Romney to keep "popular" provisions of Obamacare

I'm sick of the self-serving drone of "we need fiscal conservatives and social moderates" Those clowns usually lose, and when they win, they don't do us any good.

The Romney campaign quickly clarified the remark.

Simply requiring preexisting condition coverage without an individual mandate (which he now opposes) would quickly kill the commercial insurance companies through adverse selection and cause a bigger crisis. Nothing would please the single payer advocates more.

John Goodman has a good post on this with other links and his proposed solution.

Edit- from Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post:

"Some in the left-wing media who haven’t paid much attention to Romney’s policy speeches and plans thought this was a change for him. Poppycock.

Romney... ...said exactly the same thing in June ... ...He has always favored protection for people with preexisting conditions who move from one employer-provided plan to another or from an individual-purchased to an employer-provided plan.... ...For those entering the health-care market (ie. didn’t have coverage before), Romney has proposed high-risk pools..."

How many times does Anne need to tell him? Mittens! Put down that Etcha-Sketch, now!

Quote from the article:

"But those elements, even though they sound a lot like parts of the president's plan, would only be implemented after the Affordable Care Act is repealed, the Romney campaign told ABC News. "

Since Romney and opposition to ObamaTax have always said that they would replace ObamaTax with another solution the "etchascetch" meme doesn't really work. Romney is just giving us his ideas of what he would include in health reform- which he will be criticized for if he doesn't

Whatever the president believes he will have to work it out with Congress and Romney has a record of being able to work things out with people of opposing views. So there would have o be a general support for the views of the president if the things he mentioned are included. I agree that including pre-existing conditions would kill the insurance business and Romney as a business man should know this unless he has an "innovative" idea about how to do the one without harming the other.- Who knows- maybe he does. I guess we just have to listen to find out.

High risk pools - the conservative approach to pre-existing conditions and guaranteed issue.
Come on AMGers, you're supposed to know this stuff.

I agree Romney is putting out ideas, because the costs of healthcare need to be reined in.
All successful presidents have had the ability to build a consensus in Congress, and the one thing I think Romney will be able to achieve.
We can find solutions and I believe Romney and congress will be able to work together and find them to bring down the costs of health care, and government spending overall, especially with the newly elected reps and senators who are tea party affiliated, and are fiscal conservatives, who will be able to help lay out a plan, and there is no doubt Romney and Ryan will be willing to listen, unlike Obama and the progressives...

If Romney knew it, he didn't use it in Massachusetts. I am certain that he believes he can come up with a better system of federal controls over health care than Obama. There is a word for the delusions of technocrats: hubris.

You mean in crafting a solution to a difficult problem, one can't make a mistake and learn from it- or come up with new ideas at a later evolution of the process?

Wrong premises always lead to disaster when executed fully - and the practitioners don't seem to see any problems on the route to catastrophe. If your philosophy is one of pure progressive pragmatism, you will not learn from your mistakes - you will just head deeper into the thicket. See: Liberalism - "it would work if we could just get everyone under the same system".

To paraphrase Reason Magazine "Consultant in Chief" piece... If elected Romney would attempt to fix Obamacare. Move along, folks.

You are just giving the corporate ( Reason magazine- I think that's Left Wing inc) instructions as to how we are to program our thoughts as a collective mass. Who gave you that authority?

Thrasybulus said " Wrong premises always lead to disaster when executed fully - "

Is this an axiomatic assumption ( the the premise will be wrong) based on an axiomatic truth?

"and the practitioners don't seem to see any problems on the route to catastrophe."

And is this your collectivist definition of the "practitioners" that we are all supposed to swallow whole without question?

If your philosophy is one of pure progressive pragmatism, you will not learn from your mistakes - you will just head deeper into the thicket. See: Liberalism - "it would work if we could just get everyone under the same system".

Like you said "IF" there are a lot of other options and conclusions that can follow the "IF" so I say- "So What?" Is this lecture about one possible scenario supposed to be the only one that the collective mindless masses are to be programed to entertain?

