|
 |
|
|
third party? nope thanks! another troll sent to muddy the waters and insure an O’Thuga win; Romney’s what we got, Ryan’s what we got. - i’ll crawl over broken glass pushing a peanut with my nose to vote for anyone but the biggest fraud that has EVER been perpetrated on the American people - Barack Hussein Obama - BEGONE ICHABOD!!
He said he will keep the ‘Good parts’
Total surprise! :)
OK.
I’ll vote for Obama then.
Problem solved.
Cheap headline.
Why not instead comment on the substance of Mitt's plan that actually posted on his website?
No, Romney did not say he would keep Obamacare
Romney said he wants to make sure in his replacement bill some of the issues addressed by the cause of "health care reform" are also addressed in the replacement bill...like 0.05% of the thousands of pages of Obamacare...that does not translate to "keeping Obamacare" as your propaganda states. The Obamacare bill has a few things that are politically popular that would be toxic to say he would not keep - like a drop of chocolate syrup in a large tank of raw sewage that Obama's spin machine has used to try to get people to want to keep the entire bill. Are you that naive to not know that has to be headed off at the pass going into the debate?
You can like parts of it all you want, but in the end you won't get to keep any of it.
This is impossible because so many Republicans and Freepers told me that the Mittster was a REFORMED Socialist.
Oh, but he has an “R” by his name and he isn't O, so we have to vote for him. lots of s/
Why couldn’t he just say he would let the states decide. This is why the Senate is so important. Pre-existing disease requirement would eliminate individual insurance plans.
That being said, Romney is still better than Obama. Obama wants to destroy the Constitution create a dictatorship via executive orders. And if people can’t see that, they are as deluded as the Leftist Obama drones.
Be more useful if you had used your 300-word excerpt to actually list the things Romney said he’d keep.
Although useful may not have been your intent.
Here are the two things they mention:
“One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.
“Two is to assure that the marketplace allows for individuals to have policies that cover their family up to whatever age they might like.”
The first is imperative, and is also a problem if not implemented correctly. As conservatives, we oppose the idea that people can simply avoid coverage and then get it when they get sick. We also oppose mandating that they buy coverage.
But, only a few conservatives are willing to state that they want sick people to be left to die on the sidewalk in front of an emergency room if they can’t pay for their treatment. And if you aren’t willing to do that, you need to accept that you are “covering pre-existing conditions”, and figure out what the best way is to do that.
I like the current way, where we make hospitals treat people, then they try to collect money, and when that fails, they pass the price along to everybody else. I “like” that because while it sucks to have to pick up the tab, at least we aren’t encouraging people to use the system that way. We are simply handling the fallout.
Another way is a pool coverage for risky patients. You’d have to subsidize it. But that’s how it is now — major employers don’t exclude pre-existing conditions, they simply pay extra and the insurance company covers everybody.
Or you can let government cover that pre-existing condition problem under some welfare program, and pay for it with taxes.
One thing is certain — you aren’t going to get away with doing nothing at all, because a vast majority of voters LOVE the abstract idea that they won’t lose their insurance coverage for a pre-existing condition, and they are too stupid to understand the consequences.
As for the 2nd one, I fully support that. It’s stupid regulations that keep insurance companies from offering family policies that extend past adulthood. Now practically speaking, it’s kind of a stupid offering, but if I want to keep paying for my kids insurance under my policy, why shouldn’t my insurance company be allowed to sell me that kind of coverage?
Of course, Obamacare dictates it, whether I want it or not, and therefore makes me PAY for it for my kids, even if I don’t want to. But since that’s not what Romney said he’d do, it’s not a problem. The article screws up by suggesting that any broad discussion equals a specific acceptance of details of Obamacare.
Romney is also quoted on abortion, and since quotes themselves are owned by the public figure, they can be repeated here. After saying he wanted the court to overturn the Roe v. Waide ruling:
“Well, there are a number of things I think that need to be said about preserving and protecting the life of the unborn child. And I recognize there are two lives involved: the mom and the unborn child. And I believe that people of good conscience have chosen different paths in this regard. But I am pro-life and will intend, if I’m president of the United States, to encourage pro-life policies.”
Chance that Obama will appoint a judge who would overturn Roe V. Wade = 0%. Chance that we will get a judge who will overturn Roe V. Wade by voting for someone other than Romney? 0%. The value of the lives of the children who will be killed? Priceless.
he will keep most of it. He will just trim around the edges until it looks like RomneyCare as in Massachusetts. The part he wpecifically mentioned as bìng good is not letting companies refuse or charge more to treat people with pre-existing conditions. That all by itself makes medical insurance absurd, It becomes stupid for anyone to buy insurance until hi is sick or has an accident.So healthy people need not buy the product. If only sick people buy it the price must become astronomical and no one at all can afford it. The logic of it requires mandatory purchase and that way lies full blown socialized medicine either immediately or a little later- socialized medicine and a fatally wounded economy and severely straitened Liberty.
Take your choice in November, the efficient manager of the socialist project or the revolutionary. Mussolini or Lenin. The both lead to Stalin. One will just be a little nicer about it in the beginning.
Sheesh, if I act surprised will that win me “respect” from all the ABOs who've been hatin’ on conservatives around here...
We have no influence over the socialist democrats or the emperor obama should he be re-elected. None. Nada.
We do have the ability to revolt and influence the future of the GOP if we plan accordingly by reacting to our internal outrage over the direction that these corrupt collectivists have taken this country.
Good way for him to lose the election by splitting with a third party candidate!
Willard, dump it all, puhleeze!
We don’t want it!
Shove it! You do the work of Obama and Soros!
We need to take back the country in November, and your self-esteem counts for nothing in the process.
This is no surprise, Romney was unmasked long ago. This doesn’t alter the facts that we have to beat obama and that will not be accomplished by a no vote in the presidential race or by supporting a third party. Romney is stupid for even getting into this now. He will have to continue this discussion and explain himself and this is just another distraction from the task at hand which is to beat obama.