Getty Images
A joke made the rounds this week, which resonated with me. It goes like this: a man dies, goes to heaven, stands before St. Peter, and see a huge wall of clocks. The man asks what all the clocks are for and St. Peter explains, "These are lie clocks. Everyone on earth has a lie clock. Every time a person lies, the clock hands move."
Pointing to one, the man says, "Whose clock is that?"
"That's Mother Teresa's," St. Peter answers. "The hands have never moved, indicating she never told a lie."
"Incredible," the man responds. "And whose clock is that?"
St. Peter responds, "That's Abraham Lincoln's. The hands moved twice telling us he told two lies in his entire life."
"Where is Mitt Romney's clock?" the man asks.
"Romney's clock is in Jesus' office," St. Peter says. "He's using it as a ceiling fan."
It's obviously just a joke, but it reinforces an increasingly common observation about Romney's casual relationship with the truth. Consider, for example, the 40th installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity.
1. At an event in Defiance, Ohio, last night, Romney told voters, "I saw a story today, that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China."
Even by Romney standards, this was a rather brazen falsehood.
2. At a campaign event in Reno, Nevada, Romney said President Obama has been "unable to communicate an agenda" for a second term.
The day before, Obama published a 20-page agenda for a second term.
3. At the same event, Romney said, "The idea that the president would cut Medicare for current seniors ... is something which I don't think the American people understand."
The notion that Obama is cutting Medicare for current seniors is ridiculously untrue. Indeed, Obama is expanding benefits, not cutting them.
4. Romney added, "I will get America to finally be on track to a balanced budget."
No he won't. Romney's plan slashes tax rates (which makes the deficit worse, not better), increases defense and entitlement spending (which makes the deficit worse, not better), and every independent analysis reaches the same conclusion: Romney's numbers don't add up.
5. Romney also argued, "If I'm elected -- when I'm elected -- we're going to finally get this housing market going."
The housing market is currently seeing its strongest gains in several years. Romney, meanwhile, has said he intends to deliberately avoid any efforts to curtail foreclosures.
6. Romney said, "Under President Obama, you really don't have a jobs plan."
Romney doesn't have to like the American Jobs Act, but he shouldn't get away with brazenly lying about its existence.
7. Romney went on to say, "Paul Ryan and I have a plan with five simple steps. These steps are going to get America's economy just cooking again."
The five-point plan -- oil drilling, trade, privatizing K-12 education, vague assertions about debt reduction, and ambiguous promises about doing nice things for small businesses -- is a rehash of Bush/Cheney promises. No credible analysis of the vague agenda has found it capable of boosting the economy.
8. At a campaign event in Henderson, Nevada, Romney blamed Obama for the "doubling of the gasoline prices you're paying."
This is wildly misleading. It's true that when Obama took office, gas cost about $1.81 a gallon, and it's more than double now. And how did gas prices get so low in late 2008 and early 2009? Because there was a global economic catastrophe -- gas was cheap because the economy had fallen off a cliff, and demand crawled to a stop. As the economy improved, demand went up, and the price of gas started climbing. It's Economics 101.
9. At the same event, Romney said, " We're gonna crack down on cheaters when they steal our jobs through unfair trade practices like China, we'll crack down. He has not."
10. In a television ad debuted this week, Romney says a second Obama term would mean "the debt will grow from $16 trillion to $20 trillion."
If Romney's elected and the Ryan budget plan is implemented, the debt will grow from $16 trillion to $20 trillion.
11. In the same ad, Romney adds that if there's a second Obama term "20 million Americans could lose their employer-based health care."
No. Millions may get different insurance, but they'll have better and more secure coverage, not nothing. By Romney's reasoning, if you replace your old, unreliable car with a new one, you've lost your car.
12. Also in the ad, Romney says in a second term for the president, "taxes on the middle class will go up by $4,000."
13. In the same ad, Romney whines about "$716 billion in Medicare cuts that hurt current seniors."
This is deeply silly. Obama strengthened the Medicare system's finances by reducing payments to insurance companies and hospitals. Benefits for seniors have been expanded, not cut.
14. In this week's debate in Boca, Romney argued, "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea."
Iran doesn't share a border with Syria, and Iran already borders two bodies of water.
15. Romney also said, "We need to have strong allies. Our association and connection with our allies is essential to America's strength. We're the great nation that has 42 allies and friends around the world."
The United States has more than 42 allies and friends around the world.
16. Romney argued, "When the students took to the streets in Tehran and the people there protested, the Green Revolution occurred. For the president to be silent I thought was an enormous mistake."
Obama wasn't silent, and the comment continues to reinforce suspicions that Romney is incapable of thinking strategically when it comes to foreign policy.
17. Romney also said, "The president said by now we'd be at 5.4 percent unemployment."
That's a favorite GOP talking point, but the president never said this.
18. "As a matter of fact, Latin America's economy is almost as big as the economy of China."
As a matter of fact, that's really not true.
19. Reflecting on his education record, Romney boasted, "While I was governor, I was proud that our fourth graders came out number one of all 50 states in English and then also in math, and our eighth graders number one in English and also in math -- first time one state had been number one in all four measures. How did we do that? Well, Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education that focused on having great teachers in the classroom."
At a minimum, this is wildly misleading. It's true that policymakers from both parties instituted effective education reforms that improved Massachusetts schools, but this was done many years before Romney took office.
20. Romney argued, "Come on our website, you'll look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years."
Aside from some vague platitudes, there is no balanced-budget plan on Romney's website. There's a good reason for that -- his numbers don't add up.
21. Romney went on to say, "We [balance the budget] by getting, by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. By the way, number one I get rid of is Obamacare. There are a number of things that sound good but, frankly, we just can't afford them."
This is incoherent and absurd. "Obamacare" cuts the deficit to the tune of about $109 billion over the next decade. It's simply incoherent to say you'll cut the deficit by eliminating a law, which would in turn increase the deficit. That's like promising to put out a fire by using more kerosene.
22. Romney argued, "I was in the world of business for 25 years. If you didn't balance your budget, you went out of business."
That's both untrue and ridiculous. Businesses operate in the red all the time, and take out loans for capital improvements, expansions, acquisitions, etc. If Romney's background is in the private sector, how could he not know this?
23. Romney also said, "I went to the Olympics that was out of balance, and we got it on balance."
In context, Romney made it sound as if he balanced the Olympics' books through skill. In reality, he balanced his budget at the Olympics thanks to a massive taxpayer bailout, the largest in U.S. history for any Olympic games.
24. Romney argued, "Our Navy is smaller now than any time since 1917."
25. Romney added, "[T]he president began what I've called an apology tour."
This is what I've called Romney lying.
26. Romney also said, "[T]he president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel."
There's simply no record of Obama ever saying that or anything like it.
27. Romney argued, "I look around the world, I don't see our influence growing around the world."
There's ample evidence that respect and support for the United States around the world has improved under Obama.
28. Romney added, "Is al Qaeda on the run, on its heels? No."
29. Romney complained about "our decision to cut back on our military capabilities -- a trillion dollars."
Romney appears to be referring to cuts, which have not yet kicked in, and which were crafted, not by the White House, but by Romney's own party. They were also endorsed and supported by his own running mate.
30. In reference to the rescue of the American auto industry, Romney argued, "I said they need, these companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy, and in that process they can get government help and government guarantees."
That is absolutely not what he said.
31. Romney went on to say, "I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tank, great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not. That's the wrong way to go."
We know Romney doesn't mean this because, as governor, he invested in companies all the time.
32. Romney added we're "heading towards Greece."
For those who have even a passing familiarity with the Greek crisis, this is painfully untrue.
33. Romney argued, "I'll get people back to work with 12 million new jobs."
Putting aside the pesky detail that Romney doesn't actually have a specific jobs plan, the claim about 12 million jobs has been definitely proven fraudulent. His own economic advisor was forced to concede the candidate's -- and the campaign's -- talking point was based on a falsehood.
34. Romney also said, "I was in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle."
35. At a campaign event in Daytona Beach, Florida, Romney promised, "If I am elected, we're going to reduce taxes on middle income Americans."
There's ample reason to believe the exact opposite -- independent budget analysts have concluded that once Romney slashes taxes on the wealthy, increases defense spending, increases entitlement spending, and cuts corporate tax rates, all while promising to balance the budget, he'll have no choice but to ask more from the middle class. Indeed, there's no other way for Romney to keep his other promises.
36. "Look, the president wants to fundamentally transform America. He's making us more and more like Europe. I don't want to become Europe."
The irony is, Europe is trying to grow through austerity, just as Romney intends to do here. He's lying in a self-refuting sort of way.
Previous editions of Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity: Vol. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII,XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI, XXXVII, XXXVIII, XXXIX
Leave a Comment:
Romney cites business acumen yet he has a 22% failure rate at Bain, while saying Obama has 50% which is not true it's 8% and remember he is not a business man. Don't fall for the scare, things are rebounding housing, jobs foreign policy all better and improving without the Congress who did not pass the jobs bill or anything else, they need to go. Go to politifacts for a fact check.
Facts, facts, facts. . .baa. . baa. . baa. .
He is NOT a business man. That is the scary part!
The government is not a for profit business. If it was then all the more reason to tax high income people at higher rates. You need to be much more than a business man to be president.
Are you sheep, as long as someone says something you'd like to hear that with a mild amount of research could prove untrue still follow. Pied Piper syndrome is alive and well. please do a fact check, and explain R's plan so I can join your nirvana/
I love Rachel Maddow !!!!!!
I'm still waiting for 10 years of Romney's tax returns.
And I'm a little disappointed that the media and Obama have not persisted daily on this issue.
Where's the pressure?
thank you for this service to your country.
What is different about Romney in his lies is that they are aggressively DARING people to vote for him after he tells such blatant lies. If they do, he knows he will be able to take us to the cleaners. For their own self-protection you'd think people would be afraid of this guy.
#59, jjm, I am very afraid of this lying psychopath and his lying VP choice. Very, very afraid for this country. It will not be America anymore, as we have known it.
All major polls now have Romney leading in nation by at least 3 points and he has tied Obama in Wisconsin and leads in Virginia, Florida and Nevada, tied in Colorado.
Romney/Ryan 2012
Actually, this election is more revealing about the character of the American voter than it is about the character of Mitt Romney. If the voter can't or doesn't wish to catch Mitt Romney's prevarications, he is either dull witted or has an amazing patience with dishonesty. Patience with dishonesty indicates that that person is dishonest themselves. For that reason I intentionally avoid friendships with republicans.
George Romney as CEO of Nash Motors told his board that if they would just allow him to sell Kelvinator, he would be able to keep Nash afloat. Remember, this was the 1957-1958 depression. Eisenhower and a Ford-Chrysler-General Motors combine saw to it that the whole American set of car companies were put to the bankruptcy torch. They would inherit the market share. Packard, Studebaker, Hudson and Nash were essentially bankrupt. Nash sold Kelvinator for 2 or 3 million dollars. George Romney took care of himself instead of taking care of Nash Motors. His severance pay was 2 or 3 million dollars.
I never for one minute considered voting for George Romney back then when he made his run for national office. Because of George Romney I never for one minute considered voting for his son Mitt. Like father, like son.
Go read "Dreams of My Father". Barry was teaching. He had no intentions of going into politics. Yes, he has a kind of business experience. When he finished at Columbia he had a giant student loan debt. He stayed in New York for the next year to try to pay off the student loan. He did. He worked as a bond salesman. He has Wall Street experience. He then left for Chicago.
David Cay Johnston suggests that the real reason Mitt Romney doesn't dare reveal his tax returns is that his taxes were audited. It could be.
I'd bet he paid no taxes for many years and why someone in the press can't shake this out is puzzling to me.
Hey people. Do a search for ms. Maddows worth. I did and came up with a few stories listing it upwards of $12.5 million. Geesh, how many of us would like just a PORTION of that? I wonder what we would see if she released HER tax returns. What percentage do YOU pay Ms. Maddow? Don't tell me that all of us do not find every deduction we can take. It would be stupid not to. People wait every year for the return from the IRS. We shouldn't GET a return, it should be the price we pay for living in a free nation. I have gotten every penny I have paid in for years.
Maddow debunked this on Howard Stern. She isn't worth nearly that much money.
Why would she need to? Even if Maddow takes full advantage of the tax law this doesn't stop her from advocating that the tax law needs to be changed and that she disagrees with the law. You do understand this, yes? She is not running for public office, but she is using her ability as a public figure to advocate for the change she believes should happen publicly.
Or how he profited when he was running the Olympic's, along with other shady deal's.
Mitt Romney is a bold face liar.
I'm going to donate 5 million dollars to any charity of Donald Trump choice, if he can get Mitt Romney to release his tax returns.
Maddow is certainly blinded by her own political affiliation in the same manner as Sean Hannity. Her reporting is clearly biased. Her coverage after the debate calling Romney a hypocrite becasue he designed a health care plan similar to the one designed by Obama that he is criticizing is one-sided and ignores the well articulated response from Romney. Republicans take no issue with a state mandate using its constitutionally given power to implement health care. Maddow failed to communicate the obvious state right vs. federal right issue at hand. States can impose mandates because the citizens of the Republic have the ability to freely live in any state in the union. Large scale mandates by the Federal government unchecked by natural competition with other states is an infringement on liberty (see the Federalist papers, by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay for a thorough discussion on limitation of Federal power). Maddow certainly knows this critical nuance and seems to intentionally leave out select details and viewpoints of others. Shame on her for doing so.
P.S. If the Affordable Care Act was so great, why did Congress exempt themselves? Why did the Obama administration grant waivers to labor unions and Democratic backers? This is the single most brazen example of the Obama administrations infringement on liberty outside Obama's signing of a law permitting the detention of U.S. citizens without a right to habeas corpus. If you don't believe me, just tune in to the untelevised debates of the independant party candidates and take note that the creator of the notorious Benghazi video is still being detained without a trial for alleged parole violations. Please.
Just another worthless Neo-Confederate.
Wow, what a well thought out response. I appreciate the respect for another viewpoint. Keep it up.
If you get a chance, and would care to make a real point, proceed.
You do realize that when Romney says he liked his plan because it worked on the state level this was Romney's way of saying that he wants to keep the status quo, yes? Every state already sets up it's own individual healthcare plan and we have already seen the outcome of this. Healthcare costs are higher in this country than in any other industrialized democracy in the world, yet we have less people receiving coverage and the quality of coverage is piss poor in most cases. Saying well the states should do it is a way of saying that you agree with the current system as is (since the current system has BEEN a state-by-state system). And we already see that you're belief that this creates state by state competition is wrong.
Remember people commodities that effect everyone do NOT follow the normal supply and demand rules so you CAN NOT use supply and demand logic when discussing them.
US Congressional representatives are already given state sponsored healthcare and are already forced to have healthcare as a result, so what exemption are you talking about? The fact that they don't have to participate in the insurance exchange? That was granted to all federal agencies too, not just congress. This doesn't mean that you can't participate, but that you don't have to as an entity. That makes sense when considering that these agencies already have an exchange set up.
He was arrested for parole violations because the crime he committed beforehand used the internet. He isn't being "detained"- he was arrested. You do understand this, yes? Detention means that you are being held, but have not yet been charged with a crime. Bringing someone in on a parole violation means they have violated the terms OF their parole and that automatically has them put back into prison. The terms of his parole specifically stated that he was barred from using the Internet to post videos or to network since that was how he committed fraud in the past. He did this when he posted his video (among other things). That violated his parole. The fact that it garnered national attention was his own stupidity.
If you're going to make accusations AT LEAST try to be factually coherent about it, please.
Also for the record we've been illegally detaining US citizens since 2003. Why no complaints until now? Additionally you do understand that the US Congress passed that bill and that they did so with enough votes to override a veto, yes? If Obama had vetoed the bill then he would not have been able to exercise the same executive authority over it as when he signed it.
Cartoonthenews!: Thanks for your response. Enjoy the actual intellectual exchange, not like the blather received from "Entropy Rules".
So, I checked the fact on the flim-maker and will give you that. Honestly, I am not an angry hate filled conservative or neocon, I simply want whats best for America going forward. I strongly feel that Obama's policies have served to dangerously increase the size and power of the Federal government. One thing I know is correct, and terrifying, that neither party will discuss: 1.5 years ago Obama signed in to law the right of the Federal government to detain US citizens without trial. Admittedly this is for terrorist threats, however, I believe all US citizens are entitled to basic US civil rights.
Now, back to health care. We can both agree the system Obama intended to fix was broken. I disagree with his approach. You need to introduce free market principals into a regulated environment. People have teh right to know what each hospital is charging for each specific procedure. Providing this, while combining a state option (i.e. Medicare) witha private option (with financial limits) serves to increase informed decisions by consumers which will drive down health care costs. Easy changes could have helped without a government takeover that is actually serving to cause more people to lose their current insurance options. For example, make plans portable from state to state. Another example, cap malpractice insurance claims. Both these acts would drive down costs. Dont take my word for it, health care costs have continued to skyrocket despite this behemoth of a plan that has largely not yet been fully designed.
Feel free to shoot back, Im interested in your thoughts.
The federal government has shrank in size under Obama both in terms of annual spending from it's height in I believe 2009 (stimulus and other anti-recession measures) and in terms of it's overall employment. But what makes it "dangerous" in size and power? And how have his policies lead to this? I mean I get that you're expressing your personal feelings and thoughts on the subject so I certainly can't deny you your opinion. But I do kind've wish you'd follow the thought through if only as a thought experiment. So prove the premise: how has the Obama Administration accomplished the things you're implicating?
I don't like the NDAA and I think it's wise to be upset about the NDAA as a bill. Hell I think most of the anti-privacy laws that have been passed in the last 40 years or so should be reviewed and most of them either amended or completely trashed. However there's so much more complexity to the situation when it comes to the NDAA.
I suppose the resentment I take on this subject is that you're coming across argumentatively as if Obama had the singular ability to stop it. Everything the NDAA legalized has been conducted by the US since 2003 and the NDAA doesn't even go as far as the illegal detention means used by the Bush Administration. My qualm with people complaining about the NDAA is that it seemed that when us evil liberals were complaining about it under Bush we were just dismissed as depressing and now that Obama has done it suddenly people seem soooo concerned. Really? So it was OK under Bush, but it wasn't OK under Obama? The rebuttal I usually get to this argument is someone saying well under Bush it was simply an executive order as opposed to law. But if executive order is enough to make it OK then how do Obama's adjustments via executive order and signing statement not come into play? It just seems hypocritical.
The US Congress passed that bill with something like 97-0. If Obama had vetoed the bill it would have been overridden and passed and at THAT point Obama would not have been able to use a signing statement to adjust enforcement of the law. So which is worse? Signing the law so that you have some control over it's applicability, or letting the law pass so that you have no control over it? Remember also that this bill came about solely because after Obama won in 2008 Republicans couldn't shut-up about how Obama was going to make us less safe and he was soft on terror and blah blah. Representative King from New York worked with John McCain and other warhawk Republicans to get the sections in question added precisely because they thought it would stop Obama's "weak on terror" stance. Granted this doesn't excuse the Democrats who voted for the bill (because remember the NDAA also was a war funding bill AND a veteran's funding bill rolled into one cluster@!$%# package), but I don't hear a lot of outrage at the Republicans who were responsible for this catastrophe in the first place. I just hear a lot of people complaining that Obama signed the bill into law and no accountability being held to those who actually drafted the law and sent it to the president's desk.
I suppose that annoys me even more because whenever us liberals have complained about the Iraq war and the spending of the Iraq war and the tax cuts Bush passed what has been the rebuttal by Republicans? Well Democrats voted for these things too so why don't you yell at the Democrats who voted for these bills/wars too! For me personally that's a fair enough question- I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary because she was one of the US Senators who voted for the Iraq War and I was very angry with her over this. Fair is fair: everyone who participated should be held accountable. But now suddenly when it comes to things like the NDAA do I hear Republicans using their same logic against their own members? Nope. Complete silence. That kind've double-standard just gets irritating. For the record I am not saying you implied these things, I am saying this is my complaint regarding the NDAA situation. You brought it up so I was just addressing my feelings about it since you shared with me yours.
Again if you're of the opinion that his approach is wrong that's OK. I can't fault you for an opinion, but I am having a hard time understanding how what we were doing before wasn't the free market approach. For instance you make this sentence off the bat: introduce free market principles into a regulated environment. But, wait a minute, that sounds exactly like the system we already had. The system that drove up costs and lowered coverage and quality of care. So my first question is how is what you're imagining different than the system we had before- the one that we both agree on as being broken?
Maybe this is something specific to HMO's, but you could already do this. Or at least I could with my insurer (again dunno if that's cause I have an HMO or not). You could shop around as long as you were in network to figure out what the costs were going to be from doctor to doctor. I do think you meant to say here specialist or doctor and not hospital. Hospitals are used almost exclusively for emergency care so you don't really "shop around" in that instance. Sometimes hospitals will give general access services to the public such as X-Rays or MRI's, but that treatment usually comes about as the result of a doctor referral. And doctor's have their own limitations on who they can recommend most of which come from the private sector (things like the doctor staying within his HMO or the doctor trying to find the cheapest provider to the patient or trying to find someone who will take the patient without health insurance or this or that). I also have a hard time seeing how this would reduce costs unless you happen to live in areas where there are many doctors/specialists/hospitals/etc to choose from. What happens when you're in a town where there are only 2 hospitals, a handful of specialists, and a handful of doctors? I grew up in a town like that- we had 1 hospital, 2 quick-care clinics, 3 specialty buildings, and about 2 dozen or so doctor's offices. This in a town of about 200,000 people. I am not seeing how this would help people reduce healthcare costs so maybe you can explain this to me as well.
So you're saying you believe we should have Medicare for all as the primary insurer and then allow people to purchase a secondary private insurer if they want? I would agree with this if that's what you're saying. I actually would agree that this is the route we should have gone and not the route of the PPACA. If, however, you're saying Medicare to take care of the poor and private insurers with limited liability caps then how is that different than what we already had?
False premise: the government didn't take over healthcare. The healthcare industry is still a private industry. The government only mandated that everyone participate in the industry and will now provide subsidies for those who cannot afford to participate in the private markets as well as an exchange exclusively aimed at helping people purchase that insurance. I would consider this a slight modification of the current system. As for people losing their plans there are a couple of reasons for that.
I will meet you halfway here: the Obama Administration did one helluva piss poor job selling the PPACA. The Obama Administration did not explain to people that it will take years to see the cost reduction benefits from the insurance exchange to and from more people being covered to actually take effect. So, in other words, the insurance exchange goes into effect in 2014 and you will likely at the EARLIEST see price reductions coming about at 2018 or even potentially later than that. That's because you have to get progressively more people covered in order to bring down the insurance rates (less uninsured people means the costs come down as time goes on). And this, unfortunately, takes time. The Obama Administration was moronic in that they allowed for this ludicrous delay of 2014 to set up the insurance exchange when they could've had it up and running in as early as 2011 (so, in other words, it wasn't due to logistics). They did this because some Republicans said they would vote for the bill if the bill's full implementation were delayed and so Democrats agreed. And then, of course, those Republicans ended up not voting on the bill. Yay politics heh.
And the CBO did score the PPACA and found that there would still be at least 30 million people uninsured. That means 15-20 million people who weren't covered before would gain coverage, but that 10 million or so would lose it. That's a hard toss up when considering what's the best option. If we had just done Medicare for all (or some version like that) and then established an insurance exchange for the secondary provider you could've bipassed this coverage problem. So saying that the PPACA is responsible for some people losing coverage is true. However most of that loss in coverage has more to do with the fact that employers would stop offering coverage if mandated to (finding the fine cheaper than providing the insurance) and the other element because insurance companies would hike their rates by as much as 60% to cash in before regulations went into effect.
To this extent I will also meet you half way: when you DO go to put new regulations and/or taxes into effect there IS an immediate after effect by the market as a form of protest. The Obama Administration did a piss poor job at messaging this too and explaining to people that this would only be a TEMPORARY problem and as time went on this would get solved. Again you will likely see the benefits of the PPACA come into effect a few years after it's full implementation, but because of how it was implemented we're talking about 2016 or 2018 or even 2020 by the time full effect is reached. So by 2022 we'll all be happy and skipping roses over the bill, but that means we have to wait how many years to see that happen? Oh yeah- almost a decade. Yeesh.
The state to state thing is a concept I totally dispute. First off very few regional insurance companies exist: almost all insurance companies are national. Which means that insurance companies already have the ability to set up shop in states with lower tax rates or less regulations and then distribute care outwards. Additionally there wouldn't be a clear benefit to consumers since consumers can already purchase insurance plans across state lines (the only way they couldn't would be if we're talking about a state based plan like the state insurance provided by Minnesota). If we're talking about a state sponsored plan like that by Minnesota or Colorado or Vermont then you'd have the problem of people living in Texas, paying taxes to Texas (heh), and then using and straining the financial system of Vermont. Neither of those options seems a. very different or b. very good.
As for the issue of malpractice I have mixed feelings about that. On the one hand I know ER doctors and nurses who have been sued on behalf of patients who I'm pretty sure were just greedy to get their hands on more money. On the other hand I know people who have died as a result of the laziness, carelessness, or stupidity of doctors performing surgery. In fact a very close family member of mine went septic and died after a doctor left a sponge and a pair of suture scissors inside of her. TARP reform would've prevented BOTH groups- including my family- from suing the doctors. TARP is designed to protect the practitioner, but it's not designed to protect the patient. I am not sure, at least for me personally, that I want to give up my right to sue a doctor for his incompetence so that I can save a few hundred dollars a year on my total health insurance bill. A. I resent the fact that I have to be given such a crappy dynamic and B. I don't believe there's a monetary value to my life.
This was a WICKED long reply lmao I will likely keep the next one shorter. Have the day off so I'm buggin' you cause it's raining. Of all the weekends to go to my cabin I gotta pick the one when the seas are terrible and when it's raining cats and dogs- oy! Can't fish OR go hiking.
cartoonthenews, very well done.
Republican Play Book: Scientific study why Romney lies:
TO: RACHEL MADDOW; Lawrence O'Donnel; Ed Shultz; & MSNBC.
Below is the Republican Game Plan as to why it pays off to be untruthful.SEE BELOW 2008 MICHIGAN STUDY. -- TITLE: EXPOSED TO TRUE FACTS, THE MISINFORMED, ESPECIALLY IN POLITICS, BELIEVE PREVIOUSLY TOLD LIES MORE STRONGLY.
I can personally attest to this Subject: As a Former Sr. Assistant U.S. Attorney, who at one time was a moderate Republican, I can certify the below as true....
The Republican Playbook as to Romney and other Republicans telling lies or "untruths" actually comes from a published Study from the University of Michigan in 2008 based on in depth studies of 2005 and 2006. The title is "EXPOSED TO FACTS, THE MISINFORMED BELIEVE LIES MORE STRONGLY". Key Words & phrases are, "Backfire Phenomenon" and "Salience".
Of particular interest is that this study dealt with Political Behavior and was published in the "Journal of Political Behavior". The Link to this study is:
Exposed to Facts, the Misinformed Believe Lies More Strongly | FDL News Desk ---LINK
Everyone out there, simply Google the above Link.
I was actually told to use this type of information by Republican Campaign Coordinators in Virginia long ago, and I would be happy to make such a statement. If Rachel or MSNBC want my Bio Sketch as to my background credentials, no problem, just ask. Tim Kaine and Ann in Richmond, Va. know me professionally for further background.
Does anyone think that cutting what is paid to providers by $716 Billion dollars is going to (1) Increase the number of providers (2) Decrease the number of providers or (3) Not effect the number of providers?
TAP not 1.2.3. at all I hope you will read this and see that.
The facts
For starters it bears repeating that the Affordable Care Act (ACA), sometimes called Obamacare, is not an “unproven government take-over of healthcare.” The health law was patterned closely on the reform model that Romney championed and fought for in Massachusetts when he was governor. That law, although far from perfect, seems to be working reasonably well there. And under Obamacare, the government takes over nothing. Private insurers will continue to provide the insurance; private doctors will continue to provide the care.
And as for the $716 billion dollar cut, the facts are and continue to be: The health reform law did take $500 billion out of the future spending projections in the Medicare budget to help fund subsidies for the uninsured, and to help shore up Medicare’s finances further into the future. Most of these cuts centered on reduced reimbursements to providers—mostly to hospitals, which agreed to smaller payments over 10 years in return for more patients with insurance, which the ACA promised to deliver. In other words, they didn’t squawk about it.
About $136 billion were cuts to payments made to sellers of Medicare Advantage plans, which provide benefits to seniors who opt for them instead of traditional Medicare. The rationale: Policy experts and the government’s Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac) found that there was no justification for paying Medicare Advantage insurers fourteen percent more on average than it costs the government to provide the same coverage under the traditional Medicare program. In other words, the government was wasting money. Insurers didn’t make a big fuss either; at the time, they worried more about a “public option” becoming law.
And this should also be clear: None of these cuts/savings affect any basic benefits, meaning that hospital care, doctor visits, lab tests, and outpatient services will be covered as they are now. When the cuts to Medicare Advantage plans are fully phased in, by the end of the decade, some plans may not be able to offer extra benefits—like vision care or chiropractic visits—which have attracted seniors in recent years, but it’s still too early to predict what will happen. Will seniors be hurt by that part of the cuts? Actuaries who design these policies tell me that’s unlikely in many parts of the country, where there are well over 100 plans to choose from.
What about the $716 billion versus $500 billion? The Congressional Budget Office updated the numbers because they may be looking at a different timeline now, explained Tricia Neuman, a senior vice president of the Kaiser Family Foundation. “Because Medicare spending increases each year, the effects of the savings provisions [in the ACA] increase each year.”
MORE....
http://www.cjr.org/campaign_desk/medicare_and_the_716_billion_b.php?page=all
Hey xxx...that was some good reading.....and here is another take on it....
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/08/20/how-obamacares-716-billion-in-cuts-will-drive-doctors-out-of-medicare/
who's right?....I don't know...I do know that there are some key differences between Romneycare and Obamacare...
http://race42012.com/2012/07/09/key-differences-between-romneycare-and-obamacare/
At any rate...xxx...I know you will vote for Obama....and I will vote for Romney...I hope that whomever can get our economic engine running again, protect our liberties, the constitution and protect us and our allies from our enemies....wins. I think that person is Romney....and I respect your choice as well.
TAP
Romney went to the W hite House and gave advice on Obamacare, and of course there are differences. Medicare and Medicaid are still not part of Romneycare and that makes for a difference.
It seems you should vote for Obama because the low wages have made for much less being put into the programs. We need economic patriotism and not just all the profits going to those who are so well off they don't need a break as of the ones the GOP/TP wants to keep via the Norquist pledge. But they will do anything to make the president look bad even if it bankrupts the whole country.
Flick for the weekend. Barack Obama/Great Expectations 1:43
http://www.linktv.org/programs/barack-obama-great-expectations
shut up benen. when the remaining undecided voters finally saw mitt and obama on the same stage, they decided who the liar was. shove your head back up the rear of the narcissist in chief. the rest of us will see you on nov 7th, you j-off...
Maddow, I guess you Dems didn't learn from Clinton, the smartest Democrat president since JFK, that it's "the economy, stupid." You guys have tried every way in the world to put lipstick on this pig of an economy, and when that has failed you've tried to turn Romney into a monster. But guess what? There just aren't enough voters who are fooled by Barack Obama's empty rhetoric and hollow promises this time around.
Obama had his shot, and he even bragged he could clean up the mess. But he blew it by not focusing on what Clinton understood was the key: The economy, stupid.
Let's talk about LIES! Lets talk about the Obama lying to us for over two weeks that the death in Libya of 4 Americans, including our Ambassador were cause by a spontaneous protest? NOW WE KNOW for a fact that Obama was LYING, and we know why he was LYING. When the attacks started the CIA Station begged for help to be sent and to be allowed to go help the Consulate. Obama told them NO. They continued to beg for help and Obama told them NO over and over. Finally the Ex-Seals disobeyed Obama's cowardly and dispicable order and went to help. They saved all the people at the Consulate except the Ambassador and his assistant who were already DEAD. Then later when the CIA annex was attack they died defending it. They died because Obama, continue to refuse to send help. Help that could have been there from Italy in 1 1/2 to 2 hours. Those 4 lives ended on in an Al Qaeda terror attack, that the White House was watching real time in a drone video feed. on 9/11 because Obama refused to send help. The blood of those Americans is on Obama's hands. That's why we ended up with the giant LIE and Cover UP about a spontaneous protest. Obama knew in the first hour that it was an all out terror attack, but he was and is desperate to keep the American people from knowing that he refused to save those people. That he let them be murdered, and it would have been 30 or 40 people folks if those hero Seals hadn't disobeyed their dispicable orders. The father of one of the hero Seals Ty Woods says Obama LIED to him when he met him as the bodies were returned, and he directly accuses the White House of Cowardice and MURDER. Not legal murder, but he directly blames Obama for not sending help for the negligent homicide of his son and those other Americans. And he is right!
