Patterico's Pontifications

I’d note that it’s a perfect commentary on the weakness of the field. Of course, America is a country where even an empty suit challenger can win if the economy is bad.

Karl (f07e38) — 1/4/2012 @ 7:43 am

Imagine if the primary had been T Paw, Daniels, and Perry. Instead it’s now Santorum, Gingrich, and a die hard liberal.

Sigh.

It seems like a pretty good deal for Mitt that he was in a tie only with Santorum, who is not the threat Newt or even Perry were. I read Santorum only spent $30k on ads. Amazing.

Really, an epic ass kicking to tie Mitt with his tens of millions poured out over an awfully long time, with relatively no resources.

Still, I think it’s good news for Mitt. Bad news for the GOP, though. I don’t understand why some of the best candidates, who seems to want to be president, don’t get the support they merit (in my opinion).

For example, had Perry campaigned to boost Social Security and simply be a more effective manager of DC instead of on a mission to make it inconsequential… I worry he would have done a lot better.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 7:51 am

Mr. Paul seems like the biggest loser this morning, Bachmann and Perry notwithstanding, cause their fates were already inscribed like crop circles on Iowa’s unforgiving cornfields.

Paul is a naked spoiler now. Not even the most ardent paultard can for reals pretend he has a chance anymore, so in future we can measure his support as a protest vote, as a rough sort of indicator of what kind of third-party support there exists in the vast ocean of discontent what is the Team R electorate.

happyfeet (3c92a1) — 1/4/2012 @ 7:53 am

I’d heard that each vote cost Santorum about $1.60, each cast for Romney $137 and each cast for Perry cost him $861.

On to New Hampshire!

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:04 am

A man with the stature of Reagan doesn’t often come along. Each of these candidates have his or her strengths or weaknesses. This field of candidates is, by and large, certainly stronger than what the Republicans fielded for elections in 1968, 1988 and 2000. I can’t think of any election in my lifetime where the Democrat field was worthy of praise.

And yet I keep reading of a “weak field”. When did the Republicans have what you’d consider a “strong field”, Karl?

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:12 am

8 votes is less than 1 basis point. (1% of 1% – one part in 10,000)

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:29 am

Yes, Sammy, it was a tie. Anyone saying otherwise is silly. Santorum came out of nowhere to tie the presumptive nominee who has far more access and funding. He did it with apparently $30k in ads.

And Huntsman got 9%?

Interesting.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:31 am

And Huntsman got 9%?

Eh?

Huntsman
745 votes
0.6%

carlitos (49ef9f) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:35 am

If they had picked Perry, we could say “Iowans care about jobs.” if they had picked Bachman, “Iowans care about taxes.” hell, I’d the picked huntsman, Iowans would have been looking for diplomacy.

Santorum and Romney?

If I hear one more conservative complain about big government after this election, I’m gonna scream. Romney says forcing you to buy something is a conservative idea and santorum complains that too many conservatives believe in unbridled “personal autonomy” and subscribe to the “idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do … that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom (and) we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues.”

Get the government out of my life!… So I can put the government square into yours! (for the record, I despise Dan savage for doing what he did to santorum. Bullying is not anti bullying.)

Ghost (6f9de7) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:36 am

Paulbots again.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:37 am

Damn autocorrect… Not “I’d the” but “if they.”

Ghost (6f9de7) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:38 am

Post #5 should have added 1996 to the mix.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:40 am

I knew Paul wasn’t going to win, but I fully expected perry or Bachman to be the anti-Romney-who-is-also-not-Paul. Santorum? Really?

Ghost (6f9de7) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:41 am

Eh?

Huntsman
745 votes
0.6%

Comment by carlitos

I don’t know how I made that mistake. Thanks for catching it, as I didn’t understand what changed for him.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:42 am

Bachman pulls out of the race. Another one bites the dust. I blame the gays and lesbians for this.

The Emperor (03864d) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:43 am

Michele Bachman is speaking. She spent a great deal of time saying she ran to repel Obamacare – and also Dodd Frank.

She says they need to elect 13 Republican Senators. She didn’t listen to Rick Santorum during the debates. I think nobody else did either. In one debate he said he would do it using reconciliation and he knows how to do it.

Santorum always is aware of what powers different offices have which almost nobody else is paying any attention to. You get this all the time from him. Nobody else pays attention to the actual powers of the office.

One point Santorum made to his audiences about Ron Paul was that on domestic policy (which some of them liked) nothing would ever happen – he’d never passed any law all his time in Congress, while he had gotten things done when he part the minority in the House of Representatives, but Ron Paul didn’t know how to put together a coalition, but on foreign policy there’d be no check on him.

Of course in reality the Supreme Court may get rid of it. Santorum also said in a ad ebate Romney’s proposal to grant waivers was no good – in certain states they wouldn’t seek waivers.

Bachman is withdrawing and calls it a straw poll.

Earlier today a radio reporter said she would endorse Romney, because she never criticized him during the debates. Not so. She just endorsed the eventual winner. No name.

Now she’s talking about God and God’s plan.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:44 am

Santorum and Romney?

If I hear one more conservative complain about big government after this election, I’m gonna scream.

It is extremely annoying after what I had hoped were some great lessons in why big government doesn’t work.

But let’s not let Iowa define the primaries. Why should it have so much power? At least let a few more states have some say.

Sadly, the results are unlikely to improve my opinion of the GOP, but on principle, it is pointless to have this primary system if Iowa can just jump on New Years day and rule out good candidates.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:44 am

Those who think the results in Iowa were a rebuke of Romney don’t have both oars in the water.

Other than Santorum, who ran a masterful campaign, and Paul, who has a legion of maniacal fans, the others just couldn’t cut the muster.

Their messages and campaigns didn’t resonate with Iowans. It’s that simple.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:46 am

Santorum also said in a ad ebate Romney’s proposal to grant waivers was no good – in certain states they wouldn’t seek waivers.

Was that the only action Romney said he’d take vis-a-vis ObamaCare, Sammy?

Do your homework.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:50 am

I like this subhead from this morning’s WSJ-Online OpEd on IA:

The Romney coronation will have to wait.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:50 am

Newt can use your help, AD. Reach out and touch someone.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:52 am

Last time I did that, my hand was in a cast for 6-wks.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:55 am

Sadly, the results are unlikely to improve my opinion of the GOP

GOP to Dustinella: “We’ll change… that’s what we’ll do… we can change… we know we can change… things will get better.”

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:56 am

22-…more

Anyway, I don’t do snow – not since leaving AK in ’63!

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:56 am

True enough, Dustin. I’m not surprised by Romney, as republicans have a tendency to vote for who’s next, not who’s best (bush, dole, bush, McCain, Romney). Guess we’ll just have to see if the “live free or die” state can get it right (and no, I don’t mean Paul, I mean NOT Gingrich or sanitarium).

Ghost (6f9de7) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:56 am

someone, not something, lol.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 8:58 am

I heard 8 votes on the radio this morning. The newspapers had earlier results.

When 92% of the votes were counted, Romney was 13 votes ahead, both at 24.7% (Daily News Racing Final)

The New York Post (Late City Final) had results with 99% of the precincts counted that showed Romney 34 votes ahead.

I guess not all the uncounted precincts were non-Romney strongholds. They are not actual precincts – there were far fewer places to go to than in a regular primary or general election.

The edition of the New York Times that I have (the newsstand daily price just went up to $2.50 but I get home delivery and that is usually earlier editions) also says 99% but has Santorum actually in the lead – by 5 votes. The vote totals for both Santorum and Romney are about 250 less than what my edition of the New York Post has.

The Wall Street Journal gives percentages as of 12:02 a.m. EST Wednesday at which point it says 97% of the vote was in. And it gives percentages (but no vote totals) down to tenths of a percent.

At about that point Romney was ahead by 113 votes. Most of the places still out at that time were supposed to be more conservative, and that could even be right but they might split more. In fact places with more splitting of the vote would take longer to report.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:14 am

So to sum up:

It went from:

Romney ahead by 13 votes with 92% of the precincts reporting.

TO:

Romney ahead by about 113 votes with 97% of the results in.

TO:

Santorum ahead by 5 votes with 99% of the vote total in. (New York Times Late Edition version ?)

TO:

Romney ahead by 34 votes – still at 99% with some 900 more votes counted. (120,632 without Huntsman compared to earlier 119,723 without Huntsman. The earlier New York Times Huntsman result gave him 734 votes, and maybe there are some other votes cast and counted too. It’s 100% write-in.)

TO:

Romney ahead by 8 votes – Final results, any mistakes not corrected.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:15 am

So to sum up:

It went from:

tie to tie to tie to tie, of course.

That margin is just too close. Either way, Romney never seems to improve his standing. Others come and go, but Romney can’t appeal to new voters. He can’t make his case.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:19 am

#

Comment by Colonel Haiku — 1/4/2012 @ 8:50 am

Santorum also said in a a debate Romney’s proposal to grant waivers was no good – in certain states they wouldn’t seek waivers.

Was that the only action Romney said he’d take vis-a-vis ObamaCare, Sammy?

Do your homework.

This is what Romney said he would do the first day.

he also talked about changing the law – which in practical terms would probably mean retaining the individual mandate, since he’s not really against it. He’d reach some kind of a compromise which might not change the provisions people most objected to.

But the Supreme Court will rule before the election.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:21 am

Here they go again-the GOP I mean. After Bob Dole and John McCain here comes Mitt Romney/Rick Santorum/Newt Gingrich, et.al. These people never get it right, just like they can’t listen to the TEA party. With a very weak President who should be attacked for his failures and policies, they are stabbing each other in the back. This is a very tragic play that rivals the Greek theater.

frank (ceb4e7) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:23 am

In a time of economic disaster this Santorum discussion of gay marriage and abortion and “values” generally is a loser. Think he lucked out on timing, that at the moment it was his turn to be NonRomney was when the Iowa caucus was held. Having a state GOP chock full of evangelicals helped too. Don’t think the Santorum boomlet lasts very long.

That Romney cannot crack more than 25% makes a brokered convention a small but real possibility.

Bugg (34ad0e) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:24 am

Comment by Dustin — 1/4/2012 @ 9:19 am

Yes, didn’t someone note that Romney’s performance in the ’08 Caucus was 25%?

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:24 am

Last night Barack Obama spoke by video to Democrats in Iowa. He doesn’t want them to drift away.

,

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:27 am

Comment by frank — 1/4/2012 @ 9:23 am

It’s a Primary, frank.
Before you get the nomination, you have to differentiate yourself from your competitors –
just like working your way through a “ladder” to get to the finals in an elimination tournement.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:27 am

Rush Limbaugh complaining about this mantra of Santorum being a “big government conservative”

He’s taking up the case against that. Says for somethings conservatives want big government.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:29 am

What Rush Limbaugh says big government means today is the welfare state, which he doesn’t like to see get bigger..

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:31 am

Comment by Bugg — 1/4/2012 @ 9:24 am

Horses for Courses!

IA has a high percentage of “Social-Cons”, especially within the GOP.
That’s not to say that he will ignore that message in other venues, but might just not emphasize it to the same extent.
You tailor your campaign speeches to what the venue is interested in.
Nothing wrong with that as long as you maintain your core philosophy, and use it as the basis for the proposals you put forth.
It’s called being consistent, but not dogmatic.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:32 am

Thanks for the play-by-play, Sammy.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:33 am

We cannot rely upon SCOTUS to declare the mandate unconstitutional, or that it is inseverable.
We must elect a Congress (both Houses), and a President, who will pass and sign a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, in its’ entirety.

BTw, on Santorum, if he is such a damaged SocCon, how did he ever get elected state-wide in PA?

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:37 am

Sammy-

Seems to be a GOP disconnect between the supposed hatred of big government. And yet the support of intrusions into people’s personal lives and a big ass war-laden foreign policy. And even on the former Romney himself is likely to be more a statist/crony capitalist than Mitt the Knife.

Bugg (34ad0e) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:37 am

ObamaCare waivers on Day One; repeal bill on Day Two. That’s what Romney said he’d do, Sammy.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:38 am

Correction:

Romney ahead by 13 votes with 92% of the precincts reporting.

TO:

Romney ahead by about 113 votes with 97% of the results in.

TO:

Santorum ahead by 5 votes with 99% of the vote total in. (New York Times Late Edition version ?)

TO:

Santorum ahead by 34 votes – still at 99% with some 900 more votes counted. (120,632 without Huntsman compared to earlier 119,723 without Huntsman. The earlier New York Times Huntsman result gave him 734 votes, and maybe there are some other votes cast and counted too. It’s 100% write-in.)

TO:

Romney ahead by 8 votes – Final results, any mistakes not corrected.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:39 am

The very final results heavily tilt toward Romney?

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:41 am

Others come and go, but Romney can’t appeal to new voters. He can’t make his case.

Results in one state are in and Nostradoofus expounds. Critical thinkers may note that Romney finished on top, albeit by eight votes over his closest competitor. When he wins by a wide margin in NH, it will be because “he should have”.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:42 am

I blame the gays and lesbians for this.
— Blame them for what, your inability to spell Bachmann with two n’s? In that case they got to Sammy, too, although for him it looks he just did things backwards this morning. Drink coffee -> write post, Sammy!

Icy (44e33c) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:45 am

The very final results heavily tilt toward Romney?

Comment by Sammy Finkelman

Oh, I didn’t understand what you were trying to say.

I wouldn’t worry too much. Romney tied Santorum. It is brutally obvious that all the candidates, my guy Perry or my realist guy Newt included, are VERY weak. Romney in particular is VERY weak.

There’s no escaping that. None of these guys are inevitable or skilled politicians. None of them can do more than beat Santorum and $30k with… eight votes?

So we can put to rest any idea that any of these guys are particularly awesome politicians.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:52 am

Comment by Bugg — 1/4/2012 @ 9:37 am

Since the “wars” you complain about were brought to us by a variety of actors, under (pretty much) the direction and production of the Iranian State, it sounds very much that you do not believe that the struggle between Islamism (IslamoFascism) and the West, has any existential component?

You are the current counterpart of the Cold-War’s “Better Red than Dead” dead-heads.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:52 am

but is he buggin’?
or is the guy just wiggin’?
LIBertarian

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:55 am

Sounds more Paulian, a truly alien species.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 9:56 am

We had every right to invade Afghanistan and kill Bin Laden. Beyond that, I’m at a loss what the point is or was. Bush never bothered to make the case. COIN is a fraud, Petraeus a well-spoken con man, nation building a disaster. They will hate us no matter what we do. We could bring those troops home, limit the PC multi culti nonsense of immigration from the ME and harden our ports and borders. Instead we will have TSA teethsuckers tell us to take off our shoes and put our maginificent troops in harm’s way for…any idea?

If Iran threatens Israel or the Straits, they will get bombed to hell. But there is no support for the ongoing wars and deployments (Uganda?), there would be even less for a ground war with Iran.

Bugg (34ad0e) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:02 am

From the WSJ-Online….

Iowa Republican Caucus
Precincts Reported: 100%
As of 9:56 a.m. EST%Votes
ROMNEY-24.6……30,015;
SANTORUM-24.5….30,007;
PAUL-21.4……..26,219;
GINGRICH-13.3….16,251;
PERRY-10.3…….12,604;
BACHMANN-5.0……6,073;
HUNTSMAN-0.6……..745;
CAIN-0.0………….58;
ROEMER-0.0………..31.
Source: Associated PressIndicates

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:05 am

You need to read the AUMF-2001 –
it’s all contained there.

If you don’t understand it, I would suggest the following Cold-War, Civil-Defense drill:

At the flash of light, sit-down, bend forward, put your head between your legs, and kiss your ass good-bye!

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:08 am

…plus, the AUMF-2002!

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:08 am

Or I could look at a southern border than over a decade after 9/11 is still unsecure because bullshitters on both sides of the aisle won’t take the steps necessary(cheap labor and voters, dontcha know, respectively). Or you could look at the nonprofiling airport nonsense. Or I could look at the fact that the mosques of some of 9/11 guys and Alwaki and numerous other plotters are all still open. Or I could look at the fact that we have more Islamic people allowed in here every year despite the fact that they don’t want to be Americans. Or you could ask any grunt about the pointlessness of the wars excepting the death of Bin Laden.

[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]

Bugg (34ad0e) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:16 am

I love how leftys treat gun enthusiasts as satan but yet they have no problem using guns against their right-wing enemies.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:22 am

Gotta love Ellen Barkin complaining about the Cops telling her to leave. No surprise she teamed up with the OWS idiots.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:30 am

Comment by Bugg — 1/4/2012 @ 9:24 am
Having a state GOP chock full of evangelicals helped too.
— Cause they loves them the Catholics, right?

That Romney cannot crack more than 25% makes a brokered convention a small but real possibility.
— Uh yeah, that’s what it means. “:

Icy (44e33c) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:51 am

Comment by Colonel Haiku — 1/4/2012 @ 9:38 a

ObamaCare waivers on Day One; repeal bill on Day Two. That’s what Romney said he’d do, Sammy.

I’ll check but if he said that, then it’s another lie. (or you can call it a casual, improbable or impossible to keep promise, that plays on the voter’s ignorance.)

