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:
I watched the full interview and no matter what Bennett tried to say, Romney showed that he has nothing to offer. He claimed that he wouldn't reduce taxes on the wealthy and said that would happen by eliminating "loopholes," yet there aren't enough loopholes to eliminate to offset the cuts in rates that he is proposing. He claimed that middle class taxes would be reduced because he wants to eliminate taxes for them on interest, dividends, and capital gains. Once again he proves how out of touch he is. Most people in the middle class earn next to no interest and even less in dividends and capital gains. Eliminating all taxes on those would ONLY help the rich.
Bill Bennett also repeated the lie that somehow the President has made the economy worse. Does he really think that a Dow at 13000 and gaining jobs for 30 straight months is worse than a 6500 Dow and job losses of 750,000 per month? Romney is proving once again why he is the etch-a-sketch candidate.
Romney somehow always looks like he is nauseous. There is nothing about him which inspires any confidence.
Romney and republicans want the credit for Obama's recovery of the economy, killing Bin Laden, and passing healthcare reform.
Romney and republicans don't want to take credit for causing the downturn to the economy, racking up the national debt with deficits caused by two of the longest-term and most expensive military engagements in US history as well as the tax cuts unfairly benefiting the rich (that republicans continue to push for more of), and stalling in Congress any more of Obama's efforts to improve the economy and our country as a whole... Their game is to not accept responsibility for their mistakes and praise Obama's work, but to convince enough people that these policies are hurting America, so they can get in office and take credit for the recovery that has already been put in motion by President Obama. I'm not buying it, nor should anyone else.
Waiting patiently for that "recovery." Not here yet and it's been four years. Reagan did it in two with a worse economy.
Volcker did it, and it wasn't worse.
I think I finally figured out where the Republicans think they are: The Holodeck. Something goes wrong, you halt the program & try another. And for the most part, there are no long-term consequences in holodeck-land.
Willard's strategy is crystal clear: he's going after the "undecided" vote by being undecided himself. Makes perfect sense!
I'm going to attempt to do a Bill Clinton-style "shorter" on Romney's stance on the ACA -- "The only thing we don't like about Obamacare is Obama."
There is an easy explanation for this maneuver. He never intended to fully repeal a law that virtually mirrors his own in Massachusetts. He was giving the extreme elements of his party red meat to get through the primary. Once he accomplished that, he continued giving the red meat to get through the convention. Now that he is the official nominee of the Republican Party, he can deviate from the full repeal stance and tack towards the center because he is a Republican voters only choice now.
I suspect some of the more centrist views he held as governor will being to show as we get closer to the election in the hope of pulling in independents and women.
Makes no difference to me. I will not vote for him either way. He is a used car salesman at best. A regular Joe Isuzu.
As soon as I heard he was actually going to do an interview on a network other than Fox News, I knew he was in trouble. The debates should be amusing as heck!
"I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform," - Oh my, I could hear the right choking on their breakfast the moment he spoke those words. LOL Now their candidate may actually KEEP some Health Care Reform they hate so much!!?!?
I swear, I thought McCain has a stroke when he selected Palin, but that is nothing compared to Romney not even remembering his position on most topics for more than a few hours. Obama's campaign is going to tear him to shreds if the media doesn't first.
FLIP Romney will completely repeal Obamacare
FLOP Romney tells Meet the Press, I like keeping the pre-existing conditions provision
FLIP Romney tells the National Review he does not plan to extend coverage for pre-existing conditions
FLOP Then Romney tells BussFeed he will ensure pre-existing conditions provisions is prohibited.
The most remarkable thing is he made these remarks all in one day, yesterday! Yikes, Romney does not know the meaning of truth.
Cartoon
I'm dizzy form all the flip/flops...... But.
I'll be voting for OBAMA. The President who did away with OBL.
John Kerry was right!! before he steps on the stage to debate Obama he needs to finish the debate with himself! Im sorry for my french but Mitt Romney is the @!$%#ing anti-christ!
I have heard that the Mormon religion teaches their people to lie..I have researched it but the links are saying one thing and then another. I know all politicians lie, but Romney is a pro at it! You can bet that anything he says will not be what he does, if he is elected, that is why he flip flops..he is trying to get people confused so he can cover his hiney!!
Substitute the word "Jew" for "Mormon" and vola', you're Joseph Goebels. My congratulations.
"Etch a Sketch"?? I keep seeing that term used in a derisive sense with Romney. Looks to me that the hate filled MSNBC is using its own made up language to attack Romney. That's fine, but I would advise using terms that the average person understands. "Etch a Sketch" makes no sense.
Here's what I found after a 10-second internet search:
On March 21st, 2012, U.S. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom appeared on CNN’s Starting Point with Soledad O’Brien to discuss the roadmap of his election campaign. When asked if the primary season was pushing Romney too far to the right, Ferhnstrom was quoted as saying:
“Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”
Got it?
Read the 2700 pages, it is full of hidden taxes. is an abbreviated list of taxes on families and businesses introduced by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), known as Obamtaxacare, totaling more than $500 billion over the next ten years.
Surtax on investment income for families that make at least $250,000 or $200,00 single (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2013, pp. 87-93)
"Black liquor" tax on a special bio-fuel (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2010, p. 105)
Codify "economic substance doctrine" (IRS will not allow any legal deductions or tax-minimizing plans because it lacks "substance" and is intended to reduce taxes owed); this is a tax increase of $4.5 billion (Bill Reconciliation Act, 2010, pp. 108-113)
Individual mandate excise tax starting in 2014 if a person does not buy a "qualifying" health insurance, 1 percent in 2014, 2 percent in 2015, 2.5 percent in 2016; exempted are hardship cases as determined by HHS, religious objectors, undocumented immigrants, prisoners, those earning less than the poverty line, members of Indian tribes (PPACA, 2014, pp. 317-337)
Employer mandated tax, non-deductible of $2,000 per employee if the employer does not offer health coverage and at least one employee qualifies for a health tax credit; if an employee receives coverage through the government exchange, the employer penalty for that employee increases to $3,000 (PPACA, 2014, pp. 345-346)
Excise taxes on charitable hospitals ($50,000 per hospital if they do not meet HHS criteria of "community health assessment needs," billing and collection," and "financial assistance" (PPACA, 2010, pp. 1,961-1,971)
Tax on innovating drug companies (PPACA, 2010, p. 1,971-1,980)
Medicine cabinet tax disallows Americans to use health savings accounts, flexible
spending accounts, or health reimbursement pre-tax money to buy over the
counter medicines except insulin (PPACA, 2011, pp. 1,957-1,959)
Employer reporting of insurance on W-2 forms, taxing health benefits on individual tax returns (PPACA, 2012, p. 1,957)
HSA Withdrawal tax hike from 10 to 20 percent (PPACA, 2011, p. 1,959)
Medicare payroll tax increase (PPACA, Reconciliation Act, 2013, pp. 2,000-2,003, pp.
87-93)
A 2.3 percent excise tax on medical device manufacturers (PPACA, 2013, pp.
1,980-1,986)
Eliminate tax deductions for employer-provided retirement prescription drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D (PPACA, 2013, p. 1,994)
Medical expenses can be itemized if they exceed 10 percent, no longer the previous 7.5 percent, resulting in fewer people being able to itemize (PPACA, 2013, pp.
1,994-1,995)
Limit of $500,000 annual executive compensation for health insurance executives
(PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,995-2,000)
Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Increase (PPACA, 2010, p. 2,004)
Ten percent tax on indoor tanning (PPACA, 2010, pp. 2,397-2,399)
Limit of $500,000 annual executive compensation for health insurance executives
(PPACA, 2013, pp. 1,995-2,000)
Tax on health insurers based on premiums collected per year (PPACA, 2014, pp.
1,986-1,993 (this all but forces employers to stop offering insurance, forcing
their employees onto the government exchanges)
40 percent excise tax on comprehensive health insurance plans or "Cadillac
plans" (PPACA, 2018, pp. 1,941-1,956)
Flexible spending account cap of $2,500 which is now unlimited (PPACA, 2013, pp.
2,388-2,389)
We need CHANGE so we can move FORWARD....
what you to do dud<<<>>>> are you keep IT---- or-or-or=orrrrrr get rid of IT
Health care starts at the kitchen table, not the operating table.
Arithmatic?
There is competition in the health care reform law now.
Romny lies about this, alludes to a public program which it is not.
It is a single payer system.
He wants it to be his plan, but he wants to control the message. Since he doesn't have a plan, the message keeps moving.
Indirect, self interest. You do what me want.
This surprises no one, none of the Repubicans that voted for him in the primary, and none of those that voted against him. I voted and campaigned against him, but he is so much better than the President, I will be voting and campaigning for him until Nov.
The idea that the government taking charge of anything will make that process more efficient and less costly is the only etch a sketch I've seen.
Anytime you put government bureaucrats in charge of spending tax payer funds the costs explode and efficiency of any kind goes right out the window.
Who is Steve Benen writing to, teenagers who don't know any better?
Medicare spends a bigger percentage of its revenue on actual health care benefits than any private insurance company.
Look at this hypocrisy! Romney would actual shift positions to govern with the will of the people instead of against it! What an extremist.
How about we look at Obama's promises vs. what actually happened:
"If you like your plan, you can keep it"
"My plan won't add a dime to the deficit"
"The average family will save $2,500 in premiums"
Wake up, people!
The citizens of Massachusetts had a chance to vote. Did we?
Never thought I would agree with Rick Perry on anything. Only Rick Perry was too stupid to say it right. He was for it, then he was against it, now he is for it. Just goes to show you the man is not to be trusted on anything. He will say anything but wait in a couple of minutes, hours or days he or his campaign will change what he said. Just think this is who the Republicans pick to run for President. WOW! Then he and his campaign started saying crap about God. Exactly what is wrong with this man? I know he is stupid.
Psychological testing for POTUS should be mandatory. I am pretty sure Mitt is not alright up there, seems like he has a multiple personality disorder.
Etch a Sketch? He's a friggin' Kaleidoscope! You never know what position he's going to take next. Maybe that's why he still polling in the mid forties. Perhaps some people believe he's got to take a position they like sooner or later, as the odds are in their favor.
The striking aspect of this story is not the fact that Mitt Romney has taken various positions on insurance coverage for people with pre-existing conditions. What's remarkable is that Mitt Romney is actually talking about the popular individual components of the ACA, rejecting the political calculus of his party that has been developed over the past few years.
Republicans have been demonizing the health care law on the whole in order to prevent a conversation on the individual provisions of the bill that most Americans find appealing. In fact, this demagoguery has been so effective that most Americans have an unfavorable disposition toward the ACA despite overwhelmingly approving the components of the bill . As a result, the Republicans portray the president as wholly ineffective in leading this country since his hallmark legislation has been widely rejected by the majority of the electorate. Hence, the only remedy to this bill is its outright repeal and the rejection of President Obama at the polls this November. Any mention of the bill's merits unravels this calculus, exposing the misleading tactics of the GOP and making Republicans appear callous for supporting full repeal.
Therefore, when Mitt Romney talks at great lengths on the beneficial aspects of the law, he is educating viewers (that Democrats might not be able to reach) that Republicans have been disingenuous about the health care law, undermining his party’s legitimacy on the subject of healthcare reform.
Romney has been saying he plans to repeal AND REPLACE Obamacare since way back in the middle of the GOP debates. This is not news.
I'd love to hear Dr. Maddow compare David Gregory's miserable failure to Norah O'Donnell's crisp & competent handling of Paul Ryan on Face The Nation yesterday morning.
Say, didn't O'Donnell used to work for NBC? Does anyone doubt she'd do a much better job than Greggers in the big chair on MTP? How about Candy Crowley? Kelly O'Donnell? Christiane Amanpour? Soledad O'Brien? For that matter, with the possible exception of Cokie Roberts, is there a veteran female reporter in all of D.C. who couldn't do a vastly better job than the airhead currently warming that chair?
Might make an interesting glass-ceiling riff for Dr. Maddow, there...