• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
the problem is not that he changed his mind, whatever, every politician does that,
Ok fine. But did anyone ask why he changed his mind? These are important legislations and folks oughta know. What if he says he doesn't want to privatize medicare but change his mind again? I mean, where do you draw the line, if not, at healthcare system of a country?
 

Hitokage

Setec Astronomer
I can't believe you guys are losing your shit over that.
Also, you're angry at the wrong thing, the problem is not that he changed his mind, whatever, every politician does that, the problem is that he has no serious healthcare plan right now.
Instead of digging up up old clips, the media should be asking him to explain what would he do and how will it work.
It's not the change. It's the retcon.
 

Diablos

Member
No matter how we try to explain Romney's inconsistencies the thing worth noting is that he's only able to get away with it because people are dumb enough to believe it, and that's the real tragedy.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
. ROMNEYCARE IS OBAMACARE EXACTLY..

No it's not.

Obama's plan raises taxes on the rich to fund his plan. Romneycare relied mostly on pushing the costs to medicaid.
Obama's plan has little ability to enforce the mandate, Romney's empowers the state tax collectors to enforce it.
Obama's plan has no teeth to punish insurance companies that raise rates. Massachussets can deny them outright.
Obama's plan only forces busineses with 50 or more people to provide insurance. Romney's plan forces businesses of 11 or more employees to provide the insurance.
Obama's plan provides subsidies to the poor In a wider scope, but provides less money to each individual.
Obama's plan does not allow young people to continue on their parents' plan if they move out. Romney's plan allows for young adults to still be covered for two years after they move out.

So, the bones and the intent of the plans may be the same, but they are structurally different in their scope and effectiveness.
 
No it's not.

Obama's plan raises taxes on the rich to fund his plan. Romneycare relied mostly on pushing the costs to medicaid.
Obama's plan has little ability to enforce the mandate, Romney's empowers the state tax collectors to enforce it.
Obama's plan has no teeth to punish insurance companies that raise rates. Massachussets can deny them outright.
Obama's plan only forces busineses with 50 or more people to provide insurance. Romney's plan forces businesses of 11 or more employees to provide the insurance.
Obama's plan provides subsidies to the poor In a wider scope, but provides less money to each individual.
Obama's plan does not allow young people to continue on their parents' plan if they move out. Romney's plan allows for young adults to still be covered for two years after they move out.

So, the bones and the intent of the plans may be the same, but they are structurally different in their scope and effectiveness.

Can't many of the states go above those things?
Isn't Obamacare just set out the bare minimum?
 
Romney may raise more than 100 million dollars in June

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/01/romney_may_have_raised_100_million_in_june.html

That is bad bad news for Obama. Obama will be lucky to reach 60 million.

No it's not.

Obama's plan raises taxes on the rich to fund his plan. Romneycare relied mostly on pushing the costs to medicaid.
Obama's plan has little ability to enforce the mandate, Romney's empowers the state tax collectors to enforce it.
Obama's plan has no teeth to punish insurance companies that raise rates. Massachussets can deny them outright.
Obama's plan only forces busineses with 50 or more people to provide insurance. Romney's plan forces businesses of 11 or more employees to provide the insurance.
Obama's plan provides subsidies to the poor In a wider scope, but provides less money to each individual.
Obama's plan does not allow young people to continue on their parents' plan if they move out. Romney's plan allows for young adults to still be covered for two years after they move out.

So, the bones and the intent of the plans may be the same, but they are structurally different in their scope and effectiveness.


I believe Insurance Companies can't participate in the exchanges if they raise rates too much.
 

gcubed

Member

VanMardigan

has calmed down a bit.
i still think there is a point of diminishing returns and this teeth gnashing at how much money Romney has is meaningless.

I disagree, Romney has a lot of vulnerabilities that massive amounts of money will go a long way in smoothing over.
 
