This Romney did too excuse

[dblack]

Both of you idiots don't understand the difference between a State and the Feds.

I get the difference. But it's irrelevant to my concerns. Just because states have more leeway to violate our rights, doesn't mean they should, or that I will support governors or statehouses that do. And frankly, if the only reason Romney is opposed to PPACA, and still defends his own version, is that it's not permitted by the federal constitution, well, justice Roberts just pretty much wiped away that concern.

The point is, if Romney has so little respect for individual freedom that he'll sign a law subjugating his constituency to the insurance industry then he truly doesn't "get" basic concepts of freedom. It doesn't matter to me whether it was technically allowed or not. It was wrong and Romney doesn't understand that.

If he did, if Romney announced that he made a mistake and should have never allowed the mandate to be part of Romneycare (and I could convince myself he was telling the truth), then I might be persuaded to give him a chance. But he hasn't, and I doubt he will.

EDIT: or, what g5000 just said.

 

[Care4all]

Don't forget it was uncostitutional under the Commerce Clause.

And this logical fallacy is called "red herring."

And you need to Read the Ruling.

It clearly states the Mandate is Not Constitutional as a power under the Commerce Clause, Stating that what they were trying doing went beyond Regulation Commerce to Forcing the Creation of Commerce.

That is Important for 2 Reason.

1. This Ruling can now be used to argue Against Further Attempted Abuses of the Commerce Clause.

2. Because it was Ruled a Tax, The mandate and most of the Rest of the Bill Can be Repealed in whole or Piece by Piece with only a Simple 51 Vote Majority in the Senate instead of 60.

The Very Bad Precedent the Ruling sets is the Idea that Government Can do almost anything it wants, Force you to do, or Buy what ever, through basically holding a gun to your head with a tax penalty if you don't do it.

But At least the Fuckers will have to stand up and be counted and vote for Tax Increases every time they want to fuck with us, and Tax Increases are not very Popular. Harder to Pass.

Obama Care would likely not even be law if they had, had to own up to the Fact that the Mandate was a tax, and people had known more about the trillion dollars in other taxes in it. From a Tax on Peoples Existing Insurance Premiums, To a Tax on Companies that Make Medical Devices.

Check em out Many of these Taxes actually seemed designed to Increase the Cost of medical Care.
20 Hidden Tax Hikes in Obamacare

the other taxes in the bill were ALL discussed at the time of the proposed bill....they were part of the whole discussion on how it would be funded and how much it would cost. The CBO had to 'score' the bill to give us a cost estimate and all those tax proposals were taken in to account to get that final figure.

 

[Inthemiddle]

And you need to Read the Ruling.

It clearly states the Mandate is Not Constitutional as a power under the Commerce Clause, Stating that what they were trying doing went beyond Regulation Commerce to Forcing the Creation of Commerce.

Repeating a red herring does not make it any less a red herring. My comment to T had nothing to do with the Supreme Court's decision. I was addressing his Tenther claim. The question is, was mandating insurance an original power of the states? Drawing attention to the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the health care law does not address the question I've raised. Thus, it is a red herring.

 

[Inthemiddle]

In YOUR case? A case of the RED ASS.

And this logical fallacy is called "ad hominem."

SAME as YOURS.

I've not committed any ad hominems here.

DUMBASS

Again, this is called an ad hominem.

 

[FJO]

No logical falacy

Romney is attacking Obamacare as unnecessary and unwarranted at he same time he passed a similar bill.

The logic is called hypocrisy

Calling a Bill passed for a tiny state with a Tiny Population, by a State Government, the similar to a Bill that Effects 1/6th the US economy, and every Person living in the Country, passed by the Federal Government. Is also a Fallacy.

You guys like to Keep pointing out Obama Care was Modeled on Romney Care, but you seem to not want to look at how much Romney Care is Costing that State, and how Those Costs continue to Spiral out of control.

lol

Well I'm glad you brought that up. Being a tiny state ..that makes Willard a tiny state's governor... too small to compare to being the president of 320 million people maybe?

PS Thank you for that observation.