I lasted through your #1. Not a "brazen falsehood" -- there was indeed a news story which said exactly that: http://washingtonexaminer.com/jeep-an-obama-favorite-looks-to-shift-production-to-china/article/2511703 -- It was based on a Bloomberg News report: ""Fiat SpA, majority owner of Chrysler Group LLC, plans to return Jeep output to China and may eventually make all of its models in that country, according to the head of both automakers' operations in the region."
So it wasn't a "brazen falsehood" at all. He said there was a report and there was. Will you apologize for misrepresenting what he said?
The messiah owes the American people a detailed explanation of his actions, minute by minute, on 9/11. No more Libya stonewall till after the election.
I hope you had the same outrage when 7 Embassy's where attacked During Pres. Bush's time in office? I hope you had the same outrage when Pres.Reagan deployed the Marines to Beruit? Ever read about what took place over there? I hope you asked for his head on a platter?
I was not aware that a gunship was circling over Beirut or any of those embassies during the time when they were attacked. I was not aware that those attacks occurred over 7 or 8 hours during which time the personal asked for aid. I was not aware that the administration peddled a story about a video after those attacks to deflect from their election campaign storyline that they had vanquished all the bad Muslims and that all the rest loved us now.
My challenge has nothing to do with the security requests of the local state department personnel over the months proceeding the attack or with the advisability of the general policy we've pursued via Libya over the last year. They have to do with what the Pres knew and the decisions he made during and immediately after the attack.
I am unaware I've asked for the Pres's head. The unease of the leftist media with this subject is their feeling that answers to the questions I've posed would get us the Pres's head.
Jvermeer51, I apologize for implying that You where asking for Pres. Obama's head on a platter. I will not make a judgement of the Lybia issue until ALL FACTS are out. Period. But I will say, It just seem's that alot of other screwed up thing's take place and yet there doesn't seem to be the outcry, I have not heard 1 person that say's they are a republican admit that yes, Maybe Iraq was a mistake, or that Pres. Reagan putting Marines in Beruit was screwed up and handled pretty bad By his Administration. Ever read anything about Beruit? The issues the Marines had to put up with? The issues they had with the Israelis? Again, No personal attack was meant,
The devout forgive all he does and then blame it on Bush.
It is unfortunate that the liberals on this site do not take the time to actually do some research to determine who is telling what lies. As I look at the list provided, many of the items outlined as Mitt lies have been repeatedly disputed and proven that Romney was correct.
Let's start with GM -- Mitt wrote an OpEd for the NYT that outlined his plan for GM. NYT labeled it "Romney wants Detroit to Fail". Everything he stated was accurate. His plan was different from Obama's as he wanted GM to reorganize under current bankruptcy laws rather than Obama's plan to keep UAW whole rather than the creditors.
Romney's Economic Plan does not have the price tag outlined by the Democrats. Even the original co-author of the study Obama uses stated that by using different assumptions the plan is feasible. Obama released his plan and Barnett of CNN advised Obama's Campaign that the numbers did not add up.
Obama claimed that Mitt was responsible for a woman's death. She had insurance through her employer and her husband lost his position 7 years earlier.
al Qaeda is not on the run. They are still operating in the Middle East. If 9/11 did not show that, then you weren't watching the protests across the Middle East. These spontaneous protesters showed up carrying al Qaeda flags.
You and MSNBC are blinded by your adoration of Obama that you can not see the truth. You hatred was apparent when the MSNBC audience booed a 9 year old girl for stating she supported Romney. So much for honest debate.
Wow. What a great little echo chamber you have created for yourselves. You can even "collapse" comments you don't like by having the "community" oppose them! What a great idea! If people say something you don't like, of course you should have the absolute right to just erase them. How 1984 of you all.
Benen's screed is just that. "Lies" are just opinions he disagrees with, or Romney daring to say anything other than the words that the Obama campaign spent $100M putting into his mouth. (e.g. $5 trillion in tax cuts).
Insulation from the challenges of the real world is what got Obama killed in the first debate, but I see that you have constructed a nice safe place to hate Republicans from. Enjoy your little bubble.
After 09/12/2012, nothing that comes from the Obama administration will have any credibility for any but the devout followers. He still lies to the nation. So go ahead, vote for the cheating spouse who one more time says "Trust me" and don't for a moment think that you are a sucker.
You people really need to get out of the liberal echo chamber. You're all telling each other what you want to hear. The "Romney is a liar, liar, liar" strategy doesn't work. Most people outside the Democratic base don't buy it. The real unemployement rate is 15-20% with 23 million unemployed, deficits in the trillion and half range, real incomes falling, the Middle East burning to the ground, Benghazi etc etc etc. Obama is headed for a disaster on election day. The firewall battleground states have moved North into traditionally Democratic states like MN, MI, PA and even OR. Skewed polls oversampling Democrats can't hide the truth that Florida, N Carolina, Virginia and probably Ohio have slipped well beyond Obama's grasp. A landslide defeat is beginning to take shape.