I don't know how this pans out for the entire month, but Obama raised more money off of the healthcare decision than Romney did.

But we did not hear a hard number.

Between SuperPACs and Romney's Victory Funds ability for their donors to max it out at 30k, Obama campaign will have no spending advantage.
 
Just donated a small bit to Darcy Burner(WA-01). Progressive and Hot...the woman of my dreams.

...And I just donated the same amount to MN United For All Families. The group against the Marriage Amendment limiting marriage in Minnesota.
 
Obama actually had too much money last year. I do feel bad for people who live in OH/FL/VA/NC who are going to get inundated with ad's all the way until Nov.
I'll make doubly sure to avoid all cable TV. Should be pretty easy - haven't had it for about two years.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
No it's not.

Obama's plan raises taxes on the rich to fund his plan. Romneycare relied mostly on pushing the costs to medicaid.
Obama's plan has little ability to enforce the mandate, Romney's empowers the state tax collectors to enforce it.
Obama's plan has no teeth to punish insurance companies that raise rates. Massachussets can deny them outright.
Obama's plan only forces busineses with 50 or more people to provide insurance. Romney's plan forces businesses of 11 or more employees to provide the insurance.
Obama's plan provides subsidies to the poor In a wider scope, but provides less money to each individual.
Obama's plan does not allow young people to continue on their parents' plan if they move out. Romney's plan allows for young adults to still be covered for two years after they move out.

So, the bones and the intent of the plans may be the same, but they are structurally different in their scope and effectiveness.
Not correct, insurance companies can be barred from participating in the exchanges if they raise rates too high.

What you are listing are tweaks around the edges. The policies are broadly similar and structurally almost identical. I think the biggest differences are in the funding mechanisms (Obama's actually raised taxes on the rich), and in the emphasis on cost controls in the ACA compared to the MA plan.
 

kehs

Banned
No it's not.

Obama's plan raises taxes on the rich to fund his plan. Romneycare relied mostly on pushing the costs to medicaid.
Obama's plan has little ability to enforce the mandate, Romney's empowers the state tax collectors to enforce it.
Obama's plan has no teeth to punish insurance companies that raise rates. Massachussets can deny them outright.
Obama's plan only forces busineses with 50 or more people to provide insurance. Romney's plan forces businesses of 11 or more employees to provide the insurance.
Obama's plan provides subsidies to the poor In a wider scope, but provides less money to each individual.
Obama's plan does not allow young people to continue on their parents' plan if they move out. Romney's plan allows for young adults to still be covered for two years after they move out.

So, the bones and the intent of the plans may be the same, but they are structurally different in their scope and effectiveness.


Isn't a lot of this stuff the consequences of moving the program from a state level to a national level?
 

Chichikov

Member
HE DIDN'T CHANGE HIS MIND. HE'S LYING, AND NO ONE IS CALLING HIM ON IT. ROMNEYCARE IS OBAMACARE EXACTLY. THAT'S THE POINT.
I honestly can't tell if you're serious, but if you are, free tip -
Don't treat such shifts in positions as a personal insult to you, you'll end up crazy, for real.

No it's not.

Obama's plan raises taxes on the rich to fund his plan. Romneycare relied mostly on pushing the costs to medicaid.
Obama's plan has little ability to enforce the mandate, Romney's empowers the state tax collectors to enforce it.
Obama's plan has no teeth to punish insurance companies that raise rates. Massachussets can deny them outright.
Obama's plan only forces busineses with 50 or more people to provide insurance. Romney's plan forces businesses of 11 or more employees to provide the insurance.
Obama's plan provides subsidies to the poor In a wider scope, but provides less money to each individual.
Obama's plan does not allow young people to continue on their parents' plan if they move out. Romney's plan allows for young adults to still be covered for two years after they move out.

