|
|
On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea.
Yet it's not straightforward when you ask Romney himself about it. Like every goddamn policy of his, apparently, if you ask him about it, it's some panacea with no drawbacks. It would DEFINITELY leave people with pre-existing conditions without insurance, but if you ask him, he doesn't sell the plan despite the drawbacks, but just outright lies and tells you those people get coverage.
|
On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch.
Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening.
|
On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening.
But Romney's plan does NOT cover preexisting conditions. On this aspect, his plan is the same as the current law.
What he said was a lie.
His aide set the record straight right after the debate: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php?ref=fpa
If every state separately enacted a ban on preexisting conditions (why on Earth would they?), they would need to enact mandatory coverage, or else premiums will sky-rocket, and for that to work, they would have to give subsidies to poor people to buy insurance -- then we're right back to Obama-Romney-care.
|
On October 07 2012 02:05 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 12:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote:On October 06 2012 08:57 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 08:34 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:11 coverpunch wrote:
[quote]
It's not whatever because it changes the frame of mind. You're imagining income to be a giant pie and the rich are greedy bastards taking a disproportionately large slice for themselves while leaving the crumbs for the poor. You get a very different image if you think of it as the rich being the most productive members of society cranking out the most and best utility.
This colors the notion of fairness greatly. In the former, it seems fair to take from the rich and give everyone the same size pie. In the latter, that looks enormously unfair as you're asking one person to work their ass off and another might do nothing and they get the same amount in the end.
As for historical context, that's a losing argument. There are conditions in which we can have high taxes and high growth and high taxes and low growth. But you have to agree that what matters first and foremost is growth. If we have no growth, then there will be no prosperity for either the rich or poor. The rich can bear tough times better, but they also need growth sooner or later. In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire. Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade. On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter. Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement. First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being. I think your analogy is okay. There's a difference between saying the market is a collection of individual choices and that any single individual has the power to move markets, however. The important difference IMO is that the market has feedback mechanisms that can correct mistakes. Let's make it clear that the market is far from perfect, many people make mistakes or bad decisions. But the problem with a government-driven system, as borne out in more authoritarian systems, is that the government is very slow to admit it has made mistakes and even slower to change bad policies as an even bigger admission that a mistake was made. In the market, we really don't care that bad companies go bust all the time and we're not afraid to criticize or jeer at companies that produce bad products (or most devastating, not buy their products). Bringing it to the election, Ww see this with the Obama administration on Benghazi, where it has been VERY slow to admit errors were made, and we see this with the Romney campaign, which has made many mistakes but tried to act like they're victims of a liberal bias. I try to avoid debates related to the economy, because I feel there are a lot of fine posters in this thread that have a better understanding of economics than I do. But I have some open questions. Aren't their cases of the market being slow to change as well? Or the market being too easy to 'game'? It seems to me there is something wonky about a market where a consulting agency, like Bain Capital, can make profit in companies they invest in, regardless if they succeed or fail. That's not to meant to be criticism of Romney or Bain, but -- it is a perfect example of how the market is profit-driven, not innovation or solution-driven, and its a fallacy to assume there is a relationship between the two. And aren't their instances where the government has facilitated innovation, or created a demand for it, in meaningful ways? Think of all the advances made in technology as a by-product of the space race, or investing in defense. If Bill Gates didn't have free access to the supercomputers at the University of Washington, would he have succeeded? A lot of people criticize Obama's investment in Green Energy. Yes, Solyndra bombed, but it was one project in a whole portfolio of successful ones (that Obama's campaign has done a HORRIBLE job of defending). But, at least in the past, it's this kind of government-triggered 'intervention' in the market that has lead to creation of new opportunities, markets, and technologies. How is increasing spending for Green Energy any different than ... increasing Defense spending for no particular reason? They're both forms of 'crony' capitalism, if you're cynical enough to think that way. Edit: I like your analogy with the campaigns themselves by the way. Both the Obama administration and Romney campaign are quick to blame everyone other then themselves for their problems. Fucking politics. Bain really didn't turn a profit on companies that failed. What happened in some cases is that they bought the company, it improved, Bain then sold a portion its stake in the company (at a profit) and the later down the road the company failed (and Bain suffered a loss). Bain wasn't doing anything to profit at everyone else's expense. As for Solyndra, yes the vast majority of DOE loans are perfectly safe loans. All the DOE loans do is give green projects a slightly lower interest rate than they would get in the private market. They aren't a big deal either way, but then I fail to see the point of them since they don't really do much. What is a big deal are the tax credits the government gives to finance solar / wind. They are huge - 30%+ of the cost paid for - and while they do help make the environment cleaner they also don't do the economy any good. You can make then case that long-term solar / wind will be valuable industries but even then why bother when other countries are already spending huge sums of money to develop them (and not at the expense of US companies either). Are there things the government does better than the private sector? Absolutely! But when you look at something like green energy I really think the government is doing the wrong thing. The government is indispensable at helping to develop new technologies - not push them into the marketplace. So IMO the government should be spending its money helping universities develop the latest tech, keep the playing field level and end its role there. Totally agree but I have a question: What industries is it more beneficial to have the government run than letting the private sector handle it and why?