Having been a Governor of a State, however tiny qualifies a person for the Presidency far better than one rousing speech, written by somebody smarter and read off a teleprompter, or being a rabble-rousing malcontent, otherwise known as "community organizer", or a State Senatorship, or a U.S. Senatorship, both abandoned for personal gains, after record number of gutless "PRESENT" votes at both places.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not at all. Lincoln was our greatest president with several terms in the legislature and one in Congress as his whole experience.

 

[Sallow]

is bullshit.

Someone smart tell us what kind of logical fallacy it is.

Hey, don't drink and drive, it's bad. Well, you drank and drove one time.

So fucking what? Drinking and driving is still bad.

American politics is idiotic.

Really? Drinking and Driving vs. RomneyCare?

You didn't just go there..

Oh gosh..to much.

 

[Sallow]

And this logical fallacy is called "red herring."

And you need to Read the Ruling.

It clearly states the Mandate is Not Constitutional as a power under the Commerce Clause, Stating that what they were trying doing went beyond Regulation Commerce to Forcing the Creation of Commerce.

That is Important for 2 Reason.

1. This Ruling can now be used to argue Against Further Attempted Abuses of the Commerce Clause.

2. Because it was Ruled a Tax, The mandate and most of the Rest of the Bill Can be Repealed in whole or Piece by Piece with only a Simple 51 Vote Majority in the Senate instead of 60.

The Very Bad Precedent the Ruling sets is the Idea that Government Can do almost anything it wants, Force you to do, or Buy what ever, through basically holding a gun to your head with a tax penalty if you don't do it.

But At least the Fuckers will have to stand up and be counted and vote for Tax Increases every time they want to fuck with us, and Tax Increases are not very Popular. Harder to Pass.

Obama Care would likely not even be law if they had, had to own up to the Fact that the Mandate was a tax, and people had known more about the trillion dollars in other taxes in it. From a Tax on Peoples Existing Insurance Premiums, To a Tax on Companies that Make Medical Devices.

Check em out Many of these Taxes actually seemed designed to Increase the Cost of medical Care.
20 Hidden Tax Hikes in Obamacare

the other taxes in the bill were ALL discussed at the time of the proposed bill....they were part of the whole discussion on how it would be funded and how much it would cost. The CBO had to 'score' the bill to give us a cost estimate and all those tax proposals were taken in to account to get that final figure.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxYg7rPp_-g]Rep. John Boehner "Hell No" Song - YouTube[/ame]




The real question should have been..

Do you actually work for a paycheck, Representative Boehner?

 

[francoHFW]

Romneycare a great success, none of the PUB doom and gloom. 70% approval, and the 30% are freeloading POS...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frontline said cost rises are now 2%, easily the lowest in the USA. So change the channel...

For this reason he also provided for subsidies for individuals living below three times the federal poverty line to make insurance affordable. This “three-legged stool”—banning discrimination in insurance markets, mandating that individuals purchase insurance, and providing low-income subsidies for insurance purchase—became the basis for both our reform in Massachusetts and for the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

The enormous success of health-care reform in the almost six years since its passage in Massachusetts can make us more confident that this three-legged stool will work for the nation as a whole. We have covered about two-thirds of uninsured Massachusetts residents, and have lowered the premiums in the non-group market by half relative to national premium trends. And we have done so with broad public support. Moreover, this reform succeeded without interfering with the employer-sponsored insurance market that works for most of our residents: employer-sponsored insurance coverage has actually risen in Massachusetts, while falling sharply nationally, and the premiums for employer-sponsored insurance rose no faster in Massachusetts than they did nationally.

This was all possible because the individual mandate ended the “death spiral” of trying to obtain fairly priced insurance by just forcing insurers to charge everyone the same price. The bottom line is that we can’t have fairly priced insurance for the healthy and sick alike without the broad participation that is guaranteed by the mandate. The mandate is the spinach we have to eat to get the dessert that is fairly priced insurance coverage.

Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success « Hot Air Headlines
Mar 27, 2012 ... Actually, RomneyCare is an enormous success. Into this chasm stepped the hero
of our story, Governor Mitt Romney, and his plan for ...

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/03/rom...nd-falsehoods/ - Cached

romneycare success - Google Search