Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Such a mandate was, of course, a significant infringement on individual choice and liberty. As the Congressional Budget Office noted, the mandate was "unprecedented," and represented the first time that a state has required that an individual, simply because they live in a state and for no other reason, must purchase a specific government- designated product.
It was also a failure.
When the bill was signed, Governor Romney, the media, state lawmakers, and health care reform advocates hailed the mandate as achieving universal coverage. "All Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. It's a goal Democrats and Republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort," Romney wrote.
Mitt Romney has gone to great lengths to distance his Massachusetts health plan from the federal law, even giving a PowerPoint presentation to emphasize the differences. But the truth is that there are an awful lot of similarities between the plan he signed in Massachusetts in 2006, often called "RomneyCare," and the one that President Barack Obama signed in 2010, dubbed "ObamaCare."
Both leave in place the major insurance systems: employer-provided insurance, Medicare for seniors and Medicaid for the poor. They seek to reduce the number of uninsured by expanding Medicaid and by offering tax breaks to help moderate income people buy insurance. People are required to buy insurance or pay a penalty, a mechanism called the "individual mandate." And companies that don't offer insurance have to pay fines, with exceptions for small business and a few other cases.
Posted by Heriberto Hupoluns3759 2012-03-23 13:44||
#4 On many significant issues, Obama and Romney are on the same side. In the case of health care and global warming, they even share the same staff.
That said, not even I think that Romney would be worse than 4 more years of Obama. I think Mitt will hurt America and the Republican party -- like having our own Carter. But Obama is worse than Carter.
Posted by Iblis 2012-03-23 14:10||
#5 There should be limits.
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2012-03-23 14:40||
#6 the truth is that there are an awful lot of similarities between the plan he signed in Massachusetts in 2006, often called "RomneyCare," and the one that President Barack Obama signed in 2010, dubbed "ObamaCare."
Invalid comparison. States get to do things the Feds don't get to do.
Posted by Anguper Hupomosing9418 2012-03-23 14:49||
#7 Is it just me, or are there others sick of this wind bag?
Posted by Besoeker 2012-03-23 15:21||
#8 Of which one are you not yet sick?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2012-03-23 16:00||
#9 Good point Nimble, good point.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-03-23 16:38||
#10 "I think Mitt will hurt America and the Republican party"
I agree, but 1-party rule hurts our country more. The best realistic election outcome (at this point) I can think of is a truly Conservative congress and a go-with-the-flow status quo RINO as president.
The less power concentrated in Washington the better. As you might guess, I'm no republican but liberal democrats are forever dead to me.
Posted by Hupinerong Chinemp1247 2012-03-23 16:43||
#11 Santorum is a dim bulb. But posters would do well to examine BHO strengths. 1. his infrastructure spending had bi-partisan support and he can show some material success from same. 2. Bloomberg NW reports successful institutionalization of obamacare (at least to a point). 3. Frumforum reveals general GOP support for Fed spending: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/23/guess-who-doesn-t-want-to-cut-government-republicans.html
4. wind-down in Iraq and Afghanistan has GOP support.
5. The Economist recently graphed proof that the economy is improving.
6. the October 2008 depression event was the direct result of Bush-Rove baloon financial governance. BHO can comfortably point to an inherited fiscal calamity, propped by the $3 trillion in defict increase caused by the political tax-cuts of GWB's first term. Do people here still admire that dypso?
Yah, BHO is weak on domestic policy. But, given that for the first time a majority (including millions of libertarian ideologues) of Americans support gay-marriage, Santorum's right wing agenda might deliver little more than marginalization.
Disagree if you want, but do you detect any desperation on the part of BHO? Could be he thinks the GOP could discredit the party to another second place finish. I wouldn't gloat about the President - son of a muslim spouse and child abandoner - being on the ropes. I believe GOP division and over-moralism is anything but an asset. Go Romney!!!
Posted by Jinesing Dingle1220 2012-03-23 16:44||
#12 Disagree if you want, but do you detect any desperation on the part of BHO? Dingle
Yes, the Light Giver's traveling to Oklahoma indicates a very desperate move.
Posted by Besoeker 2012-03-23 17:32||
#13 Desperstion is rampant. How much does Red China owe the great USA? Oh, forgot. It's the USA who is in debt to the Red Chinese for generations to come. People heading to Mexico for reasonanly priced gas. Obama's new legions of IRS agents are starting to audit anything that moves for a buck and recently started refusing to recognize legal deductions here and there on 1040 Schedule A. One insurance agent is still waiting for his 2010 refund. The stinch of socialism is starting to perculate up and anyone who opposes strong or lite socialists Obama/Mitt are demonised and put down by just about everyone. What is coming down the pipe is what you deserve.
Posted by George Ebbeamp4828 2012-03-23 17:55||
1. Obama's infrastructure spending was horribly inefficient. It got some re-paving work accelerated, but that was about it. The real problems we face are with the aging bridges and he did virtually nothing there (that I have seen.)
2. Obamacare is a farce. It will not - can not - do what it purports to. What we had was not going to last, but neither will this.
3. Just because the Stupid Party supports spending insanely like the Evil Party does is no positive attribute of Obama.
4. Bush effectively 'declared victory and left' A'stan years ago - and it should have stayed that way. Iraq - it is what is was going to be.
5. I have to agree that the economy does SEEM to be improving. After a week of flying in jam-packed planes through bustling airports it is clear that a whole lot of people are spending more money than I have available to spend. I just don't understand where they are finding it. And nobody has yet even hinted about prosecuting the innumerable crimes committed by the various financial 'too big to fail' beheamoths that caused the meltdown. And nobody is even beginning to acknowledge the disaster that faces retirees who are now earning 0.1% on their life savings - which is effectively a confiscation of assets at an unprecedented rate from the most responsible members of society.
6. OK, Bush 'started it' (or more accurately, propagated what had been going on since c. 1965), but Obama accelerated it. That does not constitute an improvement.
Tomorrow is my Stupid Party primary. I plan to vote 'None of the Above' - aka Ron Paul.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-03-23 18:00||
#15 I heard there was a county in OK which did not nominate Obama for the democrat ticket.
Correction after looking it up: Obama lost 15 counties in Oklahoma (in 2008, Obama won zero counties in the democrat primary, zerobama we chuckled with our good neighbors to the south). Failing to approve the Kansas leg of the pipeline shows a general ignorance or willful politicalization of the pipeline and energy topic. Why you ask, well there are actual working refinaries in Kansas and trying to get more, if the EPA and the G-Dm sierra club would piss off. Furthermore, the Ogalala does not stretch into the Kansas leg.
Anyone remember the recent oil barge accident in the Mississippi? No? Because it happened right after the decision to not build the northern end because oil might leak into the Ogalala through all that soil and protective measures and shutdown systems. That does not make the big news, so that is desperation.
Ghosting the Repuplican primary route stinks and was tacky.
Making gay marriage a topic stinks.
Democrat suggestions to inquiray the NFL stinks.
Weighing in on hoodies stinks.
No longer supporting OWS stinks.
Not talking arab spring/syria stinks.
Showing up for the beginning of the college tourny games stinks.
Not bragging up his crown achievement, Obamacare, stinks.
Posted by swksvolFF 2012-03-23 18:26||
#16 Of course in the general election I will vote for ABO.
Posted by Glenmore 2012-03-23 18:45||
#17 The difference between Romney and Obama is that when Romney does something unconstitutional the media won't sweep it under the rug. That is actually a big thing for those that want this country to survive.
Posted by Rjschwarz 2012-03-23 18:46||
#18 How many out there are willing to admit there was a time when you were more liberal then you are now? And, of those would you say that over the last few years, or so, you've become more conservative? Romney says he's gone through a similar transformation. Moreover, he can point to his pivot points. Guess what? There are a lot of folks that are, right now, at that threshold but just won't be able to bring themselves to vote for a Santorum or Gingrich. We don't have to take Mitt at his word...we just have to hold him to his word.
Posted by DepotGuy 2012-03-23 20:30||
I still hold that we may be seeing a split GOP POTUS ticket this 2012 Elex, wid a real possibility that Romney + Santorum will pick Gingrich or Paul as their VEEP.
IMO NO US-IRAN WAR + STABLE, ALBEIT SLIGHT IMPROV TO US ECONOMIC = BAMMER WILL STILL WIN IN NOVEMBER. The Bammer doesn't want a US War agz Iran, which is why he fears what Netanyahu + Israel will do unilaterally militarily agz Iran's NucProgs.
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-03-23 22:47||
#20 FYI BHARAT RAKSHAK > TERRORIST GROUP [MEK] THROWS PARTY IN US CONGRESS.
* SAME > WAL-MART SAYS "SERIOUS INFLATION" [definitely] COMING.
* DEFENCE.PK/FORUMS > IN DEBATE, ROMNEY SAYS US SHOULD TREAT PAKISTAN LIKE INDONESIA BACK IN 1960's. Sukarno versus Suharto anti-Commie Coup + pro-US bloody aftermath.
IOW, PRO-US "KILLING FIELDS" AGZ PAK MILTERRS???
* SAME > PAKISTAN ACTS TOUGH: [Islamabad] SEEKS 38 DEMANDS, "INDIA-LIKE" NUCLEAR [Energy] DEAL + ENDS TO DRONE STRIKES [+ formal US Apology].
Looks more than 38 to me.
* RENSE > [ENENews = post-Fukushima]US GOVT: WIDESPREAD CONTAMINATION [Nuclear = Plutonium?] THROUGHOUT NORTHERN JAPAN, INCLUDING TOKYO -
"ENTIRE REGION WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE POSTED AS A RADIOLOGICAL HAZARD AREA", iff Nippon + Disaster was the USA???
Maybe the laugh is on those Russian Perts, Bloggers whom would like Russia to re-occupy HOKKAIDO iff China gets back Okinawa + Senkakus???
Posted by JosephMendiola 2012-03-23 23:04||
#21 Rick would probably be the least active Prez other than the repeal of commie care. I would have no qualms with him in the Oval office but he even makes me uncomfortable with the office he seeks.
No one wants Crusaders, they want sanity and good governance - and straight up fiscal understanding.
Had he focused correctly, there would be nothing to stop him. He has not focused wisely.
We are in the fight for our very humanity and bringing up 1950 challenge only hurts.
The Republican party is the dumbest party in America. The Stupid party. It must learn how to focus and not speak morals, merely hold them and speak of government order and application (or non-application) of the law.
We want someone that shall leave US alone.
Rick, you screwed up. It is not an election for someone, it is an election against something.
Posted by newc 2012-03-23 23:14||