OBAMA: There's no indication that [Romney's plan] somehow is going to help somebody who's got a pre-existing condition be able to finally buy insurance. In fact, it's estimated that by repealing Obamacare, you're looking at 50 million people losing health insurance at a time when it's vitally important...
LEHRER: Let's let the governor explain what you would do ...
ROMNEY: Well, actually it's -- it's -- it's a lengthy description. But, number one, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.
Flavius: note the word covered
Brian Buetler:
Romney Adviser Gives Up The Ghost On Pre-existing Conditions: After the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Colorado on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged that, as a result Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance. The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back.
“With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, referring to existing laws which require insurance companies to sell coverage to people who already have insurance, or within 90 days of losing their employer coverage.
Pressed by TPM’s Evan McMorris-Santoro, Fehrnstrom said those who currently lack coverage because they have pre-existing conditions would need their states to implement their own laws — like Romney’s own Massachusetts health care law — that ban insurance company from discriminating against sick people.
Comments
I have so little trust that the MSM will mass publish the truth about all of Romney's lies - the little bit of research I did afterwards on fact check sites clearly state that about his tax plan (gag) and healthcare as well as some other statements he either lied or gave 'half truths' (isn't that like being a little bit pregnant?) - but this a.m. just perusing a couple of sites, I see very little of this being reported.
Of course, I also think that the media is just gleeful because now it's stir the pot time and ratchet it up so they can do what they do best and sadly, that doesn't even come close to practicing actual journalism.
by Aunt Sam on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 12:05pm
Also for some segments it suits their political bias to leave his lies uncorrected.
For others, welcoming a good story isn't a sin, but needn't prevent also correcting lies.
by Flavius on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 1:40pm
Yeah I saw this; probably the single greatest lie of about fifty told last night.
There is that Leno? appearance where Mitt states clearly that only those who have had a continuous coverage over the years regardless of the number of insurance carriers involved.
If I recall correctly Mitt said that if that 25 year old decided (don't you love that word?) not to 'opt' for coverage and he is diagnosed with cancer at age 45, well too bad for him!
Last night Mitt just lied straight out and he will cover this up--if he is ever challenged on the issue--that he merely meant that those with continuous coverage would be free of any pre-existing health provision in his current plan.
by Richard Day on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 3:29pm
I actually found this very encouraging. At some level , I shouldn't have. It's not a good thing that a brilliant, powerful candidate for President feels he can get away with telling a lie in response to a challenge from the President..
But at the level of just plain politics whatever gain in support Romney achieved by his "performance"- which is what it was -last night is going to be diminished when viewers who were impressed by him learn that they've been "had". Been blatantly lied to.
This may be a measure of my naivety but I think that "net net" result that he may ultimately have lost votes. I hope so. He deserves to.
by Flavius on Thu, 10/04/2012 - 10:05pm