August 3, 2007

New Hampshire waitress versus Mitt Romney.

This is a useful video clip, because it shows Mitt Romney explaining his approach to health care and dealing with a high pressure confrontation from a voter. Really, there is nothing he can say that will fully satisfy the woman, but he uses the occasion to display himself as a rational problem-solver. He does not, however, try to connect with the woman on an emotional level, and after the exchange she is close to tears. "That's money off my table," she complains. His hour-long presence in the restaurant has cost her tips.

I think Romney ought to have walked up to the woman and asked her a few questions about the three sick children she mentioned and expressed some sympathy about how hard it is for her. He could have hugged her or taken her hand. Instead, he tried to win the debate on the substantive merits, something he's pretty good at. Yet he missed the chance to do something he could easily have done. And, once again, he looks a little cold and robotic. It's so unnecessary!

Picture how Bill Clinton -- or even George Bush -- would have handled this situation. That woman was emotionally fragile, not a heckler. Someone needs to teach Romney a few tricks.

58 comments:

vet66 said...

The waitress gave up her tips when she confronted Romney. What did she expect when she asked a politician running for the Presidency a loaded question? Either prepare for a marathon answer and no tips or pour coffee, listen and learn, and don't play the "Woe is me" card in front of cameras.

As for Romney not praying with the woman (Mormon prosletyzing?) a la Bush, or getting a close in hug from Bill with all that photo-op portends, Romney is not about to try and calm a weepy woman who is having financial problems.

Romney did all he could in a no-win situation. Hopefully, his entourage picked up the tab and left a 20% tip.

MadisonMan said...

Picture how Bill Clinton -- or even George Bush -- would have handled this situation.

...and look how well those Presidencies turned out!!

Tim said...

Yes, Romney should have expressed some sympathy - but even then it wouldn't have helped much.

Republicans are at a decided disadvantage on health care - too many people think they ought to have health care at someone else's expense - their employer, their doctor, the hospital, the drug company - anyone but themselves. The economics of this, of course, are unsustainable - but Democrats pimp the lie you can have free, excellent, and unlimited care, and folks have bought into it.

Sure you can. It's right on the shelf in Halliburton's basement next to the free energy machine they are hiding from us. Another win for demagoguery.

AJ Lynch said...

The waitress would not be mollified no matter what. She wanted free stuff and indicated as much when she complained about co-pays, deductibles.

Tim put it better than I will but manyof the people who are demanding universal healthcare view it as encompassing the ability to go to a doctor as many times as they like and at no charge. Can't be done unless the Fed budget is maybe doubled.

EnigmatiCore said...

I'm more curious about how Giuliani would have handled the same situation, than I am about how the last two Presidents would have.

vet66 said...

Interesting that the subject of health care comes up in a restaurant at the same time the flaming jihadist physician dies of his self-inflicted injuries.

Tongue in cheek? Under the democratic health plan we could hire jihadist physicians to work on the cheap as the countries Marcus Welby types retire.

Maxine Weiss said...

"I mean, Pauline tries to keep her end up, but between you, me and the gatepost, she always been a bit on the slovenly side. I mean, far be it from me to tell tales out school, but half the time she didn't even dry the clothes properly. I mean if she had a rush on, 40ps worth of tumble was all they got. I've seen her shove a bag of steaming towels into the blue plastic without so much as batting an eyelid. Well that ain't fair to your paying customers, is it? No. Do as you would be done by, that's always been my motto. Now when I did a service wash, I used to use one of them scented sheets and I didn't charge for it, it came out of me own pocket. I mean, you know the things I mean, don't you, Guizin? Them what stop your socks clinging to your unmentionables; well you can't have that, can you? And of course, I used to fold everything. I mean, that was the secret of my success, it was all in the folds. Half the regulars go to that new one, you know, with the do-it-yourself cleaner machines on the Hackney Marshes, so I've heard. I mean, mind you, not that that's much of an improvement. I mean, you'd be better off flinging your bits and bobs against the rocks like you used to in the old days."

EnigmatiCore said...

"The waitress would not be mollified no matter what. She wanted free stuff and indicated as much when she complained about co-pays, deductibles."

I agree that she would not be mollified. And I guess that there is a way to look at it to say that she wanted 'free stuff', but that sounds to me like trying to make her sound like some lazy freeloader.

Sure, she wants health care for her family. She wants to be able to afford it, and what she can't afford she wants to be able to get anyway. Her wants stem from actual needs, though. She needs health care, and finds it frustrating that she cannot meet her needs.

When you argue that just because she wants something doesn't make it anyone else's problem, then rightfully others are going to look at you as a cold-hearted bastard. Even if you can make a solid philosophic argument against the evils of socialism.

The Democrats have a solution-- have government pay more to make it more affordable for people.

There is are problems with this solution, however. People don't want to pay more in taxes. More importantly, the reason the cost is high is because there is a limited supply. Lowering the price increases demand, and that will just make supply issues more difficult.

The GOP, or at least conservatives, don't have the answer, since they immediately yell 'socialism' and talk about individual responsibility.

I have not read all of the candidate's full plans yet, but hopefully one will have a plan that is focused on increasing supply. Making it more profitable to be a doctor, or to develop new medicines, and less risky to practice (in the form of litigation). That will result in greater availability, which will result in lower prices and shorter waits for care.

bill said...

Sounds like Romney was channeling the Food Whore:

But the tide has changed into today's society. All you have to do is click on any given news site to see the decline of so many. People are out for #1, and by God if you get in the way you will get berated, harassed - and in some cases sued. It is this self-entitled, self-indulgent attitude that has put people like me on the defense, or on the offense depending on which way you look at it.

So the customer is not always right. You don't have to be perfect, and you certainly don't have to fall all over yourself gushing with praise and compliments.


Running for president is about a country, so good for him for not condescending to the the individual. Boo emotions. Yea robotic!

knoxwhirled said...

I don't think he should have hugged her--she came out swinging, and it would have seemed disingenuous or patronizing if he'd tried to soothe her. But he did sound stupid talking in platitudes like "We Got The Job Done In My State." It's not cold or robotic as much as slimy political rhetoric.

Anyway, she obviously think any solution is not good enough unless it means she has to pay nothing. It sounded to me like no deductible or copay would be small enough to satisfy her.

enigmatic, People don't want to pay more in taxes is only one of many reasons "conservatives" object to socialized medicine. There are many scarier consequences besides higher taxes.

vet66 said...

An acquaintance was recently turned down for medical insurance of some sort because the individual was obese.

The medical company specified how much weight was to be lost before elegibility was to be considered.

Be careful what you ask for! Don't smoke, don't drink, don't gain too much weight, don't lose too much weight, get exercise, watch your diet and you may qualify for health care.

Or violate all of the above and pay for your own! Choice is yours!

amba said...

I'd rather they don't learn "tricks." I'd rather be unconsoled than manipulated.

Anyway, there are some it comes naturally to, and that's the only time it comes across. For Bill "I feel your pain" Clinton, it was part of his seduction repertoire and need. For George Bush it was . . . I don't know. His comfort with regular folks?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Like it or not, universal health care is an inevitability. The rising costs of health care are not only unsustainable by the individual but are putting a huge strain on businesses which is having an impact on our ability to compete. When health care costs increase at rates of 7-12% annually and business are having to foot the lion’s share of that costs in the form of benefits, its not surprising to see them outsource jobs to China and India.

If the main burden of providing health care coverage is leveraged across the board with corporate, personal and say, a federal sales tax, you’ll see corporate America including small business push for it.

Part of this ‘crisis’ falls on us and our expectations of health care. AJ Lynch said it right in that many people want unlimited access with no out of pocket costs at which I say people in hell want ice water. We’re going to pay for it not in insurance premiums but in taxes and most likely with rationed care. I’m expecting to see an expansion of Medicare in that it will just cover everyone and the private industry will hang in there selling supplements to cover what Medicare doesn’t. That is probably the best case scenario

carly said...

I'm not a Mitt supporter but I AM a supporter of logic and reason; I don't really care how a person makes me "feel". And I want the President of the US to be a person who thinks, not one who feels. Personally, I don't even care how a person behaves in his/her personal life.

I think it's a shame that candidates for political office have to cozy up to people in order to win; and it's a shame there there seem to be so many people stupid enough to base their decisions on how someone makes them feel.

When I go to the voting booth I pull the lever for someone to represent me in government; not to be my friend--or my parent. If more people accepted the fact that politics is a business, I think we'd get better elected officials. And maybe we'd even be able to move AWAY from a nanny state instead of hurtling faster toward
one.

AJ Lynch said...

EC said:

"The GOP, or at least conservatives, don't have the answer, since they immediately yell 'socialism' and talk about individual responsibility. "

That is not true- I have a plan- enact a universal payroll tax of about 3-4% and every citizen gets a voucher that can be used to buy their own insurance. If you choose low deductible and low co-pays, that mean you will pay more of the premium out of your own pocket. The employer gets out of the health insurance game, plans are no longer linked to your job.

Hell citizens get a voucher even if you don't work. That is my plan in a nutshell. Best part is no changing your insurance when you change jobs!! Sound good? Vote for me - I am running for Emperor.

And I think Republicans like Romney, Guiliani have plans too.

So you are wrong when you say Republicans and conservatives have no plan.

Tim said...

"...Making it more profitable to be a doctor, or to develop new medicines, and less risky to practice (in the form of litigation). That will result in greater availability, which will result in lower prices and shorter waits for care."

Well, Enigmatic, there's your paradox. We want to increase supply to reduce prices, yet to increase supply we have to improve wages/reimbursements.

As for your erroneous statement that the GOP/conservatives don't have THE answer, sure - no one does, including the Democrats. They would just shift costs to taxpayers, using tax dollars to buy more health care. It ain't rocket science.

The better way to go is to erode the third-party payer system, get employers out of the game, provide tax equity and tax incentives for both buying health care coverage AND taking care of oneself (isn't it odd that as out of pocket health care expenses decline for Americans [as they are], Americans are increasingly unhappy with their health care?). There are, of course, other systemic changes necessary, but until the third-party payer system and its attendant ills are eroded, everything else is in vain.

paul a'barge said...

....He could have hugged her or taken her hand...

Sexual Harassment.

Geez, what is it with you people (feminists). You want to be touched. You don't want to be touched.

Not long ago GWB gave the German leader (female) a friendly pat on the back, and the nuance crowd went ballistic about it.

How about this? We give you folks two white signs with hand sticks on them. One says Touch me! and the other says Do NOT Touch me!!. And you folks walk around holding up one of the other.

Would that be ok?

EnigmatiCore said...

"If you choose low deductible and low co-pays, that mean you will pay more of the premium out of your own pocket. The employer gets out of the health insurance game, plans are no longer linked to your job."

I can see how this can impact demand.

I fail to see how this would increase supply. And when it boils right down to it, this is what everyone really wants/needs. We want/need the supply for the catch-all "health care" to be significantly more abundant.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Well, Enigmatic, there's your paradox. We want to increase supply to reduce prices, yet to increase supply we have to improve wages/reimbursements."

I guess I am failing to see the paradox here, unless one believes that the only way to reduce prices is to reduce profits. I do not believe this to be the case.

There are plenty of things which increase the "cost-to-market" for doctors and for medicines. Working on eliminating or minimizing those would be the approach that appeals to me.

EnigmatiCore said...

By the way, I completely understand the dynamics where third-party pay systems increase demand to levels that are unnecessary.

I just believe that it is less important to fix that side of the equation as to fix the other side. We want to live, and we want to increase the health of our families. We, therefore, are always going to want to improve the supply side of the health care equation. That is where the focus needs to be.

AJ Lynch said...

Enigmatic said:
"I fail to see how this would increase supply. And when it boils right down to it, this is what everyone really wants/needs. We want/need the supply for the catch-all "health care" to be significantly more abundant."

Do ANY of the Dem candidates have a plan that increases the "supply" (number of) doctors, nurses, healthcare providers??

No they do not- the Dem plans just want to take the "Pain spelled PAYING" OUT OF THE EQUATION. That will greatly increase demand and will not increase the supply unless the Dems pump more billions into the equation.

