freeman2 wrote:Archduke, well you still have a problem if you have no coverage for 63 days.

I agree with this, though the standard of what qualifies as creditable coverage is so wide as to be have little substantial effect.

However, having said that, I take Romney's position to be eliminationg the exclusion period.

freeman2 wrote: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?

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. The question is that the ACA says can't refuse for pre-existing conditions. HIPPA says can't refuse for pre-existing conditions if person had previous
health insurance for at least 12 months.

Other then that, your question seems to be that HIPPA doesn't prevent the insurer from refusing to provide coverage for some other reason. i.e. bad credit score. Well, first that is a moving goal post.

Further, there is nothing in the ACA that says an insurer can't refuse to cover someone for some other reason, i.e. bad credit score. Therefore, your question makes no sense.

To be honest, ARJ & Freeman2, a lot comes down to the interpretation of that 'continuous' and whether there is any more meat to it. Now we have some evidence that Romney intends to do 'something' about pre-existing conditions, we are in the position that the 'something' could be, as Purple inferred, some way off of what the ACA provided, or it could be as you inferred, about the same.

I hope, to be honest, that you are right (if Romney does win, and he does repeal ACA, and he does get his 'plan' through Congress) that it would at least give the same provision on pre-existing conditions as the ACA, but it would be a lot easier to tell if he had plainly said 'this is the same as what the ACA does'. Maybe he will, if pressed.

the next conundrum raised by repeal of the ACA is what to do about the uninsured, but that's a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

What I am saying Archduke is that my reading of what you quoted fromTitle 1 was that it only said to an insurer that once they accept an insured there are limitations as to whether they can refuse to pay for medical costs that are related to pre-existing conditions, but there is nothing stopping them from not taking an an insured first place because of the pre-existing condition. If that interpretation is correct then you would have difficulty carrying coverage to a different job. It would also mean that Romney was merely restating federal law that existed before the ACA, presumably indicating that Romney was not aware of title I.

joke time...

Oh, I promised a link or two.

On how much Romney and his heirs stand to benefit from Romney's tax plans: Romney Proposes $80 Million Tax Cut for His Family There's a table there, and a lot of links to the sources explaining. I'm sure that DF won't like the sources, and thus be able to use the ad hominem logic of them being liberals meaning he can ignore anuthing they say, but there they are (and I didn't say I agreed with them, just that I'd seen the figures).

On a GOP candidate equating Obama with mass-murdering dictatorships: GOP candidate in Ohio compares Obama to Hitler, Mao and Stalin. As someone recently compared to a mass-murderer by a ranting conservative, I feel a little closer to Obama now.

danivon wrote:Oh, I promised a link or two.

On how much Romney and his heirs stand to benefit from Romney's tax plans: Romney Proposes $80 Million Tax Cut for His Family There's a table there, and a lot of links to the sources explaining. I'm sure that DF won't like the sources, and thus be able to use the ad hominem logic of them being liberals meaning he can ignore anuthing they say, but there they are (and I didn't say I agreed with them, just that I'd seen the figures).

If you believe Obama is the tax-cutter and Romney is going to raise taxes on 95% of Americans, there's really no reasoning with you. The TPC study is filled with assumptions that are not in evidence.

On a GOP candidate equating Obama with mass-murdering dictatorships: GOP candidate in Ohio compares Obama to Hitler, Mao and Stalin. As someone recently compared to a mass-murderer by a ranting conservative, I feel a little closer to Obama now.

Oh, you're closer to him than ever. I read that "article."

I'll take a slightly more charitable approach: she is a minor candidate using twitter without a license. I'll take a wild guess and say she gets about 30% of the vote.

On the other hand the President's hand-picked leader of the DNC, lied about who runs the PAC that did the ad I originally referred to. She said on FNS she had "no idea" what party the people who run the Pac are affiliated with. I love this clarifying moment.

The President's press secretary has brushed off questions about it--even though Obama staffers have been present at fundraisers for the PAC and interviewed the "victim" in the ad BEFORE the PAC did.

Scummy.

Doctor Fate wrote:If you believe Obama is the tax-cutter and Romney is going to raise taxes on 95% of Americans, there's really no reasoning with you. The TPC study is filled with assumptions that are not in evidence.

