KTH: Story behind controversial ad for Obama

soundoff (3 Responses)

1. Daniel Harkless
   

   I think the point of the ad is that the wife may have avoided going to the doctor when she first got sick because they did not have insurance at that time. If the plant had not been closed the wife would have been covered under her husband's policy after she lost her job including the time when she avoided going to the doctor. I think it is a reasonable question whether she would have sought treatment earlier and possibly not have died if the plant had not closed. That is the heartbreaking question on the husband's mind and expressed in the ad.
   The methods in place at Bain Capitol were established under Romney's tenure. They looked for failing companies and systematically gutted them making huge profits. Restructuring could have saved many of these companies if the value had been used to benefit the companies instead of being siphoned off to assure their failure. If they still failed the money siphoned off could have provided some level of benefits for the retirees who were promised them by union contracts. It is still an open question whether how long Romney remained active in Bain Capitol's operations after he took the Olympics job. He still got paid. At the very least Romney gained financially from the plant closing.

   August 10, 2012 at 11:02 pm |
2. Theend
   

   The British newspaper "The Guardian" published a good story today about an auto parts plant in Freeport, IL that was owned by Bain Capital that was being dismantled piece by piece and shipped to China and whose American workers were being required to train their Chinese replacements: 'I'm sick to my stomach': anger grows in Illinois at Bain's latest outsourcing plan The Sensata plant in Freeport is profitable and competitive, but its majority owner, Bain Capital, has decided to ship jobs to China – and forced workers to train their overseas replacements..."

   August 10, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
3. Thomas Wick
   

   From what I watched last night, I can agree that it isn't quite fair to blame Mitt Romney for his wife's death–seeing as she apparently had her own insurance after he lost his job. The question I would like answered is whether or not she had her own insurance (through her job) when he was employed and if she was diagnosed with cancer before he lost his coverage. If this was the case, then it is entirely possible that her own policy did not cover her pre-existing condition (the cancer) and as a result, she didn't get the treatment that she needed–resulting in her death. I can see him legitimately blaming Romney for her death. I don't know the details about whether or not health coverage was supposed to remain available to the terminated employees and I won't pretend I do, but I do know that if the plant was in Massachusetts instead of in Missouri, the workers' health coverage would have been protected by–and here's the kicker–a health-insurance plan created by–you guessed it–Mitt Romney. If he is for jobs and job creation, why did he not try to fight to provide health coverage for these people? He does in Massachusetts; why not in Missouri? Seems to me it's all about money. Not for the people, but for his wallet.

   August 9, 2012 at 12:09 pm |