My plan gives every citizen the resources to buy basic coverage and every citizen has to dig into theor own pocket to pay for other than basic services. That sound fair? If not, let's just give everyone a BMW too so they can drive themselves to the doctor.

hdhouse said...

That poor woman spends probably $15,000+ a year on health care. That is $15,000 after tax dollars so if she is in a minimal situation it equates to nearly $20,000 in earned income.

People who go to the emergency room for routine care with no way of paying get it for free as Romney pointed out but that argument means nothing to someone who is paying through the nose. The ones who pay the most are the ones who don't have insurance but have enough money because the fee charges are based on insurance payment schedules and are thus inflated to maximize insurance receiveables.

What she is saying to Romney is "that isn't fair" and what Romney was pressed into doing in Massachusetts won't play nationally because of the "for profit" insurance interests and physician money.

We may have all the technology the world has ever seen but we fail to realize that preventive medicine is the greatest cost savings. She is right to demand a fix

NOT as VET says about "wanting a handout" and others ascribe to her as "get it for free".

He cared about his soundbites and talking points and not an iota about her. That stinks.

hdhouse said...

paul a'barge said...
"Not long ago GWB gave the German leader (female) a friendly pat on the back, and the nuance crowd went ballistic about it."

NO HE DIDN'T. He gave her a shoulder rub..and unwelcomed one at that. Stop being inaccurate.

EnigmatiCore said...

"Do ANY of the Dem candidates have a plan that increases the "supply" (number of) doctors, nurses, healthcare providers??"

I did not say that they do. What I said was at least their plan has some appeal for people who feel they cannot get what they want or need.


"My plan gives every citizen the resources to buy basic coverage and every citizen has to dig into theor own pocket to pay for other than basic services. That sound fair?"

It sounds fair, except if one cannot get the health care they want or need, or at least not without incredible hardship. Like the waitress here. I doubt it would sound fair to her.

So do not wonder why she'll turn to the Democrats' plans.

If we solve the harder problem-- making health care and the components thereof abundant, then the questions of fairness melt away, the possibilities for class warfare diminish, and we all get to be healthier.

I say we try to tackle the harder problem. Figure out how to lower the entry costs to being a doctor. Figure out how to make it cheaper to bring new medicines to market. Figure out how to reduce the risks that cause insurance to be so prohibitive, but do so carefully so that people still have protection from negligence and malpractice.

Not easy, but more likely to work than socialized medicine, and more likely to win public favor than "go it alone, because that's fair."

Tim said...

EC said: "I just believe that it is less important to fix that side of the equation as to fix the other side."

Except it is the primary, underlying economic relationship of our entire health care system. Not fixing that is like adding on to a house with a crumbling foundation - you're just making a big problem bigger.

I know you aren't arguing that "health care is a right," but they, and anyone, seeking to effectively "reform" health care in the U.S. has to address the underlying economic dysfunction of the third-party payer system. Most Americans, save for the small percentage of those in the individual market, get their health care from a third-party - either the government (Medicaid, Medicare, VA/Champus) - or their employer. This distorts economic signals on both the supply and demand side; until we fix that, everything - supply, demand, innovation, etc., will continue to be distorted as well.

Tim said...

PS: Dems just want to redistribute wealth to buy more health care, er, strike that, they want to buy votes by buying voters health care.

AJ Lynch said...

"If we solve the harder problem-- making health care and the components thereof abundant, then the questions of fairness melt away, the possibilities for class warfare diminish, and we all get to be healthier."

You can't make more doctors unless you can do one of two things:
1- Increase the average earnings of doctors. 2- Increase the average IQ of human beings.

I have a niece and nephew in pre-med and they have to study their asses off to get good grades and I have to bite my tongue from trying to persuade them from going to work on Wall Street instead.

Hdhouse - my plan would cover many of her costs via my voucher program. But I will exclude you from my plan because you are too dumb to select your own insurance plan heh.

EnigmatiCore said...

"You can't make more doctors unless you can do one of two things:
1- Increase the average earnings of doctors. "

You can reduce the costs of being a doctor.

I further suggest to you that our supply of doctors is not limited by our supply of smart people. There are plenty of people with more than sufficient brainpower to be doctors, who make less than what doctors make. Some would have chosen to be doctors if the costs of becoming a doctor were not so high, or if the risks of being a doctor were not so high.

The problem with health care is one of scarcity. We can remove scarcity by removing demand. Or we can remove scarcity by increasing supply.

As long as people have health issues, there is only so much demand that can be removed. It is a challenge, but the right answer is to increase supply.

chickenlittle said...

We could reduce the costs of educating doctors along the lines of what we do in graduate science education. The eventual result may be what happened to science though- an initial perceived shortage lead to an overabundance, which finally led to a domestic shortage which was fed by overseas applicants.

TMink said...

I don't vote for a hug.

Trey

Original Mike said...

Maybe I wasn't paying attention prior, but it was with Bill Clinton that I first noticed this expectation that the President of the United States feel my pain. This is the last thing I want from my President. The person should be too busy to be the emoter-in-chief. Good grief.

With respect to this woman and health care; if she's poor enough, the government should pick up her health care costs. And it does. It's called Medicaid. And if Medicaid is underfunded, we should talk about fixing that. But the problem with universal health care is precisely that it covers everybody. There no such thing as "free for everybody". Haven't any of the Dems ever taken an economics course?

Matthew said...

The woman said her copays were too high, but I thought I heard her say they were $30. To me, anything less than $100 is ridiculous. But in fact, I do think chronic disabilities should be covered by the government, because it's simply too expensive a burden for the individual or family. I favor universal catastrophic insurance for this. But it only should cover those without, and the sytem should be totally private. Government would just dole out funds with no strings attached.

Everything else including end of life care should be provided by private insurance or paid out of pocket. And the entire medical field should be totally deregulated. When you can go to India and get American level open-heart surgery for 90% less than it costs here, you know we've got some major issues with taxes, regulations, and tort.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AJ Lynch said...

Did anyone else notice there are many more good ideas and propoals here than you will find in a Dem or Rep debate.

Original Mike said...

"Universal catastrophic insurance."

I could get behind that, but that isn't even remotely what they're talking about. One of our regulars, Freder, couldn't even understand the concept.

Original Mike said...

"Universal catastrophic insurance."

I could get behind that, but that isn't even remotely what they're talking about. One of our regulars, Freder, couldn't even understand the concept.

Galvanized said...

The Presidency isn't about being the Boss and telling people how it is. Empathy and interpersonal skills are quite high on my list in a Presidential candidate. And the ability to answer tough questions from irate or dissatisfied voters and make them feel listened to and effective in your policy decision-making is a basic requirement.

Galvanized said...

And I think that the "feel your pain" technique in campaiging began long before Clinton. Remember the "chicken in every pot, a car in every garage" speech? There is a need to be accountable to the "little man" in politics, even in the highest office.

chickenlittle said...

Matthew said: "But in fact, I do think chronic disabilities should be covered by the government"

"should" is becoming "will be". People like me have voluntarily help carry such burdens without help of the government. I buy health insurance for my family of four and because we are healthy, we have paid much more in healthcare than we have gotten out. In a year or so, my employer will be offering a much high deductable option. I'm ambivalent about switching (feeling older?, unlucky?), but I cannot blame younger people from contemplating doing so.

Fred said...

You know, I think George W. would have handled this situation a lot better, and that says a lot.

Bush struggles with speech, but he wears his heart on his sleeve and that will be his saving grace as politics eat away at what remains of the administration.

Bill Clinton would've received an A+ for effort and a gold star for performance, it's just an unfair comparison. When it comes to 'handling' crowds, people, and hostile environments, he is in a league of his own.

Geoff Matthews said...

The last I saw, there were in excess of 300 million people in the U.S., and I'd bet there are at least 300 million different problems that they face. I'd rather that my president were a problem solver than an sympathizer. A president will be overwhelmed if (s)he takes an actual interest in 300 million+ people. Solving problems is less so.

But showing sympathy plays well for the emotional. Fine and all, but it doesn't SOLVE PROBLEMS.

ricpic said...

Being rational isn't enough in feminized America, the candidate has to exude oily feelings!

paul a'barge said...