do you mean our government or government as such?
|
On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening.
Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
|
On October 07 2012 02:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:05 kmillz wrote:On October 06 2012 12:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote:On October 06 2012 08:57 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 08:34 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:18 harlock78 wrote:
[quote]
In bold is an assumption I always see but completely unproven. For example how is a CEO more productive than all his engineers or scientists. Was Steve Jobs more productive than Wozniak? Or that crazy australian hiress Gina Rinehart? Einstein was never a millionaire.
Even if you assume the market price is the "just" assessment of productivity and usefulness, the current market is rigged. Can't take it as fair in any way. The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand. You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade. On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter. Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement. First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being. I think your analogy is okay. There's a difference between saying the market is a collection of individual choices and that any single individual has the power to move markets, however. The important difference IMO is that the market has feedback mechanisms that can correct mistakes. Let's make it clear that the market is far from perfect, many people make mistakes or bad decisions. But the problem with a government-driven system, as borne out in more authoritarian systems, is that the government is very slow to admit it has made mistakes and even slower to change bad policies as an even bigger admission that a mistake was made. In the market, we really don't care that bad companies go bust all the time and we're not afraid to criticize or jeer at companies that produce bad products (or most devastating, not buy their products). Bringing it to the election, Ww see this with the Obama administration on Benghazi, where it has been VERY slow to admit errors were made, and we see this with the Romney campaign, which has made many mistakes but tried to act like they're victims of a liberal bias. I try to avoid debates related to the economy, because I feel there are a lot of fine posters in this thread that have a better understanding of economics than I do. But I have some open questions. Aren't their cases of the market being slow to change as well? Or the market being too easy to 'game'? It seems to me there is something wonky about a market where a consulting agency, like Bain Capital, can make profit in companies they invest in, regardless if they succeed or fail. That's not to meant to be criticism of Romney or Bain, but -- it is a perfect example of how the market is profit-driven, not innovation or solution-driven, and its a fallacy to assume there is a relationship between the two. And aren't their instances where the government has facilitated innovation, or created a demand for it, in meaningful ways? Think of all the advances made in technology as a by-product of the space race, or investing in defense. If Bill Gates didn't have free access to the supercomputers at the University of Washington, would he have succeeded? A lot of people criticize Obama's investment in Green Energy. Yes, Solyndra bombed, but it was one project in a whole portfolio of successful ones (that Obama's campaign has done a HORRIBLE job of defending). But, at least in the past, it's this kind of government-triggered 'intervention' in the market that has lead to creation of new opportunities, markets, and technologies. How is increasing spending for Green Energy any different than ... increasing Defense spending for no particular reason? They're both forms of 'crony' capitalism, if you're cynical enough to think that way. Edit: I like your analogy with the campaigns themselves by the way. Both the Obama administration and Romney campaign are quick to blame everyone other then themselves for their problems. Fucking politics. Bain really didn't turn a profit on companies that failed. What happened in some cases is that they bought the company, it improved, Bain then sold a portion its stake in the company (at a profit) and the later down the road the company failed (and Bain suffered a loss). Bain wasn't doing anything to profit at everyone else's expense. As for Solyndra, yes the vast majority of DOE loans are perfectly safe loans. All the DOE loans do is give green projects a slightly lower interest rate than they would get in the private market. They aren't a big deal either way, but then I fail to see the point of them since they don't really do much. What is a big deal are the tax credits the government gives to finance solar / wind. They are huge - 30%+ of the cost paid for - and while they do help make the environment cleaner they also don't do the economy any good. You can make then case that long-term solar / wind will be valuable industries but even then why bother when other countries are already spending huge sums of money to develop them (and not at the expense of US companies either). Are there things the government does better than the private sector? Absolutely! But when you look at something like green energy I really think the government is doing the wrong thing. The government is indispensable at helping to develop new technologies - not push them into the marketplace. So IMO the government should be spending its money helping universities develop the latest tech, keep the playing field level and end its role there. Totally agree but I have a question: What industries is it more beneficial to have the government run than letting the private sector handle it and why? do you mean our government or government as such?
