[Bruce Campbells Chin]

As horrible as RomneyCare is, there is a massive difference between states deciding on their own to do something, and being bound by the balanced-budget amendments that most states have, and the one-size fits all budget/business destroyer that ObamaCare imposed on all 50 states.

It should also be noted that Romney did veto (overridden) the $295/employee tax on businesses that was in the Massachusetts bill. ObamaCare includes a $2000/employee tax.

I hate RomneyCare, but then, I could care less what happens in Massachusetts. If Romney pushes reforms that give more states more discretion at their level, that's much, much better than being stuck with ObamaCare.

[so_real]

That means you are okay with a little socialized medicine as long as it is not a lot of socialized medicine. This plays right into liberal hands. Now that you've conceded that point to them, the next step is to decide what constitutes "a little" and what is "a lot". This is the slippery slope to our decline. Is there anything wrong with repealing ObamaCare in its entirety, not replacing it, and letting the states legislate for themselves as they desire? No? How about we go that route instead?

[Kazan]

As horrible as RomneyCare is, there is a massive difference between states deciding on their own to do something

Romney wants to and will implement some form of Romneycare nationally.

To pretend otherwise is utterly delusional.