Exploring Opinions on Mitt Romney's Candidacy

[WhoWee]

I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!

It's $3.50 to approaching $4.00 in metro areas this week.

 

[WhoWee]

The "contraceptive thing", I think, is more of an issue for religious leaders than religious voters. It seems, for instance, that the majority of catholics support the contraception mandate (e.g. this poll). Others have found similar results.

Please do source that quote, by the way.

EDIT: I found it. He said...



Which is objectively true, so I can't understand why anyone would take issue with it. "Muslim country" in this instance is clearly referring to "a country with Muslims in it". Anyone who attempts to present this as some sort of affront or persecution towards Christianity is distorting the statement so radically that it almost has to be a deliberate, strategic, malicious lie.

The point is evangelicals are not going to flock to President Obama because (as turbo stated) "At least Obama is a conventional Christian."

 

[Number Nine]

The point is evangelicals are not going to flock to President Obama because (as turbo stated) "At least Obama is a conventional Christian."

Granted, but evangelicals are an overwhelmingly conservative population anyway, so it's not a terribly devastating loss (incidentally, white protestants are about evenly split on the contraceptive issue as well).

 

[WhoWee]

Granted, but evangelicals are an overwhelmingly conservative population anyway, so it's not a terribly devastating loss (incidentally, white protestants are about evenly split on the contraceptive issue as well).

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

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

 

[Number Nine]

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

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

And as I have pointed out, the majority of catholics and close to half of white protestants support the contraception mandate. This is nothing new; similar laws have been on and off the books for years, it only became controversial when Obama became involved (opposing contraception has always been a losing battle, but the issue happens to fit in well with Obama's supposed "War on Christianity^tm", so religious leaders are willing to oppose it this election season).

The government is not exerting influence over a church, it's exerting influence over an employer. The claim that the church officials oppose the plan because it forced the church to pay for contraception is demonstrably false, since they continued to oppose the plan even when Obama agreed to compromise and exempt the church from the policy. The problem the church has with the policy is the idea that somewhere, someone is using contraception against their wishes.

 

[WhoWee]

And as I have pointed out, the majority of catholics and close to half of white protestants support the contraception mandate. This is nothing new; similar laws have been on and off the books for years, it only became controversial when Obama became involved (opposing contraception has always been a losing battle, but the issue happens to fit in well with Obama's supposed "War on Christianity^tm", so religious leaders are willing to oppose it this election season).

The government is not exerting influence over a church, it's exerting influence over an employer. The claim that the church officials oppose the plan because it forced the church to pay for contraception is demonstrably false, since they continued to oppose the plan even when Obama agreed to compromise and exempt the church from the policy. The problem the church has with the policy is the idea that somewhere, someone is using contraception against their wishes.

On the contraceptive issue, does anyone else find it odd George Stephanopoulas pressed Romney with contraceptive-related questions in a debate a week or two prior to this becoming an issue?

http://campaign2012.washingtonexami...am-romney-steph-obsessed-contraception/300041

"MANCHESTER, NH -- Aides to Gov. Mitt Romney were left shaking their heads late Saturday night after a question directed to Romney by ABC News' George Stephanopoulos on the issue of contraception. After the debate, one top Romney aide suggested Stephanopoulos has a "strange obsession" with contraception and called the query "the oddest question in a debate this year."

In the debate's second segment, Stephanopoulos noted that GOP candidate Rick Santorum has criticized Supreme Court rulings on the issue of privacy. Stephanopoulos turned to Romney and said, "Governor Romney, do you believe that states have the right to ban contraception? Or is that trumped by a constitutional right to privacy?"

Romney looked both amused and perplexed at the same time. "George, this is an unusual topic that you're raising," he said. Romney explained that no state has any intention of banning contraception, but Stephanopoulos pressed the question again. "George, I don't know whether a state has a right to ban contraception," Romney said. "No state wants to. I mean, the idea of you putting forward things that states might want to do that no state wants to do and asking me whether they could do it or not is a kind of silly thing." Later, an exasperated Romney concluded, "Contraception -- it's working just fine. Just leave it alone." The crowd applauded.

Stephanopoulos appeared to be trying to push Romney to make a statement about a 1965 case, Griswold v. Connecticut, that involved an unenforced state law on contraception and was a precursor to Roe v. Wade. Romney would not play along."

 

[lisab]

I don't see how that graph addresses that issue at all.

Then you must have missed the part of the graph that shows Romney losing support of Independents to Obama.

 

[mheslep]

I don't know about you, but where I am, it was about 3.00 per gallon. Which it's about now. So good for Obama!

US avg price was $3.52 at the pump on Monday, making $4.50 a 27% increase. Iranian hot war with Israel is the event most talking about increasing the price, though I expect the recent increase over the last couple months is already partially pricing in that possibility, that and the take away of the KXL pipeline future expectations. So yes prices have about doubled since Obama took office. That's good for him?

