Romney touts Romneycare

warpus said:

People keep using the term "flip flopping", as if to imply that changing your position on a subject is a bad thing.

It isn't! Changing your position is what every sensible person does after they've learned that they are wrong about something.

The problem isn't people who change their position on something. You've really got to distinguish between people who do it for valid reasons as opposed to what Romney is doing.

Click to expand...

In Blighty, we call it weathervaning

Romney reboot etch a stetch version 5.0
5th times the charm

warpus said:

People keep using the term "flip flopping", as if to imply that changing your position on a subject is a bad thing.

It isn't! Changing your position is what every sensible person does after they've learned that they are wrong about something.

The problem isn't people who change their position on something. You've really got to distinguish between people who do it for valid reasons as opposed to what Romney is doing.

Click to expand...

It's OK to change your position for any number of reasons. But when a politician simply dismisses everything he claimed to believe before, and then says he believes all the things that the people he wants to have vote for him want him to believe, it's more than a bis suspicious.

Well, you have got to admit that Romney has been remarkably consistent in being inconsistent.

Based on these responses to Warpus's post:

kramerfan86:
Flip flopping is used for american politicians near universally because their reason is near universally because a poll told them it was a popular position to switch to. It is a term I personally near exclusively use in politics, if a professor or boss or family member switches an idea on something I almost never call it a flip flop because it is almost always based on an actual decision making process other than popularity.

Click to expand...

Joecoolyo:
Well, I view the term flip-flopping less about "changing your position", which is fine, and more "changing your position constantly to please whoever you're pandering too".

Click to expand...

the term "flip flopping" in American politics is older than I thought (John Kerry, 2004 election) or I completely misinterpreted how it was being applied to John Kerry. I understood it to refer to his decision to vote against the White House on a Iraq-centric bill after the invasion had begun, despite having voted in line with the White House on all of the previous bills concerning Iraq. I don't agree with his reason for voting against it, but it wasn't a terrible reason; the bill would be funded by the US instead of by Iraq which had been promised previously.

Of course, since everyone now understands flip flopper to mean a person who frequently changes their opinion just to gain favour with the public, that's what it means. Now. But did it mean that before this election cycle begun?

So even though Obamacare worked in his state, he doesn't want to try it for the country. Romney has the "I'm not Obama strategy" but too bad for him it won't work since people actually like Obama.

I never really tore John Kerry apart on the "flip flopping" thing personally. It was one issue, and considering how deceptive the sell on the war was going from supporting it to not supporting it was not an unreasonable shift.

kramerfan86 said:

I never really tore John Kerry apart on the "flip flopping" thing personally. It was one issue, and considering how deceptive the sell on the war was going from supporting it to not supporting it was not an unreasonable shift.

Click to expand...

I'm not trying to imply that you did. I'm wondering when the definition of flip flopping became the changing of a politician's mind to increase their chances of being elected. It wasn't used in that context in 2004. I hadn't heard it being used in that way before this election cycle. Was that phrase ever applied to a POTUS candidate before 2004?

Fallen Angel Lord said:

So even though Obamacare worked in his state, he doesn't want to try it for the country. Romney has the "I'm not Obama strategy" but too bad for him it won't work since people actually like Obama.

Click to expand...

He's pandering to the "states rights" thing that so many Republicans buy into. "It's an OK policy for the states, but it's wrong for the feds to do it." Which is a pretty limited appeal argument. But plays with the base he has to motivate.

It would play better with the middle if he was actually offering the alternatives he claims he'll replace Obamacare with rather than just saying some unspecified alternatives will produce better results without any of the Obamacare "negatives". But since he doesn't actually have alternatives, that's kind of out the window. Ryan's voucher plan is playing so poorly with people that they refuse to even call it a voucher plan any more.

Thedrin said:

I'm not trying to imply that you did. I'm wondering when the definition of flip flopping became the changing of a politician's mind to increase their chances of being elected. It wasn't used in that context in 2004. I hadn't heard it being used in that way before this election cycle. Was that phrase ever applied to a POTUS candidate before 2004?

Click to expand...

Honestly dont know if people did it on individual scale before the Kerry thing, but that was definitely the first time it was done on such a large scale since bush made it such a campaign centerpiece.

Cutlass said:

He's pandering to the "states rights" thing that so many Republicans buy into. "It's an OK policy for the states, but it's wrong for the feds to do it." Which is a pretty limited appeal argument. But plays with the base he has to motivate.

It would play better with the middle if he was actually offering the alternatives he claims he'll replace Obamacare with rather than just saying some unspecified alternatives will produce better results without any of the Obamacare "negatives". But since he doesn't actually have alternatives, that's kind of out the window. Ryan's voucher plan is playing so poorly with people that they refuse to even call it a voucher plan any more.

Click to expand...

Why not the "Allow health insurance to be purchased across states lines and drive prices down" thing?

The insurance lobby.

GhostWriter16 said:

Why not the "Allow health insurance to be purchased across states lines and drive prices down" thing?

Click to expand...

Because it kills states' rights? If one state sets X minimum, doesn't a state that sets a X/2 minimum requirement undercut that and thus exert undue influence over the first state, and could you actually buy from a company that offers only X/2 coverage if you were in the first state? If it is more profitable to give less coverage, won't most insurance companies move their headquarters to states that require minimal coverage and only offer said coverage if it is legal to sell it across state lines?

This is far more complicated than simply saying "across state lines means efficiency/profit/arbitrary measure of goodness". On the plus side, I'm pretty sure I saw a relevant statement on who can handle complicated inter-state commerce stuff before...

Antilogic said:

This is far more complicated than simply saying "across state lines means efficiency/profit/arbitrary measure of goodness". On the plus side, I'm pretty sure I saw a relevant statement on who can handle complicated inter-state commerce stuff before...

Click to expand...

It's like how the buttcoiners have been relearning economics over the course of the past year. "Hey, maybe we should have some sort of regulatory body to deal with scammers, since most of us are too dumb to figure out who they are!"

Dachs said:

It's like how the buttcoiners have been relearning economics over the course of the past year. "Hey, maybe we should have some sort of regulatory body to deal with scammers, since most of us are too dumb to figure out who they are!"

Click to expand...

Link to video.

It doesn't match up to the specific politics, but the overall theme is similar.

GhostWriter16 said:

Why not the "Allow health insurance to be purchased across states lines and drive prices down" thing?

Click to expand...

I don't believe you know what that means. I have 0% confidence that you can explain the benefits or argue against the downsides of "selling across state lines". I think you've heard that phrase & you parrot it with no understanding. Prove me wrong. I'll give you a softball to find out if I'm right.

Insurance companies can currently sell across state lines. For example, here's United Health Care's website. The first thing they ask for is your Zip Code. Why? Because they sell across state lines. You can get a rate (NY, right?) & I can get a rate. NC. They sell across state lines.

Here's Anthem's site. Down at the left, where you have to click on "Individual & Family plans (Health, Dental, Vision & Life)", you have to select a state, right? You can select New York, yes? So they sell in multiple states.

Here's Cigna's site, where you have to enter the state you live in.

Here's Blue Cross Blue Shield, where the very first thing you have to enter is your Zip Code, so they can tell what state you live in & sell to you.

Tell me, in detail, why the "selling across state lines" meme is different from what we have today. I don't believe for a second you know what you're talking about. If you show me that you do, I'll address your point.

GhostWriter16 said:

Why not the "Allow health insurance to be purchased across states lines and drive prices down" thing?

Click to expand...

I thought Republicans were against UNIONS ?

Republicans would change that law so that people who belong to the same associations, such as all real estate agents, all Lutherans or all small business associations, could form their own pool for health insurance.

Click to expand...

I thought Republicans were against PUBLIC OPTION ?

Rehberg once proposed allowing anyone anywhere to join the federal health plan, which has nine million members all over the United States.

Click to expand...

FriendlyFire said:

Quote:

Republicans would change that law so that people who belong to the same associations, such as all real estate agents, all Lutherans or all small business associations, could form their own pool for health insurance.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Who said that? It looked like it was a Dommy quote from your post, but I tried a Search & couldn't Find it. It may be my fault, though. I only tried so hard, to be honest.

Anyway, the Reps proposed that, under the guise of co-ops, which totally exist today:

For example, just here in North Carolina, you can join the Medical Society of North Carolina & pool together to get benefits from being a "large business", despite having an individual practice (greater negotiating power, pooled claims, etc., - I can expand on this if anyone wants).

Or the NC Bar Association, which pools lawyers together to get a better rate as a group than they would by applying individually.

Nothing wrong with that, IMO, but co-ops were a Big Deal as an opposition to ObamaCare when it was being debated, but it was really just a tax break giveaway to existing co-ops, like the ones above, which, as mentioned, already exist. Shocker that the GOP would be in favor of tax-breaks to things that already exist, I know.

EDIT:

FriendlyFire said:

I thought Republicans were against UNIONS ?

Click to expand...

I figure I'm gonna have to be the one to explain this whole "Allow health insurance to be purchased across states lines and drive prices down" at some point, once Dommy admits he has no idea idea what he's talking about, but it has nothing to do with Unions.

RobAnybody said:

I don't believe you know what that means. I have 0% confidence that you can explain the benefits or argue against the downsides of "selling across state lines". I think you've heard that phrase & you parrot it with no understanding. Prove me wrong. I'll give you a softball to find out if I'm right.

Insurance companies can currently sell across state lines. For example, here's United Health Care's website. The first thing they ask for is your Zip Code. Why? Because they sell across state lines. You can get a rate (NY, right?) & I can get a rate. NC. They sell across state lines.

Here's Anthem's site. Down at the left, where you have to click on "Individual & Family plans (Health, Dental, Vision & Life)", you have to select a state, right? You can select New York, yes? So they sell in multiple states.

Here's Cigna's site, where you have to enter the state you live in.

Here's Blue Cross Blue Shield, where the very first thing you have to enter is your Zip Code, so they can tell what state you live in & sell to you.

Tell me, in detail, why the "selling across state lines" meme is different from what we have today. I don't believe for a second you know what you're talking about. If you show me that you do, I'll address your point.

Click to expand...

For those of us reading this exchange I, for one, would rather you took the time to explain what you mean about insurance sales and how you feel they work today rather than this rather elaborate taunt that doesn't do much of anything useful at all.

Farm Boy said:

For those of us reading this exchange I, for one, would rather you took the time to explain what you mean about insurance sales and how you feel they work today rather than this rather elaborate taunt that doesn't do much of anything useful at all.

Click to expand...

Okay, I'll ruin Rob's rhetorical trick. He can unload the hate on me if he wants to.

The short version is that companies can already (and do) sell different packages that meet local requirements in different states, and thus they already "sell across state lines". The talking point is derived from the fact that insurance companies must be licensed to sell insurance in every state they want to sell insurance in, and that license is accompanied by regulations such as minimum coverage requirements, legal enforcement mechanisms (i.e. you have to pay what your contract says you will pay otherwise you will submit to legal action), and specifying the state courts as having legal jurisdiction, etc.

Presumably, those who argue for "selling across state lines" are actually arguing to eliminate a state's ability to license insurers.