Where does Romney come off criticizing Obamacare?

[Syringer]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiJr0VsEeAzB2c1-nokFzCOoXYqgD9EK3TG03

"SAN DIEGO — Former Republican presidential contender Mitt Romney says President Barack Obama's new health care bill is unconstitutional, deserves to be repealed and will help cost the Democrat a second term.

Romney says the bill passed by the House late Sunday is unconstitutional because it interferes with interstate commerce. He says it needs to be repealed in part because it was passed without bipartisan support."

So this is fine for most other politicians, even if they have presidential aspirations..but let's take a look at Romneycare, which Mitt signed into Mass law himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

"Through the law, Massachusetts provides free health care for residents earning less than 150% of the federal poverty level (FPL)[1], and partially-subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale."

And "At the forum, the Foundation issued a series of reports on reform options, all of which included an individual mandate. "

A health care plan that makes insurance affordable to those not making much money, AND an individual mandate requiring all citizens to purchase insurance or face a fine? Gosh why does that sound familiar?

 

[Jhhnn]

When he did it, it was good, when Dems do it, it's bad, Mkay?

That's all you really need to know- Republicans goose-stepping in formation, chanting their newest jingo...

 

[yllus]

Haha, I was about to post this as well.

David Frum: Republicans provided the model for Obamacare

For all the ferocity of these three paragraphs, only two sentences offer a susbstantive objection to Obamacare.

“It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt.”

It’s true: Romneycare did not do those things. It did not create a federal bureaucracy; it created a state bureaucracy. It did not raise taxes; but instead was based on $300 million in free federal money. But in the main outlines, the two programs are identical.

Romneycare invented a mechanism to buy insurance with before tax dollars, just like Obamacare: the exchange. It more tightly regulated insurance practices, just like Obamacare. It imposed an individual mandate to buy insurance, and offered subsidies to those who could not afford it, just like … you get the idea.

Devil is in the details as always of course. I’m sure a President Romney would have produced a different result than President Obama. But how different?

And if a President Romney had produced a plan based on his Massachusetts experience that did enlarge coverage, eliminate some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry, and set the country on track to slowing down the growth of healthcare costs – wouldn’t he have regarded that as a huge success?

Now Romney is denouncing a plan based upon his own supreme achievement. But if Romneycare is a disaster when it goes national, then why elect its author to national office?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

When he did it, it was good, when Dems do it, it's bad, Mkay?

That's all you really need to know- Republicans goose-stepping in formation, chanting their newest jingo...

Doing it at the state level is very different than at the federal level. No hypocrisy found, sorry.

 

[theamericans075]

No it's not. Thanks for playing!

 

[theamericans075]

"sorry, it works for this imaginary level of governing, but not the one directly above it because STATES RIGHTS*"

*argument likely only used in cases to oppress minorities

 

[Mean MrMustard]

"sorry, it works for this imaginary level of governing, but not the one directly above it because STATES RIGHTS*"

*argument likely only used in cases to oppress minorities

Why do we even have states? If everything can be handled at the federal level, what's the point?

 

[theamericans075]

Because this nation was founded before any sort of modern communications system existed, and the entire concept is currently outdated.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Because this nation was founded before any sort of modern communications system existed, and the entire concept is currently outdated.

Seriously, this is your answer? This is why we have states?

 

[theamericans075]

Oh right to PORTECT US FROM TAH GUBMIT (ignores supremacy clause) (argument only used to oppress civil rights)

 

[HannibalX]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiJr0VsEeAzB2c1-nokFzCOoXYqgD9EK3TG03



So this is fine for most other politicians, even if they have presidential aspirations..but let's take a look at Romneycare, which Mitt signed into Mass law himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform



A health care plan that makes insurance affordable to those not making much money, AND an individual mandate requiring all citizens to purchase insurance or face a fine? Gosh why does that sound familiar?

If you bothered to read the sources you cited one is speaking about the federal level and the other is speaking of the state level.

Many states already have "socialized" health care, Mass, Tenn, etc, etc.

Romney's point was that these news laws conflict with existing laws, NOT that he believes social health care is by and large a bad thing.

Thanks.

 

[nageov3t]

Mitt Romney is fairly consistent in his inconsistency.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/22/romneys_rhetoric_glosses_mass_years/

 

[theamericans075]

It's almost as if there's something in the constitution about how federal laws overrule state laws, for just such an occasion....

 

[HannibalX]

Why do we even have states? If everything can be handled at the federal level, what's the point?

Uhhhgh.. You can't be serious.

 

[woolfe9999]

It boils down to only one possibly legitimate objection: that doing so on the federal level is unconstitutional (i.e. not interstate commerce), whereas doing it on the state level is OK. However, the trouble is that Romney has also criticized the bill for certain substantive things which are part of his own HC overhaul in Mass.

- wolf

 

[HannibalX]

It boils down to only one possibly legitimate objection: that doing so on the federal level is unconstitutional (i.e. not interstate commerce), whereas doing it on the state level is OK. However, the trouble is that Romney has also criticized the bill for certain substantive things which are part of his own HC overhaul in Mass.

- wolf

So he isn't allowed to think that some things are good on the local level and not on the federal level?

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Uhhhgh.. You can't be serious.

Actually, I am serious. If everything can and should be handled at the federal level what's the point?

So far the only reason is that there's wasn't a "modern communication system" in existence.

I supposed (I hope) you have a better answer.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The Mass system does not penalize those that already have insurance

 

[HannibalX]

Actually, I am serious. If everything can and should be handled at the federal level what's the point?

So far the only reason is that there's wasn't a "modern communication system" in existence.

I supposed (I hope) you have a better answer.

What do you base your opinion on that everything should be done at the Federal level?

 

[Thump553]

deleted

 

[Bitek]

What do you base your opinion on that everything should be done at the Federal level?

Because its been absolutely proven that the optimum governance structure, as measured by GDP, Happiness Index, and church attendance, is located at the state level. In add't to the feds, all cities, counties, town councils and HOAs should be banned as instruments of Communism and oppression. Why do towns monopolize the water supply? Because they are part of an international communist conspiracy which seeks to impurify our natural & precious bodily fluids.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Doing it at the state level is very different than at the federal level. No hypocrisy found, sorry.

This should end the thread, but unfortunately due to our public education system - liberals don't seem to understand that states are supposed to have such powers that aren't expressly designated for the Feds.

 

[AzureNightmareX1]

Obama's healthcare reform IS unconstitutional. Not because its infringing on individual rights, but because it is infringing on the rights of the States.

 

[Patranus]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iiJr0VsEeAzB2c1-nokFzCOoXYqgD9EK3TG03



So this is fine for most other politicians, even if they have presidential aspirations..but let's take a look at Romneycare, which Mitt signed into Mass law himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform



A health care plan that makes insurance affordable to those not making much money, AND an individual mandate requiring all citizens to purchase insurance or face a fine? Gosh why does that sound familiar?

Gosh, I don't think anyone is arguing that a STATE can require something......

Are "progressives" really this stupid?

 

[bozack]

Romney did what he did here because with or without him it was going to happen...

With that said, the mandatory health plan in MA has bankrupted the state to the point of submission, one of the worst things we did. I pretty much expect the same outcome on the national level.