Is Romney OK? Mitt Romney cites Massachusetts health care law as sign of his empathy

[emperus]

So what does Obama passing National Health Care a sign of? How can you be this bad a candidate. Obama should just let Romney debate himself on Wed.

“Don’t forget -- I got everybody in my state insured,” Romney told NBC late Wednesday afternoon. “One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don’t think there’s anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record.”

http://www.boston.com/politicalinte...xDwSjXEZ5H/story.html?comments=all#readerComm

 

[Mxylplyx]

That man spends so much time running against himself that he doesn't even have time for Obama. No surprise though. Based on his record in Massachusetts, he seemed like a decent and reasonable moderate politician that completely sold himself out to win over the nut jobs in the Republican party.

 

[blankslate]

They're calling in the techs to see if his empathy module can be more finely tuned so as not to make him say things that offend radical righties.

 

[werepossum]

Sometimes I can't tell if proggies are honestly this stupid or stupidly this dishonest.

Believing that something is good and desirable at the state level does not necessarily equate to believing that same thing is good and desirable at the federal level. That viewpoint is unique to progressives who support concentration of power into as few hands as possible. More sensible people see the need for different levels of government, with power devolving to that level closest to the people governed capable of doing the job.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Sometimes I can't tell if proggies are honestly this stupid or stupidly this dishonest.

Believing that something is good and desirable at the state level does not necessarily equate to believing that same thing is good and desirable at the federal level. That viewpoint is unique to progressives who support concentration of power into as few hands as possible. More sensible people see the need for different levels of government, with power devolving to that level closest to the people governed capable of doing the job.

"I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans," Romney told CNN in 2009. "The fact that we were able to get people insured without a government option is a model I think they can learn from."

Sounds an awful lot like he wanted Washington to implement Romneycare and not the Obamacare that had a public option before Obama beat him to it. Face it he's nothing but scum that changed his position when it was convenient.

 

[soulcougher73]

Sometimes I can't tell if proggies are honestly this stupid or stupidly this dishonest.

Believing that something is good and desirable at the state level does not necessarily equate to believing that same thing is good and desirable at the federal level. That viewpoint is unique to progressives who support concentration of power into as few hands as possible. More sensible people see the need for different levels of government, with power devolving to that level closest to the people governed capable of doing the job.

So why wouldnt his great 100% healthcare coverage be good for the nation? I mean we are the UNITED states of America...maybe we should act like it. We're all in this together.

 

[Dari]

Sometimes I can't tell if proggies are honestly this stupid or stupidly this dishonest.

Believing that something is good and desirable at the state level does not necessarily equate to believing that same thing is good and desirable at the federal level. That viewpoint is unique to progressives who support concentration of power into as few hands as possible. More sensible people see the need for different levels of government, with power devolving to that level closest to the people governed capable of doing the job.

Maybe you're the one that's not thinking this through. In your simple opinion, having UNIVERSAL healthcare in one state is good while having UNIVERSAL healthcare in another state would be bad? What's worse, the states that actually need something like that (those in the south) would not have it. With thinking like that it's no wonder our gun laws are so fucked up. In your simple world it's a great idea to have strict gun laws in one state while in another it's ok to have loose gun laws. Yet there is nothing to stop an individual bent on harming others from going over the state line and buying the gun from the state that makes things extremely easy. Great thinking there and it's working soooo well.

In some cases, it's all or nothing. Universal healthcare is an example of that.

 

[werepossum]

"I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans," Romney told CNN in 2009. "The fact that we were able to get people insured without a government option is a model I think they can learn from."

Sounds an awful lot like he wanted Washington to implement Romneycare and not the Obamacare that had a public option before Obama beat him to it. Face it he's nothing but scum that changed his position when it was convenient.

"A number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans" /= "Washington should impose the Massachusetts plan on all Americans."

So why wouldnt his great 100% healthcare coverage be good for the nation? I mean we are the UNITED states of America...maybe we should act like it. We're all in this together.

Perhaps, but I see two issues. First, we are not a homogeneous country. The best solution for poor, obese, heavily black and mostly rural Mississippi will probably not be the optimum solution for wealthy, urban, mostly white Connecticut. Similarly, the health issues faced by Arizona with its heavy population of illegal Mexicans and South and Central Americans, usually unvaccinated and often with diseases not endemic to our native population, are not necessarily the same as North Dakota or Iowa with far fewer immigrants.

Second, even for Massachusetts Romneycare may not be the best system possible. With individual states running their own versions of Romneycare we have competition of ideas and implementation, with each state free to take the ideas that best suits its population and the implementation proven most efficient. With a federal system, changes will be driven primarily by politics, with quality and efficiency of medical care a distant second at best.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

"A number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans" /= "Washington should impose the Massachusetts plan on all Americans."

Yea, except for the second part where he talks about insuring everyone without a public option as a model Washington (not all states, but Washington) should learn from. You have to be pretty willfully ignorant to not admit that's blatant support for a nation plan. Again face it he was for it as a national plan until Obama beat him to it.

