Few remember that Obama was against it, before he was for it. Another evolved position perhaps.Indeed it was an evolved position, as the the President discussed in the CBS News interview linked to in the article you provided:http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5162895n(go to the 8:55 mark to hear the question and response on mandates)"I have come to that (individual mandate) conclusion. During the campaign I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don't have health insurance is not because they don't want it, it's because they can't afford it. And if you make it affordable, they will come. I've been persuaded that there are enough young, uninsured people -- who are cheap to cover but are opting out -- that to make sure those folks are part of the overall pool is the best way to make sure that all of our premiums go down."IOW, the President speaks openly and honestly of his original position, and how he was persuaded to take a different course. It's much more difficult, in my view, to reconcile Gov. Romney's shifting positions that seem to evolve/devolve based on phases of the moon.To me, Romney's doing exactly as FDR described all those years ago: He'll do away with Obamacare, but keep all the best stuff, and it won't cost a dime. He'll give tax cuts *and* reduce the deficit ("It's revenue neutral!", Rep. Ryan insists), and no one will feel any pain. We'll slash Medicare spending and move to a voucher system, but not to worry -- everything will be just fine. I'll challenge you or anyone else here to reconcile Gov. Romney's shifting positions. And that would be quite a feat because he hasn't been able to do so himself.Speck
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra