Santorum: Romney worst Republican to face Obama
| if you honestly step back and “objectively” look at this – Rick is right – Mitt, strictly on the big issues and on his past record is a terrible choice for our side in going against this particular foe – no question – i’d love to hear from MittMcCain Nation on his best argument…… and also on how he deals w/ his deficiencies…….
|
||||||||||
Publius Prime 
the problem w/ this video is that it’s all mitt skewed propaganda… how about addressing the core concern of forcing a product on a citizen and mandating others to pay for it!! and the precedent setting that allows a socialist like obama to run with………..
The “mandate” is already in place! That’s the crux of the matter. It’s called taxes. The taxpayers have been “mandated” to pay for the uninsured healthcare costs which is the whole reason the citizens of the State of Massachusetts wanted its government to look into an affordable healthcare system in the first place. To unburden the taxpayer, to lower costs, to make healthcare affordable for those who couldn’t afford it.
While you may or may not agree with the “mandate,” the citizens of Mass. already had “mandates” in place that they were forced to pay! They wanted it stopped! So in the end, it boils down to WHO should pay for someone’s health care costs? The individual who is receiving the care or the society of taxpayers as a whole?? Someone has to pay — healthcare isn’t free!
so are both saying that if a particular state does not want the romney “waiver” – they can keep obamacare?
Good question. I’d guess they could decline the waiver and keep it if they wanted to (if the Court rules it’s constitutional law). But I don’t know. Michelle Bachman raised alot of insight onto how one must actually get rid of the law. The first step was to grant all 50 states waivers. I don’t know what the rest of the process would be. My question is though, why would any state want to keep that monstrosity in place?! They don’t even know what’s in that 2,471 page bill!
romneycare is also a monstrosity in that it is UNConstitutional!
The original intent of the constitution was to limit the powers of the federal government over the states and to allow the individual states significant power to govern the people of the chosen state, knowing that the closer the elected officials are to the governed, the more likely the governed would be represented appropriately.
No, it’s not the same. If you honestly step back from the bias, and “objectively” look at this, Rick is wrong. The federal government does not have constitutional authority to enact a nationalized health care law. All 50 states have the constitutional authority to enact laws, including health care laws, that work best for the citizens of their state.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-03-22/mitt-romney-health-reform-repeal-obamacare/53711598/1
Watch, listen, and understand what the Massachusetts health care is all about: