Comments on: Secret emails show Romney’s approval of health mandate Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: flashrooster Mon, 11 Jun 2012 22:11:34 +0000 There are 2 different issues at play here, as krimsonpage correctly points out. There is the question of whether or not the federal government has the Constitutional right to mandate the requirement that people buy insurance, and there is the totally separate question of whether or not the plan is a good plan.

What the Supremes decide should not be seen as a judgment on the plan itself. That’s not what they’re deliberating on, though it’s to be expected that the Republicans will present it as a thumbs down judgment on the plan. Its dishonest, but that’s what they do.

But is it a good plan? This is what makes Romney look so foolishly hypocritical. Clearly he thinks it’s a good plan for at least Massachusetts. But if good for Massachusetts, why not other states? Romney has also been quoted as saying that it would serve as a good national plan as well. This is to be expected. A governor who comes up with a good idea likes the world to know that the idea is theirs and that everyone should embrace it.

Also, the people who worked on the plan with Romney thought it would be a good national plan, and so they worked with the Obama Administration in designing it.

Furthermore, it was originally conceived by Stuart M. Butler of the Heritage Foundation, a very conservative think tank and the concept was designed as a national healthcare plan, not just for the state of Massachusetts.

There’s really no wiggle room for Romney on this. He is being dishonest and hypocritical on this issue. The only way Romney could prove otherwise, prove that he hasn’t flip flopped on this issue, that his healthcare plan is only appropriate for Massachusetts, then he’d have to be able to show us quotes and video tape of him making such statements, because if he really felt that way, that would be an obvious thing for a governor to say. Instead, he said the following: “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.”

Perhaps even more disturbing than Romney’s dishonest hypocrisy on this issue, and others, is how so many Americans, mostly on the right, are more upset about the fallacy that Obama wasn’t born in the US than they are about Romney’s habitual dishonesty. At an alarming rate, people on the right increasingly base what they believe on whether or not it serves to further the rightwing agenda, and not whether it’s true or not. Promoting the power and influence of rightwing leaders is more important to them than the actual agenda itself, which clearly is not well understood.

I believe there is something afoot that will prove to be the biggest threat to our Republic since the Civil War. Money is firmly in control and it’s being well-utilized to shape our thinking on political matters like never before. A one party state not unlike Russia is a likely eventuality. It will continue to be okay to disagree with the right, provided you don’t try to do anything about it. Then you’ll be labeled a terrorist and will be shut down. Will this plutocratic coup prove to be democracy’s undoing? How can it not?

By: krimsonpage Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:44:31 +0000 I see a number of Romney supporters here….making themselves look foolish again. So, being that the President made a good plan, RomneyCare, into a national plan, this is bad. But because Mass. is but a state, this plan is ok?

You people are so full of it. You have excuses for everything.

Seems to me that any form of legislation, any form of governance, any plan, etc. that comes from a Democrat or a black President is considered illegitimate by anyone calling themselves a Republican.

You people love to rule, but you govern like crap.

By: ConstFundie Sun, 10 Jun 2012 22:10:33 +0000 A little bit sticky for the Supreme-GOP, and the Legislative-GOP. They know eventually a mandate will likely be necessary, barring libertarianism and secessionism. Plus, they would really LOVE and want a health insurance mandate. It is just that they want one also mandating a fat, juicy, artery of Public money to the for-profit insurance companies.

How can Scalia block the Dem public-ee mandate plan while leaving a crack for a possible GOP mandate? It is possible they find a detail in the large bill to hang a rational rejection on. But I suspect it will be a ruling obviously molded to the goal of rejection, and obviously brushing off the 14th Amendment. Later after some re-branding of terminology and public perception it will reanimate as a “State-based” GOP plan. Then the Supreme-GOP, take ANOTHER one for the team by going down in history as unjust, biased, Constitution-sell-outs, and pass it with a ruling obviously molded to the goal of passing it.

