danivon wrote:You would have had to pay the penalty for the previous four years. Which may or may not have been cheaper,.

This is where Roberts decision becomes problematic for supporters of the ACA. The tax/penalty necessarily has to be cheaper then the premiums. There is Supreme Court precedence that says a tax/penalty can reach a point when its purpose is not revenue creation but regulatory mandate. Congress can not use tax policy as a regulatory measure. Therefore, when that point is reached, the tax/penalty is no longer constitutional. (United States v. Butler, 1936).

Roberts pretty much seemed to say in his opinion that he still agrees with that precedence and the only reason he was able to uphold the penalty as a tax was because it was so small that it did not cross that threshold. However, I am pretty sure he said that any increase in the mandate penalty could bring easily bring it to that threshold.

So basically, I would think this means anytime there is an increase in the mandate penalty it will be relitigated.

Regarding Romney and the issue of pre-existing medical conditions: why did none of you bother to go to Romney's campaign website and see what it says there??? Sheesh!

"Mitt's Plan" is closer by far to one page than to 1300 long, but among the promises we find: "Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage." Now this is NOT the same thing as in the ACA, where (if I understand it correctly) pre-existing conditions cannot be the basis for any denial of coverage by anyone at any time regardless of coverage continuity. Mitt's promise is a much lesser one: once I'm insured by company X, so long as I keep paying my premiums and don't let coverage lapse they can't cancel my policy just because I get sick. That's nice, but a long way from the protection afforded by the ACA.

So, insofar as Mitt does address pre-existing conditions, and does promise a "solution" that's NOT the same as in the ACA, we can, I think, conclude with some confidence that his promise to help repeal the ACA includes zero indication that he'll save, retain, re-implement, re-cycle, or hang onto the ACA's version of protection for those with pre-existing conditions. His plan does nothing of the sort.

That said, "Mitt's Plan" is basically no plan - he wants each state to do what it thinks best, with the feds setting just a few ground rules. Thus if a state wants to use ACA-style protection for those with pre-existing conditions, Mitt would theoretically have no problem with that. But to use this possibility as a way of saying that Mitt supports the ACA's particular form of protection would be an absurdity. Some state might adopt anything - Mitt can't be in favor of everything (much as that might be a politician's dream). His proposal is for a very limited federal-level protection, nothing more.

Purple wrote:Mitt's promise is a much lesser one: once I'm insured by company X, so long as I keep paying my premiums and don't let coverage lapse they can't cancel my policy just because I get sick.

I also take it to mean that if I have coverage and switch insurance companies, I can't be denied by the new insurance company for having a preexisting condition. Most likely example of this case is changing jobs which have different insurance providers.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Purple wrote:Mitt's promise is a much lesser one: once I'm insured by company X, so long as I keep paying my premiums and don't let coverage lapse they can't cancel my policy just because I get sick.

I also take it to mean that if I have coverage and switch insurance companies, I can't be denied by the new insurance company for having a preexisting condition. Most likely example of this case is changing jobs which have different insurance providers.

Maybe.

Purple wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:I also take it to mean that if I have coverage and switch insurance companies, I can't be denied by the new insurance company for having a preexisting condition. Most likely example of this case is changing jobs which have different insurance providers.

Maybe.

Maybe? That's pretty tough, given what you posted:

"Prevent discrimination against individuals with pre-existing conditions who maintain continuous coverage."

In any event, thanks for rendering all of the ranting by Danivon and freeman2 moot.

Moot? Ranting?

I'll overlook the second, and address whether this is some kind of 'slam dunk'.

'Continuous' means without a break. If you lose your job and don't get another immediately, and can't get coverage for the interim, that would not be 'continuous', and so Romney's 'plan' is ambiguous (at best) as to whether you would be able to get cover for a pre-existing condition. A break of one day could be enough.

Indeed, some readings of 'continuous' may also exclude switching cover without a break, if the new cover differs enough, or is with another insurer.

Thank you, Purple, for providing more evidence. I can see that there is intention to maintain some provision, but it is still unclear as to how far it would go to fully do so. Let alone how many people could be affected if it does not. I wonder whether/when a fuller answer will be provided by Romney or his Republican colleagues.

Oh, it's a "slam dunk."

No, not in the sense that I can guarantee what will happen with this provision. However, it is a "slam dunk" that the charge of "no evidence" is without merit.

Getting back to the original topic, it turns out that the "Romney Murdered My Wife" commercial is very inaccurate. CNN took it apart.

