Post: #1

An interesting shift on "Meet the Press" this morning...

Quote:Mitt Romney said Sunday that he likes parts of ‘Obamacare’ and will keep key provisions involving pre-existing conditions and young people.

“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”

The remarks could have huge implications as they signal a marked shift from Romney’s strong, unequivocal support for full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which he has consistently held since the Republican primaries.

Politically, the pivot risks drawing the ire of conservatives, who have been adamant that Republicans repeal the law in its entirety if elected. It’s a major gamble that could reflect Romney’s need to win over more independent voters, who support those provisions.

From a policy standpoint, however, the coverage guarantee for pre-existing conditions is economically untenable without other provisions of ‘Obamacare’ — most notably the individual mandate that requires Americans purchase insurance, which experts say is necessary to broaden the risk pool and prevent an upward spiral in costs.

Laws permitting young Americans to remain on a parent’s insurance policy until 26 have been backed by other top Republicans in recent months.

Asked on “Meet The Press” if he wants to repeal those two popular provisions of the law, Romney said, “Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.”

Earlier this summer Romney came out for laws protecting Americans who have obtained continuous insurance coverage from being denied access to care. But the provision in the Affordable Care Act goes much further and bans insurers from turning down prospective customers on the basis of health status. It takes effect in 2014.

Republicans flirted with including those provisions of the law in a replacement plan in the run-up to the Supreme Court decision on its constitutionality. Conservative activists gave them hell for considering it and GOP leaders backed off before the decision came down.

Post: #2

If I remember correctly the Affordable Healthcare Act created multiple new government agencies concerning women's health, but none for men. I wonder if Romney considers that to be a "good" part of Obamacare.

Post: #3

I'm not bothered that they say this kind of shit. I'm bothered that people keep falling for it.

It's like when I go to shake a whack-ass nerd's hand, and as he puts his hand out, I say "psyche!" and smooth out the side of my hair. I keep doing it, and motherfucker don't learn.





We need one of these for the RVF.

Post: #4

Mitt Romney Wrote:Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.

Funny quote. The Massachusetts healthcare plan also has an individual mandate, of course (as it must in order to cover people with pre-existing conditions while keeping the private insurance system in place).

Of course both campaigns are just going to say whatever they think is most likely to maximize their chances of winning between now and the election. I don't think it's very hard to cut through the bullshit though--if you support expanded public provision of healthcare coverage, vote for the party that historically has actually been in favor of the social safety net. Likewise, if you think the safety net is too large, vote for the party that doesn't like it. Believing that Republicans are going to strengthen Medicare or some provisions of Obamacare or whatever if they gain power based on a soundbite a couple of months before the election is just absurd (as is the reverse--I wouldn't believe Obama if he came out in favor of, say, tax cuts for the rich).

Post: #5

(09-09-2012 02:41 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

Mitt Romney Wrote:Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.

Funny quote. The Massachusetts healthcare plan also has an individual mandate, of course (as it must in order to cover people with pre-existing conditions while keeping the private insurance system in place).

Of course both campaigns are just going to say whatever they think is most likely to maximize their chances of winning between now and the election. I don't think it's very hard to cut through the bullshit though--if you support expanded public provision of healthcare coverage, vote for the party that historically has actually been in favor of the social safety net. Likewise, if you think the safety net is too large, vote for the party that doesn't like it. Believing that Republicans are going to strengthen Medicare or some provisions of Obamacare or whatever if they gain power based on a soundbite a couple of months before the election is just absurd (as is the reverse--I wouldn't believe Obama if he came out in favor of, say, tax cuts for the rich).

Both sides will have to take a Axe to Medicare and Medicaid it isn't a partisan issue it is simply the reality that exists.

Lets not forger it was Clinton that take a hatchet to Welfare in the 90's.

One side will bleed you to death with a million tiny painful cuts (D) the other will cut of your limbs one by one ®.

