Mitt Romney debates himself

[UglyPug]

Cuauh, and Timba in TEACH MODE. . .

Lol, I still can't believe Jim Jeffries tried using tort reform as a talking point to back up his argument. . LOL, not only has it already happened (why would he talk about something he clearly has no idea about?), AND, moreover, it has DONE THE OPPOSITE of what Jeffries claims!

[jazluvr]

The thing is it hasn't always been this way. Conservatives I would say during Bush Sr and the Reagan years were more towards the middle. There has been a severe change in the right wing in America in the last decade or so and it's scary.

I don't know why it's happening but it is. Things that Reagan did for example would be taboo now by conservative standards.

The way the media makes it look, it seems it's the tea party dragging them farther to the right. I don't know if this is actually true.

[One_Tycoon]

That's ok. We will use him anyways. No matter what he says publicly, he still rides with the Small Govt. crowd, even if not a purist...he leans in that direction, from lower Taxes to spending.

But as Norquist says...we just need someone to sign the bills (whether to extend lower taxes or throw granny off the cliff):



We don't need another transformational, inspiring candidate. Romney is open minded and can be persuaded to do the right thing, perhaps with the occasional compromise (which we don't like, but whatever).

[One_Tycoon]

I hear you man but let's be honest here, we need healthcare reform. We are spending too much money on health care and people aren't covered and individuals like you and I get stuck with the bill.

This is one aspect of republican voters I don't get. Don't we want a public option so we don't get stuck with other people's bills and individuals don't go broke because they get sick?

Makes no sense to me to leave it the way it is. The system is broke, only the insurance companies are making out in all of this and it seems like Republicans (the party of big business and corporations) only care about making the rich, richer.

Let's be smart, reform healthcare and have a safety net so the avg tax payer doesn't have to pay the bill when avg joe with no insurance has to go to the emergency room.

A lot of contradictions here. From "We don't get stuck with other peoples bills" to..."safety net", to "Public option".

All of those are interrelated. A safety net or a public option is passing the bill to someone else in one form or another. I guess you're presuming that a Public option will have a fixed premium and won't raise it no matter what (unlike those evil private health insurances)...and simply cover everyone.

This doesn't pass the "rhythmic" and is all just feel-good rhetoric. What if a certain chunk of the population are fat asses who will take/require more of the Public Option money for treatment, then they have paid into. This will certainly leave a deficit that will require the Public Option bureaucrats to raise premiums on everyone, to balance it all out. This qualifies as "other people getting stuck with the bill".

I'll address this part separately:

and individuals don't go broke because they get sick?

one way of going broke is by being forced to pay for something that you can't afford. Whether it's private or Public. I already addressed the fallacy with the Feel-good public option claptrap. The key here is reducing costs...period.

And the only way that will happen is if the Govt. gets out of the way. Just like with college, the more guaranteed loans/grants they provide to any student....the more tuition goes up. They (the govt) touch/interfere with healthcare in an effort to "help" and the unintended (or intended) consequence is that the costs go up. Anyone with a trained eye can see the correlation. It's an easy way out to always blame Capitalism and the greedy.