Posted on 08/20/2009 8:05:14 AM PDT by rabscuttle385
A growing sense in the Republican Party that health care reform of any kind is the enemy, and attacks on the Massachusetts plan from Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, appear to have prompted Mitt Romney to launch a defense of his legacy in that state, which now insures far more of its residents than any other.
Romney defended his plan on the Early Show this morning...
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Obama needs to go.
I wouldn’t vote for Romney if he was the only one running. I didn’t vote for McLame ...I voted for Palin.
I would have to consider voting for the Green Party candidate if the Idiot Party puts Romney up in 20112.
LOL
I completely agree with you that the fundamental issue is the forcibly mandated nature of the legislation. I further believe that the American public is not putting so fine a point on their objections as to make distinctions between “single-payer” versus “mandated care”. I think that it is in fact the forcible mandate aspect that they really instinctually oppose, the sense that this legislation seeks to remove personal control over the medical well-being and lives of citizens and place it in the hands of government to administer.
IMO, Obama and his socialist acolytes have badly over-played their political cards and badly mis-judged public sentiments, especially among the senior community.
Absent any redeeming practical arguments to support their agendas, the Left quite comfortably slip into demagoguery mode. They’ve been doing it for decades.
“I further believe that the American public is not putting so fine a point on their objections as to make distinctions between “single-payer” versus “mandated care”.”
Maybe not, but the specific complaints have to do with taking away choices we enjoy. Not many people are getting at townhalls saying “I dont have health insurance and I dont want it so dont make me have it.”
” I think that it is in fact the forcible mandate aspect that they really instinctually oppose, the sense that this legislation seeks to remove personal control over the medical well-being and lives of citizens and place it in the hands of government to administer.”
True, but many people may see mandates more like seatbelt laws - a nanny-statist way to get people to do things they should and would be doing anyway. Mandates dont impact the 250 million of us with insurance much, just the 50 million without it.
Why is single-payer so OPPOSED? Simple! We dont want our private health insurance stolen away from us. That’s like telling us to turn in our cars and get a govt approved Smart Car. Bogus!
OTOH mandates dont have that shock effect, yet they are the teeth that makes any future non-competitive monopolistic regulations universal.
If we want to retain healthcare freedom (and jobs) we need to say no to mandates.
The one on the left is a lesbian.
Gee, for a supposed economic genius, Romney sure doesn’t understand the basics of supply and demand. Increase demand for health care without increasing supply, and you make it more expensive and scarce. It didn’t work in Massachusetts, so he wants to take it national??
Honestly, I’m starting to think that Romney isn’t very smart. Wily, but not smart (kind of like Hillary Clinton).
And he certainly has zero regard for the Constitution — I notice that the Constitutionality of federal health care never seems to enter his head.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.