!
 
 
-26 # egbegb 2012-09-10 08:45
There was no debate on the ObamaCare law and there is none here. The bill was written in secret and passed without anyone knowing what was in it. In 2700 pages community rating and guaranteed issue involve only a very tiny fraction of the new rules. Obamacare is a transparent attempt to transform American healthcare to a single provider system.

Today, there may be death panels (when an ins co refuses to cover something). However, today, you have a state insurance commissioner and a lawyer as teammates to change the decision. Under the many "beyond judicial review" sections in the ACA, the HHS secretary's decisions are singular and final. If that doesn't scare people, nothing will.

ObamaCare is bad for America in so many ways that no one recognizes because no one has read the law and few understand medical economics.
 
 
+4 # kelly 2012-09-10 09:42
And you and everyone else who says it's bad knows it bacause they haven't read it either, they're just listening to FOX, right? I don't know if you get this, but getting to choose your own provider does not change anything into a single provider system unless everyone chooses the same provider...whic h I doubt. By the way, if it IS as transparent as you say, why hasn't everyone picked up on it and why does Romney want to adopt it? And I don't know where you live but would you trust medical questions to an insurance commisionar and a lawyer to work out?!? I don't think that's the case either. By the way, there was plenty of debate on AHA but there was so much obstructionism that it had to pass the way it did. However, with all your complaining you have to remember it did pass.
 
 
+4 # dipierro4 2012-09-10 09:45
From the start, the Republicans have been advocating that policies be sold freely across state lines. This will effectively take your consumer-friend ly state insurance commissioner out of the picture. When some unscrupulous company in Idaho writes a policy that turns out not to pay anything, the poor consumer in Vermont doesn't have anyplace to go. It will be just like ERISA plans are now: The company's own interpretation of the policy is the final word. Maybe even worse, depending on the details.
 
 
+7 # pernsey 2012-09-10 09:47
Quoting egbegb:
There was no debate on the ObamaCare law and there is none here. The bill was written in secret and passed without anyone knowing what was in it. In 2700 pages community rating and guaranteed issue involve only a very tiny fraction of the new rules. Obamacare is a transparent attempt to transform American healthcare to a single provider system.

Today, there may be death panels (when an ins co refuses to cover something). However, today, you have a state insurance commissioner and a lawyer as teammates to change the decision. Under the many "beyond judicial review" sections in the ACA, the HHS secretary's decisions are singular and final. If that doesn't scare people, nothing will.

ObamaCare is bad for America in so many ways that no one recognizes because no one has read the law and few understand medical economics.


Well now Mitt agrees with some Obama care so Im sure your mind will change soon too. Flip flop, flip flop Mitt is like a fish out of water, and looks about as comfortable as one too.
 
 
+8 # mjc 2012-09-10 09:50
egbegb, you must not have been in the country or perhaps didn't have any access to newspapers or tv. There was a helluva lot of discussion of Affordable Health Care. As a liberal I was very aware that the final bill did not go far enough because I wanted something like Medicare for all, but there is no doubt that many, many people...libera ls, moderates, ultraconservati ves...knew what was going in it. You must worry that the drug companies and insurance companies will be making less profit at the expense of the American people.
 
 
+3 # brux 2012-09-10 11:44
Just because the Republicans corrupted and distorted the debate on ObamaCare does not mean it was non-existent.

Obama's State of the Union speech in which Joe Wilson belted out "you lie" was part of that debate, and Joe Wilson's comment was typical of the Republican rhetoric.
 
 
+3 # BeaDeeBunker 2012-09-10 13:50
And since the time Joe Wilson belted out "you lie" to the President of these United States at a joint conference of Congress, the Supreme Court and millions & millions of Americans viewing this over the airwaves, why hasn't Joe Wilson been 'renditioned,' or at least a bit 'disappeared?'
 
 
+1 # panhead49 2012-09-11 12:47
Quoting egbegb:
There was no debate on the ObamaCare law and there is none here. The bill was written in secret and passed without anyone knowing what was in it. In 2700 pages community rating and guaranteed issue involve only a very tiny fraction of the new rules. Obamacare is a transparent attempt to transform American healthcare to a single provider system.

Today, there may be death panels (when an ins co refuses to cover something). However, today, you have a state insurance commissioner and a lawyer as teammates to change the decision. Under the many "beyond judicial review" sections in the ACA, the HHS secretary's decisions are singular and final. If that doesn't scare people, nothing will.

ObamaCare is bad for America in so many ways that no one recognizes because no one has read the law and few understand medical economics.


State Insurance Commissioner is just another tool the private for profits use to deny care - I appealed a denial of service (a need for urgent care, not care 5 weeks later for a serious life threatening issue hubby had) have yet to meet anyone that had their appeal upheld. But thanks for pointing out another status quo 'death panel' that truly exists. While I would wish you could understand what this family has been through - I get the feeling you don't really care about we mere mortals - you're out for a political kill.:-/
 
 
-7 # Susan1989 2012-09-10 09:18
The truly scarey thing about all of this is that neither party can be trusted...and what most people do not realize is that our freedoms are now a mere illusion. Look around you, and you will see this to be tre. Structures have slowly been put in place that are gradually making people more and more powerless. I have a sense that it is already too late. The only difference between the two parties is style.
 
 
+7 # Charles3000 2012-09-10 09:19
The only thing worse that Obamacare is the health care system we had before it was passed and it was about 100x worse.
"...transparent attempt to transform American healthcare to a single provider system." An incredible statement. The obvious decision was to keep private health insurers but regulate them. The private health insurers are pushing back against the regulations.
 
