And so it begins- Romney the Job Killer

[JoeB131]

It's fine not to like Romney, I get that. But it's not ok to simply make up your own facts. He didn't govern as a liberal. Not even close. When Romney was Gov of MA there was an 85% Dem majority in the legislature. Did you know that? Do you have a clue what that meant? Did you also know what Travaglini and the legislature was up to wrg to healthcare? Trust someone who knows and lives here, it was going to be true socialized medicine. What Romney proposed was good for MA, for a single state, and a state that supported it. That is a conservative virtue. Anything the legislature wanted to overturn they could. The only way Romney could get anything done was to use the bully pulpit and leadership. He cleaned up the Big Dig, he balanced the budget making some tough choices.

If it was an 85% liberal legislature, then they could have passed socialized medicine without Romney's input. That's pretty much a veto proof majority.

I should also point out that Mitten's immediate predecessor was a Republican. So were the two before that. Celluci and Weld were able to get elected as Republicans, and won by better margins than Romney did AND Weld got re-elected.

You could put your paragon of Conservatism in MA as Gov and he/she would get NOTHING done as an 85% legislature would overturn every veto and stop anything they want.

You simply don't have a clue or have an agenda but you really have to look at the facts and the circumstances and the situation. Romney is a conservative. It's a fact. But he could have either accomplished nothing or tried, worked with the loons in MA, kept trying, make smart compromises and try and impart the best changes and stem the moonbats as best he could.

Again, the problem with this argument is that he's willing to go along to get along. So what happens in 2014 if the Democrats regain Congress? Is he going to get along then?

The problem is that Romney isn't a conservative or a liberal. He's an oppurtunist. He says what he thinks his audience wants to hear. Going from "I will be better than Teddy on gay rights" to "I am totally against Gay Marriage."

Oppurtunists worry me. Their own ego usually blots out anything else.

 

[JoeB131]

that isn't how Fatboy won in 94, he won because his last name is Kennedy. Period the end. Nobody was ever going to beat Kennedy. Kennedy killed a girl, covered it up, and still was elected king Senator for life in MA. I don't care what any pundit or any website says, Romney NEVER had a chance. Nobody ever had a chance. MA felt bad for the fat dumb and stupid Kennedy who blew it. He was "our" king Senator who couldn't be President but would have a Senate seat for life. People in MA are fucked up whack jobs.

Well, it seems, then, if he "never had a chance", he really wasted a lot of people's time by running in 1994, then? Money that might have been better spent in Virginia that year, or in California, where North and Huffington were reasonably close to beating their democrats.

He didn't run just on his own dime in 1994. A lot of money was spent by the RNC on that race on the premise he had a fighting chance. And he was polling well, until Kennedy dragged out the crying AmPad workers.

And again, Bain didn't just take companies and scrap them, they invested in all kinds of companies. They grew companies and still do to this day. Obama has ruined more careers with the likes of Solyndra than Bain could ever be accused of. Bain didn't pick winners and losers. They took losers and salvaged what they could and then used the proceeds to invest and grow winners. They serve a valuable job creating purpose, that sadly not enough people understand. Bain has dozens of companies in its portfolio today that either wouldn't exist, would have failed or would not have been remotely as successful if not for them Romney will have to effectively communicate this.

All that wonderful stuff rings kind of hollow when Romney is paying himself an 8 figure salary and complaining that Mansion #4 isn't big enough for him, while that AmPad worker is out of a job and his house was foreclosed upon. Then you get into serious "let them eat cake" territory.

 

[Chris]

Bain Capital photo while Romney was closing factories in Indiana and shipping jobs overseas....

 

[JoeB131]

Perry and Palin are complete morons. Huckabee is too religious, Americans don't want that. If the GOP could have run someone else, then fine, but Mitt is the best of the bunch running.

If that were true, that would be a sad commentary on the GOP in general.

But here's the point. Huckabee would have made a fine candidate, but the GOP did everything they could to stop him. Incidently, he wasn't too religious. I think he had his religion in the right place. To start with, he didn't think the central message of Christianity is "Tax Cuts for Rich People". The problem with Hucakbee was that he was a populist, and that scares the crap out of the GOP establishment.