 

[werepossum]

Maybe you're the one that's not thinking this through. In your simple opinion, having UNIVERSAL healthcare in one state is good while having UNIVERSAL healthcare in another state would be bad? What's worse, the states that actually need something like that (those in the south) would not have it. With thinking like that it's no wonder our gun laws are so fucked up. In your simple world it's a great idea to have strict gun laws in one state while in another it's ok to have loose gun laws. Yet there is nothing to stop an individual bent on harming others from going over the state line and buying the gun from the state that makes things extremely easy. Great thinking there and it's working soooo well.

In some cases, it's all or nothing. Universal healthcare is an example of that.

Somehow I'm not surprised that you completely missed my point. Universal coverage should be the goal for every state. HOW this is best accomplished is not necessarily the same for every state.

And it's equally amusing that you deride my world view as simple when your own view is to ignore all differences between states and have the federal government impose one system on everyone. Doesn't get much simpler than that. This is in fact endemic among progressives; while you pat yourselves on the backs for your nuanced viewpoint, you are in fact black and white on every issue. Your solution to every problem is always to have the federal government control everything and provide everything everyone needs. Could there even be a simpler, less nuanced creature than a progressive?

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Believing that something is good and desirable at the state level does not necessarily equate to believing that same thing is good and desirable at the federal level.

If he had actually held that point of view at any time before it became politically expedient for him to do so, I'd consider it valid.

 

[Moonbeam]

We can't have somebody like Romney as President. He will say anything to the Russians Chinese or Iranians to please them. Then they will take that inch and turn it into a mile until there's nothing left of the United States.

I learned about Romney from Mulla Nasruden when he used to be a judge. When the prosecution presented its case Nasruden whacked the gavel shouting, I believe you are right, to which the defense presented its case, and again the gavel and the I believe you are right. The jury said, they can't both be right, to which the Mulla exclaimed, you're right.

 

[hal2kilo]

Sometimes I can't tell if proggies are honestly this stupid or stupidly this dishonest.

Believing that something is good and desirable at the state level does not necessarily equate to believing that same thing is good and desirable at the federal level. That viewpoint is unique to progressives who support concentration of power into as few hands as possible. More sensible people see the need for different levels of government, with power devolving to that level closest to the people governed capable of doing the job.

I'm sure a balkanized system of medical care throughout the country would be much more efficient than one single system. Really? Oh, but, it all about power now.

 

[woolfe9999]

"A number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans" /= "Washington should impose the Massachusetts plan on all Americans."

Not so fast. Quote the entire statement please. His first sentence is this:

I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans.

That alone is somewhat vague, but I have to think that even if this was the entirety of the remark, then why didn't he put a qualification on the statement. Remember, Romney supposedly believes that an individual mandate is unconstitutional if done on the federal level. And the mandate was core to Romneycare. You'd think he'd at least add something to the effect that the federal government should not adopt the mandate. Believing that something is unconstitutional is no trifling matter. Oh right, he wanted them to adopt the mandate because he said so in the very next sentence, which is more specific:

"The fact that we were able to get people insured without a government option is a model I think they can learn from."

Now refresh my recollection. By what mechanism did Romneycare "get people insured without a government option?" Hmm. I'm pretty sure it was the exact same method employed by Obamacare: an individual mandate.

Romney is full of shit.

 

[Matt1970]

A 75 page State plan and a 2500 page Federal plan are obviously the same thing

 

[woolfe9999]

A 75 page State plan and a 2500 page Federal plan are obviously the same thing

Is that really your argument here, to compare page lengths? The fact is, both require individuals to purchase health insurance from private companies. This is the core provision which is the least popular thing in Obamacare and drew the most objections, and it's what was litigated at the SCOTUS. As Romney's prior statement makes clear, he supported the adoption of that mandate at the federal level long before he was against it. In that respect, he wasn't all that different from many other republicans, except for the fact that he actually put it into effect in his own state.

 

[emperus]

A 75 page State plan and a 2500 page Federal plan are obviously the same thing

This is the kind of statement that makes a intellectual discussion with a Republican/conservative impossible to have.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

A 75 page State plan and a 2500 page Federal plan are obviously the same thing

Well, 75 times 50 is 3,750, so clearly the federal plan is a full 33% more efficient.

 

[hal2kilo]

Well, 75 times 50 is 3,750, so clearly the federal plan is a full 33% more efficient.

I like your math. hehe

 

[woolfe9999]

Well, 75 times 50 is 3,750, so clearly the federal plan is a full 33% more efficient.

I look at it like this. 2500 pages to get 40 million people insured versus 75 pages to cover 500,000. That means Obamacare was able to insure 16,000 per page, while Romney could only get a measly 6,666 insured per page. I'm thinking that this is a pretty air tight argument for why everyone should vote for Obama this November. This Page Efficiency Gap must be explained!