RomneyCARE = HillaryCARE is socialized medicine,
and it has rocked Massachusetts in a negative way.
Anyone who says it is socialized medicine is either ignorant of the plan or doesn't understand basic economics.
I guess Romney is ignorant as he recanted and said it was a terrible idea.
RomneyCARE = HillaryCARE is socialized medicine,
and it has rocked Massachusetts in a negative way.
“Anyone who says it is socialized medicine is either ignorant of the plan”
Anyone who advocates a healthcare *plan* and calls themselves a free marketer needs to check their premises.
When tested, ie. when Romney was actually Governor (a period in time when he should be EXAMINED)
Myth Romney did poorly. Romney got a "C" rating from CATO. And that was BEFORE
Romney's Socialized medicine and coverup of the BIGdig kicked in. So the RomneyBOTs try to "spin history".
Note that Romney also betrayed President Bush as Governor
(and as TeamROMNEY would do later in Election2008 to Gov. Palin, and then the GOP),
because Romney was also against the conservative tax cuts (note this also again proves the RomneyBOTs wrong. No surprise there)
Here are the facts from CATO.
"As U.S. real output grew 13 percent between 2002 and 2006, Massachusetts trailed at 9 percent.
* Manufacturing employment fell 7 percent nationwide those years, but sank 14 percent under Romney, placing Massachusetts 48th among the states.
* Between fall 2003 and autumn 2006, U.S. job growth averaged 5.4 percent, nearly three times Massachusetts' anemic 1.9 percent pace.
* While 8 million Americans over age 16 found work between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed Massachusetts residents actually declined by 8,500 during those years.
"Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents," professors Sum and McLaughlin concluded.
In an April 2003 meeting with the Massachusetts congressional delegation in Washington, Romney failed to endorse President Bush's $726 billion tax-cut proposal."
[Cato Institute annual Fiscal Policy Report Card - America's Governors, 2004.]
Romney = Economic Loser always requiring a Federal Bailout
As written it had potential, except for the mandate piece which alone should be enough, and is enough, for Conservatives to reject it, even if Reagan had written it himself. The boys and girls at Heritage should have known better, but even Hammerin’ Hank wiffed a ball or two.
But beyond that, anyone with their foot in reality knew that to even try and offer it up as actual real world legislation was to open the door to abuse and to give hold for socialized medicine
To be honest, for me, it was not really the legislation, (which was bad enough) that got me as much as the bad judgment on Romney's part to even try it in the current political environment.
It's because I do understand basic economics that I comprehend that it is indeed, in fundamentals, socialized medicine.
You want basic economics? You're self employed or have a small business. If you don't come up with proof of following onerous mandates not just for your own health insurance but your employees as well, it costs you big bucks in fines. It's an unfunded mandate ... you're funding it out of your pocket.
What's worse is then you relinquish the way you handle your own health to Big Daddy Insurance HMO Medicla Establishment. You are blackmailed emotonally as well as financially -- somebody hates a job but sticks with it because life without health insurance isn't an option. It drives up the price of everything and fosters dependence. It's an invasion of a very basic privacy, and you are relieved of hard, cold, CASH if you don't obey the unfunded mandate that you're funding.
You want basic economics? Go live with that kind of crap hammering away at your ability and right to honestly, productively, quietly, happily, legally, ethically, live-and-let-live, treat-thy-neighbor, profitably, comfortably, freely -- pursue happiness on your own terms.
It is the antithesis of conservative principle so of course it involves basic economics. You ought to try it sometime.