Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't see what's so hard to understand - he opposes the bill as a whole, but supports certain aspects of it. With a reform so comprehensive, that is not uncommon. On that note one of my primary reasons for opposing Obamacare is the fact that it's so comprehensive. I think it would be better to pass reforms incrementally rather than in such a tremendously large bill.
On Meet The Press yesterday, Mitt Romney startled his base by seeming to soften his opposition to Obamacare (which is, of course, copied from Romneycare, but we'll let that go for a moment) Mitt told David Gregory that he would retain some elements of Obamacare, specifically the popular provision that people with Pre-existing conditions are covered.
Today, the Romney campaign clarified: Mitt only supports coverage for Pre-existing conditions IF YOU ALREADY HAVE INSURANCE:
I don't see what's so hard to understand - he opposes the bill as a whole, but supports certain aspects of it. With a reform so comprehensive, that is not uncommon.
That's nice. Now, on the specific subject - is he for coverage of patients pre-existing conditions, against coverage of patients with pre-existing conditions, or does he not understand the concept at all, as his latest communication seems to indicate?
Yeah, that's kind of key as to what Obama's plan is so popular. Romney slices and dices until he comes up with the explanation that he thinks can slip by. I've said it in another post, he had to move closer to the middle on this one in order to appeal to the people that benefit from this provision, but in the meantime, his possible Tea Potty supporters will tip those scales. That's what happens Mitt...when you have taken flip flopping to an art form.
This is what happens when the RNC/GOP put forward RINOs.
End the nanny state by not electing or nominating Statists to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA
It's retroactively pre-existing? Got nothin'. The guy will say anything.
As will Obama the Liar-in-Chief.
I'm so p*ssed at my fellow American voters, for throwing the only honest candidate who sought to return liberty to the people instead of grabbing more power for the Executive Branch under the bus, I can't stand it.
This is what happens when the RNC/GOP put forward RINOs.
At this rate, the future of the GOP is two rich white men yelling "RINO" at each other and failing to understand why people don't vote for them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) Mitt told David Gregory that he would retain some elements of Obamacare, specifically the popular provision that people with Pre-existing conditions are covered.