Our government
|
On October 07 2012 02:18 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 02:05 kmillz wrote:On October 06 2012 12:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote:On October 06 2012 08:57 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 08:34 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:
[quote]
The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand.
You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade. On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter. Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement. First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being. I think your analogy is okay. There's a difference between saying the market is a collection of individual choices and that any single individual has the power to move markets, however. The important difference IMO is that the market has feedback mechanisms that can correct mistakes. Let's make it clear that the market is far from perfect, many people make mistakes or bad decisions. But the problem with a government-driven system, as borne out in more authoritarian systems, is that the government is very slow to admit it has made mistakes and even slower to change bad policies as an even bigger admission that a mistake was made. In the market, we really don't care that bad companies go bust all the time and we're not afraid to criticize or jeer at companies that produce bad products (or most devastating, not buy their products). Bringing it to the election, Ww see this with the Obama administration on Benghazi, where it has been VERY slow to admit errors were made, and we see this with the Romney campaign, which has made many mistakes but tried to act like they're victims of a liberal bias. I try to avoid debates related to the economy, because I feel there are a lot of fine posters in this thread that have a better understanding of economics than I do. But I have some open questions. Aren't their cases of the market being slow to change as well? Or the market being too easy to 'game'? It seems to me there is something wonky about a market where a consulting agency, like Bain Capital, can make profit in companies they invest in, regardless if they succeed or fail. That's not to meant to be criticism of Romney or Bain, but -- it is a perfect example of how the market is profit-driven, not innovation or solution-driven, and its a fallacy to assume there is a relationship between the two. And aren't their instances where the government has facilitated innovation, or created a demand for it, in meaningful ways? Think of all the advances made in technology as a by-product of the space race, or investing in defense. If Bill Gates didn't have free access to the supercomputers at the University of Washington, would he have succeeded? A lot of people criticize Obama's investment in Green Energy. Yes, Solyndra bombed, but it was one project in a whole portfolio of successful ones (that Obama's campaign has done a HORRIBLE job of defending). But, at least in the past, it's this kind of government-triggered 'intervention' in the market that has lead to creation of new opportunities, markets, and technologies. How is increasing spending for Green Energy any different than ... increasing Defense spending for no particular reason? They're both forms of 'crony' capitalism, if you're cynical enough to think that way. Edit: I like your analogy with the campaigns themselves by the way. Both the Obama administration and Romney campaign are quick to blame everyone other then themselves for their problems. Fucking politics. Bain really didn't turn a profit on companies that failed. What happened in some cases is that they bought the company, it improved, Bain then sold a portion its stake in the company (at a profit) and the later down the road the company failed (and Bain suffered a loss). Bain wasn't doing anything to profit at everyone else's expense. As for Solyndra, yes the vast majority of DOE loans are perfectly safe loans. All the DOE loans do is give green projects a slightly lower interest rate than they would get in the private market. They aren't a big deal either way, but then I fail to see the point of them since they don't really do much. What is a big deal are the tax credits the government gives to finance solar / wind. They are huge - 30%+ of the cost paid for - and while they do help make the environment cleaner they also don't do the economy any good. You can make then case that long-term solar / wind will be valuable industries but even then why bother when other countries are already spending huge sums of money to develop them (and not at the expense of US companies either). Are there things the government does better than the private sector? Absolutely! But when you look at something like green energy I really think the government is doing the wrong thing. The government is indispensable at helping to develop new technologies - not push them into the marketplace. So IMO the government should be spending its money helping universities develop the latest tech, keep the playing field level and end its role there. Totally agree but I have a question: What industries is it more beneficial to have the government run than letting the private sector handle it and why? do you mean our government or government as such? Our government
Industries where public service are more important then profit.
Healthcare, Public transport. These are the sort of thing where good service is more important then business profits.
When i go to a hospital i want to get the care needed to cure me. Not what makes the biggest profit with the least cost for the hospital CEO.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 07 2012 02:18 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 02:05 kmillz wrote:On October 06 2012 12:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote:On October 06 2012 08:57 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 08:34 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:
[quote]
The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand.
You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade. On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter. Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement. First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being. I think your analogy is okay. There's a difference between saying the market is a collection of individual choices and that any single individual has the power to move markets, however. The important difference IMO is that the market has feedback mechanisms that can correct mistakes. Let's make it clear that the market is far from perfect, many people make mistakes or bad decisions. But the problem with a government-driven system, as borne out in more authoritarian systems, is that the government is very slow to admit it has made mistakes and even slower to change bad policies as an even bigger admission that a mistake was made. In the market, we really don't care that bad companies go bust all the time and we're not afraid to criticize or jeer at companies that produce bad products (or most devastating, not buy their products). Bringing it to the election, Ww see this with the Obama administration on Benghazi, where it has been VERY slow to admit errors were made, and we see this with the Romney campaign, which has made many mistakes but tried to act like they're victims of a liberal bias. I try to avoid debates related to the economy, because I feel there are a lot of fine posters in this thread that have a better understanding of economics than I do. But I have some open questions. Aren't their cases of the market being slow to change as well? Or the market being too easy to 'game'? It seems to me there is something wonky about a market where a consulting agency, like Bain Capital, can make profit in companies they invest in, regardless if they succeed or fail. That's not to meant to be criticism of Romney or Bain, but -- it is a perfect example of how the market is profit-driven, not innovation or solution-driven, and its a fallacy to assume there is a relationship between the two. And aren't their instances where the government has facilitated innovation, or created a demand for it, in meaningful ways? Think of all the advances made in technology as a by-product of the space race, or investing in defense. If Bill Gates didn't have free access to the supercomputers at the University of Washington, would he have succeeded? A lot of people criticize Obama's investment in Green Energy. Yes, Solyndra bombed, but it was one project in a whole portfolio of successful ones (that Obama's campaign has done a HORRIBLE job of defending). But, at least in the past, it's this kind of government-triggered 'intervention' in the market that has lead to creation of new opportunities, markets, and technologies. How is increasing spending for Green Energy any different than ... increasing Defense spending for no particular reason? They're both forms of 'crony' capitalism, if you're cynical enough to think that way. Edit: I like your analogy with the campaigns themselves by the way. Both the Obama administration and Romney campaign are quick to blame everyone other then themselves for their problems. Fucking politics. Bain really didn't turn a profit on companies that failed. What happened in some cases is that they bought the company, it improved, Bain then sold a portion its stake in the company (at a profit) and the later down the road the company failed (and Bain suffered a loss). Bain wasn't doing anything to profit at everyone else's expense. As for Solyndra, yes the vast majority of DOE loans are perfectly safe loans. All the DOE loans do is give green projects a slightly lower interest rate than they would get in the private market. They aren't a big deal either way, but then I fail to see the point of them since they don't really do much. What is a big deal are the tax credits the government gives to finance solar / wind. They are huge - 30%+ of the cost paid for - and while they do help make the environment cleaner they also don't do the economy any good. You can make then case that long-term solar / wind will be valuable industries but even then why bother when other countries are already spending huge sums of money to develop them (and not at the expense of US companies either). Are there things the government does better than the private sector? Absolutely! But when you look at something like green energy I really think the government is doing the wrong thing. The government is indispensable at helping to develop new technologies - not push them into the marketplace. So IMO the government should be spending its money helping universities develop the latest tech, keep the playing field level and end its role there. Totally agree but I have a question: What industries is it more beneficial to have the government run than letting the private sector handle it and why? do you mean our government or government as such? Our government
that distinction applies to markets too. the market right now, or some sort of idealized market.
if the former, then the answer is pretty much anything that is not being done right now but can be done better. but this is obviously not reasonable, because markets may not discover some good opportunities for a beneficial market structure.
