Romney: The art of saying whatever to get elected.

[RandFan]

Mitt Romney takes four different positions on pre-existing conditions in 12 hours.

The explanation for the first change in direction was something along the lines of:

In other words, Romney’s plan is to do what we already do, but say it’s a new plan, and not grant any additional preexisting condition coverage to anyone.

Does anyone think that Romney has a principled position on much of anything? Romney's theme song should be the Style Council's My Ever Changing Mood (great song BTW).

 

[Monketi Ghost]

He's got a very principled position on keeping the wealthy wealthy, at everyone-who-isn't-wealthy's expense.

 

[headscratcher4]

In the primaries, he said/pledged to repeal it all. What he said on TV... he can't pay for, so now he's to a meaningless position... no preexisting conditions limiations if you already have insurance.. that makes it seem to those who don't know the issue that he supports elimination of preexisting condition limitations (very popular) but which does nothing...

This is like his tax plan... there is no there there.

 

[AlBell]

He's got a very principled position on keeping the wealthy wealthy, at everyone-who-isn't-wealthy's expense.

When did the US economy become a zero-sum game?

Obama's efforts may make it so, and then who generates wealth to be redistributed?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'd like to hear how he thinks a prohibition on health insurers turning down potential insured because of pre-existing conditions will practically work without an individual mandate.

I predict Romney's "blind trust" would divest itself of any stock in health insurance companies before he undertakes such a thing.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Does anyone think that Romney has a principled position on much of anything?

I think he'll remain steadfast and unwavering in his refusal to reveal any of his pre-2010 tax returns.

Oh wait. . you said "principled"!

Nevermind!

 

[RandFan]

When did the US economy become a zero-sum game?

So, you are saying it's not possible to favor the rich to the detriment of the poor? I don't think a zero-sum game necessarily follows.

Obama's efforts may make it so...

Please to explain?

 

[Olowkow]

Pretty soon we won't be able to distinguish between him and Obama. An article by Jon Meacham points out his continued waffling and sloganeering. When I read the quote part below, I cannot help but see him as Chauncy Gardener (Being There):

ROMNEY: David, I could not care less about my political prospects. I want to become President of the United States to get this country on the right track again. America is at a critical crossroads. We have to strengthen the foundation of our economy, of our values, of our principles, so we have a military that’s so strong we can defend freedom for ourselves and for others. We’ve got to put Americans back to work. And politics, and — and whether I am highly favored, not highly favored just doesn’t enter into the equation.

​

Response to a question by David Gregory about how he will deal with an unpopular presidency if he makes all the changes he has proposed.
​

 

[Monketi Ghost]

When did the US economy become a zero-sum game?

Obama's efforts may make it so, and then who generates wealth to be redistributed?

LOL, nope, they won't, but keep hating the US and hoping they will.

 

[Unabogie]

When did the US economy become a zero-sum game?

Obama's efforts may make it so, and then who generates wealth to be redistributed?

This thread is about Romney's position on the ban on pre-existing conditions. Can you please explain to the group what that position is, exactly?

 

[AlBell]

This thread is about Romney's position on the ban on pre-existing conditions. Can you please explain to the group what that position is, exactly?

I have no interest in doing so. Attack him all you want to since few here would consider voting for him in any case. I also wish republicans had nominated an actual viable candidate, but still consider him a better alternative than Obama.

His probable defeat should re-energize TeaParty 2014 & 2016 is an upside for me.

 

[Unabogie]

I have no interest in doing so. Attack him all you want to since few here would consider voting for him in any case. I also wish republicans had nominated an actual viable candidate, but still consider him a better alternative than Obama.

His probable defeat should re-energize TeaParty 2014 & 2016 is an upside for me.

So your word salad can be distilled down to "heck if I know either?"

ETA: This is a great example of why conservatives should not be allowed to run the government. Not only do you not know what your party's position is on a vital issue in regards to the health care of the country, but you don't have any interest in it. Policy bores you, and you consider debate on the subject to be "attacks".

 

[RandFan]

I have no interest in doing so.

Then why comment in this thread if you cannot contribute substantively?

 

[headscratcher4]

Andrew Sullivan has some background on what Mitt is and isn't saying here and what his position may really be and really mean...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/romney-has-it-both-ways-on-obamacare.html

 

[Brainster]

Mitt Romney takes four different positions on pre-existing conditions in 12 hours.

The explanation for the first change in direction was something along the lines of:

Does anyone think that Romney has a principled position on much of anything? Romney's theme song should be the Style Council's My Ever Changing Mood (great song BTW).

Dude, you got duped by Wonkette:

This kind of mechanism, using high-risk pools combined with prohibitions on pre-existing condition exclusions for the continuously insured, has been part of just about every conservative health-care proposal in recent years, including John McCain’s in 2008, the Ryan-Coburn alternative to Obamacare, and the congressional Republicans’ “Pledge to America” before the 2010 elections (as well as older proposals in the Bush years). The basic structure of these different proposals is very similar, and is based on many years of conservative policy proposals along these lines—here’s a great detailed overview of how this would work.

 

[RandFan]

Dude, you got duped by Wonkette:

Nope. The article clearly deals with that and I dealt with it in the OP. Either Romney supports the ACA provision or he doesn't. He said clearly he wanted to keep that provision. He now says he would replace the provision with a law already in place and flip-flopped in the interim. I wish you had read the article.

 

[RandFan]

Andrew Sullivan has some background on what Mitt is and isn't saying here and what his position may really be and really mean...

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/09/romney-has-it-both-ways-on-obamacare.html

Brainster, try this one.

 

[AlBell]

So your word salad can be distilled down to "heck if I know either?"

Romney would need an actual position even I were a mindreader (which I am not).

ETA: This is a great example of why conservatives should not be allowed to run the government. Not only do you not know what your party's position is on a vital issue in regards to the health care of the country, but you don't have any interest in it. Policy bores you, and you consider debate on the subject to be "attacks".

Whatever. The party's position is Repeal Obamacare.

 

[Unabogie]

Romney would need an actual position even I were a mindreader (which I am not).


Whatever. The party's position is Repeal Obamacare.

What is their position on pre-existing conditions? And how would they deal with that without a mandate?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Romney would need an actual position even I were a mindreader (which I am not).

This is a defense of candidate Romney? His failure to communicate a single coherent position on this matter?