The Austerity Obama will have to introduce in his next term will be the same stuff that Romney can accomplish in only 4 years. Obama has to frame and set the tone over the last 4 years for it, Romney does not have to do that under the guise of the 'right'.

Post: #6

(09-09-2012 02:47 PM)kosko Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 02:41 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

Mitt Romney Wrote:Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.

Funny quote. The Massachusetts healthcare plan also has an individual mandate, of course (as it must in order to cover people with pre-existing conditions while keeping the private insurance system in place).

Of course both campaigns are just going to say whatever they think is most likely to maximize their chances of winning between now and the election. I don't think it's very hard to cut through the bullshit though--if you support expanded public provision of healthcare coverage, vote for the party that historically has actually been in favor of the social safety net. Likewise, if you think the safety net is too large, vote for the party that doesn't like it. Believing that Republicans are going to strengthen Medicare or some provisions of Obamacare or whatever if they gain power based on a soundbite a couple of months before the election is just absurd (as is the reverse--I wouldn't believe Obama if he came out in favor of, say, tax cuts for the rich).

Both sides will have to take a Axe to Medicare and Medicaid it isn't a partisan issue it is simply the reality that exists.

Lets not forger it was Clinton that take a hatchet to Welfare in the 90's.

One side will bleed you to death with a million tiny painful cuts (D) the other will cut of your limbs one by one ®.

The Austerity Obama will have to introduce in his next term will be the same stuff that Romney can accomplish in only 4 years. Obama has to frame and set the tone over the last 4 years for it, Romney does not have to do that under the guise of the 'right'.

There are still going to be tradeoffs that have to be made. You're right that in order to make the budget math add up in the medium-to-long term we're going to have to both raise taxes and cut social insurance spending, but there are various proportions that you could do that in in order to preserve different priorities (you could do mostly tax hikes, mostly spending cuts, tax hikes concentrated more on different income groups, spending cuts on different kinds of programs, etc.). I think it definitely makes a difference which party is in power when these budget reforms become unavoidable and it's a safe bet that if Democrats are in power at the time the US will come out the other side with a more robust social safety net and a higher level of taxes as a percentage of GDP than if Republicans are in power and get to write the austerity legislation. It's really not hard to make that prediction because it comes down to the simple fact that Democrats tend to be in favor of social insurance programs and Republicans tend to be against them, no matter what they say during an election year.

Also, Clinton signed welfare reform under intense pressure from Republicans during an election year as I recall. A lot of Democrats voted against it. I really don't think you can say that the American welfare state would be more robust if Republicans got their way more often.

Post: #7

It's curtains for Mitt. The guy is now reversing himself on a whole host of positions:

He is now repudiating key positions he supported a few weeks ago: the sequestration that would result in wide spending cuts (as favored by the Tea Party and voted for by Paul Ryan) and the total repeal of Obamacare. He's also now saying he would not, in fact, cut taxes on the wealthy. And during the Republican primary debates, he ruled out a 10:1 ratio of tax cuts to revenue increases (the Tea Party opposes all revenue increases)---only to have Paul Ryan show up interviews today and voice some support for the idea. These guys either need to get their shit together or they're just lying through their teeth.

The guy already has a reputation as flip-flopping and dishonest---and his latest shifts & prevarications will only cement that view. He is already distrusted by his base, and doing a 180 on the issues they feel most passionately about is not going to inspire them to turnout for him. What Mitt did today simply reinforces the notion that the guy is a too-slick, principle-free bullshitter with his finger in the wind aiming to please whoever is shouting the loudest at any particular moment in time.

And to top it all off, the estimable Nate Silver has Obama a 4:1 favorite riding a nice post-convention bounce (Romney got none at all). Only a major self-inflicted error on Obama's part could change the calculus now:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com...-position/

Stick a fork in this clown he's done.

Post: #8

(09-09-2012 01:52 PM)Athlone McGinnis Wrote:  An interesting shift on "Meet the Press" this morning...

Quote:Mitt Romney said Sunday that he likes parts of ‘Obamacare’ and will keep key provisions involving pre-existing conditions and young people.

“I’m not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place,” he said on NBC’s “Meet The Press. “One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”

The remarks could have huge implications as they signal a marked shift from Romney’s strong, unequivocal support for full repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which he has consistently held since the Republican primaries.

Politically, the pivot risks drawing the ire of conservatives, who have been adamant that Republicans repeal the law in its entirety if elected. It’s a major gamble that could reflect Romney’s need to win over more independent voters, who support those provisions.

From a policy standpoint, however, the coverage guarantee for pre-existing conditions is economically untenable without other provisions of ‘Obamacare’ — most notably the individual mandate that requires Americans purchase insurance, which experts say is necessary to broaden the risk pool and prevent an upward spiral in costs.

Laws permitting young Americans to remain on a parent’s insurance policy until 26 have been backed by other top Republicans in recent months.

Asked on “Meet The Press” if he wants to repeal those two popular provisions of the law, Romney said, “Well, of course not. I say we’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.”

Earlier this summer Romney came out for laws protecting Americans who have obtained continuous insurance coverage from being denied access to care. But the provision in the Affordable Care Act goes much further and bans insurers from turning down prospective customers on the basis of health status. It takes effect in 2014.

Republicans flirted with including those provisions of the law in a replacement plan in the run-up to the Supreme Court decision on its constitutionality. Conservative activists gave them hell for considering it and GOP leaders backed off before the decision came down.

It's also worth reiterating that Obamacare, at its core, is actually a conservative Republican plan. The individual mandate, which is the soul of Obamacare, was first dreamed up at the conservative Heritage Foundation in the late 1980s. By 1993, Gingrich had included it in his "Contract for America" and in the 1996, Bob Dole was running on it in his presidential campaign as the conservative alternative to "Hillarycare". Mitt Romney then dusted it off in 2006 to implement in the state of Massachusetts.

Obama implemented a Republican healthcare plan, top to bottom. It's only being denounced as socialism because a Democrat got it done.

Post: #9

He's just etch-a-sketching his way back to RomneyCare and saying what he thinks he needs to for the election. Doesn't matter what he really believes.

Post: #10

I think Mr. Romney and his team have bungled this presidential campaign in every conceivable way. This walk back to a moderate stance was what he should have done once his nomination was a formality. His only chance to win was by convincing the white middle class populace in states such as Virginia, Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida with a moderate amount of education, fiscally conservative, but socially centrist that Obama was going to drive the economy into a hole and had done a few too many drugs to ever come back from his social left.

Yet for whatever reason, Romney had this complex that to be a viable candidate he had to connect with rural right wing loonbags and position himself to a minority voter that he wasn't racist. Frankly I think he wasted so much of his time attempting to connect with these bases that he alienated the aforementioned population that was his only route to a win. If I'm Romney in May, I simply have to assume that anyone right of me is still going to vote for me because I'm running against a black man. Romney should have slashed hard left, relatively speaking, after it was a formality he would be the Republican nominee. Moreover, attracting a minority vote is something the Republican party has to start anew with in 2013, and not meekly, half-assedly try to do in 4 months when running against a minority candidate.

Outside of some image destroying blunder, Obama is going to walk to victory in November without much fanfare. Watching TV for election coverage is mindless as it will always be "closer" than expected because TV needs ratings after all. The excellent NYT 538 blog is really the only required reading for this election.

Post: #11

(09-09-2012 08:22 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  The excellent NYT 538 blog is really the only required reading for this election.

Yes, 538 is awesome. I've been reading it since the 2008 campaign when he pretty much called the election on the money, there's a reason why Nate Silver got a gig at the NYT.

Another place I check to get an idea of where the overall race stands is intrade.com. It currently has Obama at about a 58% chance of winning which is significantly more bearish than 538 but that reflects people who have real money riding on the election so I think it's a reasonable barometer.

