Is Mitt Romney the Right Choice for the GOP in 2024?

[ThomasT]

I've been reading the comments in this thread. Romney still seems like the Mittbot to me. The wedding cake figurine. The Ken doll. The really rich guy with the used car salesman personality and depth. I really think that he's on a basic ego trip, and should not be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency. Not that that will necessarily count against him in his quest for the presidency. Just that I wouldn't vote for him.

 

[turbo]

I've been reading the comments in this thread. Romney still seems like the Mittbot to me. The wedding cake figurine. The Ken doll. The really rich guy with the used car salesman personality and depth. I really think that he's on a basic ego trip, and should not be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency. Not that that will necessarily count against him in his quest for the presidency. Just that I wouldn't vote for him.

That's my take on him. too. Unfortunately, the GOP can't come up with anything better, absent a brokered convention. If you don't like Obama, suck it up for the next 4 years., because we don't have a choice.

 

[WhoWee]

I've been reading the comments in this thread. Romney still seems like the Mittbot to me. The wedding cake figurine. The Ken doll. The really rich guy with the used car salesman personality and depth. I really think that he's on a basic ego trip, and should not be taken seriously as a candidate for the presidency. Not that that will necessarily count against him in his quest for the presidency. Just that I wouldn't vote for him.

I guess it's hard to compete with a community organizer personality? However,don't we want the Chief Executive of the US to be an experienced executive - not "campaigner in chief"?

 

[ThomasT]

I guess it's hard to compete with a community organizer personality? However,don't we want the Chief Executive of the US to be an experienced executive - not "campaigner in chief"?

I think we want, or should want, intellectually sophisticated candidates for chief executive who're sincerely interested in improving America, and indeed the world, and all that that entails, even if it entails going against certain elements of the status quo. Which, imho, it does.

Romney's not, imho, that sort of candidate. I currently believe that a Romney presidency would be pretty much business as usual. Which, imho, isn't acceptable. America can, and should, imho, do better than that.

Not that a Romney presidency would be disastrous. Just not particularly focused on positive change. There are, it seems to me, some rather obvious problems with the American political, corporate, and financial sectors, and I get the impression that Romney isn't interested in even considering these problems as problems, much less leading the way to actually doing something about them.

 

[WhoWee]

I think we want, or should want, intellectually sophisticated candidates for chief executive who're sincerely interested in improving America, and indeed the world, and all that that entails, even if it entails going against certain elements of the status quo. Which, imho, it does.

Romney's not, imho, that sort of candidate. I currently believe that a Romney presidency would be pretty much business as usual. Which, imho, isn't acceptable. America can, and should, imho, do better than that.

Not that a Romney presidency would be disastrous. Just not particularly focused on positive change. There are, it seems to me, some rather obvious problems with the American political, corporate, and financial sectors, and I get the impression that Romney isn't interested in even considering these problems as problems, much less leading the way to actually doing something about them.

What do you mean by "positive change"?

 

[BobG]

The issue isn't contraception - it's about the Government exerting influence over a church.

The real issue with contraceptives is why should an insurance policy pay for birth control - it will raise all or of premiums. Before anyone says pay now or later - the norm is to add maternity to your coverage before you need it - the premiums increase is by and large an offset against the future claim.

Only if you assume the consequence of no birth control is the timing of a set number of kids. If no birth control means you wind up having more kids than you wanted, then birth control saves the insurance company money.

From the insurance company's perspective, I think the issue would be whether free contraceptives or the lack of free contraceptives would really influence behavior. If employees stop using contraceptives because they have to pay for them themselves, then insurance premiums should increase for policies that don't provide free contraceptives. If contraceptives are cheap enough that having to pay for them themselves doesn't affect employee behavior, then insurance premiums should decrease for policies that don't provide free contraceptives.

 

[WhoWee]

Only if you assume the consequence of no birth control is the timing of a set number of kids. If no birth control means you wind up having more kids than you wanted, then birth control saves the insurance company money.

From the insurance company's perspective, I think the issue would be whether free contraceptives or the lack of free contraceptives would really influence behavior. If employees stop using contraceptives because they have to pay for them themselves, then insurance premiums should increase for policies that don't provide free contraceptives. If contraceptives are cheap enough that having to pay for them themselves doesn't affect employee behavior, then insurance premiums should decrease for policies that don't provide free contraceptives.

