Posted on 06/29/2012 12:42:23 PM PDT by Bigtigermike
Washington (CNN) — Republicans are seizing on the individual mandate’s penalty in the newly upheld health care law as proof President Obama broke his promise not to raise taxes on middle class Americans.
[.....]
As it turns out the tax penalty in the president’s health care law was modeled after the reform plan passed in Massachusetts under then governor Mitt Romney.
In a 2009 interview with CNN, Romney explained how the Massachusetts health care mandate worked. If the state’s residents decided to forgo health insurance when they could afford it, Romney said they would face the loss of a tax exemption. In other words, they would be assessed a tax.
“There are a number of ways to encourage people to get insurance and what we did, we said ‘you’re going to lose a tax exemption if you don’t have insurance,’” Romney told CNN in the interview.
During the interview Romney held up his health care law as a model that “could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ...
Don’t give a damn. “Romneycare” wasn’t national health care, it was a state plan.
Do we live in a world today where NO ONE remembers the Tenth Amendment, or is that ONLY at CNN, the Supreme Court and here on Free Republic?
Romney’s health plan might be a disaster, and if so the PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS can kill it.
A federal plan, meant for the whole nation is unconstitutional as it violates the tenth amendment. And since it has NOW been called a TAX by the Supreme Court, it can be repealed with 51 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House.
Romney has vowed to repeal it, and Obama has vowed NOT to repeal it. Our best bet is to go with the one who has at least vowed to repeal it.
I'm not sure I buy that argument. Let me state it another way.
People are given an income tax exemption $3,800 for each qualifying child.
If I have no children, is that the same thing as being taxed $3,800 for having no children?
-PJ
I hope the RATs are stupid enough to run ads about Obamacare wall-to-wall until November. Nothing like reminding the jury about this piece of crap.
Romney once again has his chance to do a mea culpa and renounce Romneycare being served up to him on a silver platter. Will be smacking the ball out of the park if only he’d take it.
Voting between Romney and Obama is like voting between a slow-acting flesh-eating fungus and the Bubonic Plague. You can deal with the fungus later, but if you don't deal with the Black Death now, you'll definitely die.
Thanks. I was just going to post the same. I don't like Romney but this is ridiculous.
Some other clown here was trying to make the same assertion that a tax deduction is the same as compliance with the obamneycare mandate.
What Roberts has done is to create a new federal power out of whole cloth wherein the government can levy a property tax against you for, say, not buying property.
In the process of twisting logic in order to make an unConstitutional law appear Constitutional, Roberts brainfarted something even more unConstituional.
Some point this obvious thing out.
Others fear that Mitt Romney when unleashed would stop at nothing to get Romneycare-like universal coverage in the USA, even though he answered the announcement of the USSC decision by saying he’d waive all 50 states on his inaugural day.
They’re going to keep repeating this notion that “hey look, all these Republicans supported the mandate way back when,” but what they don’t realize is that many of those so-called “Republicans” were defeated in primaries and were the cause of the whole TEA Party movement to begin with.
Its different when Romney does it. LOL
It doesn’t matter! The Founders always intended for the states to have powers that were purposely NOT given to the federal government! Romney and every other governor and state legislature are free to tinker and experiment all they want...as long as their cotozens continue to extend to them the power to do so. They can be the incubators of innovation if they want to be. The constitution was written to guarantee our rights and liberty by constraining the federal government. It is in no way inconsistent for Romney to say that what I did in the state of MA...in accordance with the state legislature and with the approval of the voters of MA is not something I’d approve being done on a federal level.
-PJ
“Romney once again has his chance to do a mea culpa and renounce Romneycare”
You obviously don’t get it.
Romney gave to the citizens of Massachusetts the crap that they wanted and they are happy with it.
Call it pandering if you want but they wanted universal healthcare and he delivered.
So here is a summary for you:
People of Massachusetts = in favor of Romneycare
People of USA = Against Obamacare.
If all the other socialist states had put in place their own versions of romneycare, no one would demand healthcare reform at the federal level.
If you live in a red state, Romney did you a favor. Just remember that the support for Obamacare in Massachusetts is very low because they already have Romneycare in place. This is what federalism is all about. States should be free to do what they want.
Did you squeeze your eyes closed and stick your fingers in you ears when you said that?
You plantation dwellers are all the same.
Yes it is. See #16
He gave the bluest of blue states what they wanted.
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.