Luckily Mitt Romney has a plan for doing away with Obamacare, especially the part that everybody in America seems to like;
"The former governor said this week, reiterating a position he’s articulated in the past, that only Americans who have had constant, uninterrupted insurance coverage should be guaranteed access to a health plan, regardless of any pre-existing conditions.
Asked to clarify his position on Wednesday, Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul confirmed that the former governor does not support the across-the-board consumer protections for pre-existing conditions as written into Democrats’ health care law.
“Governor Romney supports reforms to protect those with pre-existing conditions from being denied access to a health plan while they have continuous coverage,” she said first in a statement to the Huffington Post later obtained by ABC News."
This part of the law has roughly 85% approval amongst voters. Is this a case of sticking to his guns no matter what, which I can accept if it is a matter of principle or fishing for big money donations?
I think there are huge flaws with Obamacare (the fact that insurance companies are still running the show) but I do think that even if they shitcan it there should be provisions to keep that part (and the kids up to age 26) on the books. To many people lost their jobs during the meltdown and were unable to afford COBRA, now they have entered into a dead zone where they are uninsured and unable to get covered for PEC’s when they do have an opportunity for coverage later on. In short, if they get rid of Obamacare (which may very well happen) keeping this clause seems like the correct thing to do (I guess I am part of the 85%).
I think there are huge flaws with Obamacare (the fact that insurance companies are still running the show) [/quote]
Like a good little socialist you want government to force private business out of the picture. If Obama could have done that he would have so don’t be to hard on your fearless leader he’s trying as hard as he can to turn this into a European style socialist country he just needs two full terms to get it done.
And you may have some help from a tiny minority of knit wits who don’t think Romney is a perfect republican and will stay home.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Pretty sure the Court is going to void the whole kit-an-ca-boot-al in a few weeks anyway.
I don’t really see how they can’t.
Seems like it might be a moot point.
On the bigger issue. I’m a Masshole, and Romney can get bent on this issue. He shafted us with his version of obamacare already.
Dick head.[/quote]
So you’ll be voting for Obama?[/quote]
I’ll be more likely to bury my face in my hands and sob until my tears run dry.
One stance/mistake/dissagreement on one issue isn’t going to sway my vote outside of a major concern. (I don’t see mittcare or obamacare as a major issue in that it was a road of shit paved with good intentions, so I at least give them that.)
I don’t like to openly talk about what box I’m going to check. But I will say, it is going to take a lot, an awful lot, an impossible lot, to convince me Obama deserves another 4.
I’m not totally bullish on Mitt, but Jesus H, something needs to give.
So you are against the pre-existing conditions clause. Color me surprised. [/quote]
I’m against any form of government involvement. Unlike you I am consistent there is no hypocrisy in my positions. I want smaller government, less government intrusion into people’s lives. Open up the borders and let the Insurance companies battle it out – It’s called a free market system B r i a n.
In short, government has no business dictating health care needs to private individuals.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Pretty sure the Court is going to void the whole kit-an-ca-boot-al in a few weeks anyway.
I don’t really see how they can’t.
Seems like it might be a moot point.
On the bigger issue. I’m a Masshole, and Romney can get bent on this issue. He shafted us with his version of obamacare already.
Dick head.[/quote]
So you’ll be voting for Obama?[/quote]
I’ll be more likely to bury my face in my hands and sob until my tears run dry.
One stance/mistake/dissagreement on one issue isn’t going to sway my vote outside of a major concern. (I don’t see mittcare or obamacare as a major issue in that it was a road of shit paved with good intentions, so I at least give them that.)
I don’t like to openly talk about what box I’m going to check. But I will say, it is going to take a lot, an awful lot, an impossible lot, to convince me Obama deserves another 4.