I seems in a collectivist paradigm, the individual character of anyone what-so-ever is not a factor.

You are basing an argument on extreme biased speculation that leaves no room for individuality and human faith.

Reason is Libertarian.

Libertarians are to the left of Republicans on many issues.

Are the death panels and the generalized economic collapse of the western world the unpopular provisions?

And to your right on many others.

"Are the death panels and the generalized economic collapse of the western world the unpopular provisions?"

Typical of the smear campaigns I see being run by third party candidates and the Obama campaign. Not a big selling point for third parties. The Obama campaign also tells us that the republicans have no economic solutions. As for suggesting that the republicans favor the"death panels" as in Obama care that is false to the nth degree but it seems third parties will say anything if they believe it will help them to gain power - but their ideas about what will help them to gain power are as mucky muck as the slander they propagate against whomever they see as their primary opponent- which is usually not Obama.

The popular provisions include "no refusal for pre-existing conditions" and forcing insurance companies to include "children" on their parent's insurance policies until they are 26. Among other garbage socialist twaddle.

I love that "pre-existing conditions" schlock, and I want it applied to all insurance. Then, when I wreck my car, I can apply for comprehensive insurance and get it fixed by someone else:-)

Ms. Anderson, you read my post without thinking very much. Try reading it literally.

Reading it literally you are just asking a question with an obvious answer. Of course death panels and the economic collapse of western civilization are unpopular in this forum-and for the progressives in the Obama administration- they don't admit the validity of the language of "death panels" - or that the economic collapse might be intentional. if we were Jihadist, they would be popular but this thread is about Romney and ObamaCare- and so taken literally your question seems like a non-sequitor.

Ms. Anderson: You characterized my comments as "Typical of the smear campaigns I see being run by third party candidates and the Obama campaign.

Reading it literally you are just asking a question with an obvious answer. . . . and so taken literally your question seems like a non-sequitor.

I'm no Obama fan, and your brain-housing=group needs a tuneup if you actually believe this.

If the answer is obvious, then the import of the situation should be pretty significant. In short, a very large segment of the population is ignoring the predictions of virtually everybody regarding the effect of Obamacare on this economy. You'd think with "death panels" and generalized economic collapse, anything else would be quarternary in significance. It would be as if someone enacted legislation with the central purpose of execution of youths at random, with the incidental benefit of improving national park access.

And yet you posted "Typical of the smear campaigns I see being run by third party candidates and the Obama campaign."

I pretty obviously was not smearing anybody. In retrospect my comment might be interpreted as critical of anybody who thinks that "restructuring" Obamacare merits consideration. Romney is either pandering (likely), or he doesn't understand the issue (unlikely).

Instead you attack me, without thinking about the larger and obvious issue. Your intellect is hindered by an unnecessarily confrontational attitude toward the rest of the human race. It is difficult to have a rational conversation with someone who reflexively attacks those who really share similar views on an issue.

So here's the larger issue: How seriously should we take Romney's camp when they sound like they are willing to put a fresh coat of paint on Obamacare? The thing is a piece of crap, a perversion of the entire concept of insurance, and unaffordable in any recognizable configuration.

Physicians not taking insurance via NYTimes. Expect this to continue among the minority of physicians who are not employed.

We expect efforts to tie Medicare and Medicaid acceptance to state licensure.

If the election were held today, 55 percent of physicians reported they would vote for Romney while just 36 percent support Obama

Daily Caller story

This is the part that got me:
The survey found that physicians that support Romney were more likely to own their own practice or “who had a stake in their own practice”. Obama supporting physicians were more likely to be women, or employed by hospitals or health systems.

So, the more entrepreneurial docs don't like the bureaucratic nature of Obamacare.

The more compliant, less creative docs and the ones who don't want the responsibility of owning anything are more likely to embrace the cradle to grave mentality, even as it applies to their own ability to practice medicine.

Dr. Wordsmith prognosticates:

"We expect efforts to tie Medicare and Medicaid acceptance to state licensure."