So, the bones and the intent of the plans may be the same, but they are structurally different in their scope and effectiveness.
Of course there are differences, but the main issue is that both programs are based on the same principles.
So it's kinda intellectually dishonest to like one and say the other the end of free enterprise.
It's a cynical partisan move that is fueled by nothing other than politicians' desire to win.
We should call them on that bullshit, because it's really bad for the country.

You can say
 
Good article on the state of the campaign:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/us/politics/bain-attacks-make-inroads-for-president.html?_r=1&hp

With that cash influx, Mr. Romney’s team is preparing a new advertising campaign that will aggressively portray Mr. Obama as a craven political figure, rather than the transformative leader he pledged he would be. Aides said they were considering more ads with Mrs. Clinton or her husband criticizing Mr. Obama.

Mr. Romney’s aides said in interviews that their strategy depended on keeping their candidate close to Mr. Obama in the polls until at least the Republican convention at the end of August. They hope to begin to pull away then with a relentless case that Mr. Obama has not been up to the job of fixing the economy — and that Mr. Romney has the experience and the knowledge to lead the nation to recovery.

They have studiously avoided getting drawn into what they have called side issues. And at times they have limited Mr. Romney’s media appearances, even after the health care decision, which conservatives believe will help motivate voters who now see electing Mr. Romney as the only chance of undoing the law.

Mr. Obama, by contrast, has put other big issues in front of the nation on his terms, most notably same-sex marriage and illegal immigration, displaying the advantages of incumbency, energizing crucial voting groups and moving public attention at least temporarily away from jobs.

“We’ve got to make sure people fully appreciate Mitt Romney is not some safe alternative,” said David Plouffe, a senior adviser to the president.

To drive home that point over the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has gone on an advertising binge, spending more than $12 million during a single week in mid-June, according to a Republican group that monitors advertising spending.

According to the independent media tracking firm CMAG, between early April and late June Mr. Obama spent at least $40 million and Mr. Romney at least $10 million, with outside groups like Crossroads GPS and Restore Our Future making up the difference for him.

In the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, 33 percent of respondents in swing states said that hearing or reading about Mr. Romney’s business record had made them view him more negatively, as opposed to 18 percent who said it made them view him more favorably.

“As you start to put together a general election campaign, it’s when an incumbent president should be at his strongest,” said Stuart Stevens, a senior Romney strategist. “They’ve been preparing for this moment for three and a half years, and we’ve been in a primary until very recently.”

“It’s going to be very close,” Mr. Plouffe said in an interview. “We’re not looking for — and don’t expect — seismic movement.”

As much as they don't want to talk about these "side" issues, they will come up in the debates. Sounds like to me they are putting all of their eggs in one basket. And the Obama campaign knows this. Doing a great job of making sure voters know that a vote for Romney is not a guarantee that the economy will improve for everyone. It might only improve for the wealthy.
 
ugh, went to get bagels today and an americans for prosperity ad on obamacare was airing. basically blasting the president for raising taxes on struggling americans.

these guys work quick.
 

Amir0x

Banned
it's just going to get crazier as the SuperPACs keep pumping in that unlimited, often untrackable money

thank you SCOTUS
 
Fareed Zakaria has solutions to everything. From immigration to debt to healthcare to fixing Syrian escalation. He should be in Whitehouse. Smart, smart man.
 

Chumly

Member
Good article on the state of the campaign:



As much as they don't want to talk about these "side" issues, they will come up in the debates. Sounds like to me they are putting all of their eggs in one basket. And the Obama campaign knows this. Doing a great job of making sure voters know that a vote for Romney is not a guarantee that the economy will improve for everyone. It might only improve for the wealthy.
I think it's going to be extremely tough for them to only run on one issue (economy) when many of the side issues are integral parts of the presidency also.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
Not correct, insurance companies can be barred from participating in the exchanges if they raise rates too high.

What you are listing are tweaks around the edges. The policies are broadly similar and structurally almost identical. I think the biggest differences are in the funding mechanisms (Obama's actually raised taxes on the rich), and in the emphasis on cost controls in the ACA compared to the MA plan.

