Political & Elections

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Is it a done deal ...Romney the nom?

hope · Guru

"The survey — conducted by physician recruitment firm Jackson & Coker — is a brutal indictment of both the AMA and ObamaCare. Just 13% of doctors agree with their trade association’s support of the health reform law."

"The Jackson & Coker survey joins a large stack of research with similar findings. In February, the National Physicians Survey discovered that more than three times as many doctors believed that the quality of American health care would “deteriorate” rather than “improve” under ObamaCare. Nine of ten physicians think ObamaCare will have a negative impact on their profession."

A bunch of dummies, yep.

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 14th of January 2012 06:54:16 PM

Cartera · Guru

Well, I guess I'm in good company

If good company is with people who don't understand how legislation is written. If something is not in a piece of legislation, it means the legislation does not provide for it. Are you suggesting that any piece of legislation or reg has to spell out what it doesn't do? That is impossible and not part of legislative intent.

I don't doubt the "physician perception" is wrong. They are subject to the same fear mongering that is clouding the perception of many. They should probably rely on reading comprehension instead.

hope · Guru

"You have fallen for the fear mongering around effective treatment research."

Well, I guess I'm in good company:

"The recovery act language did not specify nor exclude cost as one of the criteria for funding recipients."

"But Dr. Nielsen said physician perception that cost-containment is the primary focus of comparative effectiveness research could undermine support for national health system reform among doctors."

I'm sorry that the problems I and others have with ObamaCare are not legitimate in your eyes. I'm sure it's very annoying to you.

Cartera · Guru

As for the waivers, I think people are annoyed because the decision process behind which companies have been granted waivers has not been disclosed to the public.

That's just not true. Almost every company that has applied has been granted a waiver. Over 1400 applications were received as of July 2011 and only 65 were denied so it was not a subjective process. The standard was if regulating away the plans increased the premium 10%, they were granted. Those below 6% were not.If the company convinced HHS that imposing the coverage limit would cause plans to dissolve, the waivers were granted. The deadline for application was September. All of the regs are in PDFs on the CMS website.

The waiver is for one aspect of the Health Care plan only - the $750k coverage limit. None of the other parts of the plans are waived.

You have fallen for the fear mongering around effective treatment research. There has always been funding for that. It was just increased and it has absolutely nothing to do with decisions regarding limiting care. Neither of the articles you cited say anything about the research being used as a basis for care. Nothing about the research was changed in the new laws except that there will be more money available for research and HHS will be involved in addition to NIH.

Honestly, if you're going to just fall for the propaganda out there without making even the slightest effort to research the issues and see what the facts really are, then you're never going to understand what you're against. There are legitimate problems you could have cited. The ones you did cite and the concomittant questions and comments show a very poor understanding of the legislation.

-- Edited by Cartera on Saturday 14th of January 2012 10:37:27 AM

-- Edited by Cartera on Saturday 14th of January 2012 10:38:05 AM

hope · Guru

I live in a state which sent back the federal money given to them to set up health care exchanges. Obviously, it is not just right wing whackos who are opposed to ObamaCare. A lot of thoughtful people seem to be, including many many doctors.

As for the waivers, I think people are annoyed because the decision process behind which companies have been granted waivers has not been disclosed to the public. Why this is acceptable to some people I have no idea.

"Comparative effectiveness research? "I don't want bureaucrats instructing physicians in which ways they are obligated to limit my treatment. Call me crazy.

http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/os/cerbios.html

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/04/27/gvsb0427.htm

Anyway, Mitt is out there saying he will repeal it. It seems to me he would have to keep his word.

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 14th of January 2012 06:15:36 AM

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 14th of January 2012 06:16:48 AM

-- Edited by hope on Saturday 14th of January 2012 07:08:51 AM

Cartera · Guru

Why would you need a waiver? That question makes no sense unless you have a mini-med plan. It's not that hard to understand, but the right wing seems intent on refusing to make an effort. There's plenty of information out there. The waivers are to protect those insured by mini-med plans. If you have one, and I'd say it's a sure bet you don't, your employer has likely applied for a waiver. Pretty much every entity has been granted one as long as they can show doing away with the reduced coverage policies will lead their insureds with no insurance. There is a list of companies available on the HHS site - they range from having just few employees to large numbers. From the Center on Insurance Oversight -

To be sure, limited benefit plans (also known as “mini-med” plans) can leave consumers with unexpected medical bills in the event of hospitalization or chronic disease. Unfortunately they are the only option that some employers offer to their employees and some individuals can afford in some States. In order to protect coverage for these workers, pursuant to the statutory requirement, CCIIO established a process whereby those plans with annual limits below $750,000 could apply for a one-year waiver from the restricted annual limits. The waiver process allows employers and insurers to continue offering limited coverage if they can show that complying with the regulation would cause their enrollees to experience a significant increase in premiums or decrease in access to benefits.

