I’m not a Romney supporter, but I know right from wrong, and Romney was treated wrongly – by the media, surprise, surprise.
The media; bottom dwelling sludge suckers that they are, decided to take something Romney said out of context and lash him with it all over the news. Gingrich and the other candidates, not to be out-sludge-suckered, took that page from the media playbook and continued the assault.
This is what Romney said when talking about health insurance…
I want individuals to have their own insurance that means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means if you don’t like what they do you can fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.
His statement makes complete sense to me. All he is saying is that he likes to fire people who provide bad services to him. Well..SO DO I. If my plumber, dentist, car repairman or barber does a bad job, I am going to fire him. That doesn’t mean they are unemployed, it just means I will no longer use them because I am dissatisfied with their service and I will look for someone better. Romney wants us to use the private sector for our healthcare so we can “fire” Doctors or Hospitals that we don’t like, forcing them to compete for our business, and choose better replacements (which is ironic since he created “Romney-care” in Massachusetts which is the state-run healthcare system that the federal-run healthcare system Obama-care is based on – thus why I will not support him. Romney is just a Ron Paul wannabe). The media of course took the last sentence of out context and went to town with it. Morons.
Only Ron Paul showed moral leadership and took the high ground, releasing a statement that said he supported Romney’s statement and that the media took it out of context, as did the other candidates…
I think they’re wrong. I think they’re totally misunderstanding the way the market works. They are either just demagoguing or they don’t have the vaguest idea how the market works.
I think they’re unfairly attacking him on that issue because he never really literally said that. They’ve taken him way out of context … He wants to fire companies.
I think they’re way overboard on saying that he wants to fire people, he doesn’t care. You save companies, you save jobs when you reorganize companies that are going to go bankrupt. And they don’t understand that.
And Ron Paul is absolutely right. If you are the CEO of a company, and the company is about to go bankrupt, you only have two options…to close your doors and fire everyone, or reorganize, downsize and re-prioritize to your strengths. Companies do this all the time, and in a smaller sense they do it almost daily, abandoning projects that are not working for ones that are, shifting resources away from areas that are failing and moving them to areas that are producing.
That is how companies create new services and products. Someone comes up with an idea and the company spends time and money developing it. Some ideas work and consumers demand it, others do not. But it is this trial and error that has for hundreds of years provided everything that we use today from pens to cars to computers. When a company goes too far down the road of something not working, then it must reorganize and reallocate back to the size it was, and where it was, when it was making money. The alternative is to fire everyone. Romney is absolutely right in this regard and Ron Paul is absolutely right to defend him.
Some will argue that the company Romney belonged to, Bain Capital, led to lost jobs which is true. Bain Capital was involved in buying failing companies and trying to turn them around or reorganize them. Not all companies can be saved, not all bankruptcies can be turned around. Consider Gordon Ramsey and his show Kitchen Nightmares, where he takes over restaurants that are weeks away from bankruptcy and closing the doors. The number of restaurants that were still open a year later is around 30%, but that is 30% more than would have still been in business had he not helped them at all. So someone with this argument is saying what exactly…if you can’t save them all then don’t even try to save any? Ridiculous.
I heard a similar argument about heart surgeons. When people are choosing heart surgeons, they look for the one with the highest success rate. But consider what that probably means. That means that he always takes the cases that are easy. It’s the surgeons that are taking on the “terminal” cases where there is “no hope” and death is “imminent” that are trying new procedures, that are building experience in repairing the most difficult “lost cause” operations. Naturally more people will die on his table than the guy who took the easy surgeries, and his success rate will reflect that, but does that mean he is not competent? Not at all, in fact I would argue he is more competent because he chooses to take the more difficult cases so he can pioneer new ways to solve them and perhaps slowly turn previously terminal situations into routine life saving ones.
This is another reason why Newt, Huntsman and the others have no clue how businesses operate and how you save jobs when times get tough. They don’t understand economics or business and without those understandings there is no way they can lead this country out of our depression.
In other news, Ron Paul takes second place in New Hampshire. On to South Carolina! GO RON PAUL!
Categories: 2012 Election, Economy, Healthcare Reform, Ron Paul
Leave a Reply