My subjective feeling is that Obama's chances of winning are somewhere between those two numbers. Obama would win for sure if the election were held today, but he only seems to be up by a few points once you correct for the convention bounce, and there's always the chance of something unexpected happening to move the percentages in either direction. The race is still close enough that a significant piece of negative news for Obama could tip the balance. At this point I would probably take a bet on Romney if someone offered me 3:1 odds but I probably wouldn't take 2:1 anymore since I think Obama definitely got the better of the conventions.

Post: #12

(09-09-2012 08:43 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 08:22 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  The excellent NYT 538 blog is really the only required reading for this election.

Yes, 538 is awesome. I've been reading it since the 2008 campaign when he pretty much called the election on the money, there's a reason why Nate Silver got a gig at the NYT.

Another place I check to get an idea of where the overall race stands is intrade.com. It currently has Obama at about a 58% chance of winning which is significantly more bearish than 538 but that reflects people who have real money riding on the election so I think it's a reasonable barometer.

My subjective feeling is that Obama's chances of winning are somewhere between those two numbers. Obama would win for sure if the election were held today, but he only seems to be up by a few points once you correct for the convention bounce, and there's always the chance of something unexpected happening to move the percentages in either direction. The race is still close enough that a significant piece of negative news for Obama could tip the balance. At this point I would probably take a bet on Romney if someone offered me 3:1 odds but I probably wouldn't take 2:1 anymore since I think Obama definitely got the better of the conventions.

Yes, I find Intrade very interesting on concept alone. Additionally, it is very accurate because of the real money on it. Also, it's interesting because you don't really know where that money being traded comes from. I think the 58% number comes more for built in risk of predicting the actions of 80MM people and outside economic, social, or military factors that President Obama has little control over.

Post: #13

(09-09-2012 08:48 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 08:43 PM)gringochileno Wrote:  

(09-09-2012 08:22 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  The excellent NYT 538 blog is really the only required reading for this election.

Yes, 538 is awesome. I've been reading it since the 2008 campaign when he pretty much called the election on the money, there's a reason why Nate Silver got a gig at the NYT.

Another place I check to get an idea of where the overall race stands is intrade.com. It currently has Obama at about a 58% chance of winning which is significantly more bearish than 538 but that reflects people who have real money riding on the election so I think it's a reasonable barometer.

My subjective feeling is that Obama's chances of winning are somewhere between those two numbers. Obama would win for sure if the election were held today, but he only seems to be up by a few points once you correct for the convention bounce, and there's always the chance of something unexpected happening to move the percentages in either direction. The race is still close enough that a significant piece of negative news for Obama could tip the balance. At this point I would probably take a bet on Romney if someone offered me 3:1 odds but I probably wouldn't take 2:1 anymore since I think Obama definitely got the better of the conventions.

Yes, I find Intrade very interesting on concept alone. Additionally, it is very accurate because of the real money on it. Also, it's interesting because you don't really know where that money being traded comes from. I think the 58% number comes more for built in risk of predicting the actions of 80MM people and outside economic, social, or military factors that President Obama has little control over.

I think that's definitely a significant source of uncertainty in the outcome, but you would think that any good forecast would be designed to account for that fact as well. I still don't see what the explanation is for why Silver's model sees Obama as a heavier favorite than Intrade bettors--maybe the bettors are perceiving a higher risk of an adverse event (like Europe's financial situation imploding or a major foreign policy crisis) than the model is assuming (which may be the case, since I think the model uses historical data to infer how much the numbers are likely to move x days out from the election while the gamblers may be making that determination more based on current circumstances).

Both ways of thinking about the possibility of the numbers changing between now and election day seem to leave something out, so that might make it reasonable to think that the true probability of an Obama win is somewhere between the two forecasts. For what it's worth, this agrees with my personal feeling that Obama's chances at this point are something like 70%.

Post: #14

I've noticed the economy is purely theoretical. For instant, the most hardcore right-wing economist, could present a compelling plan to a liberal. And the reverse is true.

Both have theories that look good on paper. Remember, under Clinton, the economy was very good - but the Republicans will claim the Republican controlled house is why it was good...the Democrats will claim Clinton did a good job. Bush had a Republican-controlled everything, but they'll blame 9/11 as to the economy collapsing...and on & on.

I'm not really political myself. I've come to the conclusion, just from watching enough political ads, only two issues really matter. Two concrete issues, with certain "floater" issues. While the economy is billed as the most important thing, it's really not what people vote on. (I personally believe the election is pre-decided but that's another story)

The issues that get people passionate about voting:

1. Abortion, or "Women's rights"
2. Gay marriage, or "Equality for all Americans"

Floater issues would be immigration, stem cells, price of oil, the remnants of the war, etc.

Yet, every piece of political propaganda mail I've received, and the majority of commercials, are centered around the abortion & gay marriage topics.

So, what we have...most people only vote for either party, because they are in favor of gay marriage/abortion, or because they are against gay marriage/abortion. When it comes to the home stretch, both sides work their hardest to paint the other side on the fringe.

You simply don't see nearly the same amount of zealotry surrounding any of the other issues, whether social or fiscal.

Post: #15

And now Romney has shifted his position yet again on healthcare, only hours after his first shift. Details here:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/0...hp?ref=fpa

This guy doesn't know whether he's coming or going.

Post: #16

And in other news, while the politicians keep the attention focused on healthcare and immigration, both parties continue to renew the PATRIOT Act and give U.S. law enforcement agencies blanket power to confiscate your private information (without warrant) and to build secret data centers that permanently store your information forever without any type of accountability to the citizens of the country.

Wait, what am I thinking, I'll go back to worrying about clean energy and manufacturing jobs in Ohio. Land of the free, right?

Post: #17

I'm just utterly disappointed that Romney is the best that Republicans have come up with given their anipathy toward Obama. I want to vote R, but Romney keeps giving me excuses not to vote for him. He would probably be ok, but that requires me to basically overlook most of what he says, and I think that's just no way to run for office.

Post: #18

(09-10-2012 09:51 AM)dragnet Wrote:  And now Romney has shifted his position yet again on healthcare, only hours after his first shift. Details here:

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/0...hp?ref=fpa

This guy doesn't know whether he's coming or going.

Yes, but he flopped his flip flop again when nobody was watching.

He is a coward who can't stand by his principles. Now millions of people who watched him on MTP are going to think that he will support pre-existing conditions etc., without realizing that he flopped again. Actually, I don't think it was a flip flop flip, but rather a deliberate lie on his part. He is good at that.

Post: #19

I actually find it comforting that Mitt is taking the expected turn back to the middle. If for no other reason than it seems closer to what he actually believes, if he believes anything. His coached swing to the right felt as fake as his weird murderer laugh.

But it's also further evidence that it just doesn't matter who's president:

http://delicioustacos.com/2012/09/08/rel...president/

Post: #20

(09-10-2012 12:26 PM)delicioustacos Wrote:  But it's also further evidence that it just doesn't matter who's president:

http://delicioustacos.com/2012/09/08/rel...president/

Spot on, my friend.

Post: #21

the reason people have insurance is to prevent against act of god type of situations. this is why i pay into it. random bad shit can happen to anyone. hit by a bus, stabbed by a crazy person or slip on ice. i dont have a problem with insurance helping these people. MY PROBLEM is with people who treat their bodies like an amusment ride and wonder how they get diabetes or heart disease then suddenly its the insurance companies fault for not helping them. we need a national discussion on this because univeral healthcare does nothing to stop people from engaging in behavior that is knowingly destructive to their health. should an obese person like 300lbs pay the same as a trainer in a gym?

Post: #22

Doesn't surprise me one bit.

No matter who you vote for you're going to get the exact same policies.

Post: #23

There has been a run on Mitt in the prediction markets:

http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/contra...tId=743475

Believe it or not, I think Romney is actually a buy at 4 dollars---so long as you sell relatively soon (ie, after the first debate, etc)