Romney v. RomneyObamaCare

[Pelado]

Good news! Polls are drastically improving.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/a...nlwYWdl;_ylv=3

There's a difference between supporting Obamacare and supporting the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I could agree with the decision without liking the bill. Conversely, I could disagree with the decision while still believing Obamacare is a valid exercise of Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause.

[oxcoug]

No stretch at all, my friend - you will note that I said "politics and ideology" which often function on a sliding scale.

Ideology often trumps politics and vice versa - in this case, for Obama, I think it did. People are sometimes willing to absorb political pain for ideological advancement.

But there's no need to rule politics out - as you surely know, political damage with some constituencies is often accepted as the cost to paying back core constituencies. And the 2009 Larry Summers memo leaked via the New Yorker in January says that repaying political favors to close allies is exactly what the first stretch of the President's term would be about.

So as you can see - not the slightest stretch.

[TripletDaddy]

There's a difference between supporting Obamacare and supporting the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare.

Yeah, not really.

Nearly 80 percent of Democrats agree with the court, compared to 45 percent of independents and only 13 percent of Republicans.

[Pelado]

Yeah, not really.

I don't like Obamacare, but I'm fine with the decision.

So there.

[oxcoug]

Obama was MIA when the crafting of the bill happened. The crafting of the bill was largely left to the Congressional committees (and the lobbyists). That was one of the complaints from Capitol Hill - that they wanted more direction from the White House. Obama's major contribution to Obamacare was speech after speech advocating for the bill. He thought it would be a political benefit - that once it passed people would like it. He was wrong.

Yep - Cali pretends to not know these things but I'm fairly certain he does.

I base it on the fact that those provisions are actually in the legislation. So I guess my support for that is... the text of the law. Feel free to look it up- it's all in there.

You're outdoing yourself, my man - you still haven't named one of these genius provisions. Just an offhand invitation for me to read a 2,700 page legislation with an assurance that I'll find these "provisions" that you apparently can't specify. Meanwhile I've given you two well-known provisions widely discussed by "major economists" and health care reform experts which are, in clear fact, absent.

You are assuming the best ideas contradict one another (which would lead to "the opposite," as you put it) but that's not the case. They dovetail nicely with one another. The public option would have radically changed the structure of the law in ways that would have conflicted with much of what ultimately wound up in the law, so it is ironic you want that piece included along with the rest. Much of what we have now is included precisely because the public option was never going to work politically. Co-ops, interestingly enough, are one such specific inclusion.

Yeah, how interesting is that? I thought that was obvious / common knowledge to anyone who followed the conversation - the co-ops were set up to replace the public option. And they are going to fail. Which is exactly what they were designed to do, bc once they fail then.... presto chango de facto public option!

[calicoug]

Yep - Cali pretends to not know these things but I'm fairly certain he does.

Wait- a minute ago you were saying Obama did all this for political gain. Now you are saying he had nothing to do with it at all. Which is it?

You're outdoing yourself, my man - you still haven't named one of these genius provisions. Just an offhand invitation for me to read a 2,700 page legislation with an assurance that I'll find these "provisions" that you apparently can't specify. Meanwhile I've given you two well-known provisions widely discussed by "major economists" and health care reform experts which are, in clear fact, absent.

What? I named several in the very post you replied to:

from payment bundling to the mandate to exchanges to the independent payment advisory board to taxes on cadillac plans to modernizing the IT infrastructure in health care to... you get the point.

Tort reform, by the way, also makes an appearance in the bill (though largely leaves it to the states). You might be interested to learn that tort reform, while a consistent conservative talking point, has shown very little promise in lowering costs (including insurance costs for doctors) where it has been enacted.

Yeah, how interesting is that? I thought that was obvious / common knowledge to anyone who followed the conversation - the co-ops were set up to replace the public option. And they are going to fail. Which is exactly what they were designed to do, bc once they fail then.... presto chango de facto public option!

Care to explain how co-op failure (assuming that occurs) presto chango turns into the public option???

[LA Ute]

Tort reform, by the way, also makes an appearance in the bill (though largely leaves it to the states).

Well, that might be a bit of a stretch.

Tort Reform and PPACA: Two Provisions

• Sense of the Senate provision (no teeth) encouraging states to explore alternatives to the civil litigation system. (Sec. 6801)
  
• $50 million over 5 years for state demonstration projects providing alternatives to the civil litigation system. (Sec. 10607)

[calicoug]

You want certainty? Roll over dead and give me what I want. Then you'll have your certainty.

You make my point. Republicans act like certainty is the end all be all. If that were the case, we could easily have it. But it's not- so stop pretending it is.

[oxcoug]

Wait- a minute ago you were saying Obama did all this for political gain. Now you are saying he had nothing to do with it at all. Which is it?

Dude - you're mind is supple enough to figure this out without tedious word games. But I'll play on this one. Obama used his political office and his political capital to drive the legislation through and to force it front and center as the focal point of national policy and discussion. That is a different thing than Obama being involved in the inner workings of the law that emerged, or owning/leading the consultative process that produced the law (the way Romney did in MA).

You understand how those are two different things, right?

Also - just noticed that earlier in the thread that you seem to have the impression that I wanted the public option - of course not. I was just pointing out that it's one major policy option that some "major economists" talk about - which is not in the law.

[calicoug]

Dude - you're mind is supple enough to figure this out without tedious word games. But I'll play on this one. Obama used his political office and his political capital to drive the legislation through and to force it front and center as the focal point of national policy and discussion. That is a different thing than Obama being involved in the inner workings of the law that emerged, or owning/leading the consultative process that produced the law (the way Romney did in MA).

You understand how those are two different things, right?

Also - just noticed that earlier in the thread that you seem to have the impression that I wanted the public option - of course not. I was just pointing out that it's one major policy option that some "major economists" talk about - which is not in the law.

"Supple enough?" Ox- I had no idea...

Of course Obama used his political capital to drive the legislation through. That's kind of my point. It wasn't for political gain- it was an enormous political sacrifice. He used up significant "political capital" to get the bill passed. In fact, he used up almost all of it and has spent the next two years struggling to get anything else passed (and it was certainly worth it).

[calicoug]

Does this surprise anyone? Just two days after trotting out his top spokesperson to say the mandate is not a tax, Romney now thinks it is a tax. But his mandate is not.

This is exactly his problem. Everything he does appears so calculated and disingenuous. It doesn't help that he constantly revises his calculations in public view after a calculation proves incorrect.

[Uncle Ted]

Does this surprise anyone? Just two days after trotting out his top spokesperson to say the mandate is not a tax, Romney now thinks it is a tax. But his mandate is not.

This is exactly his problem. Everything he does appears so calculated and disingenuous. It doesn't help that he constantly revises his calculations in public view after a calculation proves incorrect.

Let's be clear on this. Rmoney's is "not a tax hike. It is a fee, an assessment"...

[YOUTUBE]HymUU7OADbU[/YOUTUBE]

Just like many other "fees/assessments" Rmoney added while governor. Obama's ObamaCare, on the other hand, is a tax hike. Got it?

[Ma'ake]

When Eric Fehnstrom(sp?) came out and said ACA's provision was a penalty, not a tax, I took it as a sign that Mitt's campaign is sensitive to the flip-flop perception and they wanted to avoid that tag.

When Mitt declared today it is a tax, it seems the rest of the Republican establishment got to him. The strategy appears to be generate as much generic economy+Obamacare anger as possible and see how far they can ride it, tea party style.

I'm stunned that Mitt hasn't come out with a 10 point lead after the SCOTUS ruling. Either there is a lag, or the Republican anger isn't as widely shared as I thought.

I suspect there will be some segment in the middle that may reconsider ACA, now that it is (more or less) "SCOTUS approved". I don't think this effect will be very big, maybe 5% at the most.

What's interesting are the reports of the Bain-offshoring attack ads bearing fruit in battleground states. I think the Swiss-bank account / Caymans /Bermuda investments issue could also hurt. With most Americans the blind trust explanation doesn't really help Mitt's image.

Obama should state that Mitt's dad set a good standard, not just in paying more equitable tax rates, but in revealing 12 years of tax returns. 2006 is a sensitive tax year for Mitt, because of the investments in firms doing business with Iran. (They were sold in 2007 as he ramped up to run in '08).

[Jacob]

Does this surprise anyone? Just two days after trotting out his top spokesperson to say the mandate is not a tax, Romney now thinks it is a tax. But his mandate is not.

This is exactly his problem. Everything he does appears so calculated and disingenuous. It doesn't help that he constantly revises his calculations in public view after a calculation proves incorrect.

Does it surprise anyone that you thought it was bad for him in both cases?

[calicoug]

Does it surprise anyone that you thought it was bad for him in both cases?

If that's directed at me (which I gather from the "you" reference), I'm sure I can't answer that question. What I can say is that Mitt really had three options after the Court ruling. 1) Do what he did- say it's not a tax. 2) Do what he did today- say it is a tax but differentiate what he did in Mass. 3) Say nothing on the tax issue (and focus instead on repeal efforts and alternative plans that would be better). I'd argue politically he would have done best with option 3, worst with option 1, and middle with option 2.

So yes- I think what he did through Fenstrom was bad. But once he went with it, he had to commit. He knows his image as a flip-flopper. Now it's back yet again- in a high profile issue. Just dumb. So yes- I think what he just did is also bad.

Give me a rational reason to disagree. I suspect even you think what he just did was dumb but can't resist taking the easiest path- sniping without contributing to the discussion.