P.S. I did check and it’s not so bad, except for the part about “Day Two” But if you read him closely, there’s a big catch. It’s not repeal, it’s repeal and replace. Which is actually what it needs to be.

He only says he has a plan. He gives no clue here as to what he would replace it with. I found http://www.mittromney.com/issues/health-care where he said Subsequently, [not on Day Two] he will call on Congress to fully repeal Obamacare, [a proposal which will probably be dead on arrival, and then when Congress doesn’t do that, he’ll drop that idea and instead] he would [only] advocate reforms that return power to the states, improve access by slowing health care cost increases, and make health insurance portable and flexible for today’s economy.

Is getting rid of the individual mandate on his list of reforms? No it isn’t. He’s saying it needs to be replaced with something. You tell me how he would slow down health care cost increases.
Portable and flexible probably means less tied to a job. What that would be like is left vague for now, and that’s a big question..)

All that this means is that he would be anxious to pass some kind of bill.

This day two business…

It’s just like the lie when he said that if Obama is re-elected Iran will get the atomic bomb, but that if he is elected, Iran will NOT get the bomb.

How could any serious person say that? How could any honest person promise this? When on top of that Iran is said to be to risk of getting a bomb before January 20, 2013. If Obama is going to let this happen, it could happen before the next president is inaugurated.

Or the lie where Romney told a female college student that if Obama is elected she would NOT get a job when she graduates but if he is elected she WILL get a job (!!)

How could any person who intends his words to be taken seriously say that??

In reality she will get a job either way, sooner or later.

P.S. http://thepage.time.com/2011/10/11/complete-transcript-of-hanover-economic-debate/

Complete Transcript of Hanover Economic Debate
Tuesday, October 11, 2011

SANTORUM: We need to repeal it by doing it through a reconciliation process. And since I have experience and know how to do that, we’ll take care of it…

(CROSSTALK)

ROSE: I’ve got to go to the break, and I’m — but I’m going to give both Herman Cain and Governor Romney a chance to make their point, because they were both mentioned, first Cain, then Romney, then break.

CAIN: Therein lies the difference between me, the non- politician, and all of the politicians. They want to pass what they think they can get passed rather than what we need, which is a bold solution. 9-9-9 is bold, and the American people want a bold solution, not just what’s going to kick the can down the table — down the road.

ROSE: Governor Romney?

(APPLAUSE) ROMNEY: Rick, you’re absolutely right. On day one, granting a waiver for all 50 states doesn’t stop in its tracks entirely Obamacare. That’s why I also say we have to repeal Obamacare, and I will do that on day two, with the reconciliation bill, because as you know, it was passed by reconciliation, 51 votes.

ROSE: All right.

ROMNEY: We can get rid of it with 51 votes. We have to get rid of Obamacare and return to the states the responsibility…

So he did agree with Santorum. Except that’s not on Day Two – it’s more like Day 150, at best.

The debate continues:

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: No, not if you get rid of it. And particularly — by the way, the Supreme — the Supreme Court may get rid of it.

(CROSSTALK)

ROMNEY: Let me finish. Let me finish.

ROSE: OK, let’s — then we’ll go to Huntsman, then we’ll go to the break, and then when we come back, each of you can question each other.

(LAUGHTER)

ROMNEY: Hold on, guys.

HUNTSMAN: Thank you.

ROMNEY: Let me just — let me just say this, which is we all agree about repeal and replace. And I’m proud of the fact that I’ve put together a plan that says what I’m going to replace it with. And I think it’s incumbent on everybody around this table to put together a plan that says this is what I’ll replace it with, because the American people are not satisfied with the status quo. They want us to solve the problem of health care, to get it to work like a market, and that’s what has to happen.

ROSE: All right. Governor Huntsman, then we go.

HUNTSMAN: It’s disingenuous to — to just say that you can — you can waive it all away. The mandate will be in place. The IRS is already planning on 19,500 new employees to administer that mandate. That will stay, and that’s the ruinous part of — of Obamacare. And that — Mitt, your plan is not going to do anything.

ROMNEY: I said we had to repeal it. Did you miss that?

HUNTSMAN: No. It doesn’t — it doesn’t repeal the mandate.

ROMNEY: No, no, I said I’m going to repeal it through reconciliation.

(CROSSTALK) SANTORUM: Through reconciliation, you can repeal the taxes, you can repeal the spending, and therefore, the mandate has no teeth, because there’s no tax penalty if you don’t enforce it.

ROSE: All right. We have much to talk about.

You could repeal it, Santorum says, because you could make the penalty equal to zero, and not enforce it, but the question is how determined is a president to push that issue. Romney is promising only to call on Congress to do that and he knows you can’t just repeal it. If you are serious about replacing it, you have to have some kind of an idea of what system you are going to have. Repealing the mandate without changing anything else just puts all health insurance into a death spiral and/or bankrupts the insurance companies. You need to have ideas.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 10:53 am

Where’s his plan about what he’s going to replace it with? If it is on his web page, you have to guess what it is.

Is this it, maybe?

Mitt Romney believes that the federal regulation of health care should be limited and focused. Obamacare takes an opposite approach and uses federal regulation in an all-encompassing manner. Mitt will use limited federal regulation to correct common failures in insurance markets, while eliminating counterproductive federal rules. For example, individuals who are continuously covered for a specified period of time may not be denied access to insurance because of pre-existing conditions. Mitt also believes that individuals should be allowed to purchase insurance across state lines, free from costly state benefit requirements. Finally, individuals and small businesses should be allowed to form purchasing pools to lower insurance costs and improve choice.

But this still leaves people without the ability to afford insurance, especially if they have pre-existing conditions, and he’s not emphasizing
catastrophic.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:00 am

I’ll check but if he said that, then it’s another lie. (or you can call it a casual, improbable or impossible to keep promise, that plays on the voter’s ignorance.)

Yep. You have to ignore everything Romney has done, or be dishonest, to sincerely claim Romney will meaningfully repeal Obamacare “day one”. It’s BS. At best, he would ‘fix’ it by negotiating with democrats just as he did in MA, creating something that is horrible but “conservative” because the democrats wanted more.

Hell, I bet the result would be to the left of what we have now. That’s Romney’s record of “reform”.

He was not there in 2009 with the leaders opposing Obamacare and Romneycare. He could have become presidential by leading that fight, but as with most things, we get some BS way late after it’s brutally obvious what is politically expedient.

No, you have to ignore everything Romney is saying to think he has even the slightest inclination towards reducing the entitlement state. He said he wants to increase medicare by half a trillion. That’s probably the part of Obamacare he means to repeal.

When these con men tell us they will repeal, what will they replace it with?

Romney brought a “plan” that never actually offered the plan part. Just promises to come up with solutions. It’s a rather obvious con. Win the primary, then move to the left. Why leave that door open? Because Mitt Romney is a liberal. Why would anyone even bother trying to convince informed people otherwise? It’s pathetic.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:02 am

Mitt will use limited federal regulation to correct common failures in insurance markets, while eliminating counterproductive federal rules. For example, individuals who are continuously covered for a specified period of time may not be denied access to insurance because of pre-existing conditions.

In other words, it is a lie to say he will improve Obamacare in any meaningful way.

If you can get insurance with preexisting conditions, then it’s not really insurance. Why would Romney want to use the federal government to control so much? Why not get the feds the hell out of the entire issue?

That’s why Perry is so much better. He doesn’t need to BS us around leaving the door open to move to the left.

Let insurance companies and individuals handle this without the guidance of Mitt Romney and the federal government, and don’t use doublespeak to talk about more control as “undoing regulations”.

Sure, giving states waivers on the ind. mandate and yet forcing insurers to offer insurance to preexisting conditions is going to work wonderfully.

This is why Romney can’t get more than 23%.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:06 am

bark, little doggie, bark…

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:07 am

and underscoring all these promises from a proven shameless flip flopper is that he assured the hard left they needed him in DC.

Repealing Obamacare will be very hard work taking someone quite reliable.

Those who dismiss the issue because, hey, Romney kinda sorta mumbled something that sounds like he would totally repeal the whole enchilada are stupid.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:10 am

oh Good Allah.

the even-handed JD (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:14 am

Romney is better than Obama, JD, but I have no confidence he can achieve something as great as undoing Obamacare. It seems like if that’s what someone is concerned with, Romney is not reliable on this matter to say the least.

I also think, given his history of amazing flips, his amazing promises (even before you realize they are compromised with double speak) just don’t count for anything.

If I’m wrong, I will happily admit it.

My apologies if I’m not reading you right, as I’ve tried to avoid some of the endless and boring fighting by putting a couple of the folks I consider trollish on block until the primary is over.

