MItt had nothing to do with gay marriage in Mass., he opposed it but the legislature forced it on the state through inaction.
I could defend Romney’s attempt to “fix” health care in Mass., but he’d be better off blaming the results on Democratic tinkering than trying to claim it is “working”. He is absolutely right that it has achieved the goal of insuring everybody, and he is also absolutely right that it has driven up the cost of health care.
He is wrong that doing those two things is a “success”.
“MItt had nothing to do with gay marriage in Mass., he opposed it but the legislature forced it on the state through inaction.”
I’m so glad to hear you say that. I had heard that within a few weeks of the Court’s decision to have the legislature act within six months, Romney sent letters to all the town clerks ordering them to issue same-sex marriage licenses!
Your version is so much better.
Years ago, when Romney ran for the U.S. Senate against Ted Kennedy, didn’t Romney take out full-page newspapers ads claiming that he, Romney, would be a bigger advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy?
Well, not according to a couple of articles I've seen about it (one in the WSJ, I think), that said approximately half of the previously uninsured now have coverage. I haven't seen recent figures on MA current unemployment, but I suspect a lot of people who previously were insured through their employers are now fending for themselves.