Question: Politically reconcilable, yes or no?

[Juror#8]

Mitt Romney, editorial, 2009:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20090730/column30_st.art.htm

 

"Massachusetts also proved that you don't need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no "public option." With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn't necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals' dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

 

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did."

[UConn James]

Why does it have to be reconcilable? Reconcilable to what?

 

The Massachusetts health care plan was tailored for Massachusetts. There are some measures that might be applicable to other plans, but Romney said at the time and since that the Mass. plan shouldn't and couldn't work in other states or at the federal level, for the same reason Peter Dinklage's tux would not fit on Andre the Giant.

 

Two words he has to say during the debate: States' Rights.

Edited July 2, 2012 by UConn James

[Juror#8]

Why does it have to be reconcilable? Reconcilable to what?

 

The Massachusetts health care plan was tailored for Massachusetts. There are some measures that might be applicable to other plans, but Romney said at the time and since that the Mass. plan shouldn't and couldn't work in other states or at the federal level, for the same reason Peter Dinklage's tux would not fit on Andre the Giant.

 

Two words he has to say during the debate: States' Rights.

 

1. ....with the current backlash against the Supreme Court's decision by his campaign surrogates (he hasn't spoken directly on point), and the PACs.

 

2. The editorial is a suggestion about how it could be done nationally - using MA as a model.

[dayman]

The states rights (in huge letters) argument suggest UConn James is against Federal healthcare reform. For obvious reasons, neither party takes that position. So question is "how" not "if" ....

[B-Large]

I still think we whiffed big time with excluding a Public Option. Why we have to have an insurance company that provides not a LICK of care nor service delivery skim 20% of just about every healthcare dollar is absurd.

 

Heathcare should not have to break the bank, everybody just has to assume accountability for their own risk, ie carry insurance.

[jjamie12]

I think so, but I'm an unabashed Romney supporter:

 

"This was a Massachussets solution to a Massachussets problem. This solution worked well in the relatively wealthy (and the relative low rate of uninsured)state of Mass., but to try and use this model as the basis for health care reform for the US as a whole is madness. If anything, we should be trying to create MORE incentives for states to experiment on their own. No party, person, or President has a monopoly on good ideas, yet this bill supposes that the federal government has all the answers for everyone in the country, without allowing for experiments that would potentially be beneficial to all."

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

I'm already tired of this Presidential campaign and it hasn't really started yet.

[B-Large]

I think so, but I'm an unabashed Romney supporter:

 

"This was a Massachussets solution to a Massachussets problem. This solution worked well in the relatively wealthy (and the relative low rate of uninsured)state of Mass., but to try and use this model as the basis for health care reform for the US as a whole is madness. If anything, we should be trying to create MORE incentives for states to experiment on their own. No party, person, or President has a monopoly on good ideas, yet this bill supposes that the federal government has all the answers for everyone in the country, without allowing for experiments that would potentially be beneficial to all."

 

Yadda, yadda, yadda.

 

I'm already tired of this Presidential campaign and it hasn't really started yet.

 

I believe this underline statement 100%

[OCinBuffalo]

I look at it this way:

 

We can take the same exact accounting software and deploy it at many companies. Now, we are talking accounting here, so, there's not a lot room for variance, right? Just ask each company's comptroller, CFO, etc. In fact each of them will tell you that there's a right way to do things, and "that's how they do it here".

 

However, I know that every single implementation will be different. NOTHING will be the same. NOTHING is "the right way". There will be variance all over the place, and I will be integrating in stuff that this package doesn't have, and building new stuff to suit their requirements. I've never seen a project like that use more than 40% of the base system. In fact, companies like this, and especially the big boys, end up with 2-3 accounting packages/extra software to cover all their requirements. But what about those CFOs telling us about "standards"?

 

Basically all of these people are the worst kind of full of schit: they don't know they are, and they will fight you to prove they aren't. It's just human nature to believe that, with things like accounting, or nursing, that the rules are the rules, that we learned in college, and that's the way it is, and "that's what we do here".

 

Edit: and let's not just blame the client. I've also had idiot bosses say things like "all we have to do is install it, right?", and, "why do these guys (big contract, all or nothing company - Boeing) care so much about their AR? ...the last client didn't" and on and on.

 

Now, given all of this....you believe that Romney should be impugned for his support of the Mass Health care system....because one "model" can be lifted form one state, and used in another? Or that it can be lifted to the national level, and as a "model" will be useful? I think it's safe to say that health care systems like these are even less standard than accounting systems.

 

So...how we should reconcile your assertion that Romney was for Romneycare, and is therefore for Obamacare?

 

Well? You are also the worst kind of full of schit: you don't know you are, and you will fight us to prove that your aren't. It's just human nature.

Edited July 2, 2012 by OCinBuffalo

[OCinBuffalo]

The states rights (in huge letters) argument suggest UConn James is against Federal healthcare reform. For obvious reasons, neither party takes that position. So question is "how" not "if" ....

How about instead of states' rights we call it "states' smarts"? As I said above, there is no workable, reasonable system at the national level. That's because there is no singular, workable model for every state.