 
+4 # brux 2012-09-10 11:39
> The private health insurers are pushing back against the regulations

Well put, the Insurance Companies love to see government used to put a mandate on people to buy insurance, they just do not want to have to do anything for it or be answerable to what they do with the money.

If that is not sick I don't know what is.

The best Romney can try to say is that over some LONG TERM the market will magically become fair and efficient with competition, but that is pure fantasy nonsense. The health care market and many other markets have never been seen to behave that like.

Even if we did not want to move towards an experimental dergulation of health care, there would need to be EFFECTIVE interim regulation or nothing would be accomplished but HIGHWAY ROBBERY !
 
 
0 # dusty1215 2012-09-11 15:53
And since the Ins Comps have millions to spend on lobbyists they will get their way most likely.

Already, Obama's administration has handed out a bunch of exemptions to huge corporations like McDonalds...tha ts crap if you ask me because McDonalds makes millions each year and can afford to offer decent healthcare not the crap they offer now and actually call it health inbsurance...wh ich it's not in any way, shape or form.
 
 
+7 # James Smith 2012-09-10 09:41
Few understand medical economics? You mean like yourself. FYI, every other country in the world with a developed economy and a freely-elected government has complete health care for all of its legal residents except one - the USA.

None of these countries have had to become totalitarian dictatorships or bankrupt future generations to pay for it. The problem with the ACA was that o successful plan with a history behind it was looked at. Only Romneycare. Now, people like you and Romney are against that plan so much that you don't mind telling lies about it. It's bad enough you could stick to facts and do better. But lying is preferable to neo-cons.
 
 
+6 # mjc 2012-09-10 09:46
You get the sense that the Romney/Ryan policy teams are quite aware of the way the campaign is going and going toward ending what they called "Obamacare" ain't gonna cut it. With hardly a twitch, Romney begins back pedaling to jive with the political currents in the country. And this isn't new! This guy is such a wobbler and his veep choice is so doctrinaire one cannot imagine such a government in this country.
 
 
+7 # Charles3000 2012-09-10 11:16
The most under-discussed issue in the health care debate is socialized health care as practiced here in the USA and how the patients served by this socialized medical system like it. I am referring to the Vet health care system where the govt owns the facilities, hires and pays the professionals and the administrators. Ask an ex-GI if he would support ending his socialized medical care system and going to a private health insurance plan with a voucher to help him....or her. What do you think they will say?
 
 
+4 # Charles3000 2012-09-10 16:15
There is a very simple reason why private health insurance companies must be firmly regulated. They are rewarded by increased cost for health care. As health care costs increase, premiums increase, their sales increase, their profits increase and their salaries increase. Escalating health care costs are good for private health insurance companies. Being profit motivated entities they seek to increase health care costs. The only way to tolerate them is by very heavy regulation of all facets of the system.
 
 
0 # Antemedius 2012-09-10 17:05
At least Obama never flip flops. He's the most honest politician I think I've ever seen or heard of.

You always know exactly where he stands. Just listen to what he says, assume he'll do the opposite and you'll be right every time.

Between the two of these guys - Obama and Romney - that the two party scam is exactly that, a scam - has never been clearer.

"There's always free cheddar in a mousetrap, baby." - Tom Waits

Anyone who votes for either one of these guys isn't paying attention.
 
 
+1 # kelly 2012-09-11 05:37
And anyone who idlysits on their hands or votes for "nader" and brings about the most evil of the two is increasing the damage. When you have a viable candidate, let me know. Until you do, I will remember the stolen election of 2000 and cringe. Three parties is a romantic sounding alternative to a bad situation but at the moment we don't realistically have that option. Don't waste your vote, unless you are urging us into a form of disenfranchisem ent.
 
 
+5 # Antemedius 2012-09-11 07:19
"viable candidate" in your usage there is a candidate who has enough wall street/mic money to steal the presidency.

By that common usage you have a viable candidate in either Romney or Obama.

I, on the other hand, define "viable candidate" to mean a candidate who is not bought off and who will work for the American people rather than for his financial backers.

Why don't you let us know when you are willing to work, not against the interests of the American people, but for a real viable candidate.
 
 
+1 # dusty1215 2012-09-11 15:48
That is my idea of a viable candidate..appa rently others just want a Democrat or a Republican. Of course I despise the GOP but lately the D's aren't a whole lot better on many issues.
 
 
+1 # dusty1215 2012-09-11 15:57
People would rather stick with the one party with two names..The Democrats and GOP it seems. They jump on anyone that attempts to point out that neither group has our best interests at heart..they just want to be re-elected and take that corporate money being thrown at them. Then they blame each other for not getting anything done. Both parties are to blame..not just the yahoo's in the GOP.
 
 
+1 # dusty1215 2012-09-11 15:40
Al Gore couldn't even win his own state. If he had, he would of won the damn election. Just a small but important fact I use when anyone pulls the 'stolen election' line.
 
 
-4 # fhunter 2012-09-11 09:22
Before embarking on the Health Care reform, President Obama should have invited Mr. Romney to share his MA experiences, and work with him as Ted Kennedy did. We would have had a perfect Obama-Romney care within a year. But the President chosen to plagiarise and get all the glory.
 
 
+2 # panhead49 2012-09-11 13:35
Wow fhunter - I totally missed Obama getting "...all the glory." for the affordable care act. Got a link? Remember now fhunter - it was the rightwingnuts that dropped the Obamacare word bomb, not the prez. All I see is the Prez getting the political bleep beat out of him by the 'I got mine, screw you' crowd.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN