Mitt Romney's Mandatory Hallmark
By gladys46
@gladys46 (1205)
United States
March 6, 2011 8:18am CST
In a speech on Saturday to New Hampshire Republicans Mitt Romney repeatedly called for the repeal of what he termed "Obamacare". "Obamacare is bad law constitutionally, bad policy, and it is bad for America's families." Romney said.
Even though an individual mandate requiring coverage is the hallmark of the Massachusetts law that he authored and the national Affordable Care Act. Romney also stated: "Our approach was a state plan intended to address problems that were in many ways 'unique' to Massachusetts." (emphasis added). "What we did there as Republicans and Democrats was what the Constitution intended ... we were one of the laboratories of democracy."
.....
Here, Romney attempts to draw some distinction between his health care law and the national Affordable Care Act saying that his own mandates were to address problems "unique" to the people of Massachusetts. Is there any distinction to be had?
2 people like this
7 responses
@artistry (4152)
• United States
6 Mar 11
...Hi gladys, For some unknown reason my first comment was garbled up. Would someone have a little courtesy and say why? This reminds me of Meg Whitman saying she was a new breed and then having all her statements lined up also word for word against Arnolds and everyone seeing that this was not a new breed. This is even better, Romney's plan was the foundation for the health care plan that was passed, so now he can twist himself into knots trying to explain the difference. Get ready Governor Romney they are coming for you, not the Democrats, your GOP buddies. I find myself almost falling off my chair with laughter. This is so funny. Cheers
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Mar 11
I don't know enough about Romney-care to say how closely it resembles Obama-care. I can only say one thing definitively. Obama-care is unconstitutional because the constitution does not give the federal government the power to mandate people to buy health insurance. Since Romney-care was done at the state level, it does NOT violate the US constitution.
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
6 Mar 11
Hi there artistry!!
Republicans are known for "eating" their own! The "minister" Huckabee, in his new book, for example, trashes "Romneycare" as "socialized medicine" that increased costs and reduced the quality of care.
Discussions are that Romney' advisers have struggled with how to tackle this touchy subject, especially since republican opposition (mostly blatant lies) to the Affordable Care Act galvanized much of the energy that led to republican victories in 2010 mid-terms.
I did hear a Romney spokesman say that the governor is "proud of what he accomplished for Massachusetts in getting everyone covered." (I'll need to dig his name out).
Artistry, I watched a gay rights representative on the Chris Matthews show @ MSNBC the other evening ... believe me I got a real headache listening to his feeble attempt to explain how he supports a political party that fights against all of HIS RIGHTS as a gay person. We listened to the "minister" Huckabee as he trashed single mom pregnancies all while his own republican party leaders ALL voted to defund Planned Parenthood!! Now, I ask you ... is this all twisted logic or just plain foolishness personified?
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
7 Mar 11
Mitt had gotten quite adept at being a contortionist in 2008 with his various flip-flops and complete 180s so if anyone can spin this his way - Obama's plan is bad, his nearly identical plan is good - he's your guy. I'm afraid Mitt's problems are even bigger than the health are issue. He's simply not to be trusted anymore. You can never possibly know which Mitt you're going to get on any given day on any given issue. Sorry, Mitt, great hair alone doesn't cut it anymore!
Annie
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
10 Mar 11
Taskr, in all honesty I believe President Obama also supports gay marriage but so far has been afraid to admit it. I don't know why people can't just say what they believe and be done with it. Regarding Romney's Massachusetts health care plan as opposed to the national plan, I'm confused as to why a mandate to purchase insurance is fine if it's the state making you do it but not if it's the federal government.
Annie
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
7 Mar 11
"Mitt had gotten quite adept at being a contortionist in 2008 with his various flip-flops and complete 180s"
That's one of the reasons I don't like him. I wanted him to win in 2008, but he constantly changed his stances in an attempt to win the primaries and then flipped back after losing. He would have done far better if he would have just been straightforward. I believe he supports gay marriage, for example, but he doesn't have the guts to admit it for fear too many republicans would turn against him.
My point on the healthcare stands though. Regardless of whether his is good or bad, it IS constitutional and Obama's is not.
1 person likes this
@gladys46 (1205)
• United States
7 Mar 11
Annie, having watched and listened to ALL republican hopefuls, I find that they ALL are totally contrary to what they've done in the "recent" past! Most democrats listen to all the issues-based debates ... unlike the other side who will hear one side and make their political decisions solely on that. It is absolutely clear that they do this ... the baseless info that they offer verifies that fact.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
7 Mar 11
While I don't agree with him, and think that this issue will probably make it so he'll never be president, at least he knows the difference between the state and federal government.
The 10th Amendment clearly states that authority not given the federal government in the Constitution remains that of the states and the people. In other words, while it is unconstitutional for the federal government to force us to buy a product or service, the states don't have that limit.. unless it is banned in the state's constitution.
People who can't figure that out need to learn the Constitution before they expose their complete ignorance of the 10th amendment.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Mar 11
Well there is one HUGE distinction. A state mandate is constitutional, a federal mandate is not. The 10th amendment makes that crystal clear.
That said, Romney-care really isn't doing great. Polls show that you have a pretty equal number of people in that state who think it's good, bad, or didn't change anything.
There is also the key element of the law though that he pointed out: "What we did there as Republicans and Democrats..." See, there was bipartisanship there. Obamacare was rammed through with closed door meetings and reconciliation and not a single republican vote while over 40 democrats voted against it. The only bipartisanship was in the opposition to that crap.
@inertia4 (27961)
• United States
6 Mar 11
Like a lawyer, a politician will twist words around to make them suit whatever they want done. They are like serpents, they slither around and lie all the time. When they bite their venom comes out. I don't know of any politician I can or would trust. Government is organized crime at it's best and there legal.
@laglen (19759)
• United States
6 Mar 11
Yes a HUGE distinction. federal jurisdiction and State Sovereignty. While I do not like Massachusetts healthcare, that is an issue for that state. I also do not care for Romney. But yes there is a big distinction between a state mandating it and the feds.
