The key phrase is "continuous coverage" In many cases, this has already been banned. In Texas, you can't get booted off your insurance if you suddenly develop a pre-existing condition. Similarly if you're on an employer's group plan, you can't be denied access to insurance in most instances. That said, if you are shopping on the open market by yourself and have a pre-existing condition you can currently be denied. What Romney is proposing doesn't actually change that. The ACA on the other hand expressly requires that insurance companies can not deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions for any reason Mitt Romney is basically advocating the status quo and pretending he will push for a popular piece of the ACA.
Yes and he's got his tongue so tied on this he's going to have a hell of a time when it comes up in the debates.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/09/ohio-republicans-poll-romney-bin-laden In what some (one guy on Twitter) have called "a stroke of comic genius," Public Policy Polling decided to ask Ohio Republicans who they thought "deserved more credit for the killing of Osama bin Laden: Barack Obama or Mitt Romney. In what some (my colleague Tim Murphy) have called "the greatest thing ever," a full 15 percent of Ohio Republicans surveyed said Romney deserved more credit than the president. Another 47 percent said they were "unsure."
i think, more specifically, columbus, ohio is the testing ground for the least common denominator of the US.
While I agree with most of what he said that it's not time to panic, it's weird that a pollster is sending this out. His job and expertise is in polling - not campaign strategy or analysis. I don't see why they wouldn't have an actual Romney campaign strategist sending this out. Only the last bullet point had anything to do with what this guy specializes in.
My guess is that having a pollster (that is, a "science/math guy") say it lends it an appearance of objectivity and truthiness. This is not the first time this particular poster has made "no time to panic, things are fine" announcements: http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/ta...012/09/10/well-if-newhouse-says-so-panic.aspx Published Sep 10 2012, 10:00 AM by David S. Bernstein 0 The Romney campaign is pushing out a memo from its pollster, Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies. It's not a 'leaked internal' memo, it's written for the public, in an attempt to tamp down the sense that Obama might be pulling ahead in the race. This is never a good sign for a campaign, and this memo is especially troubling; it contains no internal polling numbers to refute the public ones, it cherry-picks a few data points from public polls, and mostly it just kind of argues that voters will eventually pick Romney because the economy sucks. Yeesh. But what's really worrying is that we've seen this kind of thing from Newhouse before. Who in Massachusetts can forget the mid-October release of a Newhouse memo claiming an internal poll had Charlie Baker 7 points ahead of Deval Patrick, countering the public polls to the contrary -- most notably a Suffolk University poll showing Patrick ahead by 7? And two weeks later, the Newhouse memo claiming that "it appears that Charlie Baker is well-positioned to win this race"? Patrick won by 6 points. Or how about 2006, when the Kerry Healey campaign ran around touting an internal Newhouse poll that showed Patrick's lead cut in half, to single digits, and public opinion of her improving? Healey lost by 21 points. I'm not saying Newhouse is a terrible pollster. What I'm saying is that when a campaign is touting Newhouse claims to counter external evidence, in my experience that spells trouble for the campaign.
This is also the pollster that gave us the now famous line... "We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers" Now why would a pollster say something like that?
Here is the complete quote which indicates why he said it. "Fact-checkers come to this with their own sets of thoughts and beliefs and you know what? We're not going let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers."
Now, if you look out the left side of the plane, you'll see what's left of the wing. If you look out the right side, you'll see the mountains where we'll crash any second. Please assume the put-your-head-between-your-legs-and-kiss-your-a$$-goodbye position.
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/vdnY8r7_fLw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> We’re going to be gifted with a healthcare plan that we’re forced to purchase and fined if we don’t, which purportedly covers at least 10 million more people without adding a single doctor but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn’t understand it, passed by a Congress that didn’t read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes — [laughter] — same sentence! — with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn’t pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government that has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese — [laughter] — and finally, financed by a country that’s broke.
