BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

[Rocko]

respectfully have to disagree.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

respectfully have to disagree.

Disagreements are good, but what seperates romney and newt from obama?

 

[Rocko]

respectfully have to disagree.

Disagreements are good, but what seperates romney and newt from obama?

1) foriegn policy

2) Romney is not a marxist

3) Romney is not divisive

 

[bigrebnc1775]

respectfully have to disagree.

Disagreements are good, but what seperates romney and newt from obama?

1) foriegn policy

2) Romney is not a marxist

3) Romney is not divisive

foriegn policy

Read my signature

Romney is not a marxist

He's an elitist liberal socialist big government republican

Romney is not divisive

He is deceptive because he was for the same things Gov. obama is for now. Romney is two faced
Romney has said he would support the NDAA as written.,

 

[JoeB131]

respectfully have to disagree.

Disagreements are good, but what seperates romney and newt from obama?

1) foriegn policy

2) Romney is not a marxist

3) Romney is not divisive

1- Obama's foreign Policy isn't any different than Bush's. Except Obama manages to get it done without insulting the foreigners.

2- Obama's not a Marxist, either. Marxists don't let the banksters keep their bonuses... or their lives.

3- Romney is certainly divisive. He's even managed to divide the Republican party.

 

[Rocko]

Disagreements are good, but what seperates romney and newt from obama?

1) foriegn policy

2) Romney is not a marxist

3) Romney is not divisive

1- Obama's foreign Policy isn't any different than Bush's. Except Obama manages to get it done without insulting the foreigners.

2- Obama's not a Marxist, either. Marxists don't let the banksters keep their bonuses... or their lives.

3- Romney is certainly divisive. He's even managed to divide the Republican party.

1- Bush's foriegn policy was better than Obama's. Why are we talking Booooosh?

2- He is full-blown. It's not policy, it's belief system that proves it. You'll see if he gets re-elected.

3- GOP is always divided. Whites for Romney ?

 

[Greenbeard]

It's not policy, it's belief system that proves it.

"It's not what he does, it's what I imagine he thinks!"

 

[Rocko]

It's not policy, it's belief system that proves it.

"It's not what he does, it's what I imagine he thinks!"

He can't do everything he wants to do, because....

1) our system of government.

2)He still needs votes.

 

[g5000]

Romney's op-ed was written while ObamaCare was being fought over in Congress and the media. The biggest issue was the drive to provide a public option at that time. In that context, it is obvious Romney is telling Obama not to rush into a public option, and that with a federal mandate everyone would buy their insurance from private companies.

You have to have been living in a cave at the time and have a reading comprehension problem not to see that.

Romney urges Obama to go with a mandate and to offset it by ending other federal health care programs.

As for "why was this not news", it has been news ever since he announced he was running again. It has been raised over and over and over by his GOP competition.

There is some weird selective amnesia in this topic.

 

[Rocko]

It's not policy, it's belief system that proves it.

"It's not what he does, it's what I imagine he thinks!"

he gives himself away whenever he talks. It's not my parinoia.

 

[BreezeWood]

You really need to get new talking points because no cost have been cut yet.
Workers' health insurance cost up again

I have individual coverage - because of the ACA, BCBS realigned all their policies - by going from $2000 to $5000 deductible I now save $435 bi-monthly - quite a substantial savings for the same policy with only one change ... and how the old deductible worked was less savings than with the present policy.

Bottom line - with the ACA there was not a need to cancel the policy.

YOU said

Good question but in actuality resolvable by further progression of the matter - At least the Obama administration began a process to constrain the cost of Health Insurance - what did the Republicans do during the previous Administration ???

Cost have not been cut nor are they coming down.

Cost have not been cut nor are they coming down

BW: what did the Republicans do during the previous Administration ???

bigrebnc1775: You really need to get new talking points because no cost have been cut yet.[

... no cost have been cut yet.