You do know that a large part of the much-derided 'stimulus' was actually in the form of tax cuts? Obama has cut taxes. Chances are he'll raise some taxes if re-elected. Still, the tax take is still quite low compared to the history of the last few decads and there's a budget deficit to address.

Still, if that is your response to showing that Romney and his heirs will benefit greatly from Romney's tax proposals, I guess you concede that there's something there? I don't expect you to agree that this should raise a question or two about motive, but it does become relevant if a politician is pushing hard for a policy that will personally benefit themself.

Oh, you're closer to him than ever. I read that "article."

I'll take a slightly more charitable approach: she is a minor candidate using twitter without a license. I'll take a wild guess and say she gets about 30% of the vote.

I don't doubt she's on to a loser. The gerrymandering out that way means that a GOP candidate stands no chance in her district, but will walk others.

I never claimed she was a major candidate. It was just an example of a candidate suggesting murderous intent in a politlcal opponent. Apparently it's totally new, and only ever done by one side, if you ignore all evidence to the contrary...

On the other hand the President's hand-picked leader of the DNC, lied about who runs the PAC that did the ad I originally referred to. She said on FNS she had "no idea" what party the people who run the Pac are affiliated with.

You mean the second ad? The ad you 'originally' referred to was about a horse.

The President's press secretary has brushed off questions about it--even though Obama staffers have been present at fundraisers for the PAC and interviewed the "victim" in the ad BEFORE the PAC did.

Seems like a bit of a non-story. PAC that attacks candidate for one party is associated with the other party. But because it's flawed, the latter party tries to distance itself. They fail.

It's actually depressingly predictable.

It is illegal for PAC committees to "coordinate" with the actual campaign committee. So its not surprising that the presidents press secretary denies knowledge of the PAC's activities.
In the primaries, Romney himself has trouble with unruly PACs producing advertisements that he couldn't personally support.
Buts thats the rules and nature of campaign financing and campaigning ....
republicans can't really complain about laws that they worked so hard to implement.

rickyp wrote:It is illegal for PAC committees to "coordinate" with the actual campaign committee. So its not surprising that the presidents press secretary denies knowledge of the PAC's activities.
In the primaries, Romney himself has trouble with unruly PACs producing advertisements that he couldn't personally support.
Buts thats the rules and nature of campaign financing and campaigning ....
republicans can't really complain about laws that they worked so hard to implement.

Yes, but Republicans can illustrate the President's hypocrisy when his staff denies knowing how the PAC found a gentleman making scurious charges against Romney, when in fact it was the President's staff who discovered him.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:If you believe Obama is the tax-cutter and Romney is going to raise taxes on 95% of Americans, there's really no reasoning with you. The TPC study is filled with assumptions that are not in evidence.

You do know that a large part of the much-derided 'stimulus' was actually in the form of tax cuts? Obama has cut taxes.

Yes, and I believe most, if not all, were "temporary." That exacerbates the lack of confidence in the private sector. Businesses don't know what to expect and wage-earners are wary.

Chances are he'll raise some taxes if re-elected. Still, the tax take is still quite low compared to the history of the last few decads and there's a budget deficit to address.

Right. And, we're running well over a $1T deficit now and his revealed proposal will raise about $28B a year.

So, if he's serious about deficit reduction . . . when is he going to lower the boom?

Still, if that is your response to showing that Romney and his heirs will benefit greatly from Romney's tax proposals, I guess you concede that there's something there?

No. The "non-partisan" group simply filled in the blanks and presumed tax increases. There is no way Romney will or could do that. He would instantly lose all Republican support by even suggesting it.

It is patent nonsense.

I don't expect you to agree that this should raise a question or two about motive, but it does become relevant if a politician is pushing hard for a policy that will personally benefit themself.

You've jumped the shark old man. Please point to ROMNEY saying this is his policy. Please point to a ROMNEY plan that proposes raising taxes on lower income folks while lowering them for himself and others like him.

Oh, you're closer to him than ever. I read that "article."

I'll take a slightly more charitable approach: she is a minor candidate using twitter without a license. I'll take a wild guess and say she gets about 30% of the vote.

I don't doubt she's on to a loser. The gerrymandering out that way means that a GOP candidate stands no chance in her district, but will walk others.

