Romney Say He'd Keep Parts Of Obamacare

[mrjarrell]

Yeah. Repeal and replace. No telling just how many parts he'll keep, going by what he's said in the past, he likes a majority of it. Especially the mandate. He's nothing like Obama, tho.

Romney says he would keep parts of Obama healthcare law | Reuters

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Unfortunatly, these are the provisions much of the public appreciate about Obama care. This sort of pandering illustrates the point that there's alot of progressive indoctrination of the public that must be undone to change the republic's course.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Unfortunatly, these are the provisions much of the public appreciate about Obama care. This sort of pandering illustrates the point that there's alot of progressive indoctrination of the public that must be undone to change the republic's course.

Do you really think that can be done?

 

[hornadylnl]

Do you really think that can be done?

It'd help if the opposition party candidate would grow a pair.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It'd help if the opposition party candidate would grow a pair.

You're right, but that seems almost as big a stretch as waiting for the Easter Rabbit to do something about it.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Do you really think that can be done?

I've been on a week of vacation, so I'm feeling kind of optimistic when I say 'yes'. To the chagrin of my LP friends though, I'm afraid it can't happen with a single election. And if the smug sort of holier-than-though attitude that is on display on INGO is common amongst the rest of the LP faithful, I don't see the LP being the change agents required to bring it about. It took 100 years to get us to this point, so short of a complete collapse, it's a difficult pill to swallow to come to grips with the thought we may be on a 100 tidal change.

If I had to pick between a collapse induced change and a 100 year change, I'll take the latter. There's no gaurantee that the fruits of a collapse will restore the constitution to its former prominence

 

[downzero]

It'd help if the opposition party candidate would grow a pair.

For what? their candidate can't beat the President anyway. We might as well start planning for 2016 unless some kind of miracle happens.

 

[Mosinguy]

If we can still elect officials, I become a better speech giver, and develop better people skills maybe I'll run for President. Can't be all that hard. Follow the Constitution.

 

[IndyDave1776]

If we can still elect officials, I become a better speech giver, and develop better people skills maybe I'll run for President. Can't be all that hard. Follow the Constitution.

You would think. You have a good head on your shoulders, but you have to keep in mind that at least half of the voters don't care in teh least about what is good for teh country, or even what it takes to stave off an impending collapse.l They only care about personal gratification and who is going to give them the most--some in form of entitlements and others in form of lucrative .gov contracts which may or may not be necessary, or even useful. Unfortunatly, although this does not apply to you, you are growing up among people who don't care about much other than being warm, dry, fed, and getting, well, serviced once in a while.

 

[poptab]

There's no gaurantee that the fruits of a collapse will restore the constitution to its former prominence

Even if it does restore the constitution what is stopping this from happening all over again 100 years later?

This is the reason I am such a complete pessimistic political agnostic.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Folks, the Founders realized this was the fundamental flaw in a Representative Republic, and they did their best to construct the governmental model so that it would be possible to stave off the "bread and circuses" as long as people paid attention. People stopped paying attention and here we are. It will take an extreme paradigm shift - or a major worldwide depression - to convince a majority of Americans that government handouts aren't preferable to personal liberty.

A fair amount of the Founders' vision for America was based on a particular moral code, commonly found in Judeo-Christian philosophy, which was to counteract the human tendency to amorality. While men of character attempted to right the wrongs in human-to-human relations in this nation, men of no character used those same arguments to deny that basic Judeo-Christian morality, and, in the denial of it, created the arguments that have allowed creeping socialism to take ascendancy. Fighting it will be either a long, painful process filled with temporary failures, or it will be violent, painful, and horrendously costly in lives and national treasures.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Folks, the Founders realized this was the fundamental flaw in a Representative Republic, and they did their best to construct the governmental model so that it would be possible to stave off the "bread and circuses" as long as people paid attention. People stopped paying attention and here we are. It will take an extreme paradigm shift - or a major worldwide depression - to convince a majority of Americans that government handouts aren't preferable to personal liberty.

A fair amount of the Founders' vision for America was based on a particular moral code, commonly found in Judeo-Christian philosophy, which was to counteract the human tendency to amorality. While men of character attempted to right the wrongs in human-to-human relations in this nation, men of no character used those same arguments to deny that basic Judeo-Christian morality, and, in the denial of it, created the arguments that have allowed creeping socialism to take ascendancy. Fighting it will be either a long, painful process filled with temporary failures, or it will be violent, painful, and horrendously costly in lives and national treasures.

 

[downzero]

While men of character attempted to right the wrongs in human-to-human relations in this nation, men of no character used those same arguments to deny that basic Judeo-Christian morality, and, in the denial of it, created the arguments that have allowed creeping socialism to take ascendancy.

What does socialism have to do with morality?

Sometimes I really wonder if people know what socialism is. It's always the easiest word to throw out there, and is blamed for basically every evil in the world. And socialism is an awful thing, don't get me wrong, but basically everything in your entire post--especially this sentence--is complete jibberish.

If we are to ever restore this republic, we need to do it without name calling and labels. And those who seek to do it need to free themselves from the delusion that religion had anything to do with founding this country, because there is absolutely no reference to religion in the constitution, and unless you're denying the brilliance of our framers, there's a good reason for that.

The problems this country faces are structural and political. Those we elect spend money that they do not have and will never have, because it helps them seek and retain power. They get away with it because much of our political policymaking over the last ~80ish years (and arguably longer) has been nationalized under the justification that federalism does not work. The national government continues to seize additional power and yet is less politically accountable, primarily because of the 17th Amendment, FDR's court packing scheme, and the Supreme Court of the United States' refusal to constrain Congress closely to its enumerated powers.

Identifying the problem is easy. It's figuring how how to use democracy to solve a problem that our framers intentionally created a republic to avoid that is the challenge. If our state legislatures elected the United States Senate, we would not be in anywhere near as deep of hot water as we are. The national government is now completely unaccountable to the states, and in fact, many states depend on federal grant money for all sorts of things, including things as critical as law enforcement, which is perhaps a state's most important government function. That we need a direct, democratic, political solution to make a difference is the crux of the current crisis, and a real tragedy in my opinion.

But socialism, it ain't.

 

[88GT]

Yeah. Repeal and replace. No telling just how many parts he'll keep, going by what he's said in the past, he likes a majority of it. Especially the mandate. He's nothing like Obama, tho.

Romney says he would keep parts of Obama healthcare law | Reuters

Out of 2000+ pages is it really that surprising that there is something someone somewhere finds acceptable, no matter how repugnant another part is?

Congress has to present an alternative in a passed bill form as well. He can prefer and like this or that all he wants. Doesn't make it the law of the land.

It'd help if the opposition party candidate would grow a pair.

It would help if the party with a pair could attract voters.

If I had to pick between a collapse induced change and a 100 year change, I'll take the latter. There's no gaurantee that the fruits of a collapse will restore the constitution to its former prominence

An inconvenient truth for sure.

What does socialism have to do with morality?

For state-sponsored socialism, just about everything.

 

[foszoe]

Our problem isn't the executive branch. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

 

[hornadylnl]

Our problem isn't the executive branch. Repeal the 17th Amendment!

So Obama isn't a problem?

 

[foszoe]

Nope

 

[rambone]

Anybody who has bothered to vet this candidate has seen that he's been devoted to government controlled, mandated health care for almost 20 years.

1994, October 17

Romney campaigned for U.S. Senate pushing the idea of universal health care. "I'm convinced every American deserves coverage, and we're only going to really solve the spiraling rise of health care costs if everybody is part of a health care system."
​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TimUAEzaC2U

1994, October 25

During a debate with his friend Ted Kennedy, Mitt Romney says he favors Universal Coverage at a Federal level, including Federal subsidies, telling insurance companies they may not charge more for preexisting conditions, and prohibiting "discrimination in rates between big companies and small companies."
​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOmtvIQlgj4


2006:

Romney campaigned for his Massachusetts plan, calling mandated insurance "the personal responsibility principle."
​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTByvLtYIYA

2006, March:

And again at a press conference, Romney says he is "very pleased" with the mandate, which he interchangeably calls the "personal responsibility principle."
​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKN1RC2j92w


2006, April 7

Romney personally lobbied reluctant members of Massachusetts Congress to support the bill. Councilman Chris Anderson said that Romney persuaded him, "The bill could be a national model if implemented properly."

Romney also was personally very committed and involved with negotiations to pass the health care bill, emails revealed.
​

2006, April 12

Romney signs the first ever state-mandated health care law at Faneuil in Boston. The late Sen. Edward Kennedy pats Romney on the back during the signing ceremony, which was complete with near-presidential theatrics, banners, printed t-shirts, and a fife-and-drum corps playing the fanfare. Romney called his healthcare takeover a "once in a generation" achievement, saying that "Massachusetts is leading the way."​

Ted Kennedy praised Romney for giving the state ''just what the doctor ordered." The plan was also praised by Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Romney gushed over Ted Kennedy at his signatory speech, calling Kennedy his "collaborator and friend" and saying he was "absolutely essential" to creating the law.
​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4r9dMP21hM
​

2006, June:

The day of the signing ceremony, the proud father of Romneycare told Fox News that he authored it himself. Later, he told Newsweek that the bill "incorporates 95% of my original proposal."
​

2006, October:

Romney proudly announced the introduction of another tax-subsidized health care entitlement in Massachusetts, "Commonwealth Care." The plan not only paid for subsidized abortions, but it mandated that one member of the Policy Board be appointed by Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts.

