So I was thinking about Mitt's explanation for his "liking firing people" gaffe and it got me thinking:
Mitt's explanation for his gaffe is actually far worse for his campaign than the gaffe itself, if we had a responsible, quick on the uptake media. So let's take Mitt on face value (I know, who would do that with his history with the truth, but let's suspend that for a second). He was talking about people being able to fire their health care insurance provider if they don't get good service let me explain why this is actually the worst possible answer.
Mitt is the pro business/corporate executive type. Everyone knows it, his campaign is based on it. Taking a perverse satisfaction in letting people go is a great sound bite, but who hasn't thought that higher ups feel this way? It fits somewhat the profile, not all that surprising if you're already supporting him, I mean the guy doesn't ooze empathy.
But here's my thought about this. Mitt's entire campaign is based on being a business executive who knows what it's like on the ground in the business world. His initial comment does not refute this narrative one bit, it just makes him look mean. The key is in the response. It ruins the entire narrative of his campaign and shows he actually has no clue what is going on in the business world. No one can "fire" their health insurance provider due to bad service if they are in an employer based plan, which is pretty much the vast majority of us. Let me explain further.
1). In almost all plans, you can not change plan coverage during the non enrollment period (which usually covers a calendar year) unless there is a qualified life changing event (adding newborns, spouses, etc.). It just can't be done.
2). You are limited to whatever firms your company decides to have a contract with, which currently, a vast majority can only do 1 or 2 plans (although they can have multiple "tiers of plans, they are administered by the same insurance co.) This is the same at large companies (multi national) as small.
3). By the time you can change service, assuming your reason is health care related, you're probably going to be in more health trouble due to rule 1. Trying to put off needed medical care in order to switch insurance the next year is a recipe for disaster. Beside the fact that the major issues with insurance would be billing/coverage, which would lead to serious credit problems as the bills roll in.
All and all, I would think that the "pro business" Romney, who thinks his time running a company like Bain qualifies him to run the country admitting he really has no clue regarding how business provides insurance would be a big deal. It only makes up a quarter (and growing) of our GDP. How could we trust answers from a guy who doesn't no something so simple that every working family deals with on a yearly basis? Who can fire their health care provider, NEXT TO NO ONE, and that, in my opinion, is a far bigger crime for his campaign than the fact that he tacitly admits to liking what most of us already knew he liked.