Romney has this weird obfuscated answer he gives in the rare instances where he gets asked what a Romney solution to our nation’s healthcare woes would do about preexisting conditions. From his Halperin interview last month:

thepage.time.com

Halperin: And would individuals buying on their own, not through getting through their employers, would they have the same kind of protections? For instance if you get it through your employer, generally you can’t be denied for yourself or your family, care for preexisting conditions. They can’t charge you more based on your age or any other factor. Would those guarantees, would those protections exist for people if they bought it on their own under your plan?

Romney: Well you know what? I like the idea of having a competition and having people be able to purchase what is most attractive to them. And I do believe that one of the issues — I think I describe both of those issues in the plan that I put out—for instance, the idea of preexisting conditions. If people have been continuously insured, and then they decide to change jobs or change locations, they should not be denied coverage if they go to a new place or have to get a new policy. So people continuously insured should be able to get new insurance. Therefore, those that have developed a condition while they were insured and then change jobs, lose jobs, go to a new place, apply for new insurance would be guaranteed issue in that new entity so that you don’t have to have people worried about a preexisting condition preventing them from becoming insured.

Of course Halperin didn’t follow-up incredulously, as he should have, with something like, “Ah, so the answer to my question is you’d restore things back to the previous status quo, where people with preexisting conditions without insurance or whose insurance lapses are screwed. Good to know.”

The reason I bring that up is he pushed this line in a speech again today:

ROMNEY: So let’s say someone has been continuously insured and they develop a serious condition. And let’s say they lose their jobs or they change jobs or they move and go to a different place, I don’t want them to be denied insurance because they have some pre-existing conditions. So we’re going to have to make sure that the law that we replace Obamacare with, ensures that people who have a pre-existing condition, who have been insured in the past, are able to get insurance in the future so they don’t have to worry about that condition keeping them from getting the kind of health care they deserve.

Now this one seems a little more iffy to me. He references the “continuously insured” line again at the start as a prerequisite, but then that last sentence almost seems to imply he might do something about lapsed coverage… though I guess that makes no sense, as why even bring up “continuously insured” again. More obfuscation.