​

2007, April:

It is revealed that prior to the passage of the Massachusetts health care law, Mitt Romney gave a $25,000 donation to the Heritage Foundation, which ended up being one of the only conservative channels speaking positively of his plan.
​

2007, August 5

Romney again advocated for health care mandates at the Federal level.

"Look, it's critical to insure more people in this country. It doesn't make sense to have 45 million people without insurance. It's not good for them because they don't get good preventative care and disease management, just as these folks have spoken about. But it's not good for the rest of the citizens either, because if people aren't insured, they go to the emergency room for their care when they get very sick. That's expensive. They don't have any insurance to cover it [...]

We have to have our citizens insured, and we're not going to do that by tax exemptions, because the people that don't have insurance aren't paying taxes. What you have to do is what we did in Massachusetts. Is it perfect? No. But we say, let's rely on personal responsibility, help people buy their own private insurance, get our citizens insured, not with a government takeover, not with new taxes needed, but instead with a free-market based system that gets all of our citizens in the system. No more free rides. It works."
​

2007:

Romney: The Individual Mandate Is "Ultimate Conservatism"
"When they show up at the hospital, they get care, they get free care, paid for by you and me. If that's not a form of socialism, I don't know what is. So my plan did something quite different. It said, you know what, if people can afford to buy insurance, if they can afford to buy insurance, or if they can pay their own way, then they either buy that insurance or pay their own way, but they no longer look to government to hand out free care. And that, in my opinion, is ultimate conservatism. That's why the Heritage Foundation worked with us and was at the celebration of the signing. The Heritage Foundation, as you know, a quintessentially conservative group, recognized that the principles of free enterprise and personal responsibility were at work. And I'm proud to talk about what we did. We did not need to raise taxes. We did not need to have the government take over health care. Instead, we rely on private market dynamics to get people in our state insured and for individuals to finally take responsibility for some portion of their health care rather than expecting government to give them a free ride." (h/t BuzzFeed)
​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIPynMZuQtI

2009, March

Romney went on Meet the Press and said that the correct plan for the nation is to follow the Massachusetts model.
​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M9gGwW2gCs

2009, July 30

Romney wrote an op-ed article for USA Today, urging President Obama to follow his Massachusetts plan on the nation.

"Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others."
​

2009

Romney appeared on The Early Show and said he was "glad" that Obama was copying his Massachusetts plan of mandated/subsidized insurance.
​

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9QHWPOSjWI

2009

Three of Mitt Romney’s advisers went to the White House at least a dozen times in 2009 to consult on the former Massachusetts governor’s health care plan that President Obama used as a model for his initiative -- now a federal law that all the Republican presidential candidates want to repeal.
​

2010, April

Romney says "repeal the bad and keep the good" in reference to Obamacare. He says that he likes "incentives" (aka mandates) and government preventing companies from denying anyone.
​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI5JjBHq8_0

2011, November

Romney stands by his mandated insurance plan at any cost. “I’m standing by what I did in Massachusetts,” Romney said on Fox News Channel’s Special Report with Bret Baier. “I’m not trying to dust it aside. I’m absolutely firm that it was the right thing for our state. I’ll defend that and I understand it has political implications. And if it keeps me from winning a primary, so be it. But that happens to be the truth.”
​

2011, December

Romney again touts his individual mandate as a "fundamentally conservative principle."
​

2012

Romney campaigns with the platform of "Repeal and Replace Obamacare."
​

​

2012, September

Romney affirms he will keep the mandates of Obamacare, if in fact anything is ever repealed.
​

 

[rambone]

Reality Check: Obama and Romney on health care

www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyIXuce36gM

 

[Phil502]

I would like to see everybody have a chance at coverage, but I have no idea how to achieve it. There probably is good ways to do it. Preexisting conditions clauses are catastrophic for some good honest people who did their best to remain covered and lost their insurance for numerous reasons.

The very poor get Medicaid now for free anyway, if they prove need but sometimes it's too late to do them any good.

Obamacare just went way to far and is full of conditions and clauses that favor people who supported it during effort to get it passed.