The biggest loser in Health Care Reform.... Mitt Romney.

[aaaaaa5a]

Mitt Romney was the favorite to be the GOP nominee in 2012. But with HCR legislation now passed, his Presidential career is finished. The Obama plan for National health care reform is very close to the health care plan Mitt Romney helped put in place as the Governor of Massachusetts. Of course he did this before shifting to the far right to run for President in 2008, and presumably again in 2012.

Question?

How can Mitt Romney be the GOP nominee now? What could he possible attack Obama on in regard to HCR? Equally troubling for Romney: How he can win the Republican nomination where ridiculous hatred for "Obama-care" is going to be among the key GOP campaign issues?


Romney is finished.


In one weekend, Obama revived his Presidency, entered his name into the history books with an historic accomplishment, re-tracked his Presidency towards all-time greatness, and wiped out what was presently his most difficult challenger for a second Presidential term.



Damn!

Obama is pretty darn impressive!

[amborin]

1. but you admit: ObamaCare==RomneyCare! what's impressive there?

[HughMoran]

7. 2 minutes hate

[CTLawGuy]

13. Romney was pro choice too

when gov of MA. Is that bad now?

[Hutzpa]

16. He was before he wasn't for it

:crazy:

[CTLawGuy]

24. yup

he's a political chameleon, but his primary opponents will be all to happy to remind the teabaggers that Romney supported a similar provision as governor of MA. I'm not sure how you spin your way out of that.

[karynnj]

26. The truth is that "Romneycare" was more the "Democratic MA legislature care"

than "Romneycare". Romney even vetoed parts of it - but was overridden. The truth of his time as Governor was that he could neither get an agenda passed or stop anything the Democrats wanted. Ted Kennedy had more influence on the legislature than Romney did. But, Romney, after the fact, took credit for it - so now like the OP says, he really has a political stumbling block in running. (Now because of his current language, he even loses that credit if the country is more overwhelmingly for it.

[bluestateguy]

2. Oh well, I guess they can always go with Soft on Crime Huckabee

:rofl:

[aaaaaa5a]

4. You look at the GOP line-up now and it is very weak

Haley Barbour- Governor Mississippi

Sarah Palin- FOX news

Bobby Gindal- Governor Louisiana

Mike Huckabee- FOX News

Newt Gingrich-Former House speaker

I don't think anyone there is legitimately electable. In looking at this issue, I think the GOP took an even bigger hit over HRC than they realize.

[Grand Taurean]

6. John Thune?

Prairie Ken Doll he is but he does not present the GOP's extremism in an extreme light.
Keep on eye on him. He may be the GOP's best chance.

[hatrack]

10. He's Steve King with better clothes and marginally better self-censorship

Otherwise, same ass, different hole.

[Grand Taurean]

15. What is important is that he does NOT sound

like a kook. That will matter much, especially if things improve by 2012.
In this scenario, the GOP would be throwing away the election if they let Sarah Palin run, meaning an embarrassing 1972 style loss for the GOP,
which I would greatly enjoy.

[nyc 4 Biden]

28. +1, thune with rubio 2012.

[terrell9584]

27. I'm from Mississippi

You overlook Barbour at your own peril. Mississippi has a Democratic controlled legislature, the Senate is close and the House is something like 70%. Most rural areas are still one party "Solid South" type areas. The vast majority of state employees are Democrats and the only reason the Republican Party has money here is because casinos tend to favor them.


Barbour is actually the most moderate of those five on the list. Very much so. And as much as I hate to say it, he impressed everyone in the state with the way he handled Katrina. The one thing you can say about him is that he does have leadership qualities for good or bad. And Barbour also ran the RNC right when they took Congress in 1994.


Don't underestimate him for a second. Mississippi has only had two Republican governors since Reconstruction. Fordice is viewed by everyone to be an adulterer and a failure who made no impact on Mississippi at all. Barbour is viewed as a largely successful governor who managed to survive a very tough first term where at one point his approval ratings were in the 30s to win by over 15 points for re-election, and this was at a time in the cycle when the Republican brand was badly damaged


I say this as a native of the part of Mississippi that was hit by Katrina. I know union guys that actually like Haley Barbour. Most of them were guys that lost their homes in Katrina. Barbour has skill and I would say he's the most adept on the list.


Having said that, I think there's a very good chance our next governor could be a Dem. I believe some combination of Mike Moore, Gene Taylor and Jim Hood on a statewide ticket could be very popular, and Taylor could actually do it because in 2011 he wouldn't have to defend his lifetime congress seat.

[kestrel91316]

3. Prediction: Bachmann gets the nom. I can't wait.

[Grand Taurean]

5. FreeRepublic has a RomneyWatch file.

If the hard right does NOT want him, then ten wives will NOT be the nominee.

[Marsala]

19. They didn't want McCain, either

Romney could still pull off McCain's path to the nomination, by claiming the small but still significant group of "moderate" (i.e., least crazy) Republicans by default (since the least crazies have no one else), and then hoping that every single other candidate self-destructs or cancels each other out. McCain won because Romney and Huckabee canceled out and Giuliani, Thompson and Paul all self-destructed.

[Gman2]

8. He was ruined when Beck attacked social justice Jesus. Mormon

[Ozymanithrax]

9. Mitt Romney won't make because the Republican Religious right won't support him...

[depakid]

11. The only way this hurts Romney among his likely supporters is when premiums continue to rise

The teabagging types and the protestant fundies weren't going to vote for him en masse anyway.

[quakerboy]

12. How do you figure?

Why did he want to be president? One presumes that it would be to get his policies enacted. If his policies get enacted, doesn't that make him the winner?

[aaaaaa5a]

14. If that were his primary motive, he wouldn't be so "two faced" speaking against HCR today. nt

[quakerboy]

18. I am sure he has other policies he would like to enact

Why take the hit for something you don't have to?

[Skidmore]

17. Who's been unreccing this and why?

[veganlush]

20. he favored the individual mandate, too, right? n/t

[Skittles]

21. WTF

so, he can't run against HCR because that would make him a hypcrite? HELLO, HE IS A FUCKING REPUKE.

[Marsala]

22. But Romney is already legendary for his hypocrisy even among Repukes

His primary opponents will shred him.

[sabrina 1]

23. You wouldn't make much of a political consultant if that's how

you view this situation.

On the contrary, this imitation of Romney's Republican Health Insurance Bill is going to be one of his best issues if he decides to run, which I think he will, in 2012.

'Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery'.

Romney will claim, rightfully on the Republican ideas part, that the best parts of this Insurance Reform Bill were Republican ideas. He will claim that Democrats have no ideas of their own which is why they based their whole HC Reform bill on HIS ideas.

He will then attack some parts of the bill, (I can't think of anything progressive off the top of my head that is actually in there) and call them 'Big Government Giveaways'. He'll say that anyhow, without being specific and then explain that this is why the American people need to vote for a Conservative.

If he is smart, he might even be gracious and thank President Obama for adapting many of his ideas, but he will point out that Democrats simply cannot be trusted with 'Government funds' which is why the country needs a good fiscally conservative president like himself, so that he can FIX the 'commie' parts of the bill.

If the Republicans don't run Romney, I don't know who else they could run. He at least can appear to be relatively sane at times.

Democrats should have been able to say 'we have no Republican ideas in this bill because they had no good ideas to put in there'. Then, they could have pointed to the failure of Romneycare in Mass, legitimately. Now, Dems cannot use what is happening there because it would alert people to what will happen with this bill.

Adapting Romney's own ideas was the best weapon Dems could have given him, which is one reason why I couldn't believe they were doing it.

[CTLawGuy]

25. ok Mark Penn/Bob Shrum,

how is Romney going to get the nomination having supported a "socialist" health care reform in MA, very similar to the current bill the Repubs have spent the past YEAR demonizing as the second coming of Stalin? His primary opponents will be all too happy to remind every single Republican voter of that fact. Romney is definitely the biggest loser of this debate.

And you can't think of anything progressive in the bill??!

1. requires coverage of children until 26.
2. Expands Medicaid.
3. no more rescission because you get sick.
4. medical loss ratios (have to spend 80-85% of revenues on health care or pay it back).
5. no denial for preexisting conditions.
6. gives individuals opportunity to purchase insurance through the exchange at group rates and with competing companies.
7. closes medicare donut hole.
8. subsidies to help people afford coverage.
9. hardship waivers of the mandate.
10. requires government approval before insurers can increase premiums.

That's ten things off the top of my head.

I suggest that you spend more time learning about the issues and less time insulting other people.

[sabrina 1]

29. 2 and 8 are not progressive ideas.

They are a continuation of the privatization of public funds. Those funds will now go into the hands of Private Insurance and are the most lucrative part of the windfall which basically has saved them (it started with Medicare) from collapse. Iow, a bailout of another 'too big to fail' industry. Those funds will now be minus their profits, instead of being handled directly as intended, by the government.

Number 4 relates to my above statement. 20% overhead, now taken out of public funds as well as private, that previously only had an overhead of 3%. And of course they will manage to increase that and will take the fines over the cost of care whenever it is more profitable for them to do so.

10, that is merely words. Right now, in anticipation of their new-found wealth, the Industry has experts at work to find loopholes to get around that. And please, have you not seen the Congressional Hearings with the Oil Industry execs, supposedly being 'held accountable' for their egregious profiteering with the price of oil? Remind me how that regulation worked, and I could give you plenty or other examples. Romneycare has raised Ins. PRemiums each year since it began, because, as predicted, it was necessary.

9, the mandate itself is an anti-progressive policy, so putting people through such demeaning processes to pry into their personal affairs, is certainly not progressive, at least where I come from. They have a RIGHT to health care, without these demeaning processes.

As for the rest, much of it won't go into effect for four years, which Gibbs himself admitted. There should have been a separate law in effect immediately to stop the refusal of treatment for sick Americans. It did not belong in this huge bill with a delay of four years. Over 160,000 Americans are likely to die by then. That is an outrage, to be treated with no urgency when it is and has been a major crisis, a national security issue. And the very corps who are responsible for this, rather than being prosecuted, have been rewarded.

The very foundation of the bill is anti-progressive, mandated insurance and a transfer of Public Funds to Private Insurance. There are some crumbs, but compared to the giveaway to Big Insurance, they are not impressive. We should have had a PO with the funds out of the hands of this failed industry.

[CTLawGuy]

35. expanding medicaid is not progressive?

Ok I give up.

[sabrina 1]

37. And who will be managing those funds now?

Of course there will be some good in the bill. There is good in the current system. What this bill does is entrench the for-profit Private Insurance Industry even more deeply in our Health Care system. Health Care Reform was supposed to begin the process of moving away from the privatization of Health Care. At least that's what I thought I was supporting when I supported Democrats. If this had been presented to me during the campaign there is no way I would have supported it and neither would most of those who are now trying to find a way to justify it. And that is why it wasn't.

[CTLawGuy]

38. Health care reform was actually always

about finding a way to get coverage to everyone, to curb abusive practices existing in the system, to make coverage more affordable and to make it harder to lose coverage. Those goals are progressive in themselves, whether we use the private sector, the public sector or a combination of both.

If your standard is that it is not progressive at all unless it abolishes insurance companies, then I can't argue with you. But I don't think that standard is widespread.

[sabrina 1]

43. True, and all those goals would be reached if

if there was competition for the predatory private insurance industry. So long as they have no competition, there will be very little change in their practices.

Even aside from progressive ideas, does it make sense to trust a corrupt industry with public funds? This is similar to the Bush Faith Based program. And Wall St. and we've seen how that has gone. What protections are there against these corrupt organizations from awarding huge bonuses to THEIR CEOs eg, or calling unnecessary spending 'expenses'?

Taking out 20% of public funds for profit makes no fiscal sense for the American people, especially when it is going to an industry that is partly responsible for allowing American citizens to die for profit? They certainly haven't shown any signs of rehabilitation in their views of 'profits over lives'. People with criminal minds, rewarded instead of being punished will simply continue to do what they do best.

In Mass eg, Romneycare is failing, with premiums going up every year since it began and the 'fines' now called a 'tax', tripling. If this continues, the whole program will eventually have to be scrapped and since the new bill is so similar to Romneycare, we know what we have to look forward to.

A PO would have saved money and forced the Private Industry to compete, lower their premiums, or go out of business. Businesses with a history of corruption going out of business would be the best result. Then, maybe others who wanted to get into the private insurance business, would realize that they are required to actually put people's health before profits.

[Hawaii Hiker]

32. I agree, passing HCR definitely hurts Romney

Romney has to convince people universal health care is fine at the state level, but radical socialism at the federal level...I think to most voters, he'll look like the colossal hypocrite he is...

The electoral-vote site had a good summary of this the other day..

www.electoral-vote.com

"In a peculiar way, passage of the bill probably helps Sarah Palin get the Republican nomination in 2012 because it hurts the current front runner, Mitt Romney. If the Republicans dig in their heels and make repeal their heart of their strategy for the next 2 years, it will be more than a bit awkward for Mitt Romney to explain how Romneycare, which he signed into law as governor of Massachusetts on April 12, 2006, and which he has repeatedly cited as a great achievement, differs from Obamacare, which the Republicans are going to spend two years violently attacking. Romneycare also has an individual mandate, the most-hated feature of Obamacare. How is Romney going to convince people that a mandate to buy insurance is a good thing if it is in state law but a bad thing if it is in federal law? This is a subtle point that is going to be lost on most voters. On the other hand, Palin will be free to attack Obamacare as a horrible thing without being accused of being a flip-flopper and a hypocrite.

Romney is not the only person who will find the passage of Obamacare embarrassing. Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), is up for reelection in 2012. It will be interesting to see whether he campaigns then on repealing it. If he does, surely his opponent will mention a few times that as a state senator in 2006, he voted for Romneycare. He had better have a good explanation".

[RollWithIt]

30. The second he takes credit for ANY idea in the HC bill....

He loses 80% of the Republican base. The whole part about it being "Republican Ideas" will go right over their nearly heads.

[GentryDixon]

31. I can only wish Mittens is a goner.

In Utah they revere him ad nauseam. He has the credentials they love.

1. Mormon

2. Republican

3. Male

4. Liar (OK, that's my opinion)

[Marsala]

33. Then he can be President of Utah

He'll never be president of the rest of the U.S.

[GentryDixon]

34. That gives me some hope.

[saltpoint]

36. Romney has always been the gadfly, the craven opportunist, the

Company Man grinning from the front page of a badly written pamphlet.

For as pathetic a primary campaign as John McCain ran in 2008, he nevertheless defeated Romney. Or, put another way, Romney, for all his slickness and cash, couldn't bury McCain early or deep enough, and the old man survived and then won.

Agree that this bill's passage makes it much harder for Romney to make his case for Puke votes.

Having Mitt Romney damaged by circumstances and possibly out of contention is the good news. The bad news is that more support may now swing to someone even worse, like Pence of Barbour.

[win_in_06]

39. Which I guess is good news for Sarah Palin?

[saltpoint]

40. Agree she gains if Romney and Huck are seen as less acceptable to the

nutbag base of the party -- which increasingly is just about everybody IN their party -- although Mike Pence and Haley Barbour's stars rise at the same time. They're less sensationalistic than Palin but at least as far Right and arguably far more dangerous.

[saltpoint]

41. For a while now I figured Willard and Huck would be duking it out for

the nom as frontrunners. With others in the mix, yes, but those two at least showed some stamina in the Puke primaries last cycle against McCain.

Not lost though was the point that neither of them could outlast McCain, and McCain ran one of the worst primary campaigns ever. One analyst likened McCain's presidential primary campaign to a bi-plane ablaze spiralling downward. I was one of several DUers who posted threads with titles like, "Is McCain Cooked?"

But the old fool held on against both Huckabee's charm and Romney's money.

Huckabee is loaded down with some serious baggage and doesn't sound all that motivated to run for president these days.

Romney is slobbering to be president but Obama, presumably his opponent were Romney to win the GOP nom, just put Mitt in a health care lock up. Plus, most of the Pukes' nutbag base aren't any more drawn to Mormon candidates now than they were in 2008.

It may be that a second tier or even third tier GOP candidate wins their party's nomination for 2012.

Palin? Pence? Pawlenty?

[area51]

42. Actually,

the biggest loser in health insurance reform, as we have yet to get health care reform, is the American people, since we're going to be enslaved to the for-profit insurance companies.