Romney is the candidate of a GOP establishment that is more concerned with maintaining control of the party than winning. They are the kind who give us a Bob Dole, a JOhn McCain or a Jerry Ford. By the way, any of these three losers are vastly MORE of a man than Romney was.

Romney didn't even serve his country in uniform. He was trying to convince French people to be Mormons.

Take a look at the other Republicans who won in MA. Weld? Weld and conservative were never spoken in the same sentence. Losing to Ted Kennedy, a legacy lifetime king senator means a "real opponent" and he can't win? LOL. Name a Republican who could have beaten Kennedy in 94. Name one.

It wasn't just that he lost to Kennedy. He lost to John McCain. He lost to Mike Huckabee. He would have lost to Devall Patrick if he hadn't ducked out and ended a 16 year lock on the MA Governor's mansion by the GOP.

The 2008 primaries are telling. Do you know which primaries he won? He won Michigan, where his father was Governor, and he promised the auto industry a bailout. (He then denounced the bailout when Obama actually did it!)

He won Massachusetts, but not by as big a margin as McCain won Arizona or Hucakbee won Arkansas (which held their primaries on the same day.)

And he won Utah, which is full of his fellow LDS cultists.

And that was it. He won a few caucuses where only a few thousand people voted... but in real primaries in big states- NY, IL, OH, PA, CA- he lost and lost badly.

 

[earlycuyler]

I'm really starting to think you really weren't around in 1980. If you were, you'd remember how Reagan was described as "that B-Movie Actor" who was "kind of a dunce" and "was going to blow up the world".

Except that I didn't say that, did I? You're getting your analogies mixed up.

Joe would know even if you didn't say that. He said he has worked for every republican campaign since 1980.

 

[cheetah440]

It's fine not to like Romney, I get that. But it's not ok to simply make up your own facts. He didn't govern as a liberal. Not even close. When Romney was Gov of MA there was an 85% Dem majority in the legislature. Did you know that? Do you have a clue what that meant? Did you also know what Travaglini and the legislature was up to wrg to healthcare? Trust someone who knows and lives here, it was going to be true socialized medicine. What Romney proposed was good for MA, for a single state, and a state that supported it. That is a conservative virtue. Anything the legislature wanted to overturn they could. The only way Romney could get anything done was to use the bully pulpit and leadership. He cleaned up the Big Dig, he balanced the budget making some tough choices.

If it was an 85% liberal legislature, then they could have passed socialized medicine without Romney's input. That's pretty much a veto proof majority.

I should also point out that Mitten's immediate predecessor was a Republican. So were the two before that. Celluci and Weld were able to get elected as Republicans, and won by better margins than Romney did AND Weld got re-elected.

You could put your paragon of Conservatism in MA as Gov and he/she would get NOTHING done as an 85% legislature would overturn every veto and stop anything they want.

You simply don't have a clue or have an agenda but you really have to look at the facts and the circumstances and the situation. Romney is a conservative. It's a fact. But he could have either accomplished nothing or tried, worked with the loons in MA, kept trying, make smart compromises and try and impart the best changes and stem the moonbats as best he could.

Again, the problem with this argument is that he's willing to go along to get along. So what happens in 2014 if the Democrats regain Congress? Is he going to get along then?

The problem is that Romney isn't a conservative or a liberal. He's an oppurtunist. He says what he thinks his audience wants to hear. Going from "I will be better than Teddy on gay rights" to "I am totally against Gay Marriage."

Oppurtunists worry me. Their own ego usually blots out anything else.

It was 85%, that was a statement of fact not opinion. And many have speculated and written on the subject that the legislature was working on socialized medicine before Romney came out with his plan. He trumped them.

Here's a news flash: All pols are opportunists. I don't care what he was, more interested in what he is.

And I don't really care about fringe social issues. Gay marriage is a big red herring. I do care about abortion and trust he is pro life. If anything I suspect he was more of an opportunist when he ran against Ted than now. For that I commend him. I'm glad he was lying and doing whatever it took to take out that fat lying piece of scum.

 

[cheetah440]

Perry and Palin are complete morons. Huckabee is too religious, Americans don't want that. If the GOP could have run someone else, then fine, but Mitt is the best of the bunch running.

If that were true, that would be a sad commentary on the GOP in general.

But here's the point. Huckabee would have made a fine candidate, but the GOP did everything they could to stop him. Incidently, he wasn't too religious. I think he had his religion in the right place. To start with, he didn't think the central message of Christianity is "Tax Cuts for Rich People". The problem with Hucakbee was that he was a populist, and that scares the crap out of the GOP establishment.

Romney is the candidate of a GOP establishment that is more concerned with maintaining control of the party than winning. They are the kind who give us a Bob Dole, a JOhn McCain or a Jerry Ford. By the way, any of these three losers are vastly MORE of a man than Romney was.

Romney didn't even serve his country in uniform. He was trying to convince French people to be Mormons.

Take a look at the other Republicans who won in MA. Weld? Weld and conservative were never spoken in the same sentence. Losing to Ted Kennedy, a legacy lifetime king senator means a "real opponent" and he can't win? LOL. Name a Republican who could have beaten Kennedy in 94. Name one.

It wasn't just that he lost to Kennedy. He lost to John McCain. He lost to Mike Huckabee. He would have lost to Devall Patrick if he hadn't ducked out and ended a 16 year lock on the MA Governor's mansion by the GOP.

The 2008 primaries are telling. Do you know which primaries he won? He won Michigan, where his father was Governor, and he promised the auto industry a bailout. (He then denounced the bailout when Obama actually did it!)

He won Massachusetts, but not by as big a margin as McCain won Arizona or Hucakbee won Arkansas (which held their primaries on the same day.)

And he won Utah, which is full of his fellow LDS cultists.

And that was it. He won a few caucuses where only a few thousand people voted... but in real primaries in big states- NY, IL, OH, PA, CA- he lost and lost badly.

So what? Reagan lost to Ford. TO FORD! Wow he must have sucked to lose to the guy who lost to Carter.

this isn't 2008, 2008 is irrelevant.

 

[Maple]

I knew it wouldn't take long for the MSM to dredge up every person who got fired by Bain..

NBC Politics - As Romney's firm profited in SC, jobs disappeared

Four years later, the Holson Burns Group Inc. — the company controlled by Romney's Bain Capital LLC — closed the factory and laid off about 150 workers. Some jobs were sent north, where months later many of those were also eliminated. Other operations went overseas.

But Bain walked away with millions in profits.

This is why Romney would be poison as a candidate.... you can talk about Business smarts all day, but that's trumped by one worker standing in front of a shuttered plant.

You better do some more reading, he created 10 of thousands of jobs in the private sector, yes a few failures but by and large he knows how to create jobs he did it for years.

 

[Maple]

You mean just like the media digging up everything Newt has ever said about anything?

I hate to break it to you, but a businessman will fire people. Most people understand that. What people don't understand is someone saying we should arrest judges who make decisions a candidate disagrees with, or women can't serve in the military because they get diseases in ditches, or people who smoke pot should be electrocuted, or the government should build giant mirrors in space to better illuminate the night highways, or we should hire 9 year-olds, and so on, and so on, and so on, and so ...

He didn't just "fire" people..he fired everyone. Then offered the younger workers their jobs back with less wages and no benefits.

That's pretty dramatic.

If that's the case then at least they had jobs, companies who are not making a profit can not keep their doors open as they are making NO money to pay anyone, that's just a fact and an undeniable one. Why don't you ask how many jobs Obama lost when he took over our car companies, thousands for restructering. No leg to stand on here, you need to find something else.

 

[cheetah440]

I knew it wouldn't take long for the MSM to dredge up every person who got fired by Bain..

NBC Politics - As Romney's firm profited in SC, jobs disappeared

Four years later, the Holson Burns Group Inc. — the company controlled by Romney's Bain Capital LLC — closed the factory and laid off about 150 workers. Some jobs were sent north, where months later many of those were also eliminated. Other operations went overseas.

But Bain walked away with millions in profits.

This is why Romney would be poison as a candidate.... you can talk about Business smarts all day, but that's trumped by one worker standing in front of a shuttered plant.

You better do some more reading, he created 10 of thousands of jobs in the private sector, yes a few failures but by and large he knows how to create jobs he did it for years.

Republicans have to be perfect. Democrats can do coke, smoke pot, cheat, lie, dodge the draft, etc etc etc. and they are "cool".

Republicans can't take a single misstep or they get WHACKED.

Now I get the GOP does bring a lot of this on themselves. I get that. But still......

 

[JoeB131]

So what? Reagan lost to Ford. TO FORD! Wow he must have sucked to lose to the guy who lost to Carter.

this isn't 2008, 2008 is irrelevant.

Reagan got in late, had the entire Republican Establishment against him, and was challenging a sitting president for his own party's nomination.

Romney has been running for five years, has the Establishment bending over backwards to shove him down the throats of an unwilling rank and file, and he still hasn't broken 25% against opponents who are truly pathetic. (THis could actually be said of 2008 as well. He lost to McCain and Huckabee? That's just sad.)

 

[JoeB131]

If that's the case then at least they had jobs, companies who are not making a profit can not keep their doors open as they are making NO money to pay anyone, that's just a fact and an undeniable one. Why don't you ask how many jobs Obama lost when he took over our car companies, thousands for restructering. No leg to stand on here, you need to find something else.

Guy, you need to stop thinking like a chamber of commerce asshole.

Working stiffs don't care if a company laid them off had to do so for a good reason or not.

I got let go from a job when they closed down their Chicago Branch in 1996. So did everyone else who worked there. The company went out of business a year later. We were all happy they did, because they were scumwads.

If Romney wants to be the candidate of the "guy who lays you off", that's fine, but that's NOT the winning formula. We need to be the party of the Guy you work with.

if you want to compare GM to Bain's rape of AmPad, let's look at that.

GM, they made sure they kept people employed before paying off stockholders. Salaries of executives were slashed.

AmPad, they essentially did a pump and dump. Bain paid themselves millions in management fees while letting hundreds of people go. Left the stockholders with worthless paper after selling it at a huge profit.

 

[JoeB131]

It was 85%, that was a statement of fact not opinion. And many have speculated and written on the subject that the legislature was working on socialized medicine before Romney came out with his plan. He trumped them.

Here's a news flash: All pols are opportunists. I don't care what he was, more interested in what he is.

And I don't really care about fringe social issues. Gay marriage is a big red herring. I do care about abortion and trust he is pro life. If anything I suspect he was more of an opportunist when he ran against Ted than now. For that I commend him. I'm glad he was lying and doing whatever it took to take out that fat lying piece of scum.

So he trumped them on socialized medicine by creating a huge boondoggle that gave millions to the INsurance Industry by forcing people to buy insurance they didn't want. Brilliant! How come all of Romney's solutions to problems always involve jerks getting rich?

As a practical matter, I'm against banning abortion because you can't effectively ban it. People were getting them pretty easily when they were technically illegal. But Romney has talked out of both sides of his mouth on this and just about every other issue.

 

[earlycuyler]

It was 85%, that was a statement of fact not opinion. And many have speculated and written on the subject that the legislature was working on socialized medicine before Romney came out with his plan. He trumped them.

Here's a news flash: All pols are opportunists. I don't care what he was, more interested in what he is.

And I don't really care about fringe social issues. Gay marriage is a big red herring. I do care about abortion and trust he is pro life. If anything I suspect he was more of an opportunist when he ran against Ted than now. For that I commend him. I'm glad he was lying and doing whatever it took to take out that fat lying piece of scum.

So he trumped them on socialized medicine by creating a huge boondoggle that gave millions to the INsurance Industry by forcing people to buy insurance they didn't want. Brilliant! How come all of Romney's solutions to problems always involve jerks getting rich?

As a practical matter, I'm against banning abortion because you can't effectively ban it. People were getting them pretty easily when they were technically illegal. But Romney has talked out of both sides of his mouth on this and just about every other issue.

Axelrod was right. The further a monkey climbs a pole, the more it shows its butt cammmpbell.

 

[cheetah440]

It was 85%, that was a statement of fact not opinion. And many have speculated and written on the subject that the legislature was working on socialized medicine before Romney came out with his plan. He trumped them.

Here's a news flash: All pols are opportunists. I don't care what he was, more interested in what he is.

And I don't really care about fringe social issues. Gay marriage is a big red herring. I do care about abortion and trust he is pro life. If anything I suspect he was more of an opportunist when he ran against Ted than now. For that I commend him. I'm glad he was lying and doing whatever it took to take out that fat lying piece of scum.

So he trumped them on socialized medicine by creating a huge boondoggle that gave millions to the INsurance Industry by forcing people to buy insurance they didn't want. Brilliant! How come all of Romney's solutions to problems always involve jerks getting rich?

As a practical matter, I'm against banning abortion because you can't effectively ban it. People were getting them pretty easily when they were technically illegal. But Romney has talked out of both sides of his mouth on this and just about every other issue.

Name a few major problems that were solved that didn't involve people getting rich.
I'd prefer that people not be given free care because they chose not to purchase insurance or get coverage. broke your arm, didn't buy insurance, tough shit. Sucks to be you. But the bleeding hearts won't turn away anyone, that's why when you really need the ER, and god forbid find yourself in one, you're surrounded by the parasites and dregs who are there using the ER for primary care. I'm actually fine for a 2 tier system. Socialize it already, everyone gets a low end basic care, keep the masses pacified, keep them quiet. Give them just barely what they need since they have no desire to every get more on their own. The rest of us buy a higher end product. The price I'm willing to pay so when I need real care, I don't have to wait behind 10 deadbeats that I'm paying for.


Abortion is murder plain and simple. I come to this conclusion not on any religious principle but on common sense. A beating heart is life. I'm fine with morning after pill etc, but once implantation has taken place, that's it for me. I just believe the transformation that takes place at that moment and the resulting heart beat is when life begins.

I always felt that the bleed out deaths from back alley abortions were sufficient deterrents. If you chose to break the law and suffer the consequences, so be it. Not much pity from me.

 

[JoeB131]

Name a few major problems that were solved that didn't involve people getting rich.
I'd prefer that people not be given free care because they chose not to purchase insurance or get coverage. broke your arm, didn't buy insurance, tough shit. Sucks to be you. But the bleeding hearts won't turn away anyone, that's why when you really need the ER, and god forbid find yourself in one, you're surrounded by the parasites and dregs who are there using the ER for primary care. I'm actually fine for a 2 tier system. Socialize it already, everyone gets a low end basic care, keep the masses pacified, keep them quiet. Give them just barely what they need since they have no desire to every get more on their own. The rest of us buy a higher end product. The price I'm willing to pay so when I need real care, I don't have to wait behind 10 deadbeats that I'm paying for.

Abortion is murder plain and simple. I come to this conclusion not on any religious principle but on common sense. A beating heart is life. I'm fine with morning after pill etc, but once implantation has taken place, that's it for me. I just believe the transformation that takes place at that moment and the resulting heart beat is when life begins.

I always felt that the bleed out deaths from back alley abortions were sufficient deterrents. If you chose to break the law and suffer the consequences, so be it. Not much pity from me.

I've made jokes about the kind of Republican who watches "It's a Wonderful Life" and cheers for Mr. Potter. I didn't think I'd actually get to meet one openly admitting it.

We already have a two-teired system, and that's the problem. You complain, rightfully, that the deadbeat who goes to the ER is an unfair expense and a drain on the entire system. But the thing is, we spend more money than any other country, because of these kinds of inefficiencies. Free Clinics would be cheaper and more cost effective. So would price controls. Either one would be called "Socialism".

The problem is that we have a system that is neither captialistic or socialistic, but a bit of both.

 

[cheetah440]

Name a few major problems that were solved that didn't involve people getting rich.
I'd prefer that people not be given free care because they chose not to purchase insurance or get coverage. broke your arm, didn't buy insurance, tough shit. Sucks to be you. But the bleeding hearts won't turn away anyone, that's why when you really need the ER, and god forbid find yourself in one, you're surrounded by the parasites and dregs who are there using the ER for primary care. I'm actually fine for a 2 tier system. Socialize it already, everyone gets a low end basic care, keep the masses pacified, keep them quiet. Give them just barely what they need since they have no desire to every get more on their own. The rest of us buy a higher end product. The price I'm willing to pay so when I need real care, I don't have to wait behind 10 deadbeats that I'm paying for.

Abortion is murder plain and simple. I come to this conclusion not on any religious principle but on common sense. A beating heart is life. I'm fine with morning after pill etc, but once implantation has taken place, that's it for me. I just believe the transformation that takes place at that moment and the resulting heart beat is when life begins.

I always felt that the bleed out deaths from back alley abortions were sufficient deterrents. If you chose to break the law and suffer the consequences, so be it. Not much pity from me.

I've made jokes about the kind of Republican who watches "It's a Wonderful Life" and cheers for Mr. Potter. I didn't think I'd actually get to meet one openly admitting it.

We already have a two-teired system, and that's the problem. You complain, rightfully, that the deadbeat who goes to the ER is an unfair expense and a drain on the entire system. But the thing is, we spend more money than any other country, because of these kinds of inefficiencies. Free Clinics would be cheaper and more cost effective. So would price controls. Either one would be called "Socialism".

The problem is that we have a system that is neither captialistic or socialistic, but a bit of both.

OK, a few things. I'm not heartless. I gave over $5k to charity last year, and $5k this year. My wife and I sponsor 2 foreign children, and I have helped out at a food kitchen before. I try to speak what I believe is the truth regardless of hurting anyone's feelings.

You didn't mention any major problems that were solved that didn't involve someone getting rich.

"Free" clinics would not be "Free". They wouldn't be cheaper. Insurance companies work on thin margins, thinner than any government run bureaucratic nightmare. I agree we need reforms, we need safety nets, we need to help those who can't help themselves. That's why I am surrendering. Socialize it. Maybe a VAT tax based or something that everyone has to contribute to for a basic level of care. The rest of us can buy higher level.

 

[JoeB131]

OK, a few things. I'm not heartless. I gave over $5k to charity last year, and $5k this year. My wife and I sponsor 2 foreign children, and I have helped out at a food kitchen before. I try to speak what I believe is the truth regardless of hurting anyone's feelings.

And I'm sure you lord it over people. Self-righteous much.

You didn't mention any major problems that were solved that didn't involve someone getting rich.

How about this one. Jonas Salk invented the Polio Vaccine. He could have patented it and made BILLIONS. Instead, he gave it away for free to anyone who wanted to produce it to get it out there faster.

"Free" clinics would not be "Free". They wouldn't be cheaper. Insurance companies work on thin margins, thinner than any government run bureaucratic nightmare. I agree we need reforms, we need safety nets, we need to help those who can't help themselves. That's why I am surrendering. Socialize it. Maybe a VAT tax based or something that everyone has to contribute to for a basic level of care. The rest of us can buy higher level.

So what diseases should we let the poor die from for being poor, and what diseases should we treat only the rich for? Where do you draw the lines?

As for hte poor insurance companies, I remember Ed Hanaway, the president of Cigna, let Natalie Sarkisyan die for lack of a liver transplant because it would cost too much money, and they paid this douchebag a 73 million dollar severance package.

Of course, you can come up with just as many horror stories about Canadian or English patients being denied treatment that a bureaucrat deemed to expensive. A corporate Bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat. I've been both, and it's easy to lose focus.

I think you run into a trap when you say, "everyone should have this, but the rich can get the better treatment". Pretty soon, the rest of us vote ourselves the better treatment.

Which is to say, I don't have the answers. I wish I did.

In related news, Reversable Mittens today said everyone should have insurance. So he's doubling down on defending RomneyCare.

 

[cheetah440]

OK, a few things. I'm not heartless. I gave over $5k to charity last year, and $5k this year. My wife and I sponsor 2 foreign children, and I have helped out at a food kitchen before. I try to speak what I believe is the truth regardless of hurting anyone's feelings.

And I'm sure you lord it over people. Self-righteous much.

You didn't mention any major problems that were solved that didn't involve someone getting rich.

How about this one. Jonas Salk invented the Polio Vaccine. He could have patented it and made BILLIONS. Instead, he gave it away for free to anyone who wanted to produce it to get it out there faster.

"Free" clinics would not be "Free". They wouldn't be cheaper. Insurance companies work on thin margins, thinner than any government run bureaucratic nightmare. I agree we need reforms, we need safety nets, we need to help those who can't help themselves. That's why I am surrendering. Socialize it. Maybe a VAT tax based or something that everyone has to contribute to for a basic level of care. The rest of us can buy higher level.

So what diseases should we let the poor die from for being poor, and what diseases should we treat only the rich for? Where do you draw the lines?

As for hte poor insurance companies, I remember Ed Hanaway, the president of Cigna, let Natalie Sarkisyan die for lack of a liver transplant because it would cost too much money, and they paid this douchebag a 73 million dollar severance package.

Of course, you can come up with just as many horror stories about Canadian or English patients being denied treatment that a bureaucrat deemed to expensive. A corporate Bureaucrat or a government bureaucrat. I've been both, and it's easy to lose focus.

I think you run into a trap when you say, "everyone should have this, but the rich can get the better treatment". Pretty soon, the rest of us vote ourselves the better treatment.

Which is to say, I don't have the answers. I wish I did.

In related news, Reversable Mittens today said everyone should have insurance. So he's doubling down on defending RomneyCare.

Not self righteous, just responding in honest. I would never have said that if not for the Mr Potter quip. Context.
Jonas was one in a million. Hard to plan around Jonas. I don't have the answers either. Our system is broken I admit. The rich can always get more. Bigger this, better that. Fact of life, I don't try to deny it. The answer is how do we make it work for most knowing that the fringes on both sides will fall through the cracks one way or the other and won't participate. I've actually changed my views on this over the last few years.
I think think we should have a form of socialized system. I think all children should get "free" care up until 18 or if in college or something like that. For the same reason k-12w education is "free". Point is, children should never go without. Same with retired/elderly over 68/70 whatever. The rest of us in the working class should have insurance or something to pay for our coverage. Nobody should be denied coverage for pre-existing. The one thing I like about the health care bill. Maybe the only thing.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay, so kids and the elderly should get "free", which means the rest of us should pay for it.

Everyone else should get insurance. But here's the problem. Everyone else doesn't use as much. So they will not only be the ones paying for the "free" healthcare of the big users (children and elderly), but then they have to pay for the insurance that they may not need.

Which is part of the problem. Insurance is really kind of a form of gambling. You are bettting against getting sick. Most of my life, since the Army and I parted company in 1992, I've had insurance, and used it very little. (I always had the option of going to the VA during periods of unemployment, but never have.) So it was a waste of money for me and my employer to pay for it. Except for the one year I had need of all the surgeries. Exceptly, oddly, that year was oddly the year I was shunted into a dead end position that would disappear.

The problem that ObamaCare and RomneyCare don't cover is that the cost of health care is spiralling out of control, three times the rate of inflation, and that's been the case since the 1990's at least. They do nothing to really address that. All they do is prop up the insurance system by forcing people into it who may not have needed to be there and of course, dumping more tax dollars in.

Another point. Everyone kind of agrees that we should get rid of redaction/pre-existing conditions disallowance. That's fine. The insurance industry has been playing a lot of tricks with that shit. But the only way that works is if you have a mandate. Otherwise, people will just only buy insurance when they get sick.

I think eventually, we are going to go to a single payer system, but we'll be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way.