 

Rural states aren't the same as populous ones, in practically every way, yet we want to build a singular system that addresses their requirements as though they are? Many states are a lot "older" than others. And on and on.

 

Medicare already serves as an example of what not to do. So does Medicaid. The fraud alone proves that. You can't defraud your local county people, who know who you are by name. Or, it's a hell of a lot harder. More importantly, if there is fraud, it only screws over your county. However, it's easy to slip in an over-billing, when there are millions per day going into a centralized system whose sheer volume makes detecting fraud damn near impossible. And, even if it were, doing so would be cost prohibitive.

 

Medicare is on record saying exactly that: they can't stop fraud because the cash required to do so is more than double their administration budget = cost prohibitive. Obama talked about resolving this by sending them the money....but that was before Obamacare cut Medicare by $500 billion. So....so much for that fraud detection.

 

But, we need to repeat those mistakes? Why? So we can defend LBJ's legacy? Why the F does anybody care about that guy? So we can prove that we weren't idiots for supporting systems with "throw me away" design flaws...or that we make sure nobody knows that we are too ignorant/arrogant to understand those flaws?

[IDBillzFan]

I'm already tired of this Presidential campaign and it hasn't really started yet.

Here's the problem: millions upon millions of people are unemployed. It's reported today that almost 9 million are on disability. Companies have put the breaks on growth and spending. And no one...absolutely no one...has any confidence that things are going to get better any time in the near future. There is no Morning in America moment happening. There is simply an ineffective leader running around trying to convince people that "Hey, it could've been worse!!"

 

Obama has everyone right where he wants them: spun up about everything except his dismal job performance.

 

But hey...that Bain Capital...that's some bad schitt right there.

[Juror#8]

I look at it this way:

 

We can take the same exact accounting software and deploy it at many companies. Now, we are talking accounting here, so, there's not a lot room for variance, right? Just ask each company's comptroller, CFO, etc. In fact each of them will tell you that there's a right way to do things, and "that's how they do it here".

 

However, I know that every single implementation will be different. NOTHING will be the same. NOTHING is "the right way". There will be variance all over the place, and I will be integrating in stuff that this package doesn't have, and building new stuff to suit their requirements. I've never seen a project like that use more than 40% of the base system. In fact, companies like this, and especially the big boys, end up with 2-3 accounting packages/extra software to cover all their requirements. But what about those CFOs telling us about "standards"?

 

Basically all of these people are the worst kind of full of schit: they don't know they are, and they will fight you to prove they aren't. It's just human nature to believe that, with things like accounting, or nursing, that the rules are the rules, that we learned in college, and that's the way it is, and "that's what we do here".

 

Edit: and let's not just blame the client. I've also had idiot bosses say things like "all we have to do is install it, right?", and, "why do these guys (big contract, all or nothing company - Boeing) care so much about their AR? ...the last client didn't" and on and on.

 

Now, given all of this....you believe that Romney should be impugned for his support of the Mass Health care system....because one "model" can be lifted form one state, and used in another? Or that it can be lifted to the national level, and as a "model" will be useful? I think it's safe to say that health care systems like these are even less standard than accounting systems.

 

So...how we should reconcile your assertion that Romney was for Romneycare, and is therefore for Obamacare?

 

Well? You are also the worst kind of full of schit: you don't know you are, and you will fight us to prove that your aren't. It's just human nature.

 

OC, even though I enjoy the round-about way that you/I articulated this little exigesis, I think you (and I and we) may have missed the point.

 

That is making this all the more difficult for me to respond to us.

 

The issue is around the SC's articulation of what the ACA individual mandate amounts to, and what can be described as Romney's tacit endorsement of that in previous iterations of his ever-evolving (See: equivocating) thinking on everything and nothing, vis-a-vis his surrogate's quest to hammer the 'mandate as a tax' notion as articulated by the SC.

 

Don't we, I , you get this?

[UConn James]

OC, even though I enjoy the round-about way that you/I articulated this little exigesis, I think you (and I and we) may have missed the point.

 

That is making this all the more difficult for me to respond to us.

 

The issue is around the SC's articulation of what the ACA individual mandate amounts to, and what can be described as Romney's tacit endorsement of that in previous iterations of his ever-evolving (See: equivocating) thinking on everything and nothing, vis-a-vis his surrogate's quest to hammer the 'mandate as a tax' notion as articulated by the SC.

 

Don't we, I , you get this?

 

What's making it difficult for you to respond is that you're trying to tiptoe through your philosophical field of bullstevestojan.

 

The 'tacit endorsement' of the SCOTUS ruling didn't come out of Romney's mouth. And in all the mess that is politics and media today, the actual words/writings/doings of a candidate is about the only thing I somewhat trust as to what they really think. The campaign flaks, the pundits, the MSM... they have very little credence. Romney is calling it what the SC's majority ruling itself called it --- a tax.

[Juror#8]

What's making it difficult for you to respond is that you're trying to tiptoe through your philosophical field of bullstevestojan.

