Mitt Romney debates...himself

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
S

Slick5150

Diamond Member
Nov 10, 2001
8,760
3
81
Someone could do a much better job of showing Romney arguing against the things he's argued for.
 
buckshot24

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
OneOfTheseDays said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cPgfzknYd20&hd=1
Click to expand...
The very first exchange is full of crap. Romney was talking about not lowering the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich. Lowering taxes across the board isn't contradicting this at all.

What next?

Teachers. You can get more teachers without the government paying for it. Again liberals seem to think that if we don't want the government doing it then we don't want it done.

And?

Pre-existing conditions. This is the worst one for Romney because it isn't as obvious a misrepresentation of what he was saying.

I think health insurance should be insurance. If you don't buy fire insurance and your house burns down you can't go in and buy a plan after the house is in ashes. I believe Mitt is pandering with pre-existing conditions to be frank. People should buy insurance before they need it or it isn't really insurance. This is one way that health care coverage will go up if Obamacare goes into effect.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,464
16,920
136
buckshot24 said:
The very first exchange is full of crap. Romney was talking about not lowering the percentage of total taxes paid by the rich. Lowering taxes across the board isn't contradicting this at all.

What next?

Teachers. You can get more teachers without the government paying for it. Again liberals seem to think that if we don't want the government doing it then we don't want it done.

And?

Pre-existing conditions. This is the worst one for Romney because it isn't as obvious a misrepresentation of what he was saying.

I think health insurance should be insurance. If you don't buy fire insurance and your house burns down you can't go in and buy a plan after the house is in ashes. I believe Mitt is pandering with pre-existing conditions to be frank. People should buy insurance before they need it or it isn't really insurance. This is one way that health care coverage will go up if Obamacare goes into effect.
Click to expand...



You continue to show your ignorance every time you post! Romney claimed he would not change the ratio as you stated, however Obama wasn't talking about the ratio he was talking about the tax rates and of course you fell for romneys slight of hand.

I'd love to hear how you get more teachers without paying for them. Let me guess, increase the class size? Pay teachers less? Brilliant!

People should buy insurance if they have pre existing conditions? Sounds great except for the fact that, before Obamacare, if you had pre existing conditions the insurance companies would not cover it. My guess is that your ignorance is so great that you can't think of how someone could have a pre existing condition before they had a chance to get insurance.

Obamacare covers pre existing conditions and do you know how the costs are offset? By requiring people to buy insurance, as in a mandate! It's the exact same thing you said you think needs to be done in order for costs not to go up. Yet here you are ignoring what Obama care does making incorrect statements once again.

Do you enjoy being stupid? Do enjoy being corrected on every post you make? Because it's starting to look like you are doing it on purpose!
 
buckshot24

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
I won't insult anybody for having the views that they have but I will give them a single "dingleberry" and block them if they insult me. Life is too short to deliberately get insulted. I'm not here to call people names and I'm not here to be called names.

The only people on my block list are people who have insulted me. I've found many thoughtful liberals here and I'd rather discuss things than block people.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,464
16,920
136
That's a good way to keep yourself ignorant. Instead of confronting the attack with facts you think it makes more sense to block the person. Yes, that's exactly what people who are not interested in the truth do. You can call me names and talk all the shit you want, I don't care, what I care about is the information you are presenting me with, is it accurate or credible? Yes? Then I will have to adjust my views and that's what someone who REALLY is interested in the truth does, not put their fingers in their ears and scream, "lalallala!" because it doesn't fit with what their reality is.

You can block me all you want but I will continue to call you out on your bullshit and call you stupid until you either realize you were wrong or that you are in fact stupid. If you aren't willing to do that then I'll make sure everyone else knows you are full of shit.

Willful ignorance and lies should not be acceptable in a modern society and instead, over the years, it has not only become the norm but it's been embraced. Not by me it wont.
 
PhatoseAlpha

PhatoseAlpha

Platinum Member
Apr 10, 2005
2,131
21
81
buckshot24 said:
I think health insurance should be insurance. If you don't buy fire insurance and your house burns down you can't go in and buy a plan after the house is in ashes. I believe Mitt is pandering with pre-existing conditions to be frank. People should buy insurance before they need it or it isn't really insurance. This is one way that health care coverage will go up if Obamacare goes into effect.
Click to expand...

I suspect you've never actually dealt with an insurance company when someone is diagnosed with a long term, disabling condition that isn't lethal.

This isn't pandering - it's dealing with a serious problem that's innate to a for-profit medical system. If you have bought insurance, and you are then diagnosed with long term condition that requires treatment, it becomes the insurance's companies prerogative to do everything in it's power to deny care and drop you as a customer. Not doing so is a disservice to their shareholders.

So yeah, that's what they do. You buy your health insurance, then you get diagnosed with, say ALS or HIV. It's covered by your insurance, but it's going to cost them a fortune. Anything and everything they can do to drop you is going to happen. Deny every claim, review every form you've ever filled out for even the smallest of errors. Find one, drop them.

Or maybe just make something up and drop them. Sure, maybe it's illegal....but what's the chance they'll actually file a court case? People who are being bankrupted by medical bills have trouble affording lawyers to sue, after all.

At which point the sick person is screwed. It's a pre-existing condition, so even if you can manage to find new insurance, they won't pay for anything.

Or maybe they won't have to drop you. Maybe your employer switches providers to cut on costs. What do you do then? Keep your old policy, now bearing the full brunt of the cost on yourself, and pray that you never, ever miss a payment?