I wonder if Bill Burton and crew knew about this and greenlit the smear anyway or if they didn’t care enough to even find out. Why would they? The point of calling Romney a murderer is to keep him on the defensive; the more ridiculous the charge is, the more media/online oxygen it sucks up and the less air there is for Mitt’s own attacks on O to breathe. They tried a straightforward offensive against Romney’s complex private equity record a few months ago but the results were inconclusive. Now they’re trying again with a bolder, simpler narrative: Romney’s layoffs literally killed people. If you’re a low-information voter who pays attention to this stuff in bits and pieces, a story you’re half-listening to about a rich guy and a steelworker and a plant closing and a young wife tragically dying from cancer sounds really bad, even if it’s a gross smear. In fact, the grosser the smear, the more compelling the half-listened-to story seems. Right, Harry?

Question: Knowing what we know now about the timeline of all this, what’s left of the accusation in the original smear ad? What is it, precisely, that Bain is being faulted for doing or not doing? They shouldn’t have closed down the plant because … it was unfair to expect the workers who were laid off to ever find new jobs with insurance? It was negligent not to predict that some workers’ wives might get laid off too and wouldn’t find a new job for years before they became ill? There appears to be no actual policy or business critique here. It’s just a string of events spread over five whole years, with certain key data omitted, and you’re supposed to infer causation without really being told why or how. This is what the Unicorn Prince has come to after promising four years ago to heal America or whatever. Perfect.

Now, before someone gets into a snit and points out it wasn't the Re-Elect campaign that ran the ad, it's Bill Burton's SuperPAC. He's on a leave of absence, or whatever, from his job as deputy press secretary, and worked with the President on his first election. In other words, he's in Obama's inner circle.

It was a pretty oblique set of links. No direct causation, for sure. But I can see why the widower might feel somewhat aggrieved at Bain (and so Romney) for their part in his family's downfall. Layoffs will make life harder for those laid off, and they do affect health insurance (well, before the ACA they do), and while there are a lot of other factors, not least of which being the grief of a man for his wife and an emotional crutch of finding someone or something to blame, it's not completely unrelated.

The way it is presented does play too much on that one aspect and does take advantage of one man's subjective opinion and emotional state.

I did think the 'original topic' was the horse ad and Reid's claims, though. I think most of agree that Reid went too far, and that so does this ad. However, the issues around them and the horse ad cannot be dismissed completely.

I saw a claim that Romney's family would benefit to the tune of $80M from his tax plans. Now that doesn't make them bad per se but it does prompt many to question his position and motivation, and if he wants to sell the idea, he does have that hurdle to jump.

With nullifying/repeal of the ACA, there's less of a question of personal benefit, but there is the point that he seeks to deny many people something he and his don't have to worry about. Romney does not have to address that, if he doesn't want to, but it will not go away as an example of what some might say is an 'out of touch' and 'privileged' outlook.

Personality politics is usuallly pretty unedifying, but the USA has been a place where it thrives for a couple of centuries, and certainly in the last few elections, so let's not pretend anything new is going on. And sometimes the personal position of a candidate is bound up with the political issues. We should not be barred from considering the latter, even if we should be wary of the former.

danivon wrote:It was a pretty oblique set of links. No direct causation, for sure. But I can see why the widower might feel somewhat aggrieved at Bain (and so Romney) for their part in his family's downfall. Layoffs will make life harder for those laid off, and they do affect health insurance (well, before the ACA they do), and while there are a lot of other factors, not least of which being the grief of a man for his wife and an emotional crutch of finding someone or something to blame, it's not completely unrelated.

Wow.

You didn't watch it, did you?

5 years later? And, SHE had healthcare through HER work, which the commercial cleverly dodges. Bain was gone in 1999. Plant closes in 2001. She loses insurance after that?

He blames Romney for the loss of his job. I suppose Bain (not Romney) is supposed to subsidize failing businesses? I thought that was only the American taxpayers via the Obama Administration?

The way it is presented does play too much on that one aspect and does take advantage of one man's subjective opinion and emotional state.

I did think the 'original topic' was the horse ad and Reid's claims, though. I think most of agree that Reid went too far, and that so does this ad. However, the issues around them and the horse ad cannot be dismissed completely.

Is it too difficult for you to read the title? "Can Liberals Stoop Any Lower?" So, this is right on topic--and they did stoop lower, by accusing Romney of (at best) depraved indifference.

I saw a claim that Romney's family would benefit to the tune of $80M from his tax plans. Now that doesn't make them bad per se but it does prompt many to question his position and motivation, and if he wants to sell the idea, he does have that hurdle to jump.

Hmm, was this the same guy who called Harry Reid?

I find it rich that Obama is complaining Romney's plan will add "two trillion" to the Debt. Obama has added nearly SIX in less than four years.

With nullifying/repeal of the ACA, there's less of a question of personal benefit, but there is the point that he seeks to deny many people something he and his don't have to worry about. Romney does not have to address that, if he doesn't want to, but it will not go away as an example of what some might say is an 'out of touch' and 'privileged' outlook.

I'd prefer a more objective analysis. YOU may believe a guy with $250M is trying to work the system for another $80M and campaigning on it, but I don't.

Personality politics is usuallly pretty unedifying, but the USA has been a place where it thrives for a couple of centuries, and certainly in the last few elections, so let's not pretend anything new is going on.

Not really sure when a candidate/campaign has accused his opponent of murder/manslaughter before.

Purple wrote:

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Purple wrote:Mitt's promise is a much lesser one: once I'm insured by company X, so long as I keep paying my premiums and don't let coverage lapse they can't cancel my policy just because I get sick.

I also take it to mean that if I have coverage and switch insurance companies, I can't be denied by the new insurance company for having a preexisting condition. Most likely example of this case is changing jobs which have different insurance providers.

Maybe.

I would say definitely since this is essentially the status of current law under HIPPA. Title 1 of HIPPA limits the amount of time a group plan can exclude some coverage. Specifically in the above linked Wikipedia article

Title I also limits restrictions that a group health plan can place on benefits for preexisting conditions. Group health plans may refuse to provide benefits relating to preexisting conditions for a period of 12 months after enrollment in the plan or 18 months in the case of late enrollment. However, individuals may reduce this exclusion period if they had group health plan coverage or health insurance prior to enrolling in the plan. Title I allows individuals to reduce the exclusion period by the amount of time that they had "creditable coverage" prior to enrolling in the plan and after any "significant breaks" in coverage. "Creditable coverage" is defined quite broadly and includes nearly all group and individual health plans, Medicare, and Medicaid. A "significant break" in coverage is defined as any 63 day period without any creditable coverage.

Basically, it sounds like Romney wants to eliminate the exclusion period all together.

Yes, I saw it. I read your link. If you read what I wrote (as opposed to doing that mind-reading trick of reading between the lines and deciding for yourself what I 'mean' differs), you would see that I agree that the ad goes too far, that it is based on the reponse of a widower to a series of calamities that befell his family and which he connects together.

We can discuss what Bain did elsewhere (buy businesses and then load them with the debt from the purchase, thus keeping the profit for Bain and making the target business far less stable - a model for equity takeovers that has seen businesses like Manchester United go from making massive profits to having huge debts), but I was talking about what the ad used, not necessarily agreeing with it, or the widower's point of view.

I can empathise with a guy who lost his job and his wife, and I can understand that he would seek someone to blame. I also recognise that people who cause layoffs bear some (not all, but some) responsibility for the outcome.

The 1988 Bush campaign, along with supportive PACs did heavily imply that Dukakis was repsonsible for Willie Horton's actions, which is not far off. The infamous Daisy ad accused Goldwater of encouraging nuclear armageddon. The 2004 Swift Boat ads accused Kerry of aiding the enemy (treason?). Different crimes, perhaps, but all much of a muchness.

Going back to 1828, Jackson was accused of cannibalism and his wife of prostitution, so this kind of stuff is far from new. The first real campaign, in 1800, saw some vile stuff aimed at Jefferson.

I believe that a GOP candidate in Ohio recently compared Obama to Hitler, Stalin and Mao, suggesting a direct continuum. I'm pretty sure she's not doing it for Romney, but she is in his party and accusations of seeking mass murder are not far off.

I have a link for the $80M. Most of it is from changes to estate tax which would protect the 40 largest estates, of which his is one. It does also show about $4.5M a year from his annual taxes, and significant amounts saved when his large IRA matures. Link to come later on (you won't like the source, but it is at least sourced)

Well I didn't research to see if there was some evidence that romneyhad a position on protecting those with pre- existing conditions because that really was not what the argument was about Df was arguing without evidence that Romney might protect those with pre-existing conditions and we were arguing over whether argument is valid As purple pointed out his policy is pretty weak in any case--the way I read it youre only protected if you keep the same insurance company, which means any period of unemployment or changing jobs could be a problem. I don't think that is the real problem anyway--it's when u have a pre--existing condition and try to get insurance and u can't that the ACA fixes

freeman2 wrote:the way I read it youre only protected if you keep the same insurance company, which means any period of unemployment or changing jobs could be a problem.

Except that this is not what current law says. Romney appears to be stating he supports current law.

Archduke, well you still have a problem if you have no coverage for 63 days. Also I dont see where title I say have to take someone with a pre-existing condition only that if u do you cannot refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions So why can't the insurer just say they wont cover that person?