 

The 'tacit endorsement' of the SCOTUS ruling didn't come out of Romney's mouth. And in all the mess that is politics and media today, the actual words/writings/doings of a candidate is about the only thing I somewhat trust as to what they really think. The campaign flaks, the pundits, the MSM... they have very little credence. Romney is calling it what the SC's majority ruling itself called it --- a tax.

 

..."the issue is around the SC's articulation of what the ACA individual mandate amounts to, and what can be described as Romney's tacit endorsement of that..."

 

I think that his editorial (that I linked to in OP) fits that definition.

[UConn James]

..."the issue is around the SC's articulation of what the ACA individual mandate amounts to, and what can be described as Romney's tacit endorsement of that..."

 

I think that his editorial (that I linked to in OP) fits that definition.

 

He called it a tax there as well.

 

The point being that the bulk of reform should be done in the statehouses, according to each state's needs and facts on the ground, with a short leash of accountability. It should not have been force-fed to every state whether they wanted to eat this bloated piece of federal trash or not.

 

You just can't seem to get it out of your head that just because Romney had input on and supported the plan in Mass (tho, as he said, it wasn't perfect) that mandated insurance... that this means he must support a national plan doing the same. As I wrote in another thread, Romney gets that a suit tailored for Peter Dinklage isn't going to fit Andre the Giant. You and most every other liberal A) can't see this fact and 2) preposterously keep trying to tag this on Romney because you so desperately want it to be so.

[Juror#8]

He called it a tax there as well.

 

I'm wondering at what point you'll realize that you're arguing against a point that I'm not making.

 

When you do, let me know.

 

The point being that the bulk of reform should be done in the statehouses, according to each state's needs and facts on the ground, with a short leash of accountability. It should not have been force-fed to every state whether they wanted to eat this bloated piece of federal trash or not.

 

This is our only point of disagreement. Hopefully you can stop manufacturing contention and we can stick to where there is a difference.

 

My point here is that his editorial is a suggestion about options for national implementation. You're arguing a devolution point that Romney, himself, doesn't make. His discussion of MA heathcare implementation is with respect to a broader application.

 

He even concludes mentioning bipartisan legislative efforts. Maybe because he discusses "abandoning the public option" you think that that is code for "leave it to the states - devolution." He doesn't mention that and you're assuming more than his actual words communicate.

 

You and most every liberal that I know ascribe points of view to Romney that he, himself, doesn't champion. Take off your liberal glasses and see the issue for what it is.

 

You just can't seem to get it out of your head that just because Romney had input on and supported the plan in Mass (tho, as he said, it wasn't perfect) that mandated insurance... that this means he must support a national plan doing the same.

 

Maybe it was the sneaky transitive verb "use" that gave the suggestion that the editorial was discussing things the President should consider (adopted from the MA plan) in a national context.

 

You liberals are so inconsiderate with verb conjugations so who knows?

 

As I wrote in another thread, Romney gets that a suit tailored for Peter Dinklage isn't going to fit Andre the Giant. You and most every other liberal A) can't see this fact and 2) preposterously keep trying to tag this on Romney because you so desperately want it to be so.

 

You and every other liberal I know wear Phish shirts and Birkenstocks. Why are you speaking as if you were the sartorialist?

 

You are correct that I don't like Romney though. He is a repugnant fellow. I can't bring myself to vote for him.

 

The Stericycle thing was the last straw.

[ieatcrayonz]

I look at it this way:

 

We can take the same exact accounting software and deploy it at many companies. Now, we are talking accounting here, so, there's not a lot room for variance, right? Just ask each company's comptroller, CFO, etc. In fact each of them will tell you that there's a right way to do things, and "that's how they do it here".

 

However, I know that every single implementation will be different. NOTHING will be the same. NOTHING is "the right way". There will be variance all over the place, and I will be integrating in stuff that this package doesn't have, and building new stuff to suit their requirements. I've never seen a project like that use more than 40% of the base system. In fact, companies like this, and especially the big boys, end up with 2-3 accounting packages/extra software to cover all their requirements. But what about those CFOs telling us about "standards"?

 

Basically all of these people are the worst kind of full of schit: they don't know they are, and they will fight you to prove they aren't. It's just human nature to believe that, with things like accounting, or nursing, that the rules are the rules, that we learned in college, and that's the way it is, and "that's what we do here".

 

Edit: and let's not just blame the client. I've also had idiot bosses say things like "all we have to do is install it, right?", and, "why do these guys (big contract, all or nothing company - Boeing) care so much about their AR? ...the last client didn't" and on and on.

 

Now, given all of this....you believe that Romney should be impugned for his support of the Mass Health care system....because one "model" can be lifted form one state, and used in another? Or that it can be lifted to the national level, and as a "model" will be useful? I think it's safe to say that health care systems like these are even less standard than accounting systems.

 

So...how we should reconcile your assertion that Romney was for Romneycare, and is therefore for Obamacare?

 

Well? You are also the worst kind of full of schit: you don't know you are, and you will fight us to prove that your aren't. It's just human nature.

 

I think you make good points here but I'm not sure about what.

 

Clearly you posted this in the wrong thread since it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I looked around the rest of PPP and can't figure out where it belongs either but it is really good though.