It is very important that folks who say they want to repeal also explain what they want to replace with. Federal regulations that make cheap insurance and, yes, freedom of choice from insurance possible are not the right answer.

Better would be for Romney to promise to federally defund Romneycare in MA and also eliminate any federal regulation regarding healthcare if at all possible, showing he actually has a stake by explaining what’s really wrong with Romneycare, including the mistake he made leading the way. That wouldn’t be easy to do, I admit.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:25 am

Federal regulations that make cheap insurance and, yes, freedom of choice from insurance possible are not the right answer.

Should have included a “not” before “possible” in there.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:26 am

http://theoptimisticconservative.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/iran-qaradawi-qatar-and-admin/#comments

narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:27 am

61. Comment by Dustin — 1/4/2012 @ 11:06 am

If you can get insurance with preexisting conditions, then it’s not really insurance.

That’s right. It’s not insurance Insurance covrers only what is uncertain.

See, an idea would be like this. Everybody in the United States get the same rate. Then the insurance company gives a figure as to up to what amount it will cover. Maybe this is set by some formula involving medical history. This amount would not be the same for each person. Then you have reinsurance companies that bid for how much they will require to cover the excess for various batches of people. The lowest bidder wins and the federal government pays the reinsurance company with money collected from taxes. This business of mandatory insurance is just nonsense. This insurance, is just a strong tax on the young and the poor.

In addition, you’d want this mostly to be catastrophic coverage.

McCain had some kind of proposal for giving every citizen of the United States a refundable tax credit which could be used only for medical costs. No more Medicaid or applications. He didn’t know his own plan though.

You could give everyone say $1,600 a year. I’m throwing out numbers. Say $1,000 could be carried over one year to the next. After that, you could buy gift certificates from doctors or medical practices but doctors would be limited as to how much could be outstanding. Otherwise the money expire. Then a doughnut hole. It has to matter to people what things cost. Doughnut hole goes up to $10,000 a year say. If the money is not at hand, a person can 1) put it on a credit card, maximum interest rate fixed or 2) borrow some money against next year’s income tax refund and raise withholding 3) borrow against Social Security. If never paid back eventual benefits reduced. If someone dies, Social Security government swallows the loss. $10,000 can be required up to 3 times a lifetime or some other formula. Above the $10,000, insurance kicks in. Next year the amount of actual expenses or maybe mid amount of last three years becomes the new base. Something with a lot of checks and balances where the patient has an interest but not an overriding interest in what something costs,..

Why would Romney want to use the federal government to control so much? Why not get the feds the hell out of the entire issue?

The problem is the health care market has been totally wrecked. There is no market.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:31 am

So now we get to see what the Gingrich/Santorum tag team can do. Newtie gets the South and Atlantic states, Santo the NE and Rustbelt.

Stuttering slab of cod gets Tawana Brawleyed, yum.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:33 am

Comment by Dustin — 1/4/2012 @ 11:26 am

Federal regulations that make cheap insurance and, yes, freedom of choice from insurance not possible are not the right answer.

Totally the wrong way to go. You need a lot of costs paid for by the patient not insurance. This is a bit impossible but people can be given a lump sum to play with. This should be at maybe at 60th percentile actually used.

You could have insurance with no premium, no policy and no application required. If someone didn’t want to take it for something, because what it paid for they didn’t like, they’d be free to ignore it.

We have free K-12 education in this country, but we don’t mandate people buy “education insurance” This is completely bonkers.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:37 am

Romamba is a lying crud destined to lose.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:38 am

Sammy, the reason they want to do it this way, via ‘insurance’ is that Romney/Obama/etc know they are enacting a massive government program. I mean, how much is health insurance? For some folks, $10k per year? Whatever it is, it’s a lot.

To do this via insurance is classic Romney because it essentially burdens the citizen (or subject, really) but is complexified. It’s essentially an enormous tax increase, only the government is directing the money to go from A to B by mandate and never actually touching the funds, so you can’t really call it a tax increase.

you wind up with tons of subsidized folks just like with single payer, but you are free of that tax increase except for the economic effects.

Anyway, it’s short sighted in my opinion because the insurance companies probably can’t survive this way and we’ll eventually hit single payer. All these entitlements seem great at first glance (if you are ignorant) and then work out to be disasters.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:44 am

That wasn’t me (Hailku) and I will thank you kindly to not speak on my behalf.

JD (318f81) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:48 am

Black Jesus, of course it wasn’t you, JD. You never take note of the obsessive behavior of Perryboys.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:50 am

Repealing Obamacare will be very hard work taking someone quite reliable.

Those who dismiss the issue because, hey, Romney kinda sorta mumbled something that sounds like he would totally repeal the whole enchilada are stupid.

Comment by Dustin — 1/4/2012 @ 11:10 am

It’s not going to happen no matter who the next President is, unless the Republicans take the Senate and they eliminate the fillibuster. At least one of the two isn’t going to happen. People should stop going on about whether Romney’s going to repeal Obamacare. No he’s not, nor is Gingrich, Santorum or anyone else. This is an irrelevant point when choosing the nominee with no connection to the real world.

Gerald A (9d78e8) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:52 am

The free K-12 education doesn’t work so well. Vouchers would be better. For health the problem is everybody needs a different amount but you could the voucher amount for the amount commonly used, and allow some flexibility as to when to spend it, but not so much that the money was just saved. It can be used for anything deductible as medical expenses in Schedule A. Maybe slightly different definition.

I mentioned the idea carrying over a certain fraction from one year to the next and then allowing the purchase of medical gift certificates. (The certificates could actually b used for a third person.)

To prevent them from being oversold and then the seller not providing the services, or the service deteriorating there’d be some limit on how much relative to receipts, could be sold by any practice or hospital or drugstore,

That would be Level One of coverage. Now anyone can say afford the first $100 a year or so but that just complicates matters. If this is a fixed lump sum to spend it doesn’t matter where it came from.

The source of this money would be some tax. Income tax, payroll tax whatever.

The amount in Level One would be raised for people with a history of higher medical expenses. It needs to be raised to the level of uncertainty

Level two would be the doughnut hole. A hole say of $10,000. If he person didn’t have the money they could perhaps borrow it from bank, if not from income tax refunds (and pay it back by higher withholding) or if they chose from anticipated Social Security benefits. If none ever awarded, Social security accepts the loss.

Maximum amount of times doughnut hole can be completely used up: 3 times say.

Level 3: This is insurance, available on request, but the charge is the same for all people, the amount covered can vary, overage covered by reinsurance fee paid for by the federal government. Insurance covers anything deductible as medical expenses in Schedule A Form 1040. (Because of high threshhold this deduction is actually rarely used and not really policed.)

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:56 am

Anyone else happen to catch Obama’s live feed on Fox News last night. Broadcast starts… stutters and stops brought back memories of that MaxHeadroom show way back when. Someone mentioned (tweeted) the same thing

It was pert near uncanny, and definitely funny.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 11:58 am

Never thought I’d find myself in agreement with James Carville, but there ’tis…

http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/04/carville-rick-perry-is-the-worst-presidential-candidate-in-american-history/

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:01 pm

McCain endorsed Romney.This was probably a banked endorsement.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:01 pm

That wasn’t me (Hailku) and I will thank you kindly to not speak on my behalf.

Comment by JD

Didn’t even occur to me that would happen.

Anyway, not even sure why they would hassle you. You’ve taken exception against my Romney criticism in the past (reasonably) and folks should tolerate less than allegiance to any of these clowns at this point. I mean seriously, are any of these guys really worth that?

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:04 pm

It’s not going to happen no matter who the next President is, unless the Republicans take the Senate and they eliminate the fillibuster. At least one of the two isn’t going to happen. People should stop going on about whether Romney’s going to repeal Obamacare. No he’s not, nor is Gingrich, Santorum or anyone else. This is an irrelevant point when choosing the nominee with no connection to the real world.

Comment by Gerald A — 1/4/2012 @ 11:52 am | (Ignore this user)

It’s going to be a long fight. Basically zero of the solutions are readily possible yet, but we have to try. Step one is the bully pulpit.

And yeah, I think it’s possible to repeal Obamacare if we play our hand. At some point soon, these entitlements must be cut. Even if it’s improbable, we can’t just concede the matter as irrelevant because such matters are urgent.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:07 pm

“We have free K-12 education in this country, but we don’t mandate people buy “education insurance””

Sammy – Sorry, but that education is far from “free.”

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:10 pm

75. ” unless the Republicans take the Senate and they eliminate the fillibuster.”

By a conservative accounting, Sean Trende, the GOP will pick up 4 or 5 at minimum.

Reid already did in the filibuster with a rule change for some avenues to passage in Senate.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:18 pm

80. ” are any of these guys really worth that”

The Three Amigos and Uncle Bernie. We are living in a very bad movie. The script is dreck and the acting worse.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:26 pm

82. ‘ but that education is far from “free.”’

And even further from education.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:28 pm

The free K-12 education doesn’t work so well. Vouchers would be better.

I agree with the concept of public school, but the culture has broken down to the point where something that should be easy to perform with a teacher and some books (not expensive) is apparently completely crappy now and also incredibly expensive.

We do need this function because even folks with no kids benefit tremendously from society being educated. Vouchers seem like the most realistic way to improve the situation, but I think we really need a bar on any unionization of any government entity.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:32 pm

Haiku – I have often called out Dustin on his over the top Romney hate. Apparently you are unable to read. Not much room for you to be calling people obsessive. Rather than celebrating your narrow win, you were predictably out bashing Perry today. Again. Brava.

JD (392f2d) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:34 pm

Does everyone remember those dishonest attacks on Perry, suggesting he would abolish social security?

Did such a concept come from someone who will reform spending on entitlements, or someone who might actually make the situation worse than it already is?

If Barack Obama, Meghan Mccain, Lady Gaga, and John Mccain got to pick our next president, only from the slate of GOP candidates, it would be a unanimous result.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:41 pm

I have often called out Dustin on his over the top Romney hate

Hate is a powerful word. I guess it’s fair to say I hate the results it would bring and want to argue loudly against it.

But I do not actually hate Mitt Romney as a human being. Distrust him, sure, but he’s a politician and I have contempt for all of them, even a bit for Rick Perry and some for Newt.

But yes, you’ve called me out. I note at least one time I researched the issue and admitted I was mistaken. My goal is not to deceive people about Romney. If I didn’t think he was liberal I wouldn’t even have a problem with him.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:43 pm

79. “Go do as you must and do it quickly”.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:44 pm

89. Seriously, Dustin hate? Sieg Hai has the Reich on his side.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:46 pm

“Totally the wrong way to go. You need a lot of costs paid for by the patient not insurance.”

Sammy – I lean toward agreement with this sentiment for a variety of reasons. Since the health bulk of insurance in this country is employer provided, people have been insulated from its cost for too long. It is only in the past decade or so that employers have been asking employees to shoulder meaningful shares of cost increases. You can see from public employee contract negotiations, especially Wisconsin in 2011, the screaming that occurs when employees unaccustomed to doing this are asked to contribute even minor amounts.

Having skin in the game and feeling the pain from it is critical finding market-based solutions on the consumer,insurance and care provider sides. Having a federal government mandate a one size fits all solution and become the actual care provider to me means the problems just disappear down the black hole of government deficits and lead people to conclude we have “free government healthcare” just like we have “free K-12 education”, when the facts are far from that.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:47 pm

I’m not saying JD is being unfair. I mean, I rag on Romney A LOT and I do not hold back at all.

I’m just adding more info here. He’s calling a spade a spade.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:47 pm

Right, whose been tracking think regress and crazy Taibbi links, approvingly,

narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:48 pm

a proposal which will probably be dead on arrival,
Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 1/4/2012 @ 10:53 am

I don’t see where you can come to that conclusion.
The election of Pres. Romney would occur with (most likely) the GOP remaining in control of the House, and taking control of the Senate. And, at that point, there will be enough Dem votes to peel away from the irrational-caucus led by Harry Reid (or whomever replaces him) to get to sixty.
If politicians listen to elections, and when those elections are reinforced by polling (and the polling numbers for the ACA are in the toilet), pols will listen to what the voters want done. I can see a Boxer, or a Feinstein threatening a filibuster, but I don’t see too many following – at least not 41 in a caucus now in the minority facing another election just two years away after the voters nation-wide would have spoken forcefully about the direction that Obama/Pelosi/Reid were taking the country.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:48 pm

On the contrary, I congratulated Rick Santorum, JD, his hard work paid off and he ran an epic campaign. I’ll admit to letting the latest Johnny-One-Note wiggicisms prompt some more counter-offensive, but I’ll not waste another word on Perry or on his ~~nitwit~~ demented fanboy.

I look toward NH and beyond. There will be blood and I only hope someone will survive to fight the real battle, which is the fight to knock Obama out of the box.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:51 pm

Have you already stopped apologizing for your incessantly inept prognostication of the Iowa results, Gulrud?

Keep searching for the truth, for one day you may be rewarded.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:55 pm

95. And anyway the SC hears evidence end of March, renders verdict in June and vacates the whole effin’ shebang.

More agitprop for Dead Meat.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:56 pm

He didn’t know his own plan though.

SF, it was actually a plan that was worked up several years earlier by a couple of Dem think-tankers who went on to work for the BHO campaign.
But, your criticism of McCain for not knowing the details of a plan he advanced, are well taken; and is one of many reasons why principled conservatives were dissatisfied with the choice the GOP establishment had made.

And,on that note, another distinction:
I firmly endorse the thinking of Angelo Codevilla that he advances in “The Ruling Class“.
There is The Ruling Class, and there is The Country Class.
The pols of all parties (FTMP) are members of The Ruling Class, and do not have the best interests of the country at large front and center, as they are peripheral to the the self-interests of themselves.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:56 pm

narciso… please help me understand which of Taibbi’s data on TTC (for example) was not supported. I’ll await your response.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:58 pm

Reid already did in the filibuster with a rule change for some avenues to passage in Senate.

Comment by gary gulrud — 1/4/2012 @ 12:18 pm

Gary,

Are you saying there’s no filibuster any more? You have a link?

Gerald A (9d78e8) — 1/4/2012 @ 12:59 pm

97. Oh I got a tie with Romney by Whatisname, a tagteam to rip Princess a third one, and a natural run to Paul for Romney to tap Rand for VP to somehow get to 51%.

Eye of newt and dollop of mandrake and we got’s soup.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:00 pm

You had it right the first time, gahwee. You effed it up.

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:02 pm

101. I didn’t say “no” but the rule change came in past two/three months or so, the nuclear option. They got to skip a cloture vote, not memembering which one.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:02 pm

103. Yes and I admitted it. Holding up two counties for an hour to find a score of votes hardly saves my “cream” from error.

Get ready to rumble in NH debate, wheeener.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:06 pm

AD – Who is the GOP Establishment? Can you point them out for me by name, please? I used to be hear the left screeching about the Religious Right, but I could never find any place to join.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:09 pm

According to the left we oppose going over congress’s heads because we are getting our hands greased.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:18 pm

106. Corpulent Karl, Sen. Shelby and Rep. Bachus of AL, Hal Rodgers, Rep KY, Sen. Cornyn TX,.. its a long list.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:18 pm

Romney sparkles like Edward Cullen when he’s in the presence of Santorum.

It’s like you can see into his soul, and he’s, you know, not as bad as you thought.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:22 pm

Ed Mangano is an idiot?

I forgot as long as your calling for taxes on the middle class your a genius no matter what you say.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:22 pm

Ace shares this expert analysis of Iowa.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:23 pm

I mean it’s via ace. It’s not ace. Don’t get your hopes up.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:23 pm

In a time of economic disaster this Santorum discussion of gay marriage and abortion and “values” generally is a loser.

Actually the inverse may be true. Santorum doesn’t need to discuss those matters at all, he has established his bona fides.

The President would be more likely to push social issues if Santorum were the nominee, but Santorum would then likely play the role of Clinton to HW Bush: “It’s the economy, stupid.”

And in this case he would be right.

Hated the negative reinforcement that went with McCain always reassuring everyone that he was a conservative. Most people’s response to that is “probably not, if you keep having to remind us.”

On social conservatism, Santorum doesn’t need to bring it up.

The wild card obviously, is that he may WANT to talk about little else, but if his speech last night was any indication, he can be an effective candidate that appeals to independents.

CausticConservative (b29599) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:28 pm

There’s no way Santorum becomes the nominee you can take that to the bank and smoke it.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:28 pm

Only rich leftys support Alec Baldwin.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:36 pm

God, I hate to say this, but since I think Santorum and Romney are both going to let me down hardcore on spending and big government, does that mean Romney is the better candidate? He does have executive experience. A lot of it is experience that is just plain dreadful, but at least he’s run something and we are talking about a high skill executive job.

All the ideological difference in the world doesn’t mean that in my gut I suspect Romney would be less disastrous than Santorum.

I think Newt is more than up to the job and understands how to win in DC, at least sometimes.

But crap, this is a very difficult and unfortunate decision I have to make.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:37 pm

Wouldn’t, rather.

Thanks a lot, Iowa, btw. Love ya.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:39 pm

112. What does backfat have to do with grey matter?

It’s not a trick question.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:42 pm

Comment by daleyrocks — 1/4/2012 @ 1:09 pm

Well, George Will is a start; plus the GOP National Committee, and anyone (generally) who doesn’t attend TEA Party gatherings, or does so only because they feel they “need” to.

Joining the “Religious Right” is easy – just walk into pretty much any “Evangelical” Church, or send a donation to Bob Jones University/Focus on the Family/Moral Majority/Family Research Council/Christian Broadcasting Network or (to some) The Boy Scouts of America.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:42 pm

114. Santorum’s tall, but then so is Lurch Kerry.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:49 pm

Dustin, have you actually read Santorum’s platform?

Icy (44e33c) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:57 pm

I respect Santorum’s character, btw. He makes no effort to hide what he is. He wants to use government to do this and that and admits it can be interpreted as big government and he’s not really a Goldwater kinda guy. He explains his reasons and it’s not crazy.

This is brave and decent and pretty much the opposite of “I will never waver on abortion right, MA… oh wait, I want Roe overturned now, suckers.’

And even a compassionate conservative or a family values federal government is better ideologically than progressive views, but how much better and will Santorum effectively cut the spending? If I don’t think either will, then the difference is not powerful enough.

And Romney has presided over some good and some bad. I mean, I don’t really know what exactly he added to Bain, but surely between that and his MA disaster he picked up some nuts and bolts of how to manage folks. Either he caved to the left a lot or he wasn’t a very strong leader, but this is better experience for the presidency than Santorum has.

I think Speaker of the House also requires tremendous management skills and give Newt some credit here, and think the ideological difference there is more important.

Still, it’s looking dire if Perry can’t turn it around in SC. Experience is tremendously important for the presidency. Obama is proof.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 1:58 pm

Perry is done done done like a banshee Mr. Dustin.

People just don’t like him in that way.

happyfeet (a55ba0) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:02 pm

I love how Illegal or Legal Immigrants get the world handed to them on a silver platter.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:24 pm

Jay Cost on what went wrong last time:

“Mitt Romney suffered a devastating blow in the Hawkeye State. His millions of dollars spent organizing and advertising were for naught. He allowed an unfunded and unknown upstart named Mike Huckabee to get to his right, and in so doing created room for John McCain to get to his left in New Hampshire.”

Now Mitt is “in the catbird seat” because no one dominant inhabits the Right.

Honest Jay, you’re riding on your reputation just a wee bit to hard. Break down and euthanasia ahead.

Huckabee, Romney and McCain are all fiscal moderates and social liberals. George Romney lost in NH, Mitty lost in NH. The only thing different is Mitty can probably stay off the ventilator thru NV.

gary gulrud (d88477) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:26 pm

Rich leftys and their enablers love Alec Baldwin.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:37 pm

Good rundown on where the race stands from John Hinderaker at Powerline:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/01/landslide-mitt-where-do-things-stand-post-iowa.php

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:43 pm

and another from Peter Wehner at Commentary:

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/04/santorum-iowa-romney-catbird-seat/

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:44 pm

and another…

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/287127/what-iowa-means-nro-symposium

Colonel Haiku (5b04f4) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:46 pm

Hey I hear Obama can see Zimbabwe from his home in Hawaii.

He isn’t that educated.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:48 pm

Mitt Luthor-Come on let me hear you say it?

Perry supporters-Your Insane.

Mitt Luthor-No not that! No,the other thing.

Perry Supporters-You will—-

Mitt Luthor-WRONG!

Mittbots to expose their lack of humor in 5…4…3…2…1…

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:50 pm

AD – Thanks for the tips.

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:57 pm

Who knew Mormons such as Mitt were such notorious social libs? LMFAO!

daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 1/4/2012 @ 2:58 pm

Who knew Daleyrocks was such a tightass.

According to the left we oppose going around the congress because we have our hands greased.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:14 pm

NBC NIghtly New2s refers to Romney’s “win”. By 8 votes over a “surging Ron Santorum.”

I suppose it is the Romney campaign’s spin. They really are trying hard to build a bandwagon effect.

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:34 pm

Rick Perry says he’s staying in and he will particiopate in the debates in New Hampshire this weekend.

He may also need to stay in to help the Virginia lawsuit.

It is certainly not true that if all others but one drop out that hurts Romney. Santorum is not even on the ballot in all states. Santorum + Gingrich gets more vvotes than either of them alone.

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:37 pm

democrats found an old video which they are showing in South carolina to scare off Republicans where Sanmtorum says he’s working with Hillary Clinton..

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:39 pm

Mitt Romney got 6 fewer votes than he did in the 2008 caucuses (not 6 more)

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:39 pm

People just don’t like him in that way.

Comment by happyfeet —

I know you’re right.

Don’t mind letting a few other states than Iowa decide the matter, but I realize the obvious.

Sammy, it’s hilarious watching them spin it. Meghan Mccain claimed Santorum poured more money in, but in reality it was like $25k to $1.5 million and a governor vs a legislator, and the ‘next guy in line’ vs someone who wasn’t on the radar, and Mr slick vs Mr breathless.

And still it’s a tie. Clearly all of them are quite weak candidates.

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:42 pm

NBC’s Chuck Todd claims that if Mitt romney wins 2 of the next 3 he’s the nominee.

Only if people quit without reason.

McGovern Carter and Clinton got in the high 30s I think. In such a case maybe the top finisher can wind up with the nomination. He gets endorsed by the others.

This wouldn’t be so if someone gets in the 20s.

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:43 pm

Brian Williams reminded people that the next debate is on NBC. And don’t forget Meet the Press.

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:44 pm

Mitt Romney got 6 fewer votes than he did in the 2008 caucuses (not 6 more)

Which proves the GOP does not vote the dead.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:49 pm

McGovern Carter and Clinton got in the high 30s I think. In such a case maybe the top finisher can wind up with the nomination. He gets endorsed by the others.

— Got in the high 30’s in what, Sammy? It sure as frack wasn’t the Iowa Caucus!

Icy (44e33c) — 1/4/2012 @ 3:55 pm

What if hollywood made a film criticizing Obamas war on uganda?

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 4:27 pm

Chuck Todd, who cut his teeth on the Harkin campaign, before moving to the Hotline, and seems to fond of romantic metaphors, like Iowans like to wooed, McCain and Palin had no chemistry (that last was in the Puffington Host

narciso (87e966) — 1/4/2012 @ 4:31 pm

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iowa_caucuses

Both parties have tried to preserve the position of Iowa and New Hampshire in their nominating schedules.[2][3] However, Alaska and Hawaii have had their Republican caucuses before Iowa in the past, and in 1988 the Hawaii victory of Pat Robertson and the 1996 Louisiana victory of Pat Buchanan over Senator Phil Gramm had a significant impact on the results in Iowa.

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/4/2012 @ 4:41 pm

SF: McGovern Carter and Clinton got in the high 30s I think. In such a case maybe the top finisher can wind up with the nomination. He gets endorsed by the others.

Comment by Icy — 1/4/2012 @ 3:55 pm

– Got in the high 30′s in what, Sammy? It sure as frack wasn’t the Iowa Caucus!

Percentage of convention delegates at the end of the primaries in June. I think I was mixing that up with percentage of the vote. I am not sure where they were on that.

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/4/2012 @ 4:43 pm

We oppose Obama going over Congress because our hands are being greased just remember that when the ultra-left complain about a Republican
needing congressional approval.

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 5:01 pm

_____________________________________________

I saw a poll today that indicated a good percentage of Republicans said Santorum was a candidate they’d prefer, but Romney was a candidate they believed had the best odds of beating Obama. Not sure how much of that assumption is based on various registered Republicans sensing there’s lots of left-leaning sentiment among too much of the public. IOW, a concern that politicians with liberal glimmers will get more benefit of the doubt from more voters than what so-called rock-ribbed conservatives will receive.

I know if I had full confidence and faith in the ideological sanity of the electorate, I’d easily and casually favor the candidate that was most firmly of the right. In that regard, Santorum strikes me as being the least squishy of the top candidates, while Romney is among the most (if not THE most) chameleon-like in terms of his ideology.

However, just about all the Republican candidates in 2011-2012 suffer from a lack of firm philosophical conviction or what I’d describe as innately, resolutely good common sense. I think all of them are most vulnerable to making big mistakes by falling for the left-leaning side of their brain. No less than Ronald Reagan was vulnerable to that when he went against his publicly-held position, pulled a Jimmy-Carter routine, and secretly negotiated with hostage-taking Iran.

IOW, all these candidates have the same failings that many Americans — far too many Americans — are likely to be guilty of on many occasions—and I’m not even factoring in sub-sets of the population, including urban voters, so-called minority voters, voters who work for the government, or voters into “GLBT” or AGW.

Mark (31bbb6) — 1/4/2012 @ 5:25 pm

The left are talking about a revolution between the rich and the poor and we’re radicals?

Dohbiden (ef98f0) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:10 pm

151- Oh, good, I get to shoot me some poor people (Heh!), because I’m one of those insensitive, cruel, rich people since I’m a registered Republican.

The Left had best be cautious about what they ask for, they just might get it; and it wouldn’t be the first time that the dogs turned on their masters.

AD-RtR/OS! (fa0134) — 1/4/2012 @ 6:25 pm

Comment by Sammy Finkelman — 1/4/2012 @ 3:44 pm

Brian Williams reminded people that the next debate is on NBC. And don’t forget Meet the Press.

That was wrong – about that being the next debate that is, and I didn;t quite catch what the reference to Meet the Press was about last night.

There’s a correct announcement tonight. It was made just before the midway break.

NBC will host the last debate (before the new Hampshire primary. It will be a special edition of Meet the Press and will take place at 9 a.m. Sunday January 8, 2012.

The next debate will be on ABC at 9 pm EST Saturday night January 7, 2012 (exactly 12 hours earlier)

Sammy Finkelman (d3daeb) — 1/5/2012 @ 4:06 pm

Anyone recognize this one?

JD (392f2d) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:29 pm

“John Kerry”, why not pick a different name this time?

Also, Romney and Santorum tied. 8 one way or 12 the other, out of that many folks, they tied. It was a caucus anyway. This essentially means very little. The guys who would need to win Iowa to really set Romney back failed to do so. It’s hard to spin that as anything but a good day for Romney. / dammit

Dustin (cb3719) — 1/5/2012 @ 6:30 pm

Spartacvs

Icy (e6ad7f) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:28 pm

I think my comment got ate — probably because I used his name.

Methinks it’s our old pal, Sparticles.

Icy (e6ad7f) — 1/5/2012 @ 7:52 pm

Spartacvs
Comment by Icy — 1/5/2012 @ 7:28 pm

Yep. Nuked.

Stashiu3 (601b7d) — 1/6/2012 @ 2:05 pm

The Iowa results were not announced until just before 3 am Wednesday when the chairman of the Iowa Republican Party said that Romney had won by 8 votes.

There was period of several minutes before that when CNN showed Santorum 4 votes ahead of Romney.

This can be explained a number of ways. The final results could have even come from a place where Romney did badly, worse than average, but Perry and Santorum and Bachmann – and Gingrich split more evenly.

But….

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/7/2012 @ 7:10 pm

Nate Silver wrote yesterday (Friday) that it is possible that Santorum really came in first. Of course there may be several discrepancies, but the ones favoring Santorum were corrected. The Iowa Republican Party may have stopped the checking at a point when Romney was ahead. There are also 8 precinct where no results are reported.

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/winner-of-iowa-caucus-still-in-doubt/?scp=1&sq=santorum%20lobby&st=cse

…a single discrepancy could potentially reverse the outcome. On Wednesday, a voter in the town of Moulton in Appanoose County, Iowa claimed to have found one.

The voter, Edward True, signed an affidavit which stated that he had helped to count the vote after the caucus at the Garrett Memorial Library in Moulton. Mr. True claims that the results listed on the Google spreadsheet maintained by the Iowa Republican Party differed substantially from the count that had been taken at the caucus site. Mr. Romney had received only two votes in his precinct, Mr. True’s affidavit said, but had been given credit for 22 by the state. That would be enough to flip Mr. Romney’s eight-vote victory into a 12-vote win for Mr. Santorum.

In an interview Friday, Mr. True said that he is a Ron Paul supporter.

Mr. Strawn issued a statement late on Thursday night on behalf of the Iowa G.O.P., which said that the party would not respond in detail to reports of irregularities, but that it had no reason to believe that Mr. True’s allegation would change the outcome.

One reason for Mr. Strawn’s confidence may be that there is a verification process set up during the caucuses. Each candidate has the option of assigning a representative to each precinct who must sign off on the results before they are reported to the state.

Whether Mr. Santorum’s campaign had such a representative at Mr. True’s precinct, designated by the state as Washington Wells, is unclear, but the better-organized campaigns typically have representatives at most of the state’s 1,774 precincts.

I spoke with Mr. Santorum late on Thursday evening when I encountered him in the lobby of the Manchester, N.H., hotel where he is staying. Mr. Santorum was in a jovial mood, joking about his sweater vests and the lack of sleep he had been getting. “I stayed up until CNN was on the morning show,” he recalled of the caucus night.

Mr. Santorum expressed a cheery indifference as to whether he had technically won the caucuses. “I always said in Iowa that I had to beat Perry and Bachmann,” he said. “I didn’t really ever think I was going to win given where I was two weeks out. It just was fun watching it going up and down.”

Mr. Santorum said that his campaign had not put any significant effort into looking at the precinct-by-precinct results in detail, nor was it interested in doing so.

One paragraph about the Paul campaign not knowing anything about this but being satisfied that they are playing above board.

Earlier on Thursday, Mr. Santorum had conducted an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox News, during which he noted that discrepancies had run both ways during the Iowa caucuses. In the interview, Mr. Santorum said that, although there may have been a 20-vote mistake in Mr. Romney’s favor in one precinct, there was a 21-vote mistake in his favor in another precinct, essentially canceling it out.

When I asked him about the 21-vote discrepancy, Mr. Santorum told me that he was not aware of what specific precinct it had occurred in. Instead, he said, he was recalling information from prior conversations he had with Iowa Republican officials.

In fact, there were several discrepancies during the vote-counting on Tuesday night, some of which had favored Mr. Santorum. However, these discrepancies were resolved and corrected before Mr. Strawn declared Mr. Romney the winner.

I had been downloading versions of the state’s vote tally at various points on Tuesday evening and early Wednesday morning. The first version I downloaded reflected the state’s count as of 11:14 p.m. Iowa time on Tuesday, at which point results from 1,723 of 1,774 precincts had been tabulated.

In 10 of these 1,723 precincts, the results in the spreadsheet changed between 11:14 p.m. and 2 a.m., reflecting additional verification and validation efforts. These changes added a net of 11 votes to Mr. Romney’s total while subtracting a net of 33 votes from Mr. Santorum’s count. If not for these changes, Mr. Santorum would still have led the vote count on Wednesday morning.

However, it is not clear that are additional known discrepancies in Mr. Santorum’s favor, above and beyond the ones that have already been detected and fixed. Thus, the potential discrepancy described by Mr. True could in fact be enough to reverse the result.

It is possible to apply some statistical scrutiny to Mr. True’s claim. How plausible is it, for instance, that Mr. Romney would have received just two votes out of 53 in the precinct, as Mr. True reported?

In fact, Mr. Romney performed very weakly in the other precincts in Appanoose County, which is rural and conservative. In the precinct Centerville W1, for instance, Mr. Romney received just two of 39 votes. He got just four of 43 votes in the Caldwell precinct, and none of the 40 voters in the Union precinct cast a ballot for him.

Another unusual facet of the vote count in the Washington Wells precinct is that the state recorded six votes for the obscure candidate Buddy Roemer, even though Mr. True’s affidavit claimed that there had been no votes for him there. (Mr. Roemer received just 31 votes statewide.) Overall, Mr. True’s statement said, 53 caucus-goers had cast votes in his precinct, rather than 79 as reported by the state. The 26-vote difference reflects what he says were 20 excess votes for Mr. Romney and six for Mr. Roemer.

Is there any way to tell whether either 53 votes or 79 votes is an inherently more believable turnout in the Washington Wells precinct?

Neither voter registration statistics nor the results of the 2008 caucuses are available on a precinct-by-precinct basis. However, precinct-level results of the 2008 general election are provided on the Iowa Secretary of State’s Web site and the number of votes for John McCain can be used as a proxy for the number of Republicans.

In the 2008 general election, 212 voters cast ballots for Mr. McCain in the Washington Wells precinct. A 79-voter Republican caucus turnout in Washington Wells would represent 37 percent of this total. Statewide, by comparison, Republican caucus turnout was equal to 18 percent of Mr. McCain’s vote total.

The 53-voter turnout as instead claimed by Mr. True would represent 25 percent of Mr. McCain’s vote total. That would be somewhat more in line with statewide averages, as well as the 23 percent turnout reported elsewhere in Appanoose County. Still, caucus turnout can be highly variable from precinct to precinct so this evidence is far from definitive.

There is also another, more striking oddity in the turnout estimates in Appanoose County. One precinct there, Pleasant Franklin, is still being reported by the Iowa Republican Party as having had no turnout at all for the caucus. This is despite the fact that Pleasant Franklin was listed as a valid caucus site on the Republican Party’s Web site, and that 132 voters cast ballots for John McCain there in the general election of 2008.

In addition to Pleasant Franklin, there are seven other precincts throughout Iowa that are still being reported as having had no Republican turnout. These precincts are listed in the state party’s spreadsheet, but contain no votes.

It is important to note that apparent oddities and anomalies are common whenever votes are counted. Some prove to be benign, while others are genuine mistakes, but they rarely make much difference either way.

Eight votes, however, is not a lot of ground for Mr. Santorum to make up, so the outcome could easily change before the vote is certified. For now, the caucuses are probably best thought of as still being too close to call.

This post has been updated the reflect the fact that Mr. True is a supporter of Mr. Paul.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/7/2012 @ 7:27 pm

You don’t have to assume that votes for McCain in the general election in November 2008 equals Republican, but you could probably assume, unless some special factors are involved, that the ratio of votes for McCain in 2008 to Iowa Republican caucus go-ers in 2012 should probably remain somewhere around the same, so there are extra votes in that precinct. Even more important 8 precincts are missing.

Somebody abruptly stopped the count at a point where Romney was ahead. Somebody might have noticed and corrected the Moulton vote, although let;s say the state chairman didn’t know about that, and more results might have come in if they’d waited an extra hour or 10.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/7/2012 @ 7:33 pm

Des Moines Register article on the extra 20 votes Mitt Romney got in one place:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20120107/NEWS09/301070034/1007/NEWS05

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/7/2012 @ 8:32 pm

One comment on 538 blog: Ballot box stuffing happened in 2008.

1) There are many procedural laxities in our Iowa Republican caucus system. The wizards may want no attention to be cast behind the curtain of Oz, but those of us who are little munchkins at the grassroots level can see as eyewitnesses what is going on. This is particularly true in urban areas when precincts are combined into crowds of hundreds of strangers milling about, and when the ballots are merely blank pieces of colored paper that anyone can easily counterfeit.

In 2008, for instance, I saw my own ballot box being stuffed at a combined-precincts caucus by a fellow who tossed in a fistful of bogus ballots before darting away into the crowd. Later my own ballot, from that same ballot box, was physically stolen in the behind-the-scenes sorting room. I know this is true because when I received back my own single precinct’s sorted ballots for the counting, my ballot had disappeared. And to crown the 2008 farce, a county leadership official tried to hijack all the counts for Coralville’s 6 precincts so that he alone (not the individual precincts) could call the results in to the Republican state headquarters in Des Moines.

This year I collected my precinct’s ballots without an admixture from other precincts, and verified (in front of 22 witnesses) what the correct count was– before anything went into the back counting room.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/7/2012 @ 8:35 pm

Someone writes there about the Texas delegate selection process for Democrats in 2008:

I remember participating in caucus phase of the 2008 Texas Democratic prima-caucus (otherwise known as the Texas Two Step). After all was said and done, I found so many flaws in how our delegates were allocated. Votes were tallied incorrectly, delegate allocation formulas misinterpreted, verification was almost non-existent. In the end the delegates were resolved at the state convention.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/7/2012 @ 8:44 pm

In the Des Moines Register poll, Santorum went from 11% to 22% between December 28 and December 30 (about 150 people polled each day)

4 points came from Gingrich, 8 points from Ron Paul and 1 from Rick Perry.

Actually that left Gingrich and Paul too low. The last poll results showed Others at 18% a gain of 3, which you might interpret as coming from Romney.

I suppose a lot of Others was really Don’t Know/Won’t Say. Bachmann probably collapsed at the end. Everybody’s vote percentage should be higher than in polls, and for Romney and Santorum it’s maybe about right but Gimgrich and especially Paul gained in the end.

Most likely the poll missed (or possibly didn’t estimate correctly how to weight) some young, previously unaffiliated with any party Ron Paul voters.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/7/2012 @ 9:00 pm

71 SF: “Totally the wrong way to go. You need a lot of costs paid for by the patient not insurance.”

93. Comment by daleyrocks — 1/4/2012 @ 12:47 pm

Sammy – I lean toward agreement with this sentiment for a variety of reasons. Since the health bulk of insurance in this country is employer provided, people have been insulated from its cost for too long. It is only in the past decade or so that employers have been asking employees to shoulder meaningful shares of cost increases. You can see from public employee contract negotiations, especially Wisconsin in 2011, the screaming that occurs when employees unaccustomed to doing this are asked to contribute even minor amounts.

It was another form of a pay cut. You get real screaming when you try to pretend a pay cut is not a pay cut. It doesn’t matter if it is no longer usual for employees to get free insurance. It’s still a pay cut. I think the employees (if not the unions) would rather have taken a open pay cut. Saves on taxes at least. And they have no power to economize or bargain on health care costs.

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/8/2012 @ 7:48 pm

Having skin in the game and feeling the pain from it is critical finding market-based solutions on the consumer,insurance and care provider sides.

That actually still insulates people from the cost. At the point of sale, nobody knows. Co-pays or paying a higher percentage of a premium are not the answer – the inflation continues. There is no skin in the game. And where there is, it’s all wrong. Let’s say you limit the number of doctor visits with no co-pay. Doctors schedule them all. When someone has an emergency, they hesitate. Let’s say you limit the number of session of physical therapy. This is either too much or too little for most people. If there’s no marginal charge the patient will probably put up with all that are free.

Today someone wrote an article in the New York Daily News about two very similar emergencies her son had.

The anatomy of a ripoff

My son’s hospital statement exposed a web of overbilling, cost-shifting and confusion

By Beverly Weintraub / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Published: Sunday, January 8 2012, 4:00 AM

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/anatomy-a-ripoff-article-1.1002077

Good Samaritan Hospital in Suffern charged $22,214.92 for a four-hour emergency room visit that included a physical exam, sedation, endoscopy and extraction of the stuck food.
Aetna agreed to pay only $2,885.67 for the services — just 13% of the bill — and the hospital settled for that. The bill for Somerset
Hospital in Pennsylvania for a similar episode two weeks later was a lot less.

For a direct comparison in both places he got Ondansetron HCl, an anti-nausea medication. Good Samaritan charged $439.90 for the drug; Aetna allowed $77.63. Somerset charged $6.52; Aetna did not pay the mount charged – it paid $3.26.

That was probably still too high. Medicare pays 17 cents per dose. Which may be too low.

When you have a a 6-1 ratio in costs from pone place to another there is no market. Prices should not vary much more than 20%.

For administering Glucagon HCl, which boosts blood sugar and relaxes the esophagus, Good Samaritan charged $901.16. Aetna’s rate was $159.03. For the same medication two weeks later, Somerset Hospital charged $216, of which Aetna allowed $108. A state-run drug discount web site called NYPrescriptionSaver posts a price of $121.09 for Glucagon; Medicare, $97.38.

There was some obviuus double-billing, although Aetna threw it out. Good Samaritan billed Aetna $900 for an upper GI procedure and $1,000 for an operative upper GI, even though the major procedure is supposed to include the cost of the minor one. The hospital also billed separately for $7,335.64 worth of equipment and supplies — simple anesthesia, sterile needles, saline solution for hydration, X-rays, etc. — that are supposed to be included in the cost of the treatment and the room where it was administered.

She had to pay about $800 out of pocket – so far.

Having a federal government mandate a one size fits all solution and become the actual care provider to me means the problems just disappear down the black hole of government deficits and lead people to conclude we have “free government healthcare” just like we have “free K-12 education”, when the facts are far from that.

It’s free to the parent (aside from the effect of property taxes) My point is that even this (Medicare for all) is preferable to Obamacare, where everyone has to pay more than many can afford unless they plead poverty or get covered by an employer.

It makes no sense. It will fail on its own terms.

The penalty is much less than the cost of insurance and is someone has difficulty paying for it, is probably uncollectable, since it would only be collected by adding it to the list of things for which federal income tax refunds are withheld..

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/8/2012 @ 7:49 pm

Actually there may be a sort of recount in Iowa which could change the winner.

This article in the Wall Street Journal of Saturday/Sunday:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204331304577145251571800344.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

says that the Iowa Republican Party issued a statement (probably Friday) says there is a two-week certification process, and only then will tey announce the final results.

They claim that they do not believe that the final results in Appanoose County will “change the outcome of Tuesday’s vote.”

Sammy Finkelman (b17872) — 1/8/2012 @ 7:55 pm

1/4/2012

Iowa Open Thread

168 Responses to “Iowa Open Thread”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out