a reasonable idealized market would operate with perfect knowledge of opportunities that can avail to a market structure, but are not yet discovered. so going with that, we are left with public goods or high positive externalities things, stuff with high startup cost and risk (basic research). natural monopolies that touch on vital material supplies tend to be subject to more govt control as well.
but really, practical debates often touch on the murky zone in which a market structure could theoretically operate, but is clearly not working right now. the question is whether a government project intended to either fill in the blanks, or to jump start some start-ups in the area, is proper. at this point you'll have to look at the exact government policy, as well as who exactly are the market actors you are dealing with. if these are good market actors, maybe you'll show more patience. but if it is some sort of crony structure, such as when you wait for the oil industry to do green energy[1], then you should move to fill in the gaps.
[1]http://krebscycle.tumblr.com/post/32080362718/bowles-simpson-truth-destroys-conservative-lies
|
On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them.
But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem.
the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
|
On October 07 2012 02:18 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:15 sam!zdat wrote:On October 07 2012 02:05 kmillz wrote:On October 06 2012 12:25 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On October 06 2012 09:17 Defacer wrote:On October 06 2012 08:57 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 08:34 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:48 coverpunch wrote:On October 06 2012 07:40 harlock78 wrote:On October 06 2012 07:32 coverpunch wrote:
[quote]
The current market is rigged by people's perceptions. But that's how the market works. What matters is whether people can do things that spark your imagination and open your wallet to the product of their ideas. It's not that this is the best or most fair way of measuring things, but it's the way that everyone can understand.
You can talk about your admiration for Einstein all you want, but do you admire him enough to buy books written by him or donate to his family's estate? That's your own choice. But don't tell me or society that you have this huge love for something if you don't trade your limited resources for it because it's just empty platitudes. The current market is rigged by incestual boards and several companies with massive financial power able to bend it the way they want. From differential access to information to little arrangements with legality, the whole thing now is rigged. Then there is the issue of fairness. Without Einstein, then the engineers developping the idea, there is no GPS. I contest that productivity=usefulness for society in that sense. So yes you can measure productivity your way, but then societal adjustment (via government, taxes etc..) should try to reach for more fairness. Your second point gets to the heart of the matter. Who gets to measure fairness? My contention is that it should be left to individuals in the market. The government should protect individuals only by curtailing frauds and corruption in the market and administering justice through predictable and open sets of law. Which is broadly how it works in the United States. You can come up with specific counterexamples, but generally the system works. The problem with your first point is that you're in an unacceptable place. Why should I vote to re-elect Obama, who has kept incestuous boards and companies with massive financial power when he clearly had the opportunity to hammer them down? I will agree with you that one thing I am furious with about President Obama is that he has made the clear and conscious decision that he isn't going to pursue and root out frauds that the big banks perpetrated in the last decade. On your second point, I agree in general with you that Obama hasn't done all he should and could have done regarding to corruption and fraud. In some case he didn't really have a choice though (2008 stimulus to insure not only the big banks but also the whole industrial tissue and small business depending on them). But he should have gone further and was not helped by republicans in that matter. Maybe you are also thinking of more specifics, like preferential funding for green energy companies etc... This is complicated and comes back in a way to your first point and our fundamental disagreement. First I don't think the market is really the result of individuals wishes. Individuals are not that free, and in real life, many other factors make the market imperfect. I would propose an analogy: natural selection is the "market" of the evolution of life on earth. It favors whatever is "fit" in a given environment. But society can decide that what is "fit" or "unfit" is not necessarily what is best or worse. And that maybe natural selection is "short sighted". For example we try to protect species about to go extinct (giving subsidies and incentives to populations who would otherwise hunt and destroy it). We spend a lot of energy on medicines (public research), or environmental preservation, in hope that in the long run, it will increase the general welfare and well being. I think your analogy is okay. There's a difference between saying the market is a collection of individual choices and that any single individual has the power to move markets, however. The important difference IMO is that the market has feedback mechanisms that can correct mistakes. Let's make it clear that the market is far from perfect, many people make mistakes or bad decisions. But the problem with a government-driven system, as borne out in more authoritarian systems, is that the government is very slow to admit it has made mistakes and even slower to change bad policies as an even bigger admission that a mistake was made. In the market, we really don't care that bad companies go bust all the time and we're not afraid to criticize or jeer at companies that produce bad products (or most devastating, not buy