The interwhat? Is that some commie Soviet plot?
As far as I can tell about his “flip-flop back” position, he plans on having the free market solve the problem on its own, rather than having the government mandate anything. Which is consistent, as far as I can tell, with his position on the auto bailouts. Under Obama, when there’s a market failure, the government steps in. Under Romeny, the same result is achieved by the free market. I think magic may be required, but who knows.
I was reading your statement, and was thinking, hmm, at least he’s consistent about that…? But then I realised what that means.
It means that when the market fails, the market will correct the market failure.
… um, okay. #invisiblehandofmagicalfairies
The President can’t, but again, if Congress passes it, he’ll sign it. And if Romney is elected, chances are the GOP also controls the Senate. They’ll put a repeal bill on his desk, you can bank on that.
They’ll put one on Obama’s desk too for that matter. And then another one just before the 2014 midterms, just to remind the voters.
Do you expect the Republicans to pick up 13 seats in November, then?
They only need three. They can either wait out a Democratic filibuster or repeal much of it through reconciliation. More likely they’ll take the reconciliation route.
I don’t think you understand what either of those words mean.
They need to stick a wind turbine in front of Mitt and register him as an alternative energy.
Adaher is probably right on the reconciliation bit: a good chunk of Obamacare can probably be repealed with reconciliation. If the foolish Bush tax cuts can sail through reconciliation, most likely repeal can as well.
I disagree that Republicans can wait out a filibuster, though, unless a GOP majority is feeling randy and uses the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster. I don’t think that’s likely.
Unlikely that the GOP will win the Senate, and if they do, they won’t be able to beat our a filibuster. The bill cannot be repealed through the reconciliation process.
Don’t worry folks, his position has changed again.
“Gov. Romney will ensure that discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage is prohibited,” the aide said.
Not that this is really a bold position, as these sorts of protections have been in place since 1996.
At this point, I’m beginning to wonder whether Romney himself believes anything that he actually says.
What does that even mean? The phrase “maintains continuous coverage” seems to be saying that if you have health insurance already, you cannot be denied health insurance for a “pre-existing condition”. So, that would take care of the nasty little trap the insurance companies had of finding that you had acne as a teenager, before you got your insurance, and that pre-existing condition is why you are seeking medical help for…what?
Why should such a thing be necessary? Because they were doing it, weren’t they? A policy that could be generously described as inhumane, brutal, and greedy. We should trust these people? Or are we to trust the Invisible Finger of the Free Market (blessings and peace be upon it!).
But the problem isn’t so much insurance companies denying coverage for plans that are already enrolled for, but preventing those with such conditions from having the opportunity to have such sleazy shit pulled on them. Those people cannot even get the coverage to get screwed out of. WTF?
Great comment on that:
Good grief. If this had been 2004, the flip-flop shoes would have been all over the DNC floor. Romney has flip flopped 100 times as often as Kerry. And Kerry’s change of opinion was based on new information becoming available.
“No man knows, when that Presidential grub gets to gnawing at him, just how deep in it will get until he has tried it,” President Lincoln remarked in 1863.
It obviously is very deep in Mitt. He’ll do or say anything.
This is a horrible, horrible loophole that means if you lose your job (and insurance) and cannot pay the exorbitant fees for COBRA (insurance extension) and spend one day uninsured (losing “continuous coverage”), and have a pre-existing condition, they can now legally deny you “new” insurance next time you apply. So, if you or your spouse has cancer, or MS or HIV or diabetes or a heart condition or, or, or…you are no longer insurable.
I am sure Mitt would suggest simply asking your parents for a loan to pay for COBRA until you get a new job with insurance, but most people cannot do so and will be shit out of luck.
Just considering going back to this archaic, evil system of denying people coverage based upon pre-existing conditions is sinful and hateful and disgusting. I now wonder how any Republican could possible support any asshole who thinks this would be a good policy.
Before the ACA, the allowed gap (I think this was established by state laws, though I think there was also some federal involvement) was either 60 or 90 days where you could be uninsured without your pre-existing conditions reactivating an exclusion from your next insurance company. Where I worked, we did have a 90 day probationary period, then Ohio passed a law that made such a probationary period problematic because of the way it would time out people’s waiver for preexisting conditions, so we moved to a 60 day probationary period.
So, as long as you stay insured, either through your own devices, your job, or COBRA, the preexisting conditions didn’t matter.
What elucidator mentions is rescission, which is about taking away the insurance contract based on “lies” during the application process. So, related but not the same thing.
Yes, I see that now. One is brutal, greedy, and inhumane, while the other is greedy, inhumane, and brutal. Order of precedence.
Indeed. 
So, the latest iteration of Romney’s, um, thinking is something that was already “taken care of” before ACA. It appears he’s trying to take credit for fixing the preexisting condition loophole that was already “fixed.” That is, when people keep coverage, they don’t become subject to preexisting condition limitations.
The rescission thing isn’t something he’s mentioned. And it’s heartless as hell.
Why can’t we find one journalist who will give these clowns a “Judge Judy” style verbal beatdown when they try to spin and lie their way around a question.
Exactly!
He’d be hearing from a few insurance industry lobbyists quite fast if he tried to have their cake but eat his too.
If you don’t have a job, or don’t have insurance at your job, this is useless.
People used to be excluded for pre-existing conditions from buying coverage at all. Sorry, nope, no policy at an price. Or they could buy one but pay an enormous amount for it.