 

[russ_watters]

Then you must have missed the part of the graph that shows Romney losing support of Independents to Obama.

No, i certainly didn't. You said:

The graph was in response to WhoWee's assumption that since far-right voters don't seem to be warming up to Romney, he will get the Independent vote.

Since Romney isn't running against Obama, he can't currently get the independent vote from Obama. He can only get the independent vote from Santorum. Your graph doesn't say if he is or isn't getting the independent vote from Santorum.

You are concluding that the graph says that Romney can't win independent votes from Obama, but it doesn't since Romney isn't currently courting Obama-leaning independent voters!

Also, the title of the graph was just plain wrong. It says "As republican primary drags on, independents abandon Romney for Obama". In other words, it is saying that there is a trend of Romney losing more and more independent voters with time. But that isn't true: the graph clearly shows a single point step-change in the polling with the numbers flat since then. But then, this isn't surprising considering the source is a liberal blog site.

 

[lisab]

No, i certainly didn't. You said: Since Romney isn't running against Obama, he can't currently get the independent vote from Obama. He can only get the independent vote from Santorum. Your graph doesn't say if he is or isn't getting the independent vote from Santorum.

You are concluding that the graph says that Romney can't win independent votes from Obama, but it doesn't since Romney isn't currently courting Obama-leaning independent voters!

Hmm. I read that several times...you use too many double-negatives.

The graph is of "Independents". It doesn't say if they excluded Obama-leaning Independents.

For clarification, go back to Whowee's statement. He seemed to be under the impression that since the far-right isn't warming up to Romney, that will help him get the Independent vote. That neglects the obvious -- that Independents have a choice between anyone in the race, not just the GOPers.

 

[SixNein]

US avg price was $3.52 at the pump on Monday, making $4.50 a 27% increase. Iranian hot war with Israel is the event most talking about increasing the price, though I expect the recent increase over the last couple months is already partially pricing in that possibility, that and the take away of the KXL pipeline future expectations. So yes prices have about doubled since Obama took office. That's good for him?

Gas prices dropped due to lower expected demand resulting from the economic meltdown. So in that sense, higher gas prices is good news for Obama.

On the other hand, gas prices will become more and more an issue for the United States and the world. We have almost certainly reached peak production on oil, and it will likely have an effect on our economy and the world economy in general. But I don't know how much any President will be able to do about it.

 

[mheslep]

On the other hand, gas prices will become more and more an issue for the United States and the world. We have almost certainly reached peak production on oil, ...

I seriously doubt that is the case.

December N. Dakota was 534 thousand bbs per day.

But I don't know how much any President will be able to do about it.

He can stop cancelling pipelines for one thing, and otherwise stay out the way. No chance of that though.

 

[SixNein]

I seriously doubt that is the case.

December N. Dakota was 534 thousand bbs per day.
He can stop cancelling pipelines for one thing, and otherwise stay out the way. No chance of that though.

Why would you seriously doubt it?

Before you get too worked up over the 534k figure, you might want too look at consumption rates:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2174rank.html

 

[mheslep]

Why would you seriously doubt it?

Because the use of newer technology has increased production 500% in the last three years, and that geology exists in many other places.

http://www.theoildrum.com/files/eia_BP_jodi_iea.png

The Oil Drum? A peak oil agenda blog?

Before you get too worked up over the 534k figure, you might want too look at consumption rates:

Which are i) falling, ii) a change of subject from production, iii) is continuing off topic of at least Presidential roles (my fault for pursuing).

 

[SixNein]

Because the use of newer technology has increased production 500% in the last three years, and that geology exists in many other places.

Citigroup made a similar argument:

The belief that global oilproduction has peaked, or is on the cusp of doing so, has underpinned much of crudeoil’s decade-long rally (setting aside the 2008 sell-off).
.
.
That pattern looks set to change mainly because of the new shale oil plays in the US.

https://www.citigroupgeo.com/pdf/SEUNHGJJ.pdf

But they are quite optimistic, and the WSJ noted that:

Despite this optimism, it’s a fair bet that not everyone will be convinced. Indeed, there is good reason to be skeptical that the world’s oil production can be forever buoyed by new technology. This is the fact that, year in year out, oil production from existing areas like the North Sea or Alaska declines steadily, meaning the industry must run just to stand still.

http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2012/02/17/citigroup-says-peak-oil-is-dead/

Obviously, the market is still betting on peak.

 

[ThomasT]

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

 

[turbo]

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

 

[ThomasT]

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

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

What do you mean by "positive change"?

 

[BobG]

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

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

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

 

[AlephZero]

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

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

 

[mheslep]

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

 

[ParticleGrl]

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

 

[BobG]

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

 

[Alfi]

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

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

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

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

 

[skeptic2]

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

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

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

 

[WhoWee]

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

Can you please explain/support?