their products). Bringing it to the election, Ww see this with the Obama administration on Benghazi, where it has been VERY slow to admit errors were made, and we see this with the Romney campaign, which has made many mistakes but tried to act like they're victims of a liberal bias. I try to avoid debates related to the economy, because I feel there are a lot of fine posters in this thread that have a better understanding of economics than I do. But I have some open questions. Aren't their cases of the market being slow to change as well? Or the market being too easy to 'game'? It seems to me there is something wonky about a market where a consulting agency, like Bain Capital, can make profit in companies they invest in, regardless if they succeed or fail. That's not to meant to be criticism of Romney or Bain, but -- it is a perfect example of how the market is profit-driven, not innovation or solution-driven, and its a fallacy to assume there is a relationship between the two. And aren't their instances where the government has facilitated innovation, or created a demand for it, in meaningful ways? Think of all the advances made in technology as a by-product of the space race, or investing in defense. If Bill Gates didn't have free access to the supercomputers at the University of Washington, would he have succeeded? A lot of people criticize Obama's investment in Green Energy. Yes, Solyndra bombed, but it was one project in a whole portfolio of successful ones (that Obama's campaign has done a HORRIBLE job of defending). But, at least in the past, it's this kind of government-triggered 'intervention' in the market that has lead to creation of new opportunities, markets, and technologies. How is increasing spending for Green Energy any different than ... increasing Defense spending for no particular reason? They're both forms of 'crony' capitalism, if you're cynical enough to think that way. Edit: I like your analogy with the campaigns themselves by the way. Both the Obama administration and Romney campaign are quick to blame everyone other then themselves for their problems. Fucking politics. Bain really didn't turn a profit on companies that failed. What happened in some cases is that they bought the company, it improved, Bain then sold a portion its stake in the company (at a profit) and the later down the road the company failed (and Bain suffered a loss). Bain wasn't doing anything to profit at everyone else's expense. As for Solyndra, yes the vast majority of DOE loans are perfectly safe loans. All the DOE loans do is give green projects a slightly lower interest rate than they would get in the private market. They aren't a big deal either way, but then I fail to see the point of them since they don't really do much. What is a big deal are the tax credits the government gives to finance solar / wind. They are huge - 30%+ of the cost paid for - and while they do help make the environment cleaner they also don't do the economy any good. You can make then case that long-term solar / wind will be valuable industries but even then why bother when other countries are already spending huge sums of money to develop them (and not at the expense of US companies either). Are there things the government does better than the private sector? Absolutely! But when you look at something like green energy I really think the government is doing the wrong thing. The government is indispensable at helping to develop new technologies - not push them into the marketplace. So IMO the government should be spending its money helping universities develop the latest tech, keep the playing field level and end its role there. Totally agree but I have a question: What industries is it more beneficial to have the government run than letting the private sector handle it and why? do you mean our government or government as such? Our government
Then the answer is not much of anything. How anyone expects a government which has to hold itself accountable to populist bellyaching every two years to accomplish anything at all is totally beyond me.
|
On October 06 2012 23:49 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 21:55 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 06 2012 10:17 kwizach wrote:On October 06 2012 09:36 sc2superfan101 wrote:On October 06 2012 09:34 HellRoxYa wrote:On October 06 2012 09:31 kmillz wrote:
I have to ask...what has Obama done to move us "Forward" so far? This is a serious question, I am not trolling, but the numbers just show unemployment and the debt worse since he has been in office. No "Romney's plan is worse" comments, I just want to hear what Obama has done positively for this country so far and why he deserves a second term. Well as an outsider I can say that he's returned to good international diplomacy, both among so-called allies and among indifferent or somewhat hostile nations. Admittedly there are people in the US who see this as a weekness but frankly I would concider them daft and oblivious to the world. considering the controversy that has come from his bungling of both the attack on the Ambassador and of the aftermath of the attack, I would say that his foreign-policy and "diplomacy" is actually one of his weak points. Then you'd be wrong. The US has, under Obama, regained a lot of the clout it had lost under George Bush, especially within international organizations. this is a very empty statement. "regained a lot of clout". how exactly do i measure this supposed achievement? and where exactly do i find it's real-time benefit to me? Empty statement? All you have to do is read the news. Just very recently he's renewed military relations with New Zealand, got Canada to impose sanctions on Iran, and brought Netanyahu onto the same page as us on the Iran situation. And although Afghanistan has been terrible and messy he has still retained support from our allies. Obama has done extremely well in regards to foreign policy with the help of a very hardworking Hillary Clinton. His only major miscues have been his inability to close Guantanamo (though he tried) and his administration's failure to recognize the Libya incident as a planned terrorist attack.