The point is the reductions are in the process of implementation through Congressional legislation, ACA - rather than the ineptitude of the previous Republican Administration.

aspects of ACA, Exp.: extended coverage for siblings already implemented has lowered costs.

individual coverage revamps are saving money already - initiation of the mandatory enrollment will save money by lowering cost.

ETC ETC ETC - the democratic Administration has initiated Legislation that Providers can not ignore and will (have to) respond accordingly.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I have individual coverage - because of the ACA, BCBS realigned all their policies - by going from $2000 to $5000 deductible I now save $435 bi-monthly - quite a substantial savings for the same policy with only one change ... and how the old deductible worked was less savings than with the present policy.

Bottom line - with the ACA there was not a need to cancel the policy.

YOU said



Cost have not been cut nor are they coming down.

Cost have not been cut nor are they coming down

BW: what did the Republicans do during the previous Administration ???

bigrebnc1775: You really need to get new talking points because no cost have been cut yet.[

... no cost have been cut yet.

The point is the reductions are in the process of implementation through Congressional legislation, ACA - rather than the ineptitude of the previous Republican Administration.

aspects of ACA, Exp.: extended coverage for siblings already implemented has lowered costs.

individual coverage revamps are saving money already - initiation of the mandatory enrollment will save money by lowering cost.

ETC ETC ETC - the democratic Administration has initiated Legislation that Providers can not ignore and will (have to) respond accordingly.

I get it now get the cost so high that any drop will make obamacare look cheap.
Thanks for playing.

 

[BreezeWood]

i get it now get the cost so high that any drop will make obamacare look cheap.
Thanks for playing.

what did the republicans do during the previous administration ???

10/4

 

[Mr. Shaman]

... encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.

The reason for the health insurance mandate is obvious - it should be embraced or at least understood by everyone and not used as a football by Republicans.

.....IF (like Republicans say) they want to maintain their obligation to....

....[URL="http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act"]Historical-precedence[/URL]!!!

"In making the legal case against Obamacare’s individual mandate, challengers have argued that the framers of our Constitution would certainly have found such a measure to be unconstitutional. Nevermind that nothing in the text or history of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause indicates that Congress cannot mandate commercial purchases. The framers, challengers have claimed, thought a constitutional ban on purchase mandates was too “obvious” to mention. Their core basis for this claim is that purchase mandates are unprecedented, which they say would not be the case if it was understood this power existed.

But there’s a major problem with this line of argument: It just isn’t true."​

.

.

.

.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"If health insurance mandates are unconstitutional, why did the Founding Fathers back them?"

Supremos Up-To-Bat​

 

[JimH52]

I don't believe it. Had he wrote an op-ed in USA today encouraging it, than that would have been major news at the time. Romney is also not that stupid.

No, Mitt is not that stupid, but he will say or do anything to be elected. He has flip flopped mulitple times on multiple issues. Once elected, I see him doing it again, much to the disdain of the Tea Baggers.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

"Not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional. Moreover, no one thought these past purchase mandates were problematic enough to challenge legally."

Teabaggers: Wrong, AGAIN!!​

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

April 12, 2012

Happy Birthday
Romneycare!!!​

"We’ve been honored by your request…to participate in giving our best advise and our technical assistance in designing a new and different kind of health insurance market. A market that is patient-centered and consumer-based, which will ease access to affordable coverage for thousands of Bay State citizens. This is new. It’s a new market, where individuals and families will be able to own and control their health insurance and take it with them to from job to job… Nothing like it has ever been attempted anywhere else in the United States. So Massachusetts has raised the bar for every state in the union. And that’s the applause you’ve given to your public officials here today is going to echo far beyond the hallow halls of this historic place." - Dr. Robert Emmet Moffit, Heritage Foundation

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Gee......where are all o' those "hot-doggin'" Teabagger-constitutionalists??!!!​

​

 

[Dick Tuck]

Mr. Etch-a-Sketch was right. A mandate was needed to avoid the people for paying for healthcare for freeloaders.