Fox debate thread right now

[Populist]

I read that Romney mentioned a proposal to cut taxes on investment income for middle income voters to zero. Wow. Great idea!

See the videos of the Luntz focus group here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_ ... omney.html

[Delta7757]

January 7th, 2008 12:47 AM Eastern
Mitt in the Middle
by Carl Cameron
Mitt Romney scored spectacular numbers in Frank Luntz’s focus groups. He withstood withering condescension from his rivals, tough questions from Chris Wallace, all after a full campaign day. Romney has campaigned harder and for longer than all of them. Romney was seated in the middle, and he was in the middle of every exchange.

He stuck to his guns and fired several good shots of his own. He let almost no charge go un-rebutted and pivoted to offense effectively on many. As far as debating tactics, poise and execution are concerned he won.

That said, he has a heckuva job ahead. The Union leader has been pounding Romney. Huckabee’s win and attacks on Romney in Iowa left alot of bruises. Romney’s strategy always included wins in Iowa and or New Hampshire - and now he’s running 2nd to the McComeback Kid, MAC IS BACK! John McCain

Could tonight turn the corner?

McCain didn’t seem to do himself any harm. Still, it’s the second night in a row that the cutaway camera caught him looking delighted, no to say smug, during the onslaughts that befell Romney, almost too happy.

Giuliai and Thompson were non factors, which seems in sync with their chances here. None of them like Romney. In various ways they have all derided Mitt as the multi millionaire son of George Romney who flipped and flopped his way thru various elections before running for Governor, then did some more flipping, before running for President.

Tonight for the most part Romney explained things rationally.

Huckabee had little to say and frankly not much to gain had he gone for it. He appears headed for third, ahead of Ron Paul and Rudy. (There are lots of 9-11 truthfolks here with Ron Paul signs)

Huckabee did fine - but the cultural and social values disconnect may be too much in NH. His crowds are big, but not breathtaking. The fact that he has curbed the christian rhetoric is smart in NH.

This is the Live Free or Die state. There are lots of devout people from many faiths here. But this is NEW ENGLAND! One keeps it to ones’ self. These are among the smartest voters in the country. They know what Huck said in Iowa. They know he’s an ordained Southern Baptist minister He has preached here.

But evangelical baptists here are far more socially liberal than in the South. A recent Pew Research poll suggested they make up 18% of the NH GOP. Compare that to 38% in Iowa and 53% in SC!!

Romney has one more day. Polling is irrelevant. Time for lots of events and big get out the vote efforts. If the polls are right and the anecdotal tealeaves we all study are right…he may be winning more delegates and another silver medal.

My ole Pal Tom Rath (one of the most respected analyst/strategist/advisers in NH for decades) had a great line today: with delegates in Iowa, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and soon Michigan, by the time they get to SC Mitt will still have the best “body of work.â€

[Saki]

The others will just be able to talk about it-----but Romney actually did it!!!!

that is hardly based on market and competition, using government force to give insurance companies monopolies by forcing everyone to have insurance, that is government coercion, in the first debate romney lost me after that comment I could never vote for him... besides he is cfr...

The important thing here is the huckster came out bad in the debate...

also when will mccamnesty be called out on his bs by reporters...

I think we should be focusing on stopping the momentum of the nutjobs, Huckabee and McCain. A win for either would be a terrible outcome---and a seriously bizarre one, I might add. The only thing standing in their way is Mitt Romney, and I'd like to keep it that way. We can hammer him later if we have to.

Here's a slogan for Mitt:

Vote For Mitt Romney. He's Not Insane.

[MW]

Bren wrote:

All the Dems talk about is healthcare. Romney actually put into place a very successful healthcare program in Massachusetts-----based on competion and the market.

The others will just be able to talk about it-----but Romney actually did it!!!!

Here, this should start you on the path to researching the "not so good" Romney healthcare plan:

Lessons from Massachusetts
By Sally C. Pipes
Thursday, August 23, 2007

Health care reform is hot this election season and presidential hopefuls from both parties appear weekly with promises of reforms that will supposedly solve our system's problems with universal coverage at affordable costs. A recent overhaul in Massachusetts that expanded taxpayer-funded health insurance and requires individuals to purchase government-approved policies is proving particularly compelling to many, not the least because its architect, Mitt Romney, is a leading Republican candidate.

In reality, the Massachusetts mandate provides a poor model for the rest of the country—unless we are looking for an expensive expansion of government. It won’t achieve universal care. It has increased government spending, bureaucracy, and regulation. It most certainly will prompt increased taxes.

Republican presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney,
The outline of the Massachusetts law is politically seductive: Require people to purchase health insurance, render it affordable, or at least tax-deductible, and fine those who don’t comply. An increased insurance pool, it is argued, will make insurance more affordable, and costs will come down as people who rely on charity care at emergency rooms will be redirected to more cost-effective venues.

If this could work anywhere, Massachusetts is the place. The Bay State started with a high level of the population insured--more than 90 percent. It had already spent substantial sums reimbursing hospitals for uncompensated care from state coffers. It already had a guaranteed issue law, so anyone applying for insurance and able to pay the tab could be accepted. If universal coverage was achievable by government command, Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts was the place to issue it.

It's one thing for politicians to promise that their mandates will decrease costs, it’s quite another when it comes to implementing the plan. In Massachusetts, the initial costs came in higher than expected. Faced with this reality, the bureaucrats in charge of the implementation at the Commonwealth Connector Board decided that universal coverage didn't need to be universal after all, and it promptly exempted 20 percent or one in five uninsured from having to comply with the mandate.

The Connector Board also bowed to political pressure and agreed to reduce the premiums, a move that boosted program costs by $13 million. Some plans are totally free--and have therefore been popular. Other subsidized plans for people earning between 150 and 300 percent of the poverty line will cost people as much as 9 percent of income for just the premium. Not surprisingly, these plans have proven less popular. Of the 79,800 people who've enrolled in the health plans as of June 1 of this year, 59,816 signed up for the totally free plans.

This structure will produce a fiscal disaster. Considering the high premiums for those who have to pay, many will opt to remain uninsured. The fine of $216 will be more attractive than the premium. Politicians will face strong pressure not to enforce the mandate if the fines increase. Indeed, before the program started they exempted 20 percent of the target population.

At the same time, the premium subsidy makes the plans a bargain for individuals who expect to consume large quantities of health care. The insured will be older and less healthy than the average citizen. Spending will skyrocket. The taxpayer will be forced to pay or services will be rationed.

So far, this downward spiral appears to be well underway. The average age for those enrolled in the free plans is far younger than that of the plans for which a contribution is required. Not surprisingly, usage is higher for the paid plans as well.

And the doctors, they may like the plan in the short run as they will receive higher reimbursement rates for seeing Medicaid patients but in the long run, the picture is not as bright. As costs rise, they will be faced with payments being limited, rationed care, more bureaucracy, and less freedom on how they want to practice medicine.

Massachusetts may be able to limp its plan along for a few years with a combination of tax increases on employers, restrictions on enrollees, and price cuts to providers. It will not, however, achieve universal health insurance or a meaningful structure for cost control. Its most likely legacy will be to have created another government health bureaucracy, ratcheted up taxpayer health spending, and bolstered calls for a complete government takeover of health care.


Sally C. Pipes serves as a health care advisor to The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee. She is President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. She is author of Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer

It's not the governments responsibility to cover healthcare for everyone! One minute we're yelling for smaller government, the next we want government subsidized healthcare.

Tonights debate didn't change my opinon of Romeny. I still think he's a typical slick politician that will basically tell you what he thinks you want to hear. The man has not been conistent on the illegal immigrant issue either. His flipped and flopped more than a trout out of water.

[Populist]

Sally C. Pipes serves as a health care advisor to The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee.

[MW]

Populist wrote:

Quote:
Sally C. Pipes serves as a health care advisor to The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee.

Yeah, I know, but I still feel she has a certain responsibility as a professional in her field. Just read what she has to say. If you don't want to believe it, that's fine with me.

[Bren4824]

I read that Romney mentioned a proposal to cut taxes on investment income for middle income voters to zero. Wow. Great idea!

See the videos of the Luntz focus group here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_ ... omney.html

Yes, he did say that!!!

[Bren4824]

The others will just be able to talk about it-----but Romney actually did it!!!!

that is hardly based on market and competition, using government force to give insurance companies monopolies by forcing everyone to have insurance, that is government coercion, in the first debate romney lost me after that comment I could never vote for him... besides he is cfr...

The important thing here is the huckster came out bad in the debate...

also when will mccamnesty be called out on his bs by reporters...

I think we should be focusing on stopping the momentum of the nutjobs, Huckabee and McCain. A win for either would be a terrible outcome---and a seriously bizarre one, I might add. The only thing standing in their way is Mitt Romney, and I'd like to keep it that way. We can hammer him later if we have to.

Here's a slogan for Mitt:

Vote For Mitt Romney. He's Not Insane.

And......Will save the USA for US citizens and their children

[Bren4824]

Bren wrote:

All the Dems talk about is healthcare. Romney actually put into place a very successful healthcare program in Massachusetts-----based on competion and the market.

The others will just be able to talk about it-----but Romney actually did it!!!!