-- Edited by Cartera on Saturday 14th of January 2012 12:34:03 AM

hope · Guru

What are these waivers all about? It's not right wing news, btw. It's for real.

http://biggovernment.com/whall/2012/01/08/obamacare-waiver-tally-543812-for-union-members-69813-for-private-employees/

Maybe us common folk should be able to apply for waivers too.

Cartera · Guru

He can fight twice as hard for me then. My daughter has a pre-existing condition that would likely have a serious impact on her getting health care insurance if not for the health care changes. It is a lifesaver right now that she is able to stay on her Dad's policy for a few extra years.

I've seen the preliminary work in my state in setting up the health care exchanges and a lot of people will benefit. I probably won't personally because little will be done to help with individual policies, but I'm glad help will come to lot of people who are not fortunate enough to have government subsidized group health care plans.

hope · Guru

I hate to admit that the way she presented it was sort of entertaining to me. Oh my. Poor Mitt!

On the other hand, Barack told me again today that he is "fighting for me." I do NOT, repeat do NOT, want him to fight for me! I can take care of myself and my family, and I want his hands off our healthcare!

I'm at a loss to understand why people like the idea that their president is "fighting" for them. It sounds condescending to me every time I hear it. Maybe winchester can explain. smile

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

After googling, I found the Maddow clip and actually watched it.

While she wasn't exactly gleeful relaying the facts of the story, she might as well be. This is a terribly bad anecdote to bring up in 2012.

winchester · Guru

I am luke warm when it comes to him.

That feeling may come from him being a flip flopper. I am not a conservative R. I have no issue with the fact that he was pro-choice as an R, before he became pro-life. I believe in choice, not from a religious perspective, but as a woman. My body, my choice.

I have no issue with him being against Obama's health care, because he now realizes his plan was flawed, just like Obama's. He actually has the ability to use that as a positive, but he is not going on the offense, and that troubles me. He should go on the offense and state loud and clear, my issue with the plan is I have the experience to understand the pitfalls. Instead, he is defense.

I don't doubt your "feeling." Feelings are real. And your feeling may be correct, and justified. But pointing at flip flopping as the possible justification for it is a non starter.

Everybody is a flip flopper. We are psychologically wired by natural selection to make the best argument we can at the time in order to win. It is human nature. The visceral "feeling" we get to like or dislike, approach or avoid, fight or flee, is part of our evolutionary wiring, and it happens instantly. The arguments we use to justify and defend that feeling come afterward. Arguing is for winning, it is not for truth finding.

The notion that a person will make a statement, or an argument, at one moment in their lives, in one set of circumstance, and then never say anything for the rest of their lives that might be construed as contradicting the original statement, or adding nuance to it, or refining it, or learning from their mistake, or just plain changing their mind, is silly.

And you have no issue with him going after Obama's health care plan because he has learned from his mistakes. If this "flip flop" is OK with you then you undermine the use of flip flopping as a justification for your feeling.

Again, I don't doubt your feeling, and it may be correct. But it needs a better defense.

--------------------

As does "my body my choice."

The body growing inside of a pregnant woman is not hers. It belongs to somebody else. The "choice" to destroy that body is therefore beyond her reach. The "my body my choice" argument in defense of that destruction is probably the greatest "flip flop," or hypocrisy, that ever was, succinctly packaged in four words. A little less succint, but just as bad, is "Keep your laws off my body." That sounds great. It is a wonderful applause line or bumper sticker. The only problem with it is that the body in question is not yours, so the argument is without merit.

We may not know when life begins, but we know the exact instant at which we are created. It is in that instant that we gain our rights, and it is in that same instant that you lose your right to "choose" to destroy that newly created human inside you.

hope · Guru

The story is huge on MSNBC. Rachel Maddow devoted almost all of her show to it last night. Here is what the author of the original story has to say about it:

http://articles.boston.com/2012-01-08/news/30605151_1_romney-family-mitt-romney-dog

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

I missed this story not from just this week but 5 years ago, and it surprises me.

I never heard it before this reference on this board. Wow.

-- Edited by SamuraiLandshark on Friday 13th of January 2012 03:07:43 PM

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

That has to be one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

People are prosecuted for leaving babies and their cars unattended. An air tight container...is horrific. That poor dog!

I know most of you don't like Newt, but he would never, ever have done that to his dog. Just saying.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2011/12/newt-gingrich-animal-lover/46576/

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Dog on a roof? Huh?

Apparently, I have been out of the loop, lately.

pima · Guru

The dog on the roof will now be a great ad for Obama...think about it!

They can use National Lampoon's Vacation movie with the grandmother and place Mitt in it, via a voice over.

Mitt does not make me as an R say I have to show up on election day. I will show up because I believe his ability/experience to turn economic issues around is important right now compared to defense, but I am luke warm when it comes to him.

That feeling may come from him being a flip flopper. I am not a conservative R. I have no issue with the fact that he was pro-choice as an R, before he became pro-life. I believe in choice, not from a religious perspective, but as a woman. My body, my choice.

I have no issue with him being against Obama's health care, because he now realizes his plan was flawed, just like Obama's. He actually has the ability to use that as a positive, but he is not going on the offense, and that troubles me. He should go on the offense and state loud and clear, my issue with the plan is I have the experience to understand the pitfalls. Instead, he is defense.

Same with Bain. He is now going offense by stating he had to fire to make the company healthy, and thus they started hiring. He just isn't stressing it enough.

My fear is if he becomes President his inner circle will be the problem. Let's be honest that happens with every 1st term president. They bring in their inner circle that were with them throughout their campaign and that does not equate success.

I believe Romney can beat Obama if he chooses the right VP. Christie or Rubio would be an advantage. Christie would deliver NJ, and for an R NJ is hard. Rubio would deliver not only FL, but hispanic voters and younger voters.

I would think both of them would accept it because it is a no harm no foul. It places them nationally AND if they lose it gives them their base for 2016.

hope · Guru

Although that dog on the roof story is pretty bad.

hope · Guru

I thought he could win, but that was before the news coverage the last two days. I now realize that Mitt is the most evil human being the world has ever known. disbelief

Edit: Reading this comment this morning I realize it didn't come across sarcastically, as I meant it to be!

-- Edited by hope on Friday 13th of January 2012 09:01:31 AM

zoosermom · Senior Member

I actually think Mitt can win. I also think Obama can lose. When people (did you see the polling about how many people are afraid of an Obama second term?) think about a completely unconstrained Obama, they may just pick anyone else. It's truly horrifying to consider how much damage he could do.

pima · Guru

I honestly cannot see Mitt winning the election. I just don't see the independents going for him. I guess that is why I also supported Huntsman, as many R's have pointed out, their fear is he is not an R, which is where he would get Independents.

I don't think you can win a national election just from your base, you need the Independents.

Cartera · Guru

I love all the possible campaign slogans -

The Mitt's going to hit the fan.

Mitt or get off the pot

Mitt happens.

Full of Mitt.

On the Mitt list.

Get your Mitt together.

And the ever favorite - Oh Mitt!

catahoula · Guru

If Romney eventually takes the nomination, so be it. He'll have my vote, as redundantly useless as it will turn out to be.

The fact that what passes for a republican in Massachusetts stands a pretty fair chance of dislodging a sitting democrat president is a pretty sad indictiment of the last few years.

hope · Guru

Taking the "I like to fire people" quote out of context didn't work!

Yep, looks like a done deal! Great speech too. Looking forward to Mitt vs. Barry.

longprime · Guru

somehow I don't see his passion.

smart politiking by having general policy statements.

busdriver11 · Guru

Sometimes I think Huntsman just nails it. But I can't get past the fact that something about him is just creepy and unappealing. Like that kind of feeling I get when I go to buy a car....I can't stand the salesmen, so I end up buying it online. Which is probably a big reason he can't get about single digits (or is it 5%).

soccerguy315 · Guru

It really sucks that there is not a party that is socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

It's like my options are:
1. socially liberal and big spenders
2. obnoxious social views and slightly less big spenders.

terrible.

Razorsharp · Guru

I am in favor of a President who does not have a lot of baggage like three wives (Newt) and many girlfriends (Herman Cain). If being a Mormon means no baggage, I am all for it.

hope · Guru

Well Cain is out...is there another African American running for the R ticket?