I’m not totally bullish on Mitt, but Jesus H, something needs to give.[/quote]
I hear you man, but Obama has had four years and he’s been a real disaster. Why not give Romney a chance. I have a feeling he’ll be far more conservative than you may think. Unlike in Mass he will be beholding to some very large conservative groups. He’ll ditch Obamacare because of that. And I also think he make some smaller government changes, lower taxes cut spending. All the things that Obama is against.
They should do the same for auto coverage. I should be able to wreck my car then buy “insurance” and force the insurance company (and the people who have been paying for insurance) to pay for the wreck.
The whole idea violates the very definition of insurance.
You are missing an important point, the people that were covered before they became ill, then lost their job after they were receiving treatment and can’t afford COBRA then find a new job after a year, but can’t get covered for their illness because of the lapse in insurance. These people played by the rules and then they got sick and then they got fired and then when they try to be a productive working citizen again you are telling them they should just fuck off. That doesn’t seem to friendly.
It will also just fill up the welfare/ssi/ssd/medicaid roles even more, so what happens is they (the sick person) pay, you (taxpayer) pay, I (taxpayer) pay, the only people who don’t pay are the (multi-billion dollar) insurance companies. That is American ingenuity.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Pretty sure the Court is going to void the whole kit-an-ca-boot-al in a few weeks anyway.
I don’t really see how they can’t.
Seems like it might be a moot point.
On the bigger issue. I’m a Masshole, and Romney can get bent on this issue. He shafted us with his version of obamacare already.
Dick head.[/quote]
So you’ll be voting for Obama?[/quote]
I’ll be more likely to bury my face in my hands and sob until my tears run dry.
One stance/mistake/dissagreement on one issue isn’t going to sway my vote outside of a major concern. (I don’t see mittcare or obamacare as a major issue in that it was a road of shit paved with good intentions, so I at least give them that.)
I don’t like to openly talk about what box I’m going to check. But I will say, it is going to take a lot, an awful lot, an impossible lot, to convince me Obama deserves another 4.
I’m not totally bullish on Mitt, but Jesus H, something needs to give.[/quote]
You are missing an important point, the people that were covered before they became ill, then lost their job after they were receiving treatment and can’t afford COBRA then find a new job after a year, but can’t get covered for their illness because of the lapse in insurance. These people played by the rules and then they got sick and then they got fired and then when they try to be a productive working citizen again you are telling them they should just fuck off. That doesn’t seem to friendly.
It will also just fill up the welfare/ssi/ssd/medicaid roles even more, so what happens is they (the sick person) pay, you (taxpayer) pay, I (taxpayer) pay, the only people who don’t pay are the (multi-billion dollar) insurance companies. That is American ingenuity.[/quote]
Yes you see in a socialist state each person pays for the bad luck of another. It’s the way Marx and Obama would like it.
Granted, if I knew the above scenario happened to someone I’d be inclined to reach into my own pocket to help them out. However, the government forcing me (by threat of fine and the imprisonment) is nothing I want in my country.
You are missing an important point, the people that were covered before they became ill, then lost their job after they were receiving treatment and can’t afford COBRA then find a new job after a year, but can’t get covered for their illness because of the lapse in insurance. These people played by the rules and then they got sick and then they got fired and then when they try to be a productive working citizen again you are telling them they should just fuck off. That doesn’t seem to friendly.
It will also just fill up the welfare/ssi/ssd/medicaid roles even more, so what happens is they (the sick person) pay, you (taxpayer) pay, I (taxpayer) pay, the only people who don’t pay are the (multi-billion dollar) insurance companies. That is American ingenuity.[/quote]
Yes you see in a socialist state each person pays for the bad luck of another. It’s the way Marx and Obama would like it.
Granted, if I knew the above scenario happened to someone I’d be inclined to reach into my own pocket to help them out. However, the government forcing me (by threat of fine and the imprisonment) is nothing I want in my country.
[/quote]
Does your libertarianism extend beyond the reach of your wallet? That is, do you feel the same way about the government stepping in and telling an adult that he can’t make brownies with marijuana in them?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes you see in a socialist state each person pays for the bad luck of another. It’s the way Marx and Obama would like it.