Here, this should start you on the path to researching the "not so good" Romney healthcare plan:



[quote:1pp13h1s]Lessons from Massachusetts
By Sally C. Pipes
Thursday, August 23, 2007

Health care reform is hot this election season and presidential hopefuls from both parties appear weekly with promises of reforms that will supposedly solve our system's problems with universal coverage at affordable costs. A recent overhaul in Massachusetts that expanded taxpayer-funded health insurance and requires individuals to purchase government-approved policies is proving particularly compelling to many, not the least because its architect, Mitt Romney, is a leading Republican candidate.

In reality, the Massachusetts mandate provides a poor model for the rest of the country—unless we are looking for an expensive expansion of government. It won’t achieve universal care. It has increased government spending, bureaucracy, and regulation. It most certainly will prompt increased taxes.

Republican presidential hopeful, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney,
The outline of the Massachusetts law is politically seductive: Require people to purchase health insurance, render it affordable, or at least tax-deductible, and fine those who don’t comply. An increased insurance pool, it is argued, will make insurance more affordable, and costs will come down as people who rely on charity care at emergency rooms will be redirected to more cost-effective venues.

If this could work anywhere, Massachusetts is the place. The Bay State started with a high level of the population insured--more than 90 percent. It had already spent substantial sums reimbursing hospitals for uncompensated care from state coffers. It already had a guaranteed issue law, so anyone applying for insurance and able to pay the tab could be accepted. If universal coverage was achievable by government command, Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts was the place to issue it.

It's one thing for politicians to promise that their mandates will decrease costs, it’s quite another when it comes to implementing the plan. In Massachusetts, the initial costs came in higher than expected. Faced with this reality, the bureaucrats in charge of the implementation at the Commonwealth Connector Board decided that universal coverage didn't need to be universal after all, and it promptly exempted 20 percent or one in five uninsured from having to comply with the mandate.

The Connector Board also bowed to political pressure and agreed to reduce the premiums, a move that boosted program costs by $13 million. Some plans are totally free--and have therefore been popular. Other subsidized plans for people earning between 150 and 300 percent of the poverty line will cost people as much as 9 percent of income for just the premium. Not surprisingly, these plans have proven less popular. Of the 79,800 people who've enrolled in the health plans as of June 1 of this year, 59,816 signed up for the totally free plans.

This structure will produce a fiscal disaster. Considering the high premiums for those who have to pay, many will opt to remain uninsured. The fine of $216 will be more attractive than the premium. Politicians will face strong pressure not to enforce the mandate if the fines increase. Indeed, before the program started they exempted 20 percent of the target population.

At the same time, the premium subsidy makes the plans a bargain for individuals who expect to consume large quantities of health care. The insured will be older and less healthy than the average citizen. Spending will skyrocket. The taxpayer will be forced to pay or services will be rationed.

So far, this downward spiral appears to be well underway. The average age for those enrolled in the free plans is far younger than that of the plans for which a contribution is required. Not surprisingly, usage is higher for the paid plans as well.

And the doctors, they may like the plan in the short run as they will receive higher reimbursement rates for seeing Medicaid patients but in the long run, the picture is not as bright. As costs rise, they will be faced with payments being limited, rationed care, more bureaucracy, and less freedom on how they want to practice medicine.

Massachusetts may be able to limp its plan along for a few years with a combination of tax increases on employers, restrictions on enrollees, and price cuts to providers. It will not, however, achieve universal health insurance or a meaningful structure for cost control. Its most likely legacy will be to have created another government health bureaucracy, ratcheted up taxpayer health spending, and bolstered calls for a complete government takeover of health care.


Sally C. Pipes serves as a health care advisor to The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee. She is President and CEO of the Pacific Research Institute. She is author of Miracle Cure: How to Solve America’s Crisis and Why Canada Isn’t the Answer

It's not the governments responsibility to cover healthcare for everyone! One minute we're yelling for smaller government, the next we want government subsidized healthcare.

Tonights debate didn't change my opinon of Romeny. I still think he's a typical slick politician that will basically tell you what he thinks you want to hear. The man has not been conistent on the illegal immigrant issue either. His flipped and flopped more than a trout out of water.[/quote:1pp13h1s]

I think that Mitt did a FANSTASTIC job!!!

And, I believe that he is going to be the nominee!!

[Bren4824]

Sally C. Pipes serves as a health care advisor to The Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee.

That says it all!!

I am not reading anything from Guliani's people. If it was a failure-----they would be attacking Romney from all directions over this!!

His health care plan is what is going to bring him Independent voters----and maybe even some Dems------because this is what the Dems have been focusing on----and he can say that he did it and it was a succcess!!!