the New Zealand stuff is good, but they still ban us from putting our nuclear warships in their waters. how important this renewed military relations will be will have to be seen. how important Obama was to this development, i am not sure, but even if we give him the credit for it, it's a small victory in large war.
Canada imposing sanctions on Iran is just like that. okay, it's good that they did that, but how important is it really? it helps, sure, but i don't think it qualifies as a huge success for Obama. if it doesn't translate into real benefits than it's only a minor accomplishment.
Natanyahu has all but said that Obama is on a completely different page than Israel, going so far as to basically endorse Romney (he didn't officially endorse and won't, rightly so, but he pretty much said as much). to even consider Obama's bungling of the Israel situation as anything but a complete disaster is insane. i'm not sure it could be much worse if Obama slapped Netanyahu in the face.
Afghanistan is a mess, Egypt was and is a mess, Libya is up in the air, Syria is slaughtering it's own people, Russia and China are laughing at us, Iraq is at risk of turning into a mess, Iran is a mess, we were running guns to Mexican drug cartels, and the Middle East as a whole, surprise surprise, still fucking hates us. (not everyone in the ME hates us, obviously, but it's foolish to think that there isn't a lot anti-American sentiment over there.) i literally can't think of a single big victory that Obama has won in the realm of foreign policy. to me it seems like it's eff-up after eff-up, and in the words of Romney's campaign, "amateur hour".
not to mention that our Ambassador was murdered on 9/11. i'll repeat that, a terrorist assassinated our Ambassador, on 9/11. this is a fucking problem. and now with the information coming out that they wanted extra security, and warned of an attack like this? fucking ridiculous. and Obama's response has been atrocious. first, he couldn't decide what even happened. then he goes off on a rant about some irrelevant $10 youtube video, next, he is directly contradicted by the Libyan President, who basically calls Obama a liar. then he doesn't let the FBI investigate for weeks. i seriously can't think of a complete breakdown in US foreign policy like that. it's unprecedented, how terrible Obama was on this issue. and walking into that foreign policy debate, Obama is seriously going to be shitting himself, because Romney isn't scared of calling Obama out on all of this.
tbh, i don't care if 99% of world leaders are kissing Obama's feet and saying the Pledge of Allegiance to our flag. fuck-ups of the magnitude that Obama has had are unforgivable.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
anytime when you blame one actor based on results from an interaction between 2 or more guys, you are being sloppy at best. it takes two to tango, and sometimes even the best approaches can be met with bad results if the other guy don't cooperate.
obama does have this tendency to believe in more decency than reality allows though.
|
Thank God people with actual foreign policy experience and knowledge don't think like you do, or else it would be 2001 all over again. Forgoing relations with the bulk of the world in favor of some inane sabre-rattling temper tantrum is not a felicitous foreign policy.
|
On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi
he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
so you mean the president should not care about american citizens in these states?
|
On October 07 2012 03:19 farvacola wrote:
Thank God people with actual foreign policy experience and knowledge don't think like you do, or else it would be 2001 all over again. Forgoing relations with the bulk of the world in favor of some inane sabre-rattling temper tantrum is not a felicitous foreign policy.
exactly how do I think? i'm not saying what i would have done different than Obama, I'm just saying that his foreign policy has obviously not been the wild success that a lot of people in this thread seem to think it has been. in fact, by any objective standard, there has been very little in the way of real improvement. if there has been some real, tangible improvement, than why don't you list those improvements so that we can discuss them?
the pass that Obama is given for his mistakes and lack of results is astounding. i mean, is it really too much to ask that we see some actual results before he goes around gloating about being some foreign policy hero? and no, i don't consider giving the order to assassinate Osama as a very tangible victory for the US. for one, that was a very easy order to give, for another, it hasn't really translated into anything except sating the thirst for vengeance that the US seemed to have.
|
On October 07 2012 03:19 farvacola wrote:
Thank God people with actual foreign policy experience and knowledge don't think like you do, or else it would be 2001 all over again. Forgoing relations with the bulk of the world in favor of some inane sabre-rattling temper tantrum is not a felicitous foreign policy.
brings in them votes though.