I never claimed she was a major candidate. It was just an example of a candidate suggesting murderous intent in a politlcal opponent. Apparently it's totally new, and only ever done by one side, if you ignore all evidence to the contrary...

Yeah, so some obscure, unfunded candidate is on par with a Super-Pac run by Obama's former deputy chief of staff which also coordinates with his reelection team?

If not, why bring up someone no one has ever heard of who has as much chance to be elected to Congress as you do?

On the other hand the President's hand-picked leader of the DNC, lied about who runs the PAC that did the ad I originally referred to. She said on FNS she had "no idea" what party the people who run the Pac are affiliated with.

You mean the second ad? The ad you 'originally' referred to was about a horse.

Sure, major error on my part.

Major dodge on yours. She flat-out lied.

Well if Romney will not cut middle-class loopholes in order to balance cutting top rates he is going to massively increase the deficit (particularly since he also wants to raise military spending) i Thought you were concerned about the deficit?

Doctor Fate wrote:

Still, if that is your response to showing that Romney and his heirs will benefit greatly from Romney's tax proposals, I guess you concede that there's something there?

No. The "non-partisan" group simply filled in the blanks and presumed tax increases. There is no way Romney will or could do that. He would instantly lose all Republican support by even suggesting it.

It is patent nonsense.

You appear to be responding to a completely different statement here. I was talking about how Romney's tax plans benefit Romney and his heirs. You are talking about the possibility that he will increase taxes on other people.

I don't expect you to agree that this should raise a question or two about motive, but it does become relevant if a politician is pushing hard for a policy that will personally benefit themself.

You've jumped the shark old man. Please point to ROMNEY saying this is his policy. Please point to a ROMNEY plan that proposes raising taxes on lower income folks while lowering them for himself and others like him.

I can easily point to Romney's proposals that lower taxes for him. There were many links in that post which explain it all.

However, to address the point you are responding with, if he is true to his word that his tax policy would help reduce the deficit, he either needs to see phenomenal growth in GDP (not just the high end of historical trends, but sustained growth the like of which the USA has never seen in modern times), or increases in tax revenue from somewhere.

I can understand your issue with the Tax Policy Centre - they crunched numbers on the Romney Plan. The problem for Romney is that they had to make a lot of assumptions in order for his plan to meet his promises.

I can understand your problem with Ezra Klein, who has worked out that the tax cuts will, contra Romney's promise, benefit the top 1%, simply because there is no way to balance the figures for that category.

Part of the issue is, of course, that Romney has not filled in the details of how his plan would work. Perhaps Ryan coming aboard will help flesh things out. Of course, that meat may not be quite so tasty to everyone.

Yeah, so some obscure, unfunded candidate is on par with a Super-Pac run by Obama's former deputy chief of staff which also coordinates with his reelection team?

Your point was that 'Liberals' stoop low, and that's what the title of the thread is about. You brought up an ad where a guy accuses Romney of 'murder'. My response includes finding a conservative who stoops as low, accusing Obama of being a likely dictator and supporter of mass murder. Does it matter how 'connected' they are? Not really. She's not running for councilman, she's running for Congress (and has also been prepared to run for the Senate)

danivon wrote:Does it matter how 'connected' they are? Not really.

I disagree. Running for office attracts many attention-seeking loons and political parties can't exclude people who manage to get X number of signatures on a petition. To increase participation, be egalitarian and inclusive, the number of required signatures is kept low and I'd bet you'd be in favor of keeping it that way. As a result, when it comes to being representative of a party, being a candidate in a primary (even for US House) is a LOT less meaningful than being a "connected" flunky with years of service for various "respected" individuals or parts of the organization.

She won the primary (as the only Republican), and is on the ballot for November. If the party didn't want her, presumably they'd have found an alternate to at least contest the primary

freeman2 wrote:Well if Romney will not cut middle-class loopholes in order to balance cutting top rates he is going to massively increase the deficit (particularly since he also wants to raise military spending) i Thought you were concerned about the deficit?

I am.

I am confident no one is less concerned about the deficit than the Man currently in the White House. He has zero Democratic votes for his last two budgets and has not lifted a political finger to reduce it. He has broken every spending promise he made, including cutting the deficit in half.