Romney v. RomneyObamaCare

[All-American]

With the filibuster... never.

They start the first week of January in Congress.

Ah, but you can't filibuster this one.

http://www.examiner.com/article/demo...senate?cid=rss

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/29/the_filibuster_won_t_save_obamacare_from_president_romney_.html

So they're in the first week of January. Plenty of time to pass a bill that says "Everything that bill just did? Undone." It's on Romney's desk, waiting for him when he gets there.

First day.

Done.

Next issue, please?

[Ma'ake]

Now Mitt owns shares in actual countries??? Wow, how did he do that???

Nice catch on the typo.

I meant he owned stock in two companies that did business with Iran. His portfolio manager sold those two stocks before the 2008 election so as to sanitize his record. I think the issue can still be used.

Mitt's either so wealthy he has no idea - can't be bothered with - what he actually owns, or he's so greedy he'll invest in companies that skirt US / UN sanctions against Iran.

I think the point is minor, but it's part of a mosaic that Mitt would really not want people to see, or be aware of.

[oxcoug]

With the filibuster... never.

They start the first week of January in Congress.

Cali for someone as well-informed as you are you sometimes amaze me w/ the things you miss - you do know that just as the Dems used reconciliation to slam this down America's throat Republicans will use reconciliation to kill it - and the fact that it is now laid bare as a tax w/ no Commerce Clause justification will make that easier.

Next day polling in FL - 50% of Floridians opposed SCOTUS decision, 39% support it.

If Republicans control the Senate by any margin the filibuster will be a non-factor.

[LA Ute]

Nice catch on the typo.

I meant he owned stock in two companies that did business with Iran. His portfolio manager sold those two stocks before the 2008 election so as to sanitize his record. I think the issue can still be used.

Mitt's either so wealthy he has no idea - can't be bothered with - what he actually owns, or he's so greedy he'll invest in companies that skirt US / UN sanctions against Iran.

I think the point is minor, but it's part of a mosaic that Mitt would really not want people to see, or be aware of.

Weren't his investments in a blind trust at that point?

[LA Ute]

It's really not that simple, though. Unfortunately for Romney, he is the one who argued his plan should be used as a national model.

I'm quite sure he never did that, but instead emphasized federalism and that every state should be free to experiment. I recall him saying in 2007 in an interview (CBS?) that his plan was "right for Massachusetts." But if you can give us some links to statements by Mitt supporting your claim, I'll change my tune.

[oxcoug]

I'm quite sure he never did that, but instead emphasized federalism and that every state should be free to experiment. I recall him saying in 2007 in an interview (CBS?) that his plan was "right for Massachusetts." But if you can give us some links to statements by Mitt supporting your claim, I'll change my tune.

Mitt has made a few remarks which taken on their own can be interpreted that way but taken in the context of his multiple remarks his message has been this, which he said in 2006:

– 2006 — Q: Is this something you think Washington should consider for the whole country? ROMNEY: Well, there are some aspects of what we’re doing that could be applicable to the rest of the country.

Nowhere has he ever said that the entirety of what he signed in MA shld serve as a model for a national health care law.

[LA Ute]

Mitt has made a few remarks which taken on their own can be interpreted that way but taken in the context of his multiple remarks his message has been this, which he said in 2006:




Nowhere has he ever said that the entirety of what he signed in MA shld serve as a model for a national health care law.

He's always been careful about the mandate being Massachusetts-specific. Mainly because the demographics are such that the mandate makes more sense (relatively small uninsured/medically indigent populations). Frankly, on a state level I like the mandate.

[calicoug]

Ah, but you can't filibuster this one.

http://www.examiner.com/article/demo...senate?cid=rss

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2012/06/29/the_filibuster_won_t_save_obamacare_from_president_romney_.html

So they're in the first week of January. Plenty of time to pass a bill that says "Everything that bill just did? Undone." It's on Romney's desk, waiting for him when he gets there.

First day.

Done.

Next issue, please?

The analyses in the articles you wrote are so fundamentally wrong it's comical.

Unreal what passes for reporting these days.

[calicoug]

I'm quite sure he never did that, but instead emphasized federalism and that every state should be free to experiment. I recall him saying in 2007 in an interview (CBS?) that his plan was "right for Massachusetts." But if you can give us some links to statements by Mitt supporting your claim, I'll change my tune.

Well, here's an oped by Romney from USA Today where he tells Obama what should go in the federal health plan instead of what Obama wanted at that time, and Romney specifically describes the benefits of a mandate:

http://mittromneycentral.com/op-eds/2009-op-eds/mr-president-whats-the-rush/

You can also see him in the video below on three separate occasions describing how he thinks the mandate should be implemented at the national level (his language re "free riders" is how he describes the mandate):

[YOUTUBE]hBbLTovqG29g#![/YOUTUBE]

[calicoug]

Cali for someone as well-informed as you are you sometimes amaze me w/ the things you miss - you do know that just as the Dems used reconciliation to slam this down America's throat Republicans will use reconciliation to kill it - and the fact that it is now laid bare as a tax w/ no Commerce Clause justification will make that easier.

Next day polling in FL - 50% of Floridians opposed SCOTUS decision, 39% support it.

If Republicans control the Senate by any margin the filibuster will be a non-factor.

No, Dems didn't use reconciliation to "slam this down America's throat." You may recall that the Affordable Care Act was already passed before reconciliation was used. Reconciliation was used to implement a few amendments to the ACA, specifically tied to revenue (which is what reconciliation can be used for). The reconciliation bill took out the Cornhusker Kickback and other "special" deals people hated, it lowered the individual penalty amount, it changed student loan funding (a major source of revenue under the law which was needed to pass muster under the reconciliation rules), closed the Medicare donut hole and dealt with a few other financial matters.

Reconciliation was actually phenomenally difficult to use and in fact it almost didn't work because of the tight restrictions on its use.

Reconciliation is one of the least understood and most misinterpreted procedures available in the Senate. Each party believes the other party can use it at a whim to do whatever they want. If that were the case, don't you think the Senate would have used it routinely to eliminate the filibuster completely?

[TripletDaddy]

Boston globe sez: Mitt, what you complaining about?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/29/romney_says_ruling_brings_new_urgency_to_election/

Once the debates roll around, I think mitt is going to get his hat handed to him on this issue. the one sure-fire weapon against Obama and Mitt basically passed something similar already as governor. Even the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader-G) blames/credits Mass. for Obamacare.

[Pelado]

Boston globe sez: Mitt, what you complaining about?

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2012/06/29/romney_says_ruling_brings_new_urgency_to_election/

Once the debates roll around, I think mitt is going to get his hat handed to him on this issue. the one sure-fire weapon against Obama and Mitt basically passed something similar already as governor. Even the Supreme Court (Ruth Bader-G) blames/credits Mass. for Obamacare.

It's certainly a liability, but that liability can be curtailed some or maybe even converted to an asset if he can articulate genuine, significant differences between the laws and/or discuss what's been learned from the Mass. experience that shouldn't be repeated nationally (though the second part is probably unavailable to him since he didn't really do that during the primaries when given the opportunity).

[TripletDaddy]

It's certainly a liability, but that liability can be curtailed some or maybe even converted to an asset if he can articulate genuine.....

So as I was saying, I think he will get trounced.

[Pelado]

So as I was saying, I think he will get trounced.

I could see that.

[TripletDaddy]

I could see that.

I see your point too, but Mitt isn't good on the mic. And he isn't perceived as a genuine guy in the traditional sense. I don't see this being all that helpful to him when the debates roll around.