Consider. If China were a democracy we'd have war in East Asia right now.
|
On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job.
If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
|
On October 07 2012 03:30 rogzardo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2012 03:21 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:39 oneofthem wrote:On October 07 2012 02:34 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:18 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:07 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 02:04 farvacola wrote:On October 07 2012 02:02 BluePanther wrote:On October 07 2012 01:46 Trumpet wrote:On October 07 2012 00:58 oneofthem wrote:
apparently romney's policy is so amorphous that it covers 75% of the american political spectrum. it is like trying to pick a fist fight with a fog. lol. Romney is starting to grow on me in an incredibly backwards way because it seems like he's 80% liberal when he's not in front of a republican-only audience. But this kind of stuff is just too funny to me:
Romney Health Care Debate Claim Gets Corrected By His Own Staff
Independent fact checkers have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
By pre-existing conditions, Romney was talking about the ability for people who already have medical problems — diabetes, for example, or even things like allergies — to buy health insurance. Starting in 2014, the federal Affordable Care Act says insurance companies can no longer reject people with bad health histories — nor can they charge them more.
That's already true in Massachusetts under the law Romney signed as governor. But Romney's current plan for the nation, should he be elected president, wouldn't necessarily guarantee that same protection.
"Actually, governor, that isn't what your plan does," President Obama told Romney at the debate Wednesday. "What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law."
The president was referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. It's a 1996 law that says, among other things, that once you have health insurance you can continue to purchase it, as long as there's no interruption in your coverage of more than 63 days.
But Romney's plan wouldn't guarantee that people who don't have coverage now will be able to buy it. Top Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said as much in the so-called spin room to several reporters right after the debate, and again on Thursday on CNN.
"The governor will repeal Obamacare and he will return to the states the power to control their own health care futures," Fehrnstrom told Wolf Blitzer. "Look, what works in Massachusetts may not work in Texas. It was wrong for the president to take the broad outlines of the Massachusetts plan and impose it as a dictate from Washington on every state in the nation."
That correction was gladly picked up by the Obama forces. At a rally Friday in Northern Virginia, Obama took credit for one of the few times he actually called Romney out during the debate.
"Gov. Romney was fact checked by his own campaign. That's rough," the president told a cheering crowd at George Mason University. "Even they know his plan would take away coverage for tens of millions of Americans."
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions on abortion and on Medicaid. But at 67 million viewers, this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff I think he made it quite clear that he wants the states to control their own health care rules. I'm not sure what is so confusing about this. It's a pretty straightforward idea. Except he didn't make that clear at all going by his debate rhetoric. Obama laid out the effects of a repeal of Obamacare, one of which is a hanging out to dry of those with pre-existing conditions. Romney flat out lied and repeatedly said his "plan" would not affect those with pre-existing conditions. Go ahead and keep trying to make his rhetoric make sense though, it's fun to watch. Eh, I just assume if given control, every state would enact that rule (as I would bet Romney himself would agree with). So while his plan doesn't "say" it, it still ends up happening. Except that this assumption totally ignores the startling problem faced by this loose "trust" of state governments; the states which consume the most safety net revenue (medicare, medicaid, food stamps etc.) also happen to be the states least willing to locally budget these provisions via state legislation. I'm talking Georgia, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Florida, among others. If you're just assuming that a state like Texas is going to cover those with pre-existing conditions, well, precedent and reality are laughing at you. Furthermore, with so many states running massive deficits and showing obvious lack of financial savvy, it seems silly to assume so much efficacy coming from them. But I don't live in one of those states. So their ignorance isn't my problem. the president cares about things other than your problems, bluepanther. just fyi he shouldn't care about this one. it's not his job. If it's not the president's job to care about US citizens? I think you may be wrong on this one.
It's not his job to run or dictate healthcare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
