I went ahead and watched the interview thinking that I might have been misled by the earlier posts. I was wrong. Your post was the misleading one. Romney was quoted accurately in the earlier posts while you just skipped the parts of his statement that you didn't like, the parts where he said he would cover pre-existing conditions under his plan and cover people in a family up to "whatever age they might like." You also skipped the part where he cited Romneycare as an example of a plan where he was able to cover pre-existing conditions.
Which begs the question I asked earlier. How can Romney's new plan cover pre-existing conditions without a mandate? The whole purpose of the mandate in both Romneycare and Obamacare is to provide enough funding to the insurance companies so that they can afford to cover pre-existing conditions without going bankrupt. The insurance companies said they would not agree to the pre-existing condition rule in Obamacare without the mandate in there guaranteeing funding from a wider customer base who was forced to sign up and from the penalties they would pay for not signing up.
I left nothing out - you “added in” things I did not leave out in the first place. I specifically said he said he would replace it with his own plan re: pre-existing conditions and the keeping of children on the plan - and I also included the other things he said about the replacement plan in general - which is exactly what he said and you said it over again while quoting my post and said I was being misleading. I’m not seeing what we are arguing about.