My position on the whole freakin’ thing has been a Constitutional argument based on Amendment 10. Nowhere in the Constitution does the federal government have a right to inflict a healthcare law on every citizen.
BUT: the rights not given to the feds are reserved for the “states and the people”. What that means, from my studies, is that the various states can be laboratories for their own populations. If the people of a state want to do something (school vouchers, healthcare, drinking ages, etc.), then they ought to be free to do so.
Long before this primary season started, I was keen on the laboratory idea. Other states can learn from one state’s example and adapt for their own population. The “one size fits all” of a federal plan, however well-meaning, is a recipe for disaster.
NOW: people can say, “States don’t have the right to do that either.” To which I would say, “That is a policy decision for the people (see the 10th amendment again!) to make!”
Rick Perry made much of the same “states right” argument when it came to the tuition for illegals. That was reduced tuition for STATE SCHOOLS. A state issue.
I dunno. I know Romney is hated here. I don’t hate him. Don’t know if I’ll VOTE for him in the primary, but I just don’t see the demon behind the $100 haircut.
I wont say I’ll never vote for Romney. I’ll say that I will, in any election, vote for the MOST conservative candidate that has a legit chance to win.
In the Primary round, that is clearly not Romney. Its looking like its going to be Newt. BUT, if my choice ultimately becomes Romney versus Obama, then Romney qualifies. He’s no conservative, but he’s not a Marxist, and I dont think he’s anti-American, as I do feel about Obama.