Posted on 11/22/2011 6:31:59 AM PST by GlockThe Vote
Please - anyone who thinks that it is ok for the govt to mandate a person buy a private product from a private corporation with no cost control and no affordable option is someone I can’t support on any level. And this is not a 10th amend argument - its an individual vs the state argument.
Romney is the worst of the lot. He is Obama lite - possibly worse.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is exactly how Mitt phrased it - with so much wiggle room built in so as to remove all meaning.
It is exactly this kind of mush mouthed promise that compels me to pray he doesn't win the nomination.
I agree wholeheartedly but we both know that won't happen. dealing in the real world what do you do?
What I heard involved 1) lower spending, and 2) resulting lower taxes across the board.
To me it seemed that Hannity had a number of questions and repetitions of the concerns people on the political right have of his record and his words. He spoke in a rather rapid-fire fashion to respond to all the questions posed to him.
And, yes, Hannity and time permitting, I would have liked to hear some more specifics (to flesh out the statements of operating principles), too. But, there were obvious time constraints in that format.
That said, you are pointing out what he DID NOT say to your satisfaction. What did he actually say that you disagree with in any significant principle/detail?
An honest question, not a “gotcha”, or a ruse to “support Romney”. Merely to have an adult discussion.
Mitt is okay with violating the 13th and 14th Amendment by hiding behind the 10th.
Mittens scares the heck out me.
the vast majority of the Texas legislature wanted to give instate tuition rates to illegal aliens...
and yet that was bad, and this is ok apparently.
It's a good thing we have Obamacare and Romneycare because how in the world did the United States survive before politicians came up with the idea of an individual mandate for healthcare. It's just amazing that we could have gotten all the way from 1776 to the present without that individual mandate.
Dealing with the real world, you treat immediate life-threatening symptoms, and do not treat the underlying disease. This is the current law.
Emergency rooms cannot be used for long-term disease resolution. They are structured incorrectly, and it is explicitly counter to their purpose.
Kudos. I also find that CAPITALIZATION MAKES ARGUMENTS MUCH MORE COMPELLING AND LOGICAL.
Skeeter, the fact is that a Governor and a President are the Executive branch. They do not and cannot enact laws or undo laws (unless the government is authoritarian). They must work through the Legislative branch to propose or change statutes.
Further, ANY candidate or nominee who says that HE/SHE will undo Obamacare simply is not speaking accurately or honestly. The Executive cannot/will not undo legislation on the books. He may work very hard, twist arms, etc. to get it off, but he will not, himself, remove the legislation.
That’s a nice platitude but you didn’t answer the question!
You're wrong! Current law is when the patient reachs the point he can no longe pay for his treatment he is put on medicaid and we pay for it!!
It was sold to them as "people making $70,000 a year and not buying health insurance" -- ridiculous, I think, on the face of it: jobs that pay $70,000 a year generally have good benefits too, including health insurance; it's the jobs that pay $18,000 or so that are likely to have no benefits. Also, didn't hospitals used to go after people without insurance for payment, especially if they made $70,000 a year? Don't they do that any more?
At one point, I think I read that 71% of MA voters approved the mandate, which strikes me as the likely percentage that had insurance through their employer, their union, or the gov't (Medicare, Medicaid) -- i.e., people who wouldn't be affected -- or so they thought, though I believe the increase in the sales tax and raised fees for various things were to make up the shortfall caused by RomneyCare after a hefty chunk of federal money.
MA also has I believe 53 separate mandated benefits, including in vitro fertilization, and who knows what else!
Agree that a majority does not automatically make its authority good policy or principle.
And you provide a perfect example: Texas has intentionally created a relatively weak Executive (Governor), relative to the Legislature. Perry probably could not have stopped in-state tuition approval, even if he had been so inclined.
But a sufficient majority imposed its will at the time, and the Governor had to comply. The criticism of Perry is that he agreed with the Legislative decision compelling the action re in-state tuition. But the fact is that he had to go along, regardless of his approval or disapproval (recognizing that he could have come out forcefully against it if he had chosen to do so).
You know, it is easier than doing all the html things.
It also is helpful for those who may be seeing what they want to see RATHER THAN WHAT IS THERE.
Yes, and a dangerous thing, often. O has used them perniciously (and so noted on FR numerous times).
I understand that bills do not originate with the president. He can LEAD, however.
You ask me which specifics Romney laid out last night that I disagreed with. My point is I heard very little substance to disagree with. Thats the problem.
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.