True about barring insurance companies from participating in exchanges, but that is more of denying them an incentive than actually punishing them and altering their behavior.

I wouldn't call 1) How it is funded 2) The authority to punish individuals and companies that don't comply 3) the amount of money that poor people will actually have to pay as topics that are "on the edges". They are pretty large differences that effect both the scope and effectiveness of the overall plan.

I did say that "the bones" of it is similar, but they are not "exactly" the same plan.

but the main issue is that both programs are based on the same principles.
So it's kinda intellectually dishonest to like one and say the other the end of free enterprise.
It's a cynical partisan move that is fueled by nothing other than politicians' desire to win.
We should call them on that bullshit, because it's really bad for the country.

You can say

Well, I can't disagree there. Romney would have been much better served in the long run embracing his health care reform and criticizing aspects of Obama's plan. It might have made the primaries a bit closer, but it would have helped him with Dem leaner or true independents in the general election.
 
I think it's going to be extremely tough for them to only run on one issue (economy) when many of the side issues are integral parts of the presidency also.
Yeah. I'm sure for many people, Obama's not doing great on the economy, but would see his foreign policy as a winner (ending the Iraq War in particular will be a huge sticking point. Romney wants to go back, right? and of course killing Osama) and agree with him on social issues.

Of course, the state of the economy will be #1, but it's not like there's nothing else.
 

Diablos

Member
No it's not.

Obama's plan raises taxes on the rich to fund his plan. Romneycare relied mostly on pushing the costs to medicaid.
Obama's plan has little ability to enforce the mandate, Romney's empowers the state tax collectors to enforce it.
Obama's plan has no teeth to punish insurance companies that raise rates. Massachussets can deny them outright.
Obama's plan only forces busineses with 50 or more people to provide insurance. Romney's plan forces businesses of 11 or more employees to provide the insurance.
Obama's plan provides subsidies to the poor In a wider scope, but provides less money to each individual.
Obama's plan does not allow young people to continue on their parents' plan if they move out. Romney's plan allows for young adults to still be covered for two years after they move out.

So, the bones and the intent of the plans may be the same, but they are structurally different in their scope and effectiveness.
So what's Romney going to say in defense of all this? "My plan shifts the money more to medicaid (which everyone still ultimately pays for, especially the rich), my mandate is more enforceable than Obama's (which is the most unpopular part of the plan), Obama's plan allows you to hire some 39 more people before you are required to offer them health insurance, with mine it kicks in when you have only 11, and my plan is less forgiving to young adults who need to stay on their parents' health insurance."

Good luck with the positive spin there.

Romney may raise more than 100 million dollars in June

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/07/01/romney_may_have_raised_100_million_in_june.html

That is bad bad news for Obama. Obama will be lucky to reach 60 million.
If nothing else this PAC money is going to sink Obama, I swear.

Really starting to wonder if Roberts feels bad about the decision.

All of the conservatives whining about how Roberts is a liberal have short memories. The CU ruling could quite possibly hand this election to the GOP. And they have him to thank for it.
 
You all keep forgetting that all that PAC money is useless, considering that Obama also has PAC and individual donors that FAR outnumber Romney in raw numbers.
 

Chichikov

Member
Well, I can't disagree there. Romney would have been much better served in the long run embracing his health care reform and criticizing aspects of Obama's plan. It might have made the primaries a bit closer, but it would have helped him with Dem leaner or true independents in the general election.
Fuck the horse race for a second.
The country would've been better served had Romney tried to put his best ideas forward, instead of focusing exclusively on what will help in the polls.

Sadly, this will never happen (on both sides) until the electorate start demanding it.
 

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I think calling the ACA a tax hike is ridiculous when it's completely optional. Obamacare is actually a tax CUT for everyone that participates.
 

gcubed

Member
That is why Romney has the advantage of letting the SuperPACs do the dirty work for him too. It is a BIG advantage.

its not a big advantage. people are stupid, but not that stupid. An anti-obama ad is a Romney ad and vice versa, no matter if it says "Americans for Prosperity" or whatever at the end. There is no nuance.

Sounds like wishful thinking.

its the truth. Its been reported countless times already from last months numbers.

also, the GOP is run by a bunch of buffoons, they should be focusing on the economy since thats Obama's weak point but they go full retard on health care and other things
 
Back from a three day canoe race/camping trip and Obama is still doing decent in the polls. Not bad

Just stumbled across a rather old point that the CBO estimates the tax/tax penalty/Biggest Tax Of All Time/etc will raise around 30b over the course of ten years
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43117

Good luck with that, Romney
 
Just some over confidence in Obama I think.

2010 shows us that it is easy to mislead people in this economy along with the current media environment

Yeah, if you control the airwaves with ads in all states (and Mitt has the money to do that), it'll definitely affect the outcome - it's like "Why is this Mitt guy being advertised more than Obama? Is he more important now?"

The super pac thing is definitely scary.
 

Kosmo

Banned
I think calling the ACA a tax hike is ridiculous when it's completely optional. Obamacare is actually a tax CUT for everyone that participates.

Now THIS is some cognitive dissonance.

You're forgetting all the other tax hikes that are incorporated into PPACA.
 
Yup.

I feel like some of our fellow PoliGaffers are in denial :\

Just some over confidence in Obama I think.

2010 shows us that it is easy to mislead people in this economy along with the current media environment

OK, you two have officially been regulated to PD status when it comes to predictions. (Sorry PD, but a broken clock can be right twice a day you know.)

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39317404&postcount=1704
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=39320633&postcount=1735

Your lack of faith is disturbing. Also, don't bother looking through my post history. I don't make predictions. =P
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I can't believe you guys are losing your shit over that.
Also, you're angry at the wrong thing, the problem is not that he changed his mind, whatever, every politician does that, the problem is that he has no serious healthcare plan right now.
Instead of digging up up old clips, the media should be asking him to explain what would he do and how will it work.

I know this is a post from yesterday, but changing your mind isn't the problem.

Changing it for no reason is.

Kerry changes his opinion about the iraq war because of new information and details that came out over time.

Obama changed his opinion on gay marriage due to continuous reflection and new experiences with same-sex couples, both through his position as the president and through exposure to same sex couples through his daughters' classmates and their parents at school.

Romney opposes his health care plan being used on a national level because it has obama's name attached to it.


There is a difference between changing your opinion by coming to a conclusion that your current stance is wrong, and changing your opinion just because it is politically convenient.

One of these should not be criticized. One of these should be criticized. Unfortunately I think you'll find that the label "flip flopping" gets thrown around simply for changing your opinion, even when legitimate.
 

Amir0x

Banned
Obama changed his opinion on gay marriage due to continuous reflection and new experiences with same-sex couples, both through his position as the president and through exposure to same sex couples through his daughters' classmates and their parents at school.

I just wanted to point out that this is a bad example. As we know, Obama was 100% for gay marriage as early as 1996, and in all likelihood, even earlier. The only reason he changed to the shifting, fairly gutless "my opinion is evolving" stance is BECAUSE it was politically expedient at the time, and the only reason he changed when he did is also because he was forced into it. I'm not sure how that is any different than this:

and changing your opinion just because it is politically convenient.

Sure, he came around to the right decision. And in my opinion, he was 100% for gay marriage all along. But the point is he supported something, changed his mind because it was "politically convenient", and then shifted it back again when he was forced. I'd say Obama is guilty of this sort of thing on a number of occasions.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Unfortunately I think you'll find that the label "flip flopping" gets thrown around simply for changing your opinion, even when legitimate.

Yes, sad that changing your position is automatically considered a "bad thing" regardless of the context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom