"I will repeal Obamacare" Mitt Romney

[dblack]

Romney does get that the federal government can not be used in that way, he has stated it and even explained that in the video you responded to.

Again how does Romney believing in the 10th ammendment create irony?

Because the tenth amendment isn't the only issue here. The more important issue, in my view, is personal freedom. Romney clearly doesn't see anything wrong with using government to order people to buy things they don't want. Whether it's technically constitutional or not, it's just as much a violation of our rights at the state level as it is at the national level.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

But he has NEVER advocated for it on a federal level. He has always said it is a states issue and should be handled how individual states see fit.

Obamacare oversteps the Federal Govt's constitutionally limited authority and Romney would not and has not supported the mandate on a federal level.

Its not Ironic at all for somone who understands and believes in the 10th ammendment.

Romney doesn't "get" why it's wrong to use government in that way. He's still defending the core principle of Obamacare. That's why it's painfully ironic, and frankly impossible to believe, that he's going to lead the campaign against it. Let's face it, Ronmey is where he is because the people who finance our political system KNOW he'll do their bidding. They've served us up two candidates with the same ideology - essentially no ideology other than a desire for power and control.

Romney does get that the federal government can not be used in that way, he has stated it and even explained that in the video you responded to.

Again how does Romney believing in the 10th ammendment create irony?

Romney does get that the federal government can not be used in that way, he has stated it and even explained that in the video you responded to.

Again how does Romney believing in the 10th ammendment create irony?

Because the tenth amendment isn't the only issue here. The more important issue, in my view, is personal freedom. Romney clearly doesn't see anything wrong with using government to order people to buy things they don't want. Whether it's technically constitutional or not, it's just as much a violation of our rights at the state level as it is at the national level.

Actually the MA state constitution legally allowed for Romneycare and the Majority of the people in my state still support it, I am not in that majority but lets at least be honest .

 

[dblack]

Actually the MA state constitution legally allowed for Romneycare and the Majority of the people in my state still support it, I am not in that majority but lets at least be honest .

Yeah. So?

Again, whether it's constitutional, or supported by the majority, isn't the issue. It's a violation of our most basic right as consumers. Romney doesn't get that. Do you?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Actually the MA state constitution legally allowed for Romneycare and the Majority of the people in my state still support it, I am not in that majority but lets at least be honest .

Yeah. So?

Again, whether it's constitutional, or supported by the majority, isn't the issue. It's a violation of our most basic right as consumers. Romney doesn't get that. Do you?

You stated that what Romney did was a violation of MA residents right at a state level, that is incorrect as our state constitution allows for the government to have the power to do this. That is the "so".

Its ok that you were wrong about that. I also think Romney does get it, as do I. I never said I support Romneycare's penalty for not having insurance.

At least Romneycare, unlike obamacare, allows me to keep my current plan and doctor and doesn't have the govt getting involved in the doctor/patient relationship in the way Obamacare does.

Romney does get that the federal government can not be used in that way, he has stated it and even explained that in the video you responded to.

Again how does Romney believing in the 10th ammendment create irony?

Because the tenth amendment isn't the only issue here. The more important issue, in my view, is personal freedom. Romney clearly doesn't see anything wrong with using government to order people to buy things they don't want. Whether it's technically constitutional or not, it's just as much a violation of our rights at the state level as it is at the national level.

 

[dblack]

You stated that what Romney did was a violation of MA residents right at a state level, that is incorrect as our state constitution allows for the government to have the power to do this.

Once again, I think you're missing my point. I'm not concerned with the technical legality of the law. I'm worried about a leader who thinks it's ok to use the power of government to force people to buy things they don't want.

I also think Romney does get it, as do I. I never said I support Romneycare's penalty for not having insurance.

Then why is Romney still defending the mandate? I haven't heard him say it's wrong. Why do you think he "gets" it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

You stated that what Romney did was a violation of MA residents right at a state level, that is incorrect as our state constitution allows for the government to have the power to do this.

Once again, I think you're missing my point. I'm not concerned with the technical legality of the law. I'm worried about a leader who thinks it's ok to use the power of government to force people to buy things they don't want.

I also think Romney does get it, as do I. I never said I support Romneycare's penalty for not having insurance.

Then why is Romney still defending the mandate? I haven't heard him say it's wrong. Why do you think he "gets" it?

He has said it would be wrong to impliment at a federal level, it was in that very video which inspired our conversation.

 

[dblack]

He has said it would be wrong to impliment at a federal level, it was in that very video which inspired our conversation.

Ok... I guess you just don't want to address the point I'm making: Romney doesn't see anything wrong with forcing people to buy insurance. That calls into question his values and understanding concern our most basic freedoms. The constitutionality of the law is being decided presently by the Court, and will be resolved before Romney would take office anyway, so that's a moot point.

What bothers me is that he obviously has very little respect for personal freedom. He's proven himself perfectly willing to use government to violate it as longs as it's technically allowed. That's not the kind of person I want leading our country. It's the kind of person we already have. It's the kind of person we almost always get.

 

[dblack]

Also... (and this is why it concerns me that he doesn't see anything wrong with it in principle), if Romney's only opposition to the mandate is that it's unconstitutional at the federal level, couldn't we assume that, if the Court rules that it IS constitutional he'd drop any efforts to repeal it?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

He has said it would be wrong to impliment at a federal level, it was in that very video which inspired our conversation.

Ok... I guess you just don't want to address the point I'm making: Romney doesn't see anything wrong with forcing people to buy insurance. That calls into question his values and understanding concern our most basic freedoms. The constitutionality of the law is being decided presently by the Court, and will be resolved before Romney would take office anyway, so that's a moot point.

What bothers me is that he obviously has very little respect for personal freedom. He's proven himself perfectly willing to use government to violate it as longs as it's technically allowed. That's not the kind of person I want leading our country. It's the kind of person we already have. It's the kind of person we almost always get.

I've seen your point several times now but you are ignoring the fact that Romeny has publicly stated several times he does not believe the constitution allows the federal government to mandate private citizens buy any products from private companies.

YOu keep bringing up as an issue that "Romney sees nothing wrong with forcing people to buy insurance" as if you can not differentiate between the powers states have and the powers the federal government has.

Romney has said nothing that would make me think he is for a federal mandate on any purchase of any products be it health insurance or broccoli.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Also... (and this is why it concerns me that he doesn't see anything wrong with it in principle), if Romney's only opposition to the mandate is that it's unconstitutional at the federal level, couldn't we assume that, if the Court rules that it IS constitutional he'd drop any efforts to repeal it?

IF the courts ruled it was constitutional is a hypothetical and a highly unlikely hypothetical at that since the federal govt does not have the authority to mandate citizens buy any products I still don't think he would.

He believes in the 10th ammendment and also believes in the limits on power the constitution places on the federal government.

 

[Greenbeard]

But he has NEVER advocated for it on a federal level. He has always said it is a states issue and should be handled how individual states see fit.

That doesn't appear to be true at all. He spoke very highly of Wyden-Bennett just a few years ago:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M9gGwW2gCs]Mitt Romney supported Federal Mandate in 2009 MTP appearance - YouTube[/ame]

He also seem to reject the suggestion he'd backed away from federal mandates last go-around:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dSy9G_4_Uk]Mitt Romney Likes Mandates - YouTube[/ame]

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That doesn't appear to be true at all. He spoke very highly of Wyden-Bennett just a few years ago:

Romney has not been very conservative, but far more imortantly, he is more conservative than Obama who had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. Therefore he is by far the best choice for conservatives and libertarians.

 

[dblack]

That doesn't appear to be true at all. He spoke very highly of Wyden-Bennett just a few years ago:

Romney has not been very conservative, but far more imortantly, he is more conservative than Obama who had 2 communist parents and voted to the left of Bernie Sanders. Therefore he is by far the best choice for conservatives and libertarians.

LOL... weak!

Romney has far, far more in common with Obama than with Ron Paul or any real libertarian. The mainstream Republicans will probably fall in line, that's what they do - but libertarians won't.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The mainstream Republicans will probably fall in line, that's what they do - but libertarians won't.

which is why Republicans on the Court are about to kill BO care while impotent libertarians will watch from the sidelines

 

[dblack]

The mainstream Republicans will probably fall in line, that's what they do - but libertarians won't.

which is why Republicans on the Court are about to kill BO care while impotent libertarians will watch from the sidelines

Yeah, we'll see about that. I hope you're right.

In any case, Republicans like Romney came up with the idea of mandates in the first place, so that's an awfully 'glassy' house to throw from.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

But he has NEVER advocated for it on a federal level. He has always said it is a states issue and should be handled how individual states see fit.

That doesn't appear to be true at all. He spoke very highly of Wyden-Bennett just a few years ago:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M9gGwW2gCs]Mitt Romney supported Federal Mandate in 2009 MTP appearance - YouTube[/ame]

He also seem to reject the suggestion he'd backed away from federal mandates last go-around:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dSy9G_4_Uk]Mitt Romney Likes Mandates - YouTube[/ame]

In your first video, the Healthy American's Act (Wyden-Bennet), does not have federal mandates in it Healthy Americans Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It changes who buys insurance for individuals from employers to individuals buying it.

On your second video if you listen to Romeny's explaination, which is cut out of that video you presented, you would see he does not want the federal mandate for purchases of products like health insurance.


You should research this stuff better.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The mainstream Republicans will probably fall in line, that's what they do - but libertarians won't.

which is why Republicans on the Court are about to kill BO care while impotent libertarians will watch from the sidelines

Yeah, we'll see about that. I hope you're right.

In any case, Republicans like Romney came up with the idea of mandates in the first place, so that's an awfully 'glassy' house to throw from.

Only if you present Romney's position dishonestly.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Only if you present Romney's position dishonestly.

Romney does not have a solid position really, but he is certainly to the right of BO. It will be up to the Tea Party wing to determine how far to the right his actual position gets.

BO was the same way, in that his personal opinion was of little consequence. It really matters where the country is.

 

[Greenbeard]

In your first video, the Healthy American's Act (Wyden-Bennet), does not have federal mandates in it Healthy Americans Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It changes who buys insurance for individuals from employers to individuals buying it.

I'm not sure what you're quibbling with--is it the definition of mandate? Wyden-Bennett established that "Each adult individual shall have the responsibility to enroll in a [Health Americans Private Insurance] plan" and specified penalties for failing to do so. Structurally that requirement is different from a similar requirement in the ACA because they're assessed very differently.

But are you telling me that this difference is enough not only to win Mitt Romney's support and put this ugly judicial business behind us, but also to erase the perception that there's any mandate on the individual at all? If that's all it'll take to end the controversy, I'd be all for swapping Wyden-Bennett's language with the ACA's on this point right now. Perhaps Wyden can introduce the bill making the revision.

On your second video if you listen to Romeny's explaination, which is cut out of that video you presented, you would see he does not want the federal mandate for purchases of products like health insurance.

I'd be interested in seeing/reading that missing explanation from that venue (not some other one where's he's cleared the etch a sketch). He clearly said "no, no, I like mandates" in response to Charlie Gibson (?) saying "...although you've backed away from mandates on a national basis."

 

[Valerie]

In your first video, the Healthy American's Act (Wyden-Bennet), does not have federal mandates in it Healthy Americans Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It changes who buys insurance for individuals from employers to individuals buying it.

I'm not sure what you're quibbling with--is it the definition of mandate? Wyden-Bennett established that "Each adult individual shall have the responsibility to enroll in a [Health Americans Private Insurance] plan" and specified penalties for failing to do so. Structurally that requirement is different from a similar requirement in the ACA because they're assessed very differently.

But are you telling me that this difference is enough not only to win Mitt Romney's support and put this ugly judicial business behind us, but also to erase the perception that there's any mandate on the individual at all? If that's all it'll take to end the controversy, I'd be all for swapping Wyden-Bennett's language with the ACA's on this point right now. Perhaps Wyden can introduce the bill making the revision.

On your second video if you listen to Romeny's explaination, which is cut out of that video you presented, you would see he does not want the federal mandate for purchases of products like health insurance.

I'd be interested in seeing/reading that missing explanation from that venue (not some other one where's he's cleared the etch a sketch). He clearly said "no, no, I like mandates" in response to Charlie Gibson (?) saying "...although you've backed away from mandates on a national basis."

He believes in personal responsibility and accountability and sees no problem with a State quantifying the cost of Health Care in their own community. He believes the People's best interest is best represented in that manner...

...whatever the justices decide in what is certain to be a landmark decision, the case against ObamaCare extends far beyond questions about its constitutionality. President Obama's program is an unfolding disaster for the American economy, a budget-busting entitlement, and a dramatic new federal intrusion into our lives.


It is precisely for those reasons that I've opposed a one-size-fits-all health care plan for the entire nation. What we need is a free market, federalist approach to making quality, affordable health insurance available to every American.



...


A key question is how to provide care for the poor, the uninsured and the chronically ill. My program begins by taking seriously the words of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In line with the intentions of our Founding Fathers, I favor giving each of the 50 states the resources and the responsibility to craft the health care solutions that suit their citizens best.


Why I'd repeal ObamaCare

Health Care