[Technogeeb]

I heard that under Romneycare you have to have insurance, or you have to be willing to pay with your own money, or you won't receive medical service. Duh. That's how it's supposed to work.

That system would be ideal; but that isn't Romneycare. Under the Romney model, you can either "voluntarily" choose to buy insurance, or be forced to pay a fine roughly equivalent to the insurance premium when you do your state taxes. The option of "going without" in exchange for not getting care isn't available.

The bigger issue with Romney's assertion that the Mass. system would be valid nationwide is that a state (depending upon the laws and Constitution of the state) might legally be able to do something like this. The Federal government, however, does not legally have this power under the Constitution.

Romney is advocating an illegal scheme. He is not qualified to be President.

[Logophile]

The bigger issue with Romney's assertion that the Mass. system would be valid nationwide is that a state (depending upon the laws and Constitution of the state) might legally be able to do something like this. The Federal government, however, does not legally have this power under the Constitution.

You are right.

Unfortunately, our legislators no longer allow the Constitution to stand in their way. And why should they, if their support for unconstitutional programs gets them reelected?

[ChessExpert]

O.K. You guys are well on your way to convincing me. It seems that in Massachusetts, health insurance is truly mandatory; you are fined if you don't have it. That is wrong. Do you know if it was this way from the start? Or, is this a change that took place under Deval Patrick?

There are things I like about Romney, but this is shaping up to be a real negative for me. Are there any Romney supporters out there who can put this in a more positive (or less negative) light?