Or, fairly relevant given the poor economy - say you have a family history of one of those diseases. Early treatment can stop or slow it. But your employer isn't doing so well, and whether or not you'll still have your job in 6 months is in question. You start showing symptoms that could be that disease showing itself. What do you do? Go get tested? Yeah, and then if you lose your job, and your insurance - it's now a pre-existing condition, and your financial future is annihilated. Don't go? Well, there goes your chance of catching it early.....

So no, this is not pandering. This is dealing with a serious issue in our medical system that destroys lives, and occasionally actually kills people.
 
buckshot24

buckshot24

Diamond Member
Nov 3, 2009
9,916
85
91
PhatoseAlpha said:
I suspect you've never actually dealt with an insurance company when someone is diagnosed with a long term, disabling condition that isn't lethal.

This isn't pandering - it's dealing with a serious problem that's innate to a for-profit medical system. If you have bought insurance, and you are then diagnosed with long term condition that requires treatment, it becomes the insurance's companies prerogative to do everything in it's power to deny care and drop you as a customer. Not doing so is a disservice to their shareholders.
Click to expand...
I don't agree with insurance companies trying to get out of paying for what they are supposed to pay. If you have insurance and you get sick, no matter how severe, the insurance company should pay. I don't think an insurance company should try and get out of policies they no longer find profitable.
So yeah, that's what they do. You buy your health insurance, then you get diagnosed with, say ALS or HIV. It's covered by your insurance, but it's going to cost them a fortune. Anything and everything they can do to drop you is going to happen. Deny every claim, review every form you've ever filled out for even the smallest of errors. Find one, drop them.
Click to expand...
They shouldn't be allowed to do that.
So no, this is not pandering. This is dealing with a serious issue in our medical system that destroys lives, and occasionally actually kills people.
Click to expand...
None of these things are what I am talking about. We should deal with all of them but to suggest that an insurance company has to go into a newly signed policy knowing they will lose money will only raise prices for everybody else.

I want more choices for patients I want more protections for patients what I don't want is the ability of a patient to get health insurance after they find out they have a brain tumor or something.

If we make it more black and white on what an insurance policy covers then it will be harder for insurance companies to welch. There is a lot we can do.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,464
16,920
136
Lol (s)he wants choices for patients but if the insurance company is going to start off at a loss they should be able to decline covering them that's a great choice. Tell that to the baby born with a heart defect!

You just argued why for profit institutions that deals with people's health/lives and don't make money off sick people shouldn't exist. Healthcare like it is in every other modern country should be socialized.
 
Schmide

Schmide

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2002
5,741
1,030
126
buckshot24 said:
I won't insult anybody for having the views that they have but I will give them a single "dingleberry" and block them if they insult me. Life is too short to deliberately get insulted. I'm not here to call people names and I'm not here to be called names.

The only people on my block list are people who have insulted me. I've found many thoughtful liberals here and I'd rather discuss things than block people.
Click to expand...

The problem is you called him out on it. If you ignore him that's your issue, but telling him is just calling him out and basically trolling for a response that cant be responded on.

No one should be ignored in P&N.
 
xj0hnx

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
PhatoseAlpha said:
I suspect you've never actually dealt with an insurance company when someone is diagnosed with a long term, disabling condition that isn't lethal.
Click to expand...

I have, and they were great.

So no, this is not pandering. This is dealing with a serious issue in our medical system that destroys lives, and occasionally actually kills people.
Click to expand...

How often do you think it actually happens that someone that is insured gets dropped from their insurance company when they get sick?, and of those how often do you think it is of those that do get dropped that it is solely the insurance company dropping them because it is not profitable to pay their care?

How long do you think that an insurance company is going to stay in business if they drop people when they need the services that they have been paying for?

Now don't get me wrong, I am sure it has happened, and it is a terrible thing when it does, I just think that it has been blown way out of proportion for the purpose of scoring a talking point.
 
N

nehalem256

Lifer
Apr 13, 2012
15,669
8
0
ivwshane said:
Lol (s)he wants choices for patients but if the insurance company is going to start off at a loss they should be able to decline covering them that's a great choice. Tell that to the baby born with a heart defect!
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a story dealing with almost this exact same issue. Assuming the parents had had health insurance the baby would have gotten health insurance too.

The parents decided to game the system and got caught. The problem is not health insurance but stupid people having kids they cannot afford. Funny how liberals refuse to solve the real problem huh?

ivwshane said:
You just argued why for profit institutions that deals with people's health/lives and don't make money off sick people shouldn't exist. Healthcare like it is in every other modern country should be socialized.
Click to expand...

And why shouldn't we socialize grocery stores too? Food is even more essential.
 
J

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,685
136
nehalem256 said:
I seem to recall a story dealing with almost this exact same issue. Assuming the parents had had health insurance the baby would have gotten health insurance too.

The parents decided to game the system and got caught. The problem is not health insurance but stupid people having kids they cannot afford. Funny how liberals refuse to solve the real problem huh?

And why shouldn't we socialize grocery stores too? Food is even more essential.
Click to expand...

Being unable to afford health insurance isn't the same as gaming the system.

In case you haven't noticed, grocery stores have been partially socialized by foodstamps, out of necessity.
 
ivwshane

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,464
16,920
136
nehalem256 said:
I seem to recall a story dealing with almost this exact same issue. Assuming the parents had had health insurance the baby would have gotten health insurance too.

The parents decided to game the system and got caught. The problem is not health insurance but stupid people having kids they cannot afford. Funny how liberals refuse to solve the real problem huh?



And why shouldn't we socialize grocery stores too? Food is even more essential.
Click to expand...

I know the story you are talking about and no they didn't game the system and no it wasn't what I was referring to. But since you brought it up, the family did have coverage except that they hit the lifetime cap for their baby so the third surgey they needed wouldn't have been covered except...wait for it...Obamacare was passed and lifetime caps were removed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom