Wednesday, October 3, 2012


Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney advisor, admitted that if Obamacare is repealed, those with pre-existing conditions would probably not be able to purchase health insurance.  The individual states would first have to pass laws to prevent insurance companies from excluding the sick from coverage.  Romney's plan would only assure that those who have insurance would continue to be covered.
The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back. 
In other words Romney lies, and even his own campaign staff admit it.

UPDATE: Or as Margaret at Margaret and Helen says:
Well Margaret, once again I am going to say what the media won’t. Mitt Romney is a lying sack of shit and he wouldn’t know a middle class tax cut if it bit him in the middle of his gold plated ass. Evidently the media seems to think that the person who slings the bullshit the farthest wins the debate. Well if that ain’t the damnest thing.


Genette said...

The problem with all of these plans that include for-profit insurance plans (including the Medicare Advantage plan cut out because it was inefficient & wasteful) is that the plans are about profit, not health care. The morally reprehensible position of the "free" market profiting from the illness of others IS the sickness of the system. The billions wasted on running insurance companies could be "invested" in actual health care with an everyone-is-in single payer plan... but that would be a human decency based system, not the pure vulture capitalism worshipped by the so-called right.

Grandmère Mimi said...

Genette, you're right, of course. The for-profit insurance companies as middle-men are completely unnecessary. Maybe we'll get to a "socialistic" single-payer system one day. No one should make a profit from sick people.

Bex said...

"Romney's plan would only assure that those who have insurance would continue to be covered."

And can you imagine what THAT would cost? Increases every month until you finally have to drop the plan, and then the pre-existing condition exclusion would kick in. But Willard has the answer. Just go to the ER! Jesus wept.

Anonymous said...

Dear Grandma,
I watch from a distance and wonder. In Britain with the NHS (National Health Service) we've got passed all that hot air. Probably we couldn't introduce it now, but it remains a marvel to me that the USA, so rich as it is, cannot do it. I know that many of your poor don't want it (those who benefit from reforms seldom support them) but there are some values that don't seem to register in your arguments.

But firstly I should say I'm not unbiased; in the mid 1940s I had TB the curing of which I'm sure my labourer father couldn't have paid for. But that said, I remember in 1976 in Philadelphia seeing the news on local TV of a "scam" (the first time I'd heard the word) wherein the city treasurer and others had been helping themselves and suddenly the city couldn't pay its way. On a Wednesday I saw a fireman and his heavily pregnant wife being interviewed. He was being laid off the Friday and he said they didn't what they were going to do, and it dawned on me that his health insurance was paid by his employer - and now he had none! I often wonder what happened to her.
And it such as these people that a national scheme will guard. The cost isn't cheap; I think our NHS costs £80billion per year to cover 60 million people (about £1400 per person per year - I'll check that) and the biggest item in the government's budget. But one might wonder what is government for if its not to protect its people? And because the NHS belongs to us its never out of the news which means constant scrutiny and checks on its performance so curing faults and driving improvements.

Another avdantage of a national scheme is its easier to obtain and collate health statistics. This may not seem so important but in the UK its given rise to the HPA (Health Protection Agency) which looks at the nation costs for various illnesses and the costs of their treatments out of which comes efforts in prevention. Thus as a 70 year old I'm invited to get a annual 'flu and pneumonia jab and an annual check up. And its v useful to be national when you have scares like bird-flu.

All this, of course, can be done privately, but done nationally its far more effective, reaching those parties who would'nt normally take part.

Regards, Charley Farns-Barns.

Grandmère Mimi said...

Bex, the companies could raise the costs at will so sick people could not afford the premiums. Romney simply does not care. He has no empathy with those living on the edge nor with those who have fallen over the edge. Plus, he seems to be a pathological liar.

Grandmère Mimi said...

Charley, you don't have to convince me. Truman tried back in the 1940s and could not get the bill through Congress. Perhaps your words will resonate with people in the US who remind us of how terrible health care is in England. You should know, right? And here you are praising national health care.

Amy Krussell said...

I’m glad to find so many useful and informative data on your website.

lose weight