Mitt Romney’s opponents are pouncing on a comment he made earlier today to the Nashua Chamber of Commerce. The New York Timesreports:
Answering a question about health care Monday morning, Mr. Romney said that he would allow individuals to have their own insurance because it will provide the insurance company with an incentive to keep its clients healthy.
“It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you can fire them,” Mr. Romney said. “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
He added: “You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I’m going to get someone else to provide that service to me.’”
Mr. Romney was making a point that many Republicans agree with — that individuals should be able to have their own insurance, and choose the plan they want.
But the comment could provide good fodder for opponents just as he comes under attack from Democrats and Republicans alike for his private equity career at Bain Capital.
Welker, you are pathetic spending every day hanging around a website that you completely disagree with and where you are thoroughly disliked just so that you can bait people all day. Truly you are a master baiter.
I'll refrain from commenting on the 6th-grader comment at the end of your post.
What you're saying is that you don't want to hear any contrary points of view, and that this site should be reserved for the ideological faithful. So much for the free exchange of ideas envisaged by the founder.
Unlike the Noble Enterprise of Ed in Cary: spending every day hanging around a website where most people will agree with him, regardless of the quality of his arguments.
It seems that Mr. Romney's hubris-filled admonition to Gingrich - "if you can't handle the heat in this little kitchen, the heat that's going to come from Obama's Hell's kitchen is going to be a heck of a lot hotter" - is about to reap its just rewards. It couldn't happen to a nicer person.
I don't even like Romney, but I have a hard time respecting any Republican who has a problem with what he said. And as for it being ammunition for the left, only if the right is useless.
We're not running against a fuzzy manufactured deity a la 2008, we're running against a flesh and blood incompetent who has brought real clarity to what a participation trophy of an adult life he has lead.
I'm not a Romney supporter, but I welcome plain speech, along with the underlying assumption (hope it's true) that the populace isn't predominantly composed of morons.
Re: "allow individuals to have their own insurance because it will provide the insurance company with an incentive to keep its clients healthy.
Well no. An insurance company's best avenue for profit maximization is off-loading sick patients altogether. Either by not offering policies to those with pre-existing conditions, canceling policies of high cost customers whenever possible and/or raising premiums to unaffordable rates to drive out the high cost customer.
OBTW, insurance companies already aggressively challenge or deny payment for services. Often after the fact so the customer is hosed.
Anybody who thinks that private insurance will be any less ruthless in squeezing the already sick than government run "death panels" is nuts.
So... private insurance companies are money-grubbing heartless zombies with no concern for the people they purport to serve.
But a government-run system will be different.... somehow....
You know, there is always the third solution. Work smart and hard, and build up your financial situation where you don't need either the government to pat you on the head or the Evil Insurance Companies (tm) to screw you over.
You can change insurance companies? Not once you've been diagnosed with something bad, something the first one refuses to pay for. Good luck getting a policy you can afford from another company then.
Oh, wait, Obamacare got rid of their ability to discriminate against you in that fashion? Never mind then!
So why does the first one refuse to pay? Is it in the contract? Then sue the company. Or did you choose to buy something cheaper than excluded what you now want covered?
So you buy auto insurance without collision coverage and then crash the car and think you should be able to switch companies AND have them pay for your car?
Health insurance is still insurance (which again, speaks to CONTRACT) and the fact so few see it this way is a major problem in all discussions about its regulation.
"So why does the first one refuse to pay? Is it in the contract? Then sue the company."
Oh yeah, I'll be sure to get right on that from my sickbed. And that'll happen fast enough to save my life, because my personal lawyer will just be able to overwhelm the army of lawyers that these companies keep on hand to fight cases like this.
What could possibly have brought you to such an erroneous conclusion?
I doubt that you actually believe that I was confused about them. Instead, when presented with a critique of your proposed narrative, you have chosen to obfuscate instead of address. Pretty obvious to any viewer - and not impressive.
Delicious.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWelker, you are pathetic spending every day hanging around a website that you completely disagree with and where you are thoroughly disliked just so that you can bait people all day. Truly you are a master baiter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEd,
I'll refrain from commenting on the 6th-grader comment at the end of your post.
What you're saying is that you don't want to hear any contrary points of view, and that this site should be reserved for the ideological faithful. So much for the free exchange of ideas envisaged by the founder.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEd, I must disagree with you. Welker is not a master anything. He is a run of the mill, not very original troll. Plain and simple.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseUnlike the Noble Enterprise of Ed in Cary: spending every day hanging around a website where most people will agree with him, regardless of the quality of his arguments.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeople we like firing: Think ISP...think your cable TV provider.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis comment should be unremarkable to anyone who has not spent his life in the cocoon of government.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAlso, it's unremarkable to those who haven't spent months reeking in some Occupier encampment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt seems that Mr. Romney's hubris-filled admonition to Gingrich - "if you can't handle the heat in this little kitchen, the heat that's going to come from Obama's Hell's kitchen is going to be a heck of a lot hotter" - is about to reap its just rewards. It couldn't happen to a nicer person.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't even like Romney, but I have a hard time respecting any Republican who has a problem with what he said. And as for it being ammunition for the left, only if the right is useless.
We're not running against a fuzzy manufactured deity a la 2008, we're running against a flesh and blood incompetent who has brought real clarity to what a participation trophy of an adult life he has lead.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm not a Romney supporter, but I welcome plain speech, along with the underlying assumption (hope it's true) that the populace isn't predominantly composed of morons.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRe: "allow individuals to have their own insurance because it will provide the insurance company with an incentive to keep its clients healthy.
Well no. An insurance company's best avenue for profit maximization is off-loading sick patients altogether. Either by not offering policies to those with pre-existing conditions, canceling policies of high cost customers whenever possible and/or raising premiums to unaffordable rates to drive out the high cost customer.
OBTW, insurance companies already aggressively challenge or deny payment for services. Often after the fact so the customer is hosed.
Anybody who thinks that private insurance will be any less ruthless in squeezing the already sick than government run "death panels" is nuts.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo... private insurance companies are money-grubbing heartless zombies with no concern for the people they purport to serve.
But a government-run system will be different.... somehow....
You know, there is always the third solution. Work smart and hard, and build up your financial situation where you don't need either the government to pat you on the head or the Evil Insurance Companies (tm) to screw you over.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe critical difference being I can change insurance companies, but I'm stuck with the Government
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou can change insurance companies? Not once you've been diagnosed with something bad, something the first one refuses to pay for. Good luck getting a policy you can afford from another company then.
Oh, wait, Obamacare got rid of their ability to discriminate against you in that fashion? Never mind then!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell hells bells, sign me up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo why does the first one refuse to pay? Is it in the contract? Then sue the company. Or did you choose to buy something cheaper than excluded what you now want covered?
So you buy auto insurance without collision coverage and then crash the car and think you should be able to switch companies AND have them pay for your car?
Health insurance is still insurance (which again, speaks to CONTRACT) and the fact so few see it this way is a major problem in all discussions about its regulation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"So why does the first one refuse to pay? Is it in the contract? Then sue the company."
Oh yeah, I'll be sure to get right on that from my sickbed. And that'll happen fast enough to save my life, because my personal lawyer will just be able to overwhelm the army of lawyers that these companies keep on hand to fight cases like this.
/gtfo
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI see now, TheFish.
You were confusing health insurance with health care.
Common mistake. I should have guessed that was the case.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat could possibly have brought you to such an erroneous conclusion?
I doubt that you actually believe that I was confused about them. Instead, when presented with a critique of your proposed narrative, you have chosen to obfuscate instead of address. Pretty obvious to any viewer - and not impressive.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse