Trailer for Anti-Romney movie

[Conan71]

I read that they are trying to quiet the whole Bain thing down. I think its short sighted for the party to try and muffle Gingrich et al on this subject because they think it might look like they are attacking capitalism. They are best to face it now rather than during the general. Perry may actually be doing the party a favor. Let's see how Mitt responds.

All Romney really needs to do is point out all the positives venture capitalists can do vis-a-vis "jobs saved and jobs created".  Venture capitalists are not in business for altruistic reasons, they exist to make money.  Based on the scale of investments they make- hundreds of millions to billions, millions in profits is not excessive.  Romney seems to understand economics and how both business and government are run.  He's got a successful track record.  What does Gingrich bring to the table?  A four year reign as a petulant speaker of the house.  Other than that, he's a career politician and college professor, sounds like the current president, yes?  Perry is simply desperate.  He's just looking for someone to like him.

Not saying this in response to you, but it's almost as if 1/2 of this country really has no clue who creates jobs and how jobs are created outside the government realm.

Obama is going to have enough problems to answer to in the general.  In addition, he's funded, in part, by venture capitalists as well.

[Townsend]

Not saying this in response to you, but it's almost as if 1/2 of this country really has no clue who creates jobs and how jobs are created outside the government realm.

All we know is what we're told.  Look at what we listen to.  "Romney care is totally different from Obamacare." etc.

[AquaMan]

And my view is pretty similar. If Romney uses that description (which may fly right over the common guy's understanding) and it works, then fine his opponent in the general will have no success in focusing on the issue. If Perry/Gingrich get traction with it then he better find a better answer.

If I were the Romney camp I would welcome this opportunity to show my business acumen. Unless, of course, his group was bungling some of those operations and still making big bucks. That doesn't look good to the worker bees. From what I've heard, only 20% of Bain's stuff were actually long term successes and accounted for most of their returns yet 70% of them made the partners money.

[Conan71]

All we know is what we're told.  Look at what we listen to.  "Romney care is totally different from Obamacare." etc.

Let's start with Romneycare being state-based and the lack of a Constitutional basis for Obamacare to force people to buy a product they may not want and go from there.

[Townsend]

Let's start with Romneycare being state-based and the lack of a Constitutional basis for Obamacare to force people to buy a product they may not want and go from there.

So it's ok to do it state by state?

[RecycleMichael]

So it's ok to do it state by state?

That is the million dollar question. It isn't which branch of government makes you provide health care for employees, it is the fact that it is mandated.

Romney can never overcome that argument with some "state's rights" makes it OK talk. 

[AquaMan]

Can you imagine the gamesmanship that would occur if its state by state? The movement of human and medical resources will be awesome. If for instance, Arkansas decides they will embrace mandatory insurance sign-ups and surrounding states do not, then the Arkansans risk is spread over a larger base, their premiums are lower, they attract more medical industry (since there is more pie to be sliced up) which spurs more development and a healthier economy.

Am I seeing this clearly?

[Conan71]

Can you imagine the gamesmanship that would occur if its state by state? The movement of human and medical resources will be awesome. If for instance, Arkansas decides they will embrace mandatory insurance sign-ups and surrounding states do not, then the Arkansans risk is spread over a larger base, their premiums are lower, they attract more medical industry (since there is more pie to be sliced up) which spurs more development and a healthier economy.

Am I seeing this clearly?

People keep missing the point that compulsory insurance will also bring in previously undesirable risk which may well have the affect of raising rates, not lowering them.

[we vs us]

Let's start with Romneycare being state-based and the lack of a Constitutional basis for Obamacare to force people to buy a product they may not want and go from there.

I've seen this pop up a couple of times and don't think it actually holds water.  In most contexts, insurance is an optional product built specifically to insure against risk -- against the chance that adverse events might occur. Even the mandated auto coverage insures against the possibility that something MIGHT happen.  But health insurance in the US has morphed into something that isn't particularly optional and covers inevitabilities.  Not only things that might happen, but things that WILL happen.  So the term "insurance" is really a misnomer.  What we have are discount pools for products that we will all buy in some measure at some time.  It so happens that the majority of us buy into these pools through our employers who use their group leverage to reduce our buy in costs.  It used to be traditional for our employers to also contribute to our buy in costs, but that's being whittled away as the costs of the pools have increased.  

Point being:  the argument that healthcare is an optional product -- that you can choose not only not to purchase but not to use -- is incorrect. Even if we don't purchase it, we will all at some point use it.  

[Conan71]

I've seen this pop up a couple of times and don't think it actually holds water.  In most contexts, insurance is an optional product built specifically to insure against risk -- against the chance that adverse events might occur. Even the mandated auto coverage insures against the possibility that something MIGHT happen.  But health insurance in the US has morphed into something that isn't particularly optional and covers inevitabilities.  Not only things that might happen, but things that WILL happen.  So the term "insurance" is really a misnomer.  What we have are discount pools for products that we will all buy in some measure at some time.  It so happens that the majority of us buy into these pools through our employers who use their group leverage to reduce our buy in costs.  It used to be traditional for our employers to also contribute to our buy in costs, but that's being whittled away as the costs of the pools have increased.  

Point being:  the argument that healthcare is an optional product -- that you can choose not only not to purchase but not to use -- is incorrect. Even if we don't purchase it, we will all at some point use it.  

By definition, it's still insurance.  Yet, it does differ as health insurance companies have enough "buying power" that they can negotiate preferred rates for their insured.  Honestly, I'm not sure how much pressure the insurance companies bring to the table. The providers realize they will get paid at a certain rate when they treat someone with insurance.  Someone who does not have insurance represents a far higher risk in payment, therefore, uninsured pay a higher "cash" rate because they are pooled with deadbeats who don't consider paying a medical bill an obligation.  Essentially, I'm saying providers are still going to charge a high enough rate on insurance-covered procedures to help cover the losses from the uninsured who don't pay.

The difference between compulsory auto liability and health insurance is that liability is essentially a bond against your negligence to protect and make others whole when you run into them while playing angry birds on your smart phone.  Health insurance covers a risk to yourself and your interests, much like carrying comp and collision or homeowner's insurance if you do not have a mortgage on your car or house.

[Townsend]

The difference between compulsory auto liability and health insurance is that liability is essentially a bond against your negligence to protect and make others whole when you run into them while playing angry birds on your smart phone.  Health insurance covers a risk to yourself and your interests, much like carrying comp and collision or homeowner's insurance if you do not have a mortgage on your car or house.

If everyone has health insurance won't that mean I won't have to pay to cover the uninsured?

[Conan71]

If everyone has health insurance won't that mean I won't have to pay to cover the uninsured?

You will be paying to cover the uninsured as the newly insured.  You are one of the desirable, healthy risks who will see their rates increase to subsidize the poorer risks who were not in the pool before.  People who previously have used the ER as primary care and never had a personal physician will likely start using real primary care using their newfound free spending power in health care while people who are not legally here will still use the ER for primary care.

There are quite a few people out there without insurance due to pre-existing conditions or they simply don't see their health as a priority and never paid for health insurance who will now come into the treatment pool.  I hope I'm wrong, but I simply don't see how it's going to make healthcare for the good risks cheaper.

[we vs us]

You will be paying to cover the uninsured as the newly insured.  You are one of the desirable, healthy risks who will see their rates increase to subsidize the poorer risks who were not in the pool before.  People who previously have used the ER as primary care and never had a personal physician will likely start using real primary care using their newfound free spending power in health care while people who are not legally here will still use the ER for primary care.

There are quite a few people out there without insurance due to pre-existing conditions or they simply don't see their health as a priority and never paid for health insurance who will now come into the treatment pool.  I hope I'm wrong, but I simply don't see how it's going to make healthcare for the good risks cheaper.

Your assumption is that everyone that's uninsured is that way because they're too unhealthy for insurance companies to take risks on.  And while that's undoubtedly part of it, a huge part of people being uninsured is because they simply can't afford it, not based on their health. 

I'd bet that most of the folks newly brought in to the system would spend their coverage on preventative medicine -- cancer screenings, physicals, twice a year dentist visits, all the basic stuff -- which could impact the bottom line much more positively by simply catching issues before they metastasize (so to speak) and get more expensive to the insurance companies.

[we vs us]

Also, re: Romney -- he's going to catch hell for Bain . . . moreso in the general than in the primaries.  Republicans are probably the most sympathetic to  Bain's niche in the global economy (regardless of whether they actually understand it or not) and so that critique will do the least amount of damage now.  When it will really hurt him -- with indies and with Dems (assuming there're many Dems up for grabs this cycle) -- will be in November.  If Obama's smart, he'll Goldman-Sachsificate Romney from the beginning, and attach him pretty firmly to the 1%/99% thing. Not hard to do, either.  Romney pretty perfectly personifies the 1%.

And BTW, I know the 1%/99% thing gets overplayed but that's really been the lasting contribution to-date of the Occupy people, and it's that way precisely because a lot normal folks feel it to be true.  Even if Occupy isn't a part of the general election in any formal capacity, that core idea (1%/99%) is still alive and well and could really and truly be Romney's downfall. 

(Disclaimer:  and of course Obama gets boatloads of money from the financial industry, too, but Romney -- in ways Obama couldn't ever -- just embodies that country club thing too perfectly.) 

[Townsend]

I'm guessing that many of our fellow Oklahomans will still forego medical treatment while they're insured because they'll believe it's un-American to seek medical help.

"Ain't gonna git none'o'that Obamacare."