Mitt v. Mitt
Posted on:: October 8th, 2012
Previous: « Obama’s argument || Next: [2b2k] Skepticism about stories »
|
 Speaker info Hard to Read? Style 1 Style 2 Default Toggle Sidebar |
3 Responses to “Mitt v. Mitt”
Leave a Reply
Joho the Blog by David Weinberger is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Creative Commons license: Share it freely, but attribute it to me, and don't use it commercially without my permission.
Joho the Blog gratefully uses WordPress blogging software.
Thank you, WordPress!
My Google profile
Seriously? You support the guy for whom every single promise has an expiration date, and you get upset over this?
Truly, irony is not dead.
Mr. Robertson:
Particularly upsetting to me is that during the debate he LIED about his health care plan and pre-existing conditions. His plan does NOT cover a person who develops a problem before he or she gets insurance or who has a lapse in insurance and tries to get new insurance.
As a doctor, I see this problem in patients on a regular basis. His proposal is the same as the law before “Obamacare” and EXCLUDES what most of us call pre-existing conditions for at least the first year of coverage. The President’s plan allows people to get insurance, even if they have a problem. A striking example in my practice recently was a Pastor and his wife, also a church employee, who had their coverage inadvertently dropped by the church. They were uncovered for care for serious problems they both encountered while uninsured. These are both hard-working people who had problems not of their making that would have been avoided if the new law had been in effect. Gov. Romney just lied about it, plain and simple.
Oh, I support the candidate who does not write-off 47% of the population as dependent with no chance of contributing to society. I am one of the 47%, I guess, since I receive Social Security and Medicare (the best insurance I have ever had).