Mitt Romney Presidential Campaign

[_Abyssinia]

And when Gregory asked about the present parts of Obama Care that are in place now, Romney said tehy were the good parts and he would leave them.

Sounds like a modification, not an replacement or repeal.

Jim

Romney specified pre existing conditions only which you would need 60 votes to repeal any way

 

[oldcelt]

Romney never said modify, he said he would replace it

I believe he also said their are parts he likes. If he is only going to eliminate portions, that is modification. Repeal means to strike everything and start all over.

He is parsing words to try to keep his base solid. I don’t think they will buy it for long.

John

 

[rlg94086]

I believe I did…people, lacking access to basic health care are forced to wait until they no longer can (emergency situation). I believe it is not out of line to assert that it is far preferable to treat illness in its early stages.
Since many do not have access to that type of care, it could argued that they are being denied “good” (a subjective term) health care and therefore equal protection.

You and I will not agree on this, that is apparent…both may be wrong, but one almost certainly is.

John

They “lack access” to basic health care? Where in the United States of America is there limited access to basic health care? Your argument has no merit. It isn’t a matter of disagreeing.

Here is the Equal Protection section of the 14th Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.** No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.**

You have yet to demonstrate a situation where any state has denied a person access to health care. Please do so.

 

[_Abyssinia]

I believe he also said their are parts he likes. If he is only going to eliminate portions, that is modification. Repeal means to strike everything and start all over.

He is parsing words to try to keep his base solid. I don’t think they will buy it for long.

John

He has said for a long time the parts he likes are making it easier for those with pre exisiting conditions to be covered and those who are 26 being able to stay on parent’s insurance. Nothing new was said in the meet the press interview

 

[oldcelt]

They “lack access” to basic health care? Where in the United States of America is there limited access to basic health care? Your argument has no merit. It isn’t a matter of disagreeing.

You can’t be serious…I have answered this ad nauseum. Are you trying to say that basic healthcare is available to everyone?

I am well aware of what the clause says, I said it could be argued, I believe successfully, that, in this case, the lack of law would constitute a violation.

Let’s cut too the quick…health care in this nation is not equal, health is the essential component of life, taking a states rights approach to this would create a patchwork of varying and unequal approaches.

By attacking the problem at the federal level, we can assure that healthcare will be equally available across the board.

John

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I disagree, obviously, and how does my statement fall under a strawman? Have I, at any point, misrepresent your position. On the contrary, I responded to your question by asking what if the states fail to do so?
No citizen of the US should be denied good health care because their state chooses no to supply it.

John

SHould citizens be denied food? Shelter? Transportation? CHild Care? A job? Speaking of jobs, if we are going to just give the farm away with no requirement to actually earn it, why should anyone have a job?

 

[SuperLuigi]

No, I’m saying that some issues are so important that they cannot be left to the whims of the states. . There are some issues that must, in my view, be applied across the board, or not at all.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Paul Ryan’s full interview on ABC’s This Week

therightscoop.com/paul-ryans-full-interview-on-this-week

Stephanopoulos kept interrupting Ryan

 

[SuperLuigi]

SHould citizens be denied food? Shelter? Transportation? CHild Care? A job? Speaking of jobs, if we are going to just give the farm away with no requirement to actually earn it, why should anyone have a job?

The sky is the limit.Pick your favorite issue. Marriage? Think that there’s only a gay rights movement? How about bailouts? I remember when Bush initially told the airlines NO in term 1 but in term 2 he bailed out the unions in Detroit. Then, everyone else wanted a bailout—Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, newspapers, student loans, credit cards. the list goes on and on and on.

It’s never enough, and government ends up deciding who gets what.

Liberals think they can judiciously decide that because they have coursework in education dynamics or diversity or listen to NPR, but what happens every single time is they get too wrapped up in their own power, benefits and material goods from government and it doesn’t take long for even the most ideal to lose sight.

That is why liberalism has been and always will be a failure.

If liberals really were generous, they wouldn’t need government to take control and redistribute.

They would do it with their own possessions and ownership without anyone else doing it for them.

That’s a central piece of Jesus’s message and its too bad that certain Catholics can’t see that.

 

[oldcelt]

The only reason one would say there is a problem is to get something from government. The “Constitutional Absolutist” position is a myth. Why? Because of the amendment procedure.

So where do we decide what needs an amendment, and what can be legislated? Answer, the USSC. They’ve ruled on the healthcare mandate.

Regarding the Founding Fathers, they were brilliant, and yet left many things unresolved. Issues that were known in their time. The Constitution is the guiding document of our nation, that we must refer to…it is not the be all and end all.

And yes, I do subscribe to the living document idea.

John

 

[SuperLuigi]

You can’t be serious…I have answered this ad nauseum. Are you trying to say that basic healthcare is available to everyone?

 

[SuperLuigi]

So where do we decide what needs an amendment, and what can be legislated? Answer, the USSC. They’ve ruled on the healthcare mandate.

Regarding the Founding Fathers, they were brilliant, and yet left many things unresolved. Issues that were known in their time. The Constitution is the guiding document of our nation, that we must refer to…it is not the be all and end all.

And yes, I do subscribe to the living document idea.

John

Constitutional amendments have to be ratified by state conventions or legislatures, not the courts.

The courts are the epitome of violating the Constