Since the very first day of his presidential campaign, Mitt Romney has promised voters he'll repeal the Affordable Care Act. How much of the law would he destroy? As of earlier this year, all of it -- Romney endorsed what he described as "complete repeal."
Yesterday, kicking off a near-comical display of ineptitude, Romney tried to adopt a new position on health care.
"I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform," Romney told David Gregory. "Of course, there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I'm going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage."
Soon after, the Romney campaign changed its mind, quietly letting National Review know that Romney doesn't actually intend to extend coverage to those with pre-existing conditions; he actually expects the free market to work its magic.
And soon after that, the Romney campaign changed its mind again, telling BuzzFeed that Romney "will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited."
So, for those keeping score at home, over the course of one day, Romney went from supporting full repeal to partial repeal, while taking four different positions on protections with those with pre-existing conditions.
As a political matter, this kind of incompetence can kill a campaign. There's a presidential election in 57 days and at this point, no one, including the candidate, seems to have the foggiest idea what Mitt Romney intends to do on health care policy -- an area that used to be his signature issue. How is it possible that eight weeks before Election Day, Team Romney is still figuring out its position on Obamacare?
And as a substantive matter, it's important Americans understand what Romney's plan actually entails.
At least for now -- it's possible Team Romney will adopt an entirely new position, or even more than one, before the end of the day -- Romney believes an employee who has a pre-existing condition should be able to keep his or her coverage if they change jobs. There's no reason to give him credit for taking this bold stand -- since 1996, federal law has already protected these folks, and Romney is simply endorsing the longstanding status quo.
But what about everyone else who has a pre-existing condition, including children? As Sam Stein reported a while back, they're out of luck.
For starters, there is the question of what happens to individuals with pre-existing conditions who lose their jobs rather than move to a new one? Often, COBRA coverage doesn't fully cover treatment costs or last long enough. Another, perhaps more pertinent question is what happens to people who enter the insurance market already suffering from a pre-existing condition? [...]
[A statement from the Romney campaign] confirms that under a Romney presidency, there would be no federal prohibition barring health insurers from discriminating against pre-existing conditions. Instead, his administration would push reforms that help eat away at the problem.
Those "reforms" -- including turning responsibilities to states -- have been largely ineffective.
An ABC report added that Romney's policy "does not immediately address people who have never had private health insurance, or who have had insurance but spent some time without, often because of financial circumstances and unemployment."
So, what's the bottom line? First, Americans with pre-existing conditions would be in pretty big trouble if Romney's elected. Second, the fact that Team Romney keeps contradicting themselves about their own position on health care points to a campaign in surprising disarray.
As a rule, when the right hand doesn't know what the further-right hand is doing, there's cause for concern about the competence of the campaign.
Leave a Comment:
Actually, I suspect Romney is smart enough to keep his story straight. However, he has decided that enough of the electorate are ignorant enough and dumb enough that he can say whatever he wants in any forum, and get elected as a result.
Will this become painfully obvious to the targeted voters before the election or after the election?
Even if a significant portion of the electorate were that ignorant, and I don't believe that they are, that sort of approach only works in a one-sided forum with no opposing argument.
Suppose Romney does keep his story straight during the debates. Obama's retort is both obvious and devastating. All he has to do is point out Romney's flip-flops and force him into the position of either vowing to repeal Obamacare as a whole or defending it on the position of it being based on his Mass. health care plan.
Either way, Romney's in trouble. He can either anger the Republican base or he can alienate swing voters who like parts of Obamacare and feel like they're being thrown under the bus.
Ryan, have you watched the way "debates" are run lately? There's no opportunity for one candidate to introduce questions for the other to answer. The "moderator" just asks them both a question that lets them spout talking points and that's it.
More of a joint press conference than anything remotely resembling a debate.
Oh what fun the debates will be.....ROTFFL.....LOL
My money says Romney slaughters Obama in the debates.
You would be wrong. Obama was such a good debater at Harvard, people were afraid to debate him. So give it your best shot Mitty! :)
It must be rough being an "undecided", but it could be a good year for tarot card readers.
By now if someone plan to vote for this Picador,then they must be suffering from the disease of the.......
What is more worrying is that it’s becoming apparent that Romney is nothing. He is not a conservative, he is not a liberal, he is not a libertarian and he is not a socialist. In fact he stands for nothing – apart from the desire to attain office – and he has successfully deceived the Republican primary voters with their [establishment] by pretending to hold their political convictions when he holds none.
Just a bit of speculation on my part; but I think when all is said and done, Romney's motivation for wanting to become President stems from a desire to catch up with his dad.
When you think about it, pretty much every major accomplishment in Romney's life has been reflective of his father:
- George Romney was a successful businessman and quite a wealthy one at that. Mitt, aka the Political Chameleon, was an even more successful businessman and by far more wealthy.
- George Romney was Governor of Mass. Same with Mitt.
- George Romney ran for President and failed. And so we find ourselves with Mitt, resorting to outright lying and flip-flopping on near every conceivable issue, doing his damndest to do what his father couldn't.
True, this may all just be coincidence, but a rather thought-provoking one, if nothing else...
Minor correction...
George Romney was governor of Michigan. Otherwise, I will agree that Mittens is displaying the 'Little George' syndrome of wanting to outdo daddy.
Ah, my apologies and thanks for the correction.
"it's becoming apparent that Romney is nothing."
Indeed. What other "I've got nothing" presidents can you name?
Bush Jr. comes to mind
And actually Reagan.
The GOP want what I call a "PR President". Someone to stand in front of the camera, go to prayer breakfasts and raise money. The real governing is done by somebody unelected, in an undisclosed location. GOP government: Unelected and undisclosed.
I agree, good point. They even have an unelected person making them sign a contract, in order to get funding for their campaigns, or they will make sure they get very little and most likely lose without their support. Bribery and treason comes to mind.
Grover Norquist said that it didn't matter which Republican became president as long as he could hold a pen.
On the contrary: he's an aristocrat.
Suzy2Q's,
you are correct.
grover norquist also said, "we want the ryan budget".
mitt romney is givin' 'em what they want.
Correction DC.....he sees himself as and Aristocrat....but it is more like a norquestocrat.
Your avatar's bin Laden. Why?
The "man" is simply an immature little brat willing to destroy the world to win a game. This is just like children playing games where they make rules up on the fly. He is so used to getting his way, that he's unaware people can see through it. It's positively insulting and depressing that the campaign for President can be this truly awful. I don't know if others are like me, but it wears me out to try to keep up with all the lies and illogic coming out of Team Romney and Team Republican. It is just shoulder-slumping depressing.
It's also so depressing that almost half the people in the country don't seem to see or care that he is nothing but a liar.
I know a few people that swear by Romney. I personally want to know which plane of existence they are living on that they cant see how wrong Romney is for this country. Also too many people seem not to know about the Koch Brothers. There is a recent documentary about them being shown on the cable channel Current. They have pretty much bought the Republican Party and Romney. Everyone needs to see this documentary. It's a real eye opener.
I think Romney needs to see a Doctor for his pre-existing condition....Etchasketchalitis or flipfloporosis.
Too, too funny, Angel#77!!
Maybe Dr. Who, so he can get in the tardis, go back in time, and change all his previous positions?
I just read the transcript from a "Meet The Press" show aired on 12-16-2007.
Mr. Romney as usual was vague and not consistent in what his views are. I was
confused by what he was for or against as he changes his responses constantly.
His own church excluded blacks for years. His Mother, he states ran for office and
had specific views on abortion that he agreed with back then . Who know what he
really believes today. I don't. Take a look at the interview .
It seems like the message became muddled somewhere between National Review and Mother Jones, folks. National Review was told that the free market would deal with kids on their parents' plans.
"In reference to how Romney would deal with those with young adults who want to remain on their parents’ plans, a Romney aide responded that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that 'in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for.'"
As to preexisting conditions: "Governor Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited,”
Mother Jones reported that as: "In reference to how Romney would deal with those with preexisting conditions and young adults who want to remain on their parents’ plans, a Romney aide responded that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that 'in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for.'"
So, he seems to have not taken quite as many positions as you think, and Mother Jones needs to check on their reporting. That is not a good interpolation there.
So, Romney is going to leave it up to the Marketplace, and let them decide who lives or dies.....nice! Which just shows that he is going to base all of his decisions as that of a businessman and not a Leader of the people. What would happen if another person like Hitler decided to rear his ugly head, he would have to first confer with his lawyers and crunch the numbers to decide anything. America Incorporated sounds horrible, why doesn't he just have a football stadium named after him?
Oh, by all means, his positions are generally stupid, misleading and abhorrent. But truth and precision in reporting are still important. Just because Fox can't figure that out doesn't give Mother Jones a pass to interpolate incorrect information into a direct quote. It's both unethical and bad form.
So, Governor Romney feels that id you have a preexisting condition and your coverage lapses, you might as well shot yourself in the head, because no insurance company will cover you if they have a choice.
Preexisting Conditions, and the free market:
Hello! We have that NOW. But covering Preexisting Conditions doesn't make money for the for-profit insurance companies as premiums would have to be too high to be sellable. So no covering of Preexisting Conditions.
The free market has spoken.
It's time for government to clear this up.
On the contrary, it does. You need to realize that the business of America is business, it becomes clear. The people are represented by their Job Creators, and the Job Creators (through their PAC, Chambers, and SuperPACs) choose the Government, and the head of the Government is the President: the Job Creator In Chief, the capo de tutti capo, the Big Dude who leads the Business of America.
Once you think in those terms, it makes perfect sense.
Problem with "let the Market fix it" is that the is no market to provide services at a loss. Anybody with a preexisting condition is denied coverage by the market because statistically that person will cost more to insure than the premiums provides for. As long as that's the case, sick people will not be able to get insurance.
Those people are stuck showing up in emergency rooms to demand service that they cannot pay for. The county in many cases foots the bill.
D.C. - Your assessment that if one views "the business of America is business" is, in my estimation, quite profound. It raises the growing meme that the Republican ideology is one aligned to social Darwinism while the Democratic ideology is more in favor of a "citizen and community" model (i.e., "we must leave no one behind"). With the Democrats pushing this meme (and I believe they should not only push it harder, but live by it more often), I wonder how it changes the assumption. That is, from a Democrat position, what is "the business of America?" Perhaps the party should answer that question, and sell it more profoundly and articulately.
At this point, Romney, aka the Political Chameleon as I like to call him, is merely giving more political fodder for the Obama Campaign to trounce him with during the debates.
I haven't the foggiest idea how Romney answers the health care question without it being a disaster for him in one form or the other.
Maybe he could get Boy George to sing his theme song, Chame, chame, chame, chame, Become a Chameleon.
Actually, I was thinking "Blowin' in the Wind."
Look, I watched much of this "interview" (painfully) yesterday. Again what strikes me as obvious is that Robme really doesn't have a clue or plan, along with the fact that David Gregory is truly not Tim Russert. Robme figures it's HIS TURN, dayumit! And that really is all that this is about - he has NO POSITIONS. Frankly, he has NO Character.
If a man will lie about the "little things", then he's already compromised himself and why should WE trust him with being the head of State?! He stands for the 1% and doesn't have a clue, empathy, or any qualms about decimating the rest of US to further enable himself and his NASCAR buddy owners!
Tim Russert was truly the best Political Interviewer of our time. There is no way Tim would have allowed Mitt, to get away with not being able to answer a single Policy question. Oh wait, if Tim was still alive, Mitt wouldn't have been on Meet The Press anyway. Because he knew he wouldn't be able to get away with it. David Gregory is no Tim Russert!
Methinks your memories of Timmie Russert are akin to republicans' memories of Saint Ronald of Raygun and democrats' memories of Billy Bob Clinton. Out of wack with reality.
I really miss Russert! Fair, but tough on both sides of the aisle.
Nor does Gregory resemble anyone else with a lick of competence as an interviewer. Compare/contrast him to Norah O'Donell, who instantly called Ryan on his hypocrisy over the sequestration vote. BTW, didn't O'Donnell used to work for NBC? Does anybody doubt she'd've done a far better job with that Romney interview? Heck, does anybody seriously doubt she'd do a better job than Greggers every bloody week?
What about Christiane Amanpour? Kelly O'Donnell? Candy Crowley? Gwen Ifill? Heck, with the possible exception of Cokie Roberts, is there a veteran female political reporter in all of D.C. who wouldn't do a better job than David Gregory? Vastly better?
I dunno, might make an interesting glass-ceiling commentary for Dr. Maddow, there.
Interesting point of view re the female reporters, considering I was going to say, even before I read your post, that Soledad O'Brien has been kicking butt lately.
Yes, Norah O'Donnell used to work for NBC and was a frequent contributor to Hardball.
Obama gets a surge in the polls, so Romney responds by picking a fight with himself.
^ Lol. Best post in this thread yet! :)
Romney
was asked if he would balance the budget in his first term and he said
"no, but in his second term he would. Well the fact of the matter is most
presidents do not get much done in the first year, and if Romney can't get it done
with the consecutive job growth, dow jones doubling, and home prices on the
rise, If he can’t get it done with everything going in the right direction in
four years, the he is not the man for the job.
Then how can he seriously fault Obama for not getting it done in his
first term with everything going wrong, now Obama has a better chance getting
it done in the next four years and he's asking us to give him a chance and it
will take him at least eight years for him to get it done.
I would appreciate a source if you have one.
i've been looking for a source since i've seen similar comments on other sites
this from august 19th: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/08/19/romney-adviser-gop-candidate-could-balance-budget-by-2020/
and there's this one from august 31st: http://michigan.onpolitix.com/news/144268/fact-check-romneys-deficit-vow-lacks-specifics-nd12-jgr
basically, all the ones i found say "FACT: Romney has promised to cut $500 billion per year from the federal budget by 2016 to bring spending below 20 percent of the U.S. economy, and to balance it entirely by 2020. But he's remarkably vague on how he would do that. ..."
still not sure if romney said it...but if it's what his team believes then why wouldn't they give obama the same time frame before saying he failed?
i believe i heard David Gregory ask mitt that question on Sunday's meet the press. the answer he gave was the one above.
He just makes me dizzy. Soon he will flip and be a Dem.
I think they've abandoned the etch-a-sketch for the Magic 8 ball. It keeps flip-flopping between "Reply hazy, try again" and "Better not tell you now!"
Romney is not stupid, and he is not indecisive. He is doing his best to accomplish the very difficult task of fooling enough people to vote for him, while not alienating his donors.
He reminds me of a puppet with too many strings attached, and several puppetmasters fighting to control his actions.
Shorter Mittens...
"I was for it before I was against it before I was for it before I was against it and now I want you to believe that I am partially for it!"
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
The other thing that is not being addressed here, and it makes me crazy because NO ONE addresses it, ever, is the question of what self-employed individuals with pre-existing conditions are meant to do. You know, the folks the GOP is supposed to love, the small businesspeople who actually ARE the job creators. What's Romney going to do to protect people like me from being priced out of the private insurance market? Short answer: nothing. This alone would be enough to make me vote for Obama, and I have a million other reasons for doing so, as well.
I refuse to believe that Romney has ill-intentions as president (meaning that he will not intentionally screw over the country), as ineptly as he has presented himself. I have a really hard time believing that anyone who runs for public office is trying to destroy the country he is trying to lead. I believe that the only reasonable reasons for him to flip-flop, evade and lie as frequently as he does are: 1) he really only has a general plan and really does want congress to fill in the blanks, as any congress would change a president's bill to some degree anyway or 2) the things he believes would help the country out of the recession quicker would be too unpopular for him to be elected. Those are the only reasons I can see for Romney, whom one assumes is reasonably intelligent because of his past business experience, to be doing this. Of course, the American people are smarter than that and realize that something is up. It is really sad for me to watch a candidate for the highest office in the country to appear so inept, no matter how much I disagree with his politics.
I do believe he has ill intentions and that is, for all the rich to finally cash out with whats left.
SRA1984: We're going to have to agree to disagree, I think. Lots of Americans really are sociopaths who don't give even one damn about their country or other Americans, and a great many of them are Republicans. Romney may not be actively trying to hurt America, but he *is* actively trying to pad his own pocketbook, and he doesn't care at all who else gets hurt in the process. So it comes down to the same thing: he *will* screw over the country on purpose, as long as he benefits from it.
Unfortunately there are 289 Republican Congressman/women who have deliberately and with malice sabotaged our Country's economic recovery for
their own personal political ambitions. One of the leaders O'Connell has said their main goal is to make Obama a 1 term President. Their one and only goal should have been to work with President Obama to restore our Country economically. With a job market struggling the 289 Republicans ignored the proposal "American Job Act" and filibusters so it could not be voted on. Cantor and Ryan's actions during the Debt Ceiling debate caused our Country to be downgraded in our credit rating. Now one of the leaders of this selfish, destructive group of saboteurs is running for Vice President.
I suppose that depends on how you define "ill-intentions for the country". In modern-day politics, where politicians focus more on what they want for themselves and less about what their constituency is asking for, "ill-intentions" don't get labeled as such because the outcomes they are seeking will benefit those for whom they are seeking them. Deregulation of banking isn't ill-intentioned if you're doing it for the banks, but it is if you're doing in despite the adverse impact it will have on the majority of people. If you are unwilling or unable to consider the latter, then you can say your intentions are good. In another area, it would be like oil companies touting the good they do for the people, without noting the harm they do to the environment when they don't keep up maintenance and have major spills.
We have had the 'tax fairy' for several decades now, which is believing that cutting taxes on the wealthy will generate more total tax revenues. With several decades of proof otherwise, many repuknicans continue to believe in the 'tax fairy'.
Now, we have someone proclaiming the 'Romney fairy', which proclaims that Romney is well intentioned and we should just 'give Mittens a chance'. All you have to do to believe in the 'Romney fairy' is to accept that while Mitt is lying and hiding details, he really means well. Is this the Mittens equivalent of 'compassionate conservative'?
Them voodoo economics gots me under their spell.
Or, as Alan Greyson said of the GOP plan: Get sick? Die quick!
You misunderestimate the republicans plan for health care coverage!
It is "Be poor, get sick, die quick, and we will cover you with six feet of dirt."
r-money, now wants to take his healthcare back? I though he was going to trash it his first day in office? What gives here....more flipflopitist?
Romney's going to "put into place?" It's already in place. Thanks to a largely ignorant populace, a majority of his would-be voters probably don' t even know this, and will back this bold stance...
mitt will do and say anything to get elected.
"How is it possible that eight weeks before Election Day, Team Romney is still figuring out its position on Obamacare?"
His position is clear, I think. He wants to get rid of it. But how do you convince voters that draconian position is not "really" what you are gonna do once in office.
The confusion lies in: what they intend to do is not what people really want so they must pretend they are going to do something else.
You know this is the case because this is what they keep saying Obama did and will do again. Experience has taught anyone paying attention, this is the ol' GOP projection problem. If the GOP accuses Dems of something, you can bet it's what the GOP is doing itself.
You'd think if Romney and company are going to build a campaign on lies lies lies, they'd get together to get their "stories" straight! Lies AND incompetence ... Great!
Everyone... DON'T GET COMPLACENT! You need to still go out and vote! Take your friends and family too!
The "undecided" person that the Romney campaign really needs to worry about is... Mitt Romney.
Maybe an OFA staffer can convince Mitt to vote for Obama. It seems entirely possible.
The National Review post has now been edited, scrubbing any mention of free market solutions for pre-existing conditions. Remember the screen caps people!
Obama will POUND Romney into the ground in the debates.
right-o! and Biden will do the same with ryan.
ryand: "Can I call you Joe?"
Biden: "No, I'll call you paul, and you will call me Mr. Vice President.
I'm starting to wonder if Mittens is some kind of Hermancainish art project.
Mitt's etch a sketch will fail because he does not know how to change the batteries.