HDHouse: NO HE DIDN'T. He gave her a shoulder rub..and unwelcomed one at that. Stop being inaccurate

A shoulder rub takes more than a couple of seconds. I watched the film, and his hands were on her shoulders no longer than a couple of seconds. So you're wrong.

Not only are you wrong (congenitally), but you have no idea what was in her brain as GWB proceeded to the podium to give his portion of the speeches. So, not only are you wrong, you're an idiot.

Please hold that little white sign up a bit higher, HDHouse ... the one that says No! Do NOT Touch me!!

Just so we can figure out where all sphincter-monkeys are coming from.

MadisonMan said...

A shoulder rub takes more than a couple of seconds

I'm curious where that rule comes from.

If you go to youtube and search on Bush Shoulder Rub, you can see it. My opinion is that A. Merkel is pretty weirded out by the whole thing. She certainly didn't react like she welcomed it.

EnigmatiCore said...

"I'm curious where that rule comes from."

I don't know, but whenever I try to cut one short my spouse brings it up and I have to keep going.

Simon said...

I think Trey nailed it with a kind of zen mantra- "I don't vote for a hug." Romney gave the best answer he could have given, although I'd rather he said "I'm sorry, maybe you misheard me, I'm running for President of the United States, not Governor of New Hampshire."

Revenant said...

I favor universal catastrophic insurance for this.

The day we get universal catastrophic insurance is the day the government starts making dangerous activities illegal.

Skydiving? Absolutely not -- raises health care costs.

You want a motorcycle? Well, you can't have one! The odds of catastrophic injury are far too high!

Smoking? Flat-out illegal. Why, think of all the money you'll cost us when you get cancer.

What, you want to visit *Africa*? Sorry, that requires special government dispensation. The chance of contracting AIDS or getting shot is just too high, you know.

Oh, and then the Republicans take over again. Now there's a government *interest* in banning sodomy. Oh, not because they're against gays or anything (heavens no, not them), but because it is a medical fact that anal sex transmits disease so much more easily than other forms of sex do. All those catastrophic medical expenses are just too much for the government to be asked to handle.

Then here come the Democrats. Hunting just carries too high a risk of shooting accidents, and that costs the taxpayers money.

Etc, etc.

Simon said...

Rev - and why stop at sodomy in the modern meaning of anal sex? Why not ban all sodomy in the biblical sense of non-reproductive sex? That'd sure cut down on STD transmission.

Cedarford said...

Vet66 - vet66 said...
Tongue in cheek? Under the democratic health plan we could hire jihadist physicians to work on the cheap as the countries Marcus Welby types retire.

Guess what, Maxwell Smart...1/3rd of American doctors are foreign born already as are 1/4 of the nurses - producing a service that is 50% more expensive than any other advanced nations. With 3 times the error rate, twice the "dirty hospital infection rate", with lower life expectency.

Of course, medical professionals are like scientists and engineers - according to Dubya. They come here to do the low-pay jobs Americans refuse to do and we need more H1-B visas and more amnesty instead of trying to train more doctors at university.

Why try funding a new nursing school to open up the middle class opportunities for Americans to work 55,000 -75,000 a year RN, RN specialist jobs when you can hire Peruvian, Nigerian, and Yemeni nurses instead? Besides, such nurses work better with the Yemeni and Oba tribe doctors hired.

***********************
While I agree with Hoosier Daddy that universal health care is inevitable in America - in part because the "genius of the free market" has miserably failed where professionals collude to set prices and control supply pf professionals, where lobbies collude with gov't to set prices and how many new millionaires are created in the nursing home and med labs industries - Romney had strong points.

And remember this is New Hampshire, the "sick of Bush incompetence, sick of Iraq, but still Live Free or Die State". Romney standing up to a parasite liberal will play well with NH Reps and Independents.

A parasite who tried to emotionally confront him, who argued that all she needs should be free from the government taxpayer then whined she lost tips because she favored a tirade over doing her job for a solid hour while other customers arrived, waited, and were served by others that got the tips while the waitress vented.

Sometimes when you stand up to an emotional bully or someone in Full Throttle Victimhood Entitlement Demanding...you will appear to be the "Father that says NO!" rather than the "Mummy that hugs you and cares about you and understands and asks you to go see Daddy about the money".

But I think Romney understands people are looking for "The Person Who Says No!" after Bush has gone 6 years with a 40% increase in government spending that exceeds even LBJ's with a single veto...and even that was not against the corrupt porkmeisters of both parties. He runs on the fact that he vetos crazy spenders, did so hundreds of times, likes vetoing, and wants to control demands without fiscal limit rather than massively jack up taxes.

Far better to see a candidate that frankly states the truth a voter doesn't want to hear rather than a manipulative head nod, an faux empathetic "I hear you", stand if listening raptly for a minute while the prole vents, then wrap things up with a hug and a "I feel your pain, and things will be better when I can care for all your needs better as President" then move on to the next crowd and wipe you mind fresh and clean of that last confrontation...

Of course, his handlers will likely tell him that he wasted way too much time - and work more with him so he can completely deliver his message, stand up for his beliefs, then slide out of the confrontation -in 5-10 minutes - without looking dismissive.

As an executive, Romney will likely agree that his time management in the "waitress debate" sucked. An hour squandored. She wasn't exactly Teddy Kennedy, they weren't exactly going to get 15 minutes of the cafe debate on national news..He wasn't going to convince her and have her hand over a big campaign donation or rally 10,000 voters in her "irritated Democrat-favoring waitresses association" to his side.

Ruth Anne Adams said...

Holy smokes! Who knew Janice Soprano took a waitress job in New Hampshire?

knoxwhirled said...

hee

I thought the same thing

Harkonnendog said...

"1/3rd of American doctors are foreign born already as are 1/4 of the nurses - producing a service that is 50% more expensive than any other advanced nations. With 3 times the error rate, twice the "dirty hospital infection rate", with lower life expectency."

What a bunch of crap... sigh...

EnigmatiCore said...

"Why not ban all sodomy in the biblical sense of non-reproductive sex?"


Hmm. Then I might be able to get away with having a backrub be only seconds long.


No, I don't think I like that tradeoff.

EnigmatiCore said...

"What a bunch of crap"

Don't sweat it. 76.8% of all statistics quoted on the internet are made up.

Theo Boehm said...

What a bunch of crap... sigh...

76.8% of all statistics quoted on the internet are made up.

What is the sound of one link clicking?

Cedarford said...

Anyone doubting America's failing health care system, reliance on overseas professionals is welcome to look it up.

To a certain class of conservative "free market, Hayek, Ayn Rand worshipping" jingoists, there is the old Soviet Stalinist sense of boast that "Soviet/America schools are second to none".

Or "our shoes and female attire is the envy of the world",

"No one outdoes the Health Care system that stems from the Marxist Dialectic/worship of the hero free market entrepreneural billionaires, bankers, doctors biz, Big Pharma".

Jingoistic crap. We have Soviet-level problems in 0utspending universalist heath care systems in Asia and Europe - while delivering less, lower quality care and killing our businesse's ability to compete globally as long as hyperinfationary health costs are fobbed off on them.

Jeff said...

My last two Dr's were foreign born. My GP was Indian and my cardiologist was Chinese. Couldn't understand a word either said, but both were fantastic. Far better than my childhood American Dr, who now has a fortified office and specializes in "women's medicine" in Wichita.

Health care
-take what the your company spends now and buy a catastrophic plan and put the rest into a tax free medical savings account. You keep what's left at the end of the year. Should cut down on those emergency room visits.
Reform on lawsuits. A number of specialties pay as much for insurance as they make in a year. Some specialties are disappearing due to insurance costs. Edwards should be an expert on that. Maybe that would increase the care available. A few more years and the government and trial lawyers will put bringing new medicines to the public out of business, and we can have the government spend trillions of dollars to take over that also.

hdhouse said...

paul a'barge said...
HDHouse: NO HE DIDN'T. He gave her a shoulder rub..and unwelcomed one at that. Stop being inaccurate

A shoulder rub takes more than a couple of seconds. I watched the film, and his hands were on her shoulders no longer than a couple of seconds. So you're wrong."

Paul...please refrain from drug use prior to posting on the board...you see for people who don't understand how "medications" alter your personality, they just think you are crazy.