I’m no Romney fan, but I don’t see the conflict here.
STATES can pass whatever law they want. And on health care, it would be good if we had 50 different laboratories to see what works best. (For exampe, Vermont wants to pass a single payer system. Why not? It’s their State).
Passing a FEDERAL health care law, with a mandate no less, is an entirely different matter.
All Romney has to say is: Hey, we’re trying something different in Mass. It may work, it may not. But it doesn’t mean I support a national plan, with a mandate no less.
No conflict at all. No hypocrisy at all.
States rights all the way.
Yes. If states want to be stupid, then people can pick up and leave for another state. The stupidest states will suffer for their stupidity. Although frankly I’m not sure whether a single-payer healthcare mandate, even at the state level, doesn’t cross the line by violating some of our basic constitutional freedoms.
We can start calling him "states rights, Mitt"!
Mitt Romney:"These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense," "They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."
Mitt Romney: "I'm not a partisan politician. My hope is that, after this election, it will be the moderates of both parties who will control the Senate, not the Jesse Helmses."
That's almost EXACTLY what he has said. : )