Romney Talks Immigration, Health Care

AP ^ | 11/18/2007 | By KEN RITTER

[Jim Robinson]

Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney anticipated questions about health care when he called on a friendly Nevada business group Friday. It was the question on immigration that surprised him.

"I didn't expect that to be ... a major concern of the chamber," the former private equity businessman and Massachusetts governor said after giving his stump speech and taking four questions from a Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce round-table.

"But it's a concern across the country," Romney said. "People are tired of all the talk and lack of action to stop illegal immigration."

Immigration is a major concern for businesses nationwide as they deal with the fallout if they hire employees who are in the country illegally.

Romney said he favors issuing employment verification cards to legal immigrants "with their name, their number, their picture" and "biometric information."

~~snip~~

The Democratic National Committee responded in a statement that Romney "refuses to offer clear plans on the war in Iraq, health care or immigration reform."

Romney, who gained national prominence guiding the 2002 Winter Olympics in Utah, was the first to take the offer. He used it to espouse his core beliefs and seek backing from individual members.

He summarized his Massachusetts health law as a way to force those who can afford private health insurance to sign up, while helping low-income people pay their premiums.

"My plan said this," Romney said: "Now that we got the rates down so they're more affordable ... either buy a health care policy or pay your own way at the hospital. But no more showing up expecting free care from the government or from the hospital."

Romney's rivals gleefully pointed out this week that Massachusetts residents had to sign up by Thursday or they likely would face tax penalties starting Jan. 1.

[Jim Robinson]

"He summarized his Massachusetts health law as a way to force those who can afford private health insurance to sign up, while helping low-income people pay their premiums."

And he conveniently leaves out the part about the government subsidizing the premiums for said low income people while forcing his socialist plan on everyone else.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

In 2006 Governor Romney supported the President’s immigration policy as well as the McCain-Kennedy bill.
He expressed support for an immigration program that places large numbers of illegal residents on the path toward citizenship and said illegal immigrants should have a chance to obtain citizenship.

He even went as far as to say that Republicans that break from the President on this issue are making a “big mistake” according to the Associated Press.

That was in May 2006, before he thought he could buy the Presidency.
He soon found out he had to change his tune to We must not reward them until I after I am in control!

[Jeff Head]

He summarized his Massachusetts health law as a way to force those who can afford private health insurance to sign up, while helping low-income people pay their premiums."

Says it all right there...no thanks!

[Maneesh]

I was paying the freeloaders before anyways and I have not had to change my plan so how was I forced by a socialist system. Now we will have less freeloaders as people will have to buy a policy and the only ones subsidized are those who make less then the federal poverty line.

How is this socialist if I get to keep my plan that I had before and which I pay for in full ? Now there will be less bums that I will have to support so there is less socialism. Until we ban all govt subsidized health care that I am all for, this is a step in the right direction.

[Maneesh]

“to force those who can afford private health insurance to sign up”

So you want me to pay for people without insurance that walk into an ER. You ban all govt paid health care and you can have no insurance for all I care. But if you want to have no insurance but put your hand in my pocket when you have an emergency then I do have a problem.

[Sun]

Under Romneycare for a $50 co-pay, a woman can get an abortion.

I wouldn’t want to be any part of that.

[Maneesh]

I am staunchly pro-life and believe that abortion is murder. However all insurance plans nationwide pay for abortion so this is no different. We should stop abortions but there are other avenues for doing that like banning Roe V Wade.

[Sun]

I’m glad you’re pro-life, but it adds insult to injury when taxpayers have to pay for abortions:

“Gov. Romney’s universal health care program for Massachusetts includes taxpayer-funded abortions

Legislation names Planned Parenthood as member of advisory board

The cornerstone of Gov. Mitt Romney’s new universal health care law for Massachusetts is a program titled “Commonwealth Care”, a plan for thousands of low-income people who could not afford regular health insurance, funded by the taxpayers.

One of the stated benefits covered in Commonwealth Care is “abortions.” And Planned Parenthood is written into the law, as part of the “payment policy advisory board.”’

http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/health_ins/

[Man50D]

It was the question on immigration that surprised him.

" I didn't expect that to be ... a major concern of the chamber

Neither did Eliot Spitzer.

[Mark]

Romney said he favors issuing employment verification cards to legal immigrants "with their name, their number, their picture" and "biometric information."

IF they are LEGAL, why would they need that?

[Rockitz]

Unfortunately, Mitt’s the one that’s got money and Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson don’t (at least so far). We may have to work with this guy as unappetizing as that may be. He is, without at doubt, preferable to Rudy or McCain.

[socialismisinsidious]

Socialized Medicine aka Universal Health Care PING LIST

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this ping list.

[AmericanInTokyo]

There may be other options.

I dont think we are boxed into just a Romney-Clinton November 2008 tweedledee/tweedledum choice, IMHO.

Not if we dont want to be.

[org.whodat]

Unfortunately, Mitt’s the one that’s got money

Don't care how much money he has my vote is not for sale.

[Afronaut]

Romney said he favors issuing employment verification cards to legal immigrants "with their name, their number, their picture" and "biometric information."

"biometric information."? After that has been sucessful, then we can start with cards for all Americans. If you want to fly, you will need your card... If you want to bank you will need your card.

I would go to war to stop any Biometric form of ID for Americans.

This one post with all the goods on this flake should flush him from the nomination.

[stephenjohnbanker]

“Don’t care how much money he has my vote is not for sale”

Bingo!

[stephenjohnbanker]

“I would go to war to stop any Biometric form of ID for Americans.

This one post with all the goods on this flake should flush him from the nomination.”

Why do LEGAL IMMIGRANTS need this? What about ILLEGALS, Slick Mitt?

[M203M4]

Well, I sort of see what you are saying (send a bill to the non-poor freeloaders, which is more of a abuse/efficiency appeal), and I have far less of a problem with state-level entitlement plans of this sort (compared to national plans). I certainly wouldn't support either a mandated coverage nor mandated care from private hospitals locally, but it isn't fatally toxic (and it isn't clear to me which of the status-quo or Romney's plan is more socialistic - the former is certainly more dysgenic).

That said, I'm not sure it is much of an improvement over the status-quo long-term. These sorts of bureaucracies serve as an additional barrier to dismantling the dysgenic welfare apparatus, and actually think that this is a step in the wrong direction (if the eventual goal is indeed to eliminate the plan, and simply not make it "more efficient" and extend its solvency).

It may well be better from a (short-term) management point of view ("if we HAVE to do X, we might as well do it the best way possible") , but it involves more deeply embedding this particular flavor of compulsory collectivism into social institutions (whereas mandated care policies in their present form would be legally more amenable to further restrictions or outright nullification). Anyway, these sorts of procedural vs idealogical vs pragmatic battles are the domain of the states. We again come to that critical issue of federalism.

/rant

[Rockitz]

If you view my profile, you will note that I am also solidly behind Duncan Hunter and have made a substantial dent on the way to my $2300 limit in supporting him, but he’s just not getting the traction I’d hoped and prayed for. Accordingly, I’m examining the top tier candidates who are most correct on the issues that I care most about- abortion, illegal immigration, fair trade, and the WOT.

[Rick_Michael]

Jim, some people actually have Mittloops on this forum...symptoms range from forgetfulness, naive-believe-in-anything-he-says-brain farts, intense liberalism, Ted Kennedy hugging, and of coarse...loops all over your face.

But the good news is... It's nothing a dose of FR conservatism and common sense won't cure.