Cain had tremendous R support amont Tea Party types. Did you hear the NPR report last week featuring a black commentator (caught part of it--didn 't catch his name) who admitted that the TP support of Cain was heartening re race relations in this country.

Don't care to focus on that though, do we.

Cartera · Guru

There are certainly many who view Mormonism as a cult. I grew up attending a conservative Baptist church and that is certainly their thinking. The ones that I've talked to there would still vote for the devil himself over a black man though so Romney will get their votes.

hope · Guru

I wonder if Huntsman isn't hurt by his popularity on the left. Petty though it may be, I know I don't particularly trust him for that reason.

I don't either. Or his working for the O administration.

I also don't understand the knock on Mitt for his Bain Capital experience. R's should make up their minds: do they want someone who has the fortitude to go in to D.C. and make it leaner and meaner? Or do they want someone mouthing platitudes about "creating jobs" (an Obama-lite) who accomplishes nothing? If we want to clean up a bloated government people have to go.

Obama uses government as a jobs program. Say what you want about MR not being a true conservative, I don't believe he thinks that way.

-- Edited by hope on Monday 9th of January 2012 12:38:52 PM

-- Edited by hope on Monday 9th of January 2012 12:40:41 PM

zoosermom · Senior Member

I wonder if Huntsman isn't hurt by his popularity on the left. Petty though it may be, I know I don't particularly trust him for that reason.

I suspect (based on absolutely no evidence) that Romney is hurt, at least somewhat, by being a Mormon. Probably helps to show off the one wife in as many places as possible. I'm Moravian, which is the oldest protestant denomination, and as liberal/mainstream as you can imagine, but we have always been mistaken for Mormon and in my area (NYC) there are a lot of people who have a visceral dislike of Mormons even to this day. Based on my own experiece (this is a very common thing in my denomination) as a mistaken-Mormon, I would bet there is significant prejudice. I know there is on the left.

hope · Guru

I certainly wasn't accusing you or anyone here of being anti-Mormon, pima. I just meant generally I wonder if it is a factor. I don't hear much about it lately, but I certainly did in 2008.

I misspoke if I said that George Romney did not graduate from hs. I meant college--although he attended several local schools briefly, it seems.

I see John Huntsman, Jr. as a the son of a billionaire who can afford to drop out of hs and start a rock band and drive a motorcycle. I've known guys like that and, whether or not he was an Eagle scout, the narrative does not appeal to me. His father went to Wharton and donated the money to Penn for Huntsman Hall. John Sr. is multi-billionaire and according to Wiki, has given billions away to charity. Apparently he would consider his son's candidacy a charity, but word is he is waiting for him to ask. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Huntsman,_Sr.

There is debate whether Mitt is a career politician or not...but I feel his claim as not is legitimate. John Jr. has done nothing but "public service," other than be CEO of his Daddy's company. I see Mitt as having struck out and done his own thing independent of his Dad. The touted 200 million that Mitt is worth is peanuts compared to the Huntsman billions.

Speaking Mandarin (and his fluency has been debated), having been an Eagle Scout, and having two sons in the Navy does not qualify him for President imo. This is only my opinion!!

Cartera · Guru

Of course, I'm hoping that none of them have a snowball's chance against President Obama, but I think Romney will be the nominee. The Republican machine, not controlled by the tea party nuts, will see to that. The tea party has enough control in the house to continue to sabotage whatever is necessary to hurt the President, but they don't hold that same amount of power in the party. Even if Romney wins, the tea party will likely still continue on the path of destroying the government so he may not have it easy either.

pima · Guru

I am a Hunttsman supporter and he too is a Mormon, so I can't say people are stuck with anti-Mormon when they oppose Mitt.

I am not a fan because I believe Mitt is a politician. I believe he is a flip-flopper, and if I had to chose between Obama who never took a side as a Sen. and Mitt who flips, I will hold my nose and vote for Mitt. Honestly, I would not be heartbroken if Obama won because all I see as a difference in leadership is the letter R or D.

I have not watched his eyes shifting or darting, but maybe the reason why his eyes shift is more about absorbing the info in the debate and registering it before he thinks.

Yes, maybe Mitt's Dad didn't graduate from HS, but MITT did and Huntsman didn't. One is 2nd generation and one is 1st. Isn't that the ultimate dream...Bill Gates, Stephen Spielberg, Mark Zuckerburg, etc? Huntsman is a member of that club! If you don't know what it takes to be an Eagle Scout...please google it, it will illustrate he had the world at his finger tips and left it just like the people I mentioned.

Imagine the ads for Huntsman...

I dropped out of HS to join a band, I got my GED and later went onto UP. I was the Gov of Utah, the Ambassador to China under Obama.

When it comes to Presidential debates, ask yourself who has more insight...Mitt or Huntsman regarding Obama?

What are the independent's fears? China

Who out of the 2 has a relationship with China? Huntsman

So now you have 2 candidates that are both Mormom, and previous Govs., plus solid marriage relationships.

Why do you support Mitt over Huntsman?

Personnally for me eye darting doesn't matter, I have a child with Aspergers and accept maybe it is a physical issue and not an underlyying meaning.

It is like me with my pet peeve that everytime I see Obama speak, I count how mant times I see him use his left hand and the fore finger pointing when he deliivers a speech. It is his thing

-- Edited by pima on Monday 9th of January 2012 10:00:12 AM

hope · Guru

Funny I was just thinking the same thing yesterday--Romney should keep Christie stuck to his side like glue!

I just can't warm to Huntsman or his wife. He strikes me as shifty and cold and elitist. Look at his eyes darting everywhere during the debates. I know Romney can seem robotic, but I believe the stories that he's a genuinely nice guy. I like his wife Ann a lot. There is a story in the Daily Mail today about her Welsh roots (her grandfather was a coalminer). Don't forget Mitt's father didn't graduate from high school. Both of their fathers became very successful beginning with very humble roots. Truly the American dream.

I'm beginning to wonder if the reason Mitt is stuck is because of anti-Mormon prejudice.

pima · Guru

Hate to say it, but let's be honest...image matters.

Let's be honest, John Kerry and his wife Teresa just didn't connect with the common voter, because they were not the common(INDEPENDENT) voter.

I think Romney will have this problem from a national perspective against Obama.

The Independent needs to connect with the candidate, and I don't see that with Mitt.

John Huntsman as an R has that...

n 1975 (age 15), Huntsman earned the rank of Eagle Scout, the highest rank of the Boy Scouts of America. Huntsman attended Highland High School in Salt Lake City but dropped out before graduating to pursue his passion as a keyboard player in the rock band Wizard.

Huntsman later obtained a G.E.D. and enrolled at the University of Utah, where he became, like his father, a member of the Sigma Chi fraternity. Huntsman served as a Mormon missionary in Taiwan for two years. He then transferred to the University of Pennsylvania, where he received a bachelor's degree in international politics in 1987.

Yes, he was a millionaire's son, but this kid dropped out of HS to be in a band and got a G.E.D

He his a bootstrap candidate. One where if he tapped into it others would remember how every parent feels when they hold their child minutes after they are born...a future president.

One that could tapped into the emotions of the common voter...I did not graduate HS.

The American dream.

Huntsman, with his wife have 7 children, 2 are adopted (China 1999 and India 2006).

He is a Mormon, but his wife is Episcopalian and their kids attended Catholic schools.

He does not support Gay marriage, but will not oppose it, and that matters to me.

zoosermom · Senior Member

I hope Romney takes Chris Christie all around with him. We need a hammer of our own to counter the Obama thugs.

I'm fine with Romney. Not madly in love, but perfectly fine. Whatever it takes to get rid of the current, utterly incompetent occupant of the White House. Obama really should have been king or prime minister or something. Such an attractive man could have traveled across the globe and reflected well on America with his lovely wife. But purely decorative, you know? Because he just can't DO anything and doesn't seem to want to. Which is fine. He is pretty. Sometimes that's enough.

pima · Guru

I am hoping that it isn't, and praying that now Huntsman is getting noticed he may be able to jump up to that lead position.

I just don't believe even with Paul in the new polls being in 2nd slot that once the voters have to select they will vote for him, but at the same time that means if they can't get behind Romney, they will select the other option.

This is do or die time for Huntsman because he went to NH over Iowa, whereas, Santorum went to Iowa, but jumped NH for SC.

If Huntsman can take 2nd place or tie with Santorum it will give him momentum.

I will hold my nose and vote for Romney for President, and the real reason I would support him is because of his corporate experience which I believe we need to deal with our economy.

I would prefer Huntsman because not only was he a Gov., but also due to his experience with China under Obama's administration. China is a big issue not only from an economic POV, but also from a military perspective. Remember China right now is amping up their military equipment including carriers and fighter planes.

I am still hoping, but I do believe Romney might now be unstoppable.