Insurance is the transference of risk - not a maintenance agreement. Car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. If you choose not to change your oil or maintain the correct level - you might destroy your motor - also not covered by the car insurance.

As for contraceptives inclusion in drug formulaies - prior to this mandate - there is disagreement between states.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/insurance-coverage-for-contraception-state-laws.aspx

 

[AlephZero]

Insurance is the transference of risk - not a maintenance agreement.

Not wanting to stray off topic, but that's a nice summary of the difference between "health insurance", i.e. risk managment, and "health care", which should include a significant "maintenance" component IMO.

 

[mheslep]

Yes perhaps so but not from insurance companies please. Let them provide ... insurance.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Insurance is the transference of risk - not a maintenance agreement. Car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes. If you choose not to change your oil or maintain the correct level - you might destroy your motor - also not covered by the car insurance.

Bad analogy to health insurance- if car insurance DID cover engine damage, it would be in their interest to cover oil changes.

I mean, we can argue about whether it makes sense that health insurance is significantly more broad than something like car insurance, but that doesn't change the fact that it is.

 

[WhoWee]

Bad analogy to health insurance- if car insurance DID cover engine damage, it would be in their interest to cover oil changes.

There are policies that do extend coverage for motor and drive train - failure to change your oil (personal responsibility) voids coverage.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes perhaps so but not from insurance companies please. Let them provide ... insurance.

As an aside, the current trend is to offer Medicare Supplements with a Final Expense (burial coverage) on the same application.

 

[BobG]

There are policies that do extend coverage for motor and drive train - failure to change your oil (personal responsibility) voids coverage.

If the health insurance didn't cover birth control, could failure to purchase birth control on their own void their coverage if they get pregnant? If so, then failure to cover contraceptives would definitely reduce the cost of health insurance.

Facetious, perhaps, but it's really hard to compare health insurance to other types of insurance when health insurance typically covers planned events, such as pregnancy. If it were purely insurance against unplanned sickness, accidents, etc, then I guess many more people would be delaying childbirth one way or another - or doctors/hospitals would raise the rates for covered events even higher to cover the losses they were absorbing when people who can't afford kids have kids anyway.

 

[WhoWee]

If the health insurance didn't cover birth control, could failure to purchase birth control on their own void their coverage if they get pregnant? If so, then failure to cover contraceptives would definitely reduce the cost of health insurance.

Facetious, perhaps, but it's really hard to compare health insurance to other types of insurance when health insurance typically covers planned events, such as pregnancy. If it were purely insurance against unplanned sickness, accidents, etc, then I guess many more people would be delaying childbirth one way or another - or doctors/hospitals would raise the rates for covered events even higher to cover the losses they were absorbing when people who can't afford kids have kids anyway.

Many individual health plans offer maternity as a rider - added on to the basic coverage for additional premium. It's not unusual for the premiums to equal the cost of the event over 24-30 months - basically a set aside.

 

[Alfi]

Many individual health plans offer maternity as a rider - added on to the basic coverage for additional premium. It's not unusual for the premiums to equal the cost of the event over 24-30 months - basically a set aside.

I understand the thought, You can save it or they can save it for you.
... but, can you please plug in some dollar values.
I'm Canadian. I have no idea what my daughter cost me.
Other than regular OHIP payments, I received no bill. ( perhaps a few minor ones .. )
So I'm just curious.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I'm Canadian. I have no idea what my daughter cost me.

My kids were born in Japan. I had health insurance from the Japanese company I worked for, but it did not cover pregnancy and birth unless there were complications. The company paid me a bonus for having the children which covered most of the expense. However, my daughter was born a little after midnight Sunday morning after 17 hours of labor. The hospital charged an additional $1000 for the Sunday delivery.

 

[WhoWee]

I understand the thought, You can save it or they can save it for you.
... but, can you please plug in some dollar values.
I'm Canadian. I have no idea what my daughter cost me.
Other than regular OHIP payments, I received no bill. ( perhaps a few minor ones .. )
So I'm just curious.

Some information from Mass - where Romney put his plan in place.
http://www.mass.gov/eohhs/consumer/physical-health-treatment/quality-cost/data/by-indicator/childbirth/maternity.html

In general, the cost is (strangely-IMO) comparable to a funeral ranging from $3,000 to $10,000. This link estimates $5,000 to $20,000 for a C-section.
http://www.healthinsurance-help.com/maternity-health-insurance.html

The cost ultimately depends upon your location and the medical specifics.

 

[WhoWee]

Today is the big day in MI and AZ. Romney is not happy with the robo-calls attempting to attract Democrats to vote against him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gan-robocalls/2012/02/27/gIQAIbgceR_blog.html

While not the dirtiest trick of all time - IMO - it might strengthen support for Romney with the Republican base.

 

[skeptic2]

Today is the big day in MI and AZ. Romney is not happy with the robo-calls attempting to attract Democrats to vote against him.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gan-robocalls/2012/02/27/gIQAIbgceR_blog.html

While not the dirtiest trick of all time - IMO - it might strengthen support for Romney with the Republican base.

If Republicans weren't so cheap as to put Obama's name on the ballot so they could get taxpayer funding, they wouldn't have to worry about crossover voting.

 

[WhoWee]

If Republicans weren't so cheap as to put Obama's name on the ballot so they could get taxpayer funding, they wouldn't have to worry about crossover voting.

Can you please explain/support?

 

[skeptic2]

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20120227/OPINION01/202270305/How-will-voters-react-rare-primary-twist-?odyssey=mod|breaking|art7

 

[WhoWee]

http://www.livingstondaily.com/article/20120227/OPINION01/202270305/How-will-voters-react-rare-primary-twist-?odyssey=mod|breaking|art7

How are the Republicans being "cheap"?

 

[WhoWee]

Romney is the projected winner for both Arizona and Michigan.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/28/election/2012/primaries/index.html

"Mitt Romney will win the Michigan primary, CNN projected based on exit polls and partial returns, giving him a sweep of two contests Tuesday vital to his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

Romney also is the winner in Arizona, according to the CNN projections, providing new momentum for the former Massachusetts governor in his bid to be the Republican candidate against President Barack Obama in November.

In Michigan, Romney was ahead with 41% to 37% for Rick Santorum, 12% for Texas Rep. Ron Paul and 7% for Newt Gingrich, with 74% of unofficial returns counted.

The state's 30 delegates will be allocated on a proportional basis, and Romney and Santorum each won three so far, according to the returns. However, it was unclear who would win the most Michigian delegates, which are based on congressional districts.

Romney's victory in Arizona, where exit polls showed him getting 43% to 28% for Santorum, gave Romney all of the state's 29 delegates in the winner-takes-all primary. Trailing well back were Gingrich and Paul."

 

[grendle7]

I know it's a knee-jerk reaction, but Romney sometimes reminds me of a used car salesman who's trying to sell me my own car.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/4vS9SF3vc-A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[ThomasT]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vS9SF3vc-A

The format you used for posting the video was incorrect. You can see the correct format by replying to this post (ie., hitting the "quote" button).

Anyway, yeah, imho, Romney is the Mittbot, the Ken doll, the wedding cake figurine, the used car salesman. Extremely good looking. He probably could have made a good living in soap operas, but a lot less money.

Acceptable candidate for the presidency? Not imho.

 

[WhoWee]

Anyway, yeah, imho, Romney is the Mittbot, the Ken doll, the wedding cake figurine, the used car salesman. Extremely good looking. He probably could have made a good living in soap operas, but a lot less money.

Romney won the female vote in MI - didn't he?

 

[ThomasT]

Romney won the female vote in MI - didn't he?

Don't know. But I wouldn't doubt it. Apparently, women are somewhat attracted to vacuous, but extremely good looking, male model types of guys who also have about $200M. I can't say that I would be any different if I were a woman.

 

[WhoWee]

Don't know. But I wouldn't doubt it. Apparently, women are somewhat attracted to vacuous, but extremely good looking, male model types of guys who also have about $200M. I can't say that I would be any different if I were a woman.

I don't think women treat it as a beauty contest. However, might it be possible women view him as being more sophisticated and better equipped to deal with heads of state?

 

[ThomasT]

If that were true, I'd expect Romney to be polling about 67%. If anything, I think women are generally more attentive to details and look at the whole package - rather than only the rhetoric or positions - I could be wrong?

Or, you could be right. This is a scary election. But then, aren't they all?

 

[Char. Limit]

I think that deciding that one arbitrary group of people is inherently better or worse at making decisions than another arbitrary, but mutually exclusive group of people is a blanket statement that should be avoided if at all possible.