Granted, if I knew the above scenario happened to someone I’d be inclined to reach into my own pocket to help them out. However, the government forcing me (by threat of fine and the imprisonment) is nothing I want in my country.
[/quote]
I certainly agree w/you in principle; but it’s really one of those things that sounds much better than it works. The state has always reached into the pocket of the people, it is the nature of the state. Most of us could make a list of things the state spends our tax dollars on that we disagree with. This is just one of hundreds. Those of us that are familiar with ZEB know he is kinda a ‘pick and choose’ small government guy and we recognize he’s just ‘towing the party line’. I would like to see someone that is really a businessman, not a banker/finance/market guy running. I don’t see anything that looks conservative in either candidate. Both are willing to use the power of the state as a ‘means to their ends’.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yes you see in a socialist state each person pays for the bad luck of another. It’s the way Marx and Obama would like it.
Granted, if I knew the above scenario happened to someone I’d be inclined to reach into my own pocket to help them out. However, the government forcing me (by threat of fine and the imprisonment) is nothing I want in my country.
[/quote]
I certainly agree w/you in principle; but it’s really one of those things that sounds much better than it works. The state has always reached into the pocket of the people, it is the nature of the state. Most of us could make a list of things the state spends our tax dollars on that we disagree with. This is just one of hundreds. Those of us that are familiar with ZEB know he is kinda a ‘pick and choose’ small government guy and we recognize he’s just ‘towing the party line’. I would like to see someone that is really a businessman, not a banker/finance/market guy running. I don’t see anything that looks conservative in either candidate. Both are willing to use the power of the state as a ‘means to their ends’. [/quote]
Well Romney is not Ron Paul and I thank God for that. Ron Paul might be a good Congressman and a great doctor. But being Chief Executive takes someone with executive experience and Mitt Romney has that in spades!
-Both a business and law degree from Harvard.
-Former Governor.
-Started with nothing and made over 250 million dollars in business (and he did start with nothing he donated what inheritance he had to his University- every penny!)
-Took charge of the Olympics and virtually saved the organization.
And what was Obama before ran for President? He was in the Senate for only two years. No executive experience and being a community organizer didn’t exactly give him the credentials to lead.
It’s sad that the republican primary was so cut throat that you may have an inaccurate picture of Romney. And certainly I’d be happier if he was more conservative, but I am happy that he’s a very smart guy. That means that in garnering the support of every major conservative group he will in fact govern center right. If he wins in 12, he will want to get reelected in 16, so I don’t expect him to drift.
We have a clear choice four more years of Obama or give Romney a chance. Anyone who truly understands this will get behind Romney.
So you are against the pre-existing conditions clause. Color me surprised. [/quote]
Unlike you I am consistent there is no hypocrisy in my positions. I want smaller government, less government intrusion into people’s lives. [/quote]
Laugh out fucking loud. [/quote]
Laugh all you want clown. I don’t happen to be a 20 something no mind and understand that there needs to be laws on the books. You and Lifty live in la la land.
So you are against the pre-existing conditions clause. Color me surprised. [/quote]
Unlike you I am consistent there is no hypocrisy in my positions. I want smaller government, less government intrusion into people’s lives. [/quote]
Laugh out fucking loud. [/quote]
Laugh all you want clown. I don’t happen to be a 20 something no mind and understand that there needs to be laws on the books. You and Lifty live in la la land.
Now run along boy.[/quote]
Big gov Zeb, who wants smaller gov. and less gov. intrusion into people’s lives. Except for when deciding what he/she can put into their body. You sound a lot like Bloomberg. You’re chock full of hypocrisy buddy, you just can’t see it because, like a lot of wannabe Nannines, you think you know better than everyone else.
He does have one point Zeb, Ive always found it very hard to reconcile someone that is conservative fiscally and for small government (right choice btw) but is pro the war on drugs (a massive failure and expansion of government)