By: buckaroo5 Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:36:32 +0000 The President,as leader of his party, once again expressed that every American should pay his fair share in taxes. One sizable loophole in the Federal Tax Code is TAX EXCLUSION INCOME. It is time to do something about this unfair tax revenue placed disproportionately on small business & especially the self-reliant. The President is correct we are all in this mess together. It is time to correct the inequity of Tax Exclusion income for some rather than for all workers earning income & paying taxes on all received income. There is no reason for this inequity especially after the President many request for equity.

By: xyz2055 Sun, 10 Jun 2012 18:12:08 +0000 From_California..put down the bong bro…you’re dazed, confused and your use of the term Socialism is a testimony to either a poor educational system or ADD. While Romney sings the praises of his own plan, his first order of business would be to dismantle it’s exact clone, Obamacare. That isn’t being particularly smart. Looks to me like he’s simply pandering to the conservative base that hates everything Obama. We pick up the tab of those uninsured through higher costs. That isn’t “socialism”. That’s how almost everything works in a capitalist society. The costs of providing goods and services is built into the price. In the case of healthcare there is an opportunity to lower the costs by requiring those that are currently uninsured, to buy health insurance. However, it remains to be seen if that will bring down healthcare costs. Will providers lower the prices they current charge and pass the savings along when there are fewer write-offs because more people are insured? I’m skeptical. As for admiring Romney’s business experience…this is what we specifically know (so far) about a Romney Presidency. He wants 20% tax cuts across the board (this is what? his 3 or 4th idea on taxes). He wants to increase Defense spending by $2.1T over the next 10 years. He wants to repeal Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Healthcare Act (Obamacare). Spoken like a true Wall Street insider. And absolutely no specifics on how he’d pay for any of the additional spending and loss of revenue, much less the current $1T annual deficit. Or perhaps you thought that simply by electing Romney that deficit would magically go away? Bill Clinton is right! Romney is GW Bush on steroids. If you make less than $1M a year and vote for Mitt Romney in qualify as a moron.

By: Dave1968 Sun, 10 Jun 2012 00:52:12 +0000 “If a family failed to enroll, a fine might be imposed”
Mmmmmmmmm! a Fine:) That’s what makes it conservitive republican the Punishment. You see the problem with single payer is there’s no pain.

By: foiegras Sat, 09 Jun 2012 23:07:58 +0000 “It can be a glowing Brave New Third World in America – free magic underwear for everybody! – if you’ll just believe me one last time.”

By: imeubu Sat, 09 Jun 2012 22:29:08 +0000 Pish Posh! The state level is where health care belongs. With that said… n’uff said.

By: Knowing Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:39:19 +0000 Although the idea is sound, the problem is how it is being mandated. The Federal government does not have the power to do this, only the states can. This is why it is OK for MASS to keep it even if the SCOTUS shoots down the president’s healthcare plan.

By: PapaDisco Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:10:36 +0000 “Americans with sufficient means would no longer be able to be ‘free riders’ on society by avoiding sensible health insurance expenditures and relying on others to pay for care in an emergency or in retirement,” Butler wrote.

That’s just dumb and not the way the self-insuring people of means work. If you’re rich enough to self-insure you’re rich enough to pay for your emergencies. It’s the lower middle class and poor that can’t afford health insurance and have to lean on public services in times of crisis. Forcing the rich to buy health insurance does nothing to lower the cost to everyone else in the real world, it’s just a boon to the insurance companies.

Let’s go back to not-for-profit care, remember that? Blue Cross/Blue Shield, not-for-profit hospitals built by their communities and no for profit out-patient surgery centers syphoning off revenue from the local hospital. That was a system that worked well for everyone.

The argument that the private sector does healthcare better than the public sector is a false one. Look at the correlation between privatization and healthcare costs: they moved in perfect tandem. Take the profit motive out of healthcare and we’ll have less expensive and better quality care.