Posted on 09/09/2012 7:28:36 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Edited on 09/09/2012 7:33:01 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has called for scrapping President Barack Obama's 2010 U.S. healthcare law, said in remarks aired on Sunday that he likes key parts of "Obamacare" despite his party's loathing of it and wants to retain them.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I'm smart enough to know that ANY vote, except for Mitt, will give Obama my vote to continue to completely destroy the United States of America.
That I will NEVER do!
Romney: “there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I’m going to put in place”
MITT ROMNEY: We’re going to replace Obamacare. And I’m replacing it with my own plan. And even in Massachusetts when I was governor, our plan there deals with pre-existing conditions and with young people.
DAVID GREGORY: So you’d keep that part of the federal plan?
MITT ROMNEY: Well, I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform. Of course there are a number of things that I like in healthcare reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage. Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like. I also want individuals to be able to buy insurance, health insurance, on their own as opposed to only being able to get it on a tax advantage basis through their company.
He did not say "“I want to keep parts of Obamacare” on Meet The Press. You did not hear it with your own ears and you and Newsmax are lying...I just read the entire transcript.
Go shill for Obama where you won't have your lies refuted.
Thanks for the transcript excerpt, FreeReign. Makes more sense and for less drama.
“It’s pretty clear that Romney will disappoint us.”
Yup.
“One other thing is clear: Bambi wants to destroy us and everything we believe and care for.”
Absolutely! Too bad the primaries didn’t go better, but this is what we have, and if Obama is reelected, it might be the end of the U.S.A. as we know it.
“I thiuk he needs to fully explain his intent on this before people go off the deep end.”
More importantly, the GOP members of Congress must insure that “repeal of Obamacare” means “repeal of Obamacare”, and “health insurance reform” goes back to market-based reforms from the GOP ignored by the Dims and intent on improving the marketplace of health insurance and NOT intent on growing government or growing government run health inurance.
Here are the two things they mention:
“One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.
“Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”
The first is imperative, and is also a problem if not implemented correctly. As conservatives, we oppose the idea that people can simply avoid coverage and then get it when they get sick. We also oppose mandating that they buy coverage.
But, only a few conservatives are willing to state that they want sick people to be left to die on the sidewalk in front of an emergency room if they can’t pay for their treatment. And if you aren’t willing to do that, you need to accept that you are “covering pre-existing conditions”, and figure out what the best way is to do that.
I like the current way, where we make hospitals treat people, then they try to collect money, and when that fails, they pass the price along to everybody else. I “like” that because while it sucks to have to pick up the tab, at least we aren’t encouraging people to use the system that way. We are simply handling the fallout.
Another way is a pool coverage for risky patients. You’d have to subsidize it. But that’s how it is now — major employers don’t exclude pre-existing conditions, they simply pay extra and the insurance company covers everybody.
Or you can let government cover that pre-existing condition problem under some welfare program, and pay for it with taxes.
One thing is certain — you aren’t going to get away with doing nothing at all, because a vast majority of voters LOVE the abstract idea that they won’t lose their insurance coverage for a pre-existing condition, and they are too stupid to understand the consequences.
As for the 2nd one, I fully support that. It’s stupid regulations that keep insurance companies from offering family policies that extend past adulthood. Now practically speaking, it’s kind of a stupid offering, but if I want to keep paying for my kids insurance under my policy, why shouldn’t my insurance company be allowed to sell me that kind of coverage?
Of course, Obamacare dictates it, whether I want it or not, and therefore makes me PAY for it for my kids, even if I don’t want to. But since that’s not what Romney said he’d do, it’s not a problem. The article screws up by suggesting that any broad discussion equals a specific acceptance of details of Obamacare.
Even if his policy proposals all had the wisdom of Solomon and the brilliance of Einstein, someone needs to tell Mitt that just because he is poised to replace Emperor Barack, that he does not become Emperor Mitt. I don’t know how they do it in Mass. but the US Constitution does not provide for Mitt feeding a bill to Congress.
You’re welcome Girlene.
Romney continues to work for the Obama campaign. Now this is the same man that said time and time again that on day one he would REPEAL OBAMACARE! No he won’t. He wants to keep part of it he likes and replace the rest with his socialized health care program. He puts his damn foot in his mouth every time he opens it on a talk show. He does not have enough sense to keep his mouth shut.
Here's a link to the entire transcript.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48959273/ns/meet_the_press-transcripts/#.UE1ePlLWbKc
Find the words "I want to keep parts of Obamacare” in this transcript and get back to me. Thanks in advance.
Looking forward to it!
Romney is also quoted on abortion, and since quotes themselves are owned by the public figure, they can be repeated here. After saying he wanted the court to overturn the Roe v. Waide ruling:
“Well, there are a number of things I think that need to be said about preserving and protecting the life of the unborn child. And I recognize there are two lives involved: the mom and the unborn child. And I believe that people of good conscience have chosen different paths in this regard. But I am pro-life and will intend, if I’m president of the United States, to encourage pro-life policies.”
Chance that Obama will appoint a judge who would overturn Roe V. Wade = 0%. Chance that we will get a judge who will overturn Roe V. Wade by voting for someone other than Romney? 0%. The value of the lives of the children who will be killed? Priceless.
Agggh, two issues perpetually getting confused.
Mitt wants to get a new bill through (he talks as though it will be his bill — Constitutionally it can’t be — but that’s another argument) that has a few “good ideas” in it. While voiding PPACA per se in its entirety.
Mitt also still thinks, asininely, that Romneycare actually did good for Massachusetts and that all states ought to think about doing it. Yeh, and almost all states will tell him take a flying leap. But he is pondering no Federal mandate towards that end, and that is key.
For your amusement: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2928787/posts?page=90#90
At least he sounds optimistic in that he'll be in office to be able to do something.
"For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God."
"there is no one who does good, not even one."
GOod luck finding a perfect man to vote for. Every man is the lesser of two evils. .
Thanks in advance.
It would be nice if Romney knew the power of his words. He’s done this before (spoke and forgot to monitor his words)... he doesn’t always say what he intends to mean. On the otherhand... who thought Romney was the perfect man for the job. I didn’t. But if obama stays for 4 more years, we won’t recognize our once great country.
he will keep most of it. He will just trim around the edges until it looks like RomneyCare as in Massachusetts. The part he wpecifically mentioned as bìng good is not letting companies refuse or charge more to treat people with pre-existing conditions. That all by itself makes medical insurance absurd, It becomes stupid for anyone to buy insurance until hi is sick or has an accident.So healthy people need not buy the product. If only sick people buy it the price must become astronomical and no one at all can afford it. The logic of it requires mandatory purchase and that way lies full blown socialized medicine either immediately or a little later- socialized medicine and a fatally wounded economy and severely straitened Liberty.
Take your choice in November, the efficient manager of the socialist project or the revolutionary. Mussolini or Lenin. The both lead to Stalin. One will just be a little nicer about it in the beginning.
I’m getting hot under the collar and will probably have to alert the admin moderator to my own posts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.