Well, of course. That's a government solution; legislate you into a corner. And when that succeeds at draining the talent pool, they'll lower the standards for entry.

Mr Chapman, It was suggested that I read the quote "literally" that's what I did . I read it literally and in reading that short statement literally, it says nothing more than what I said- all that you have added is superfluous.

You are changing the meaning of what Romney said- which was not that he "would re-structure Obamacare"- only that there were some parts of it that he likes. That does not mean that he will keep Obamacare and just restructure it.- You are putting those words in his mouth.Need I remind you of the size of Obamacare and by whom it was written? To suggest that Romney is saying that he would start with Obamacare -a concoction by the Apollo Alliance with layer upon layer of regulations and hidden agendas ( Just last night I learned of a tax on real estate sales hidden in this monstrosity) and simply "restructure" it is preposterous! To perpetuate that myth that this is something that Romney said is slander. All Romney said was that there were some aspects of it that he liked but those aspects are probably 1 thousand of a percent of what is in this abomination.

And BTW as I have repeatedly pointed out to others who address me as Ms Anderson- My name is Andersen Not Anderson. At first I ignored this misspelling, but now that it has been repeated over and over again- and I have yet to see my name spelled correctly- it is becoming pretty irritating.

To ressurect what I thrice said to Mark Cenci: "There are many excellent decaffenated coffees."

And do you have anything to say about the content of what I just posted?

Sure. First, here's what I said:

"I pretty obviously was not smearing anybody. In retrospect my comment might be interpreted as critical of anybody who thinks that "restructuring" Obamacare merits consideration. "

Your reply:

"You are changing the meaning of what Romney said- which was not that he "would re-structure Obamacare"- only that there were some parts of it that he likes. That does not mean that he will keep Obamacare and just restructure it.-"

See, if you'd been drinking decaf, you'd have read more slowly, and noted that I didn't purport to quote Romney.

I see- anybody reading what you posted has to parse your words ever so carefully and not factor in that the subject of this thread sites Romney so as not to make the mistake that when you write "anybody" you are intending to reference Romney.

Would you like to show a little respect for those who may overlook the finer details of you post and make a clear statement that what you wrote is not intended to implicate Romney? That you are not claiming that Romney intends to "restructure" Obamacare? Just to make it perfectly clear?

I think Romney was probably trying to throw up a political Rorschach inkblot, that would look like something favorable to everybody who read the quote. I don't think he succeeded.

I wouldn't say a "restructuring" is out of the question, based on the quoted language of the article. That's why he's gotten flack. One cannot tell quite what he's for, against or indifferent to.
Obama's pretty clear -- if you like the menu from the last four years, expect more of the same. I look at the numbers and think -- eeewwww. That's a plan for disaster.

**************************************************************

By contrast with Mitt, Reagan's message was clear, though he was vague about the means:

-- lower taxes
-- jump start the economy
-- get the Soviets.

Newt's "Contract with America" was also pretty simple.

At the end of the day, I'm leaning toward Romney DESPITE his attempt to keep all of his options open by not really telling us what he has as a vision in this area.

I was thinking much the same thing about your post. "political Rorschach inkblot" is a good metaphor for using the term "anybody" in a thread about Romney and then saying that I misrepresented what you said because You said "anybody" and did not specify Romney- and then when I ask you to make a clear statement that Romney was not implicated by the use of the term "anybody", you turn around and implicate him, justifying it with another ill founded political meme being directed, by a certain "group mind", at Romney -ie. -"that one can't tell what he is for or against" I'll take "one " to represent yourself in this case because I have no problem telling what Romney is for and against. The Republican primary was very well focused and on message- to Romney's credit. The choice of Ryan - also on message.

All Romney said about Obama care is that he likes a couple of provisions in it- as you mock me for not taking you exactly at your word- ie- meaning that I should know that "anybody" excludes Romney- that is until you revise your statement- then why not just take Romney at his word and not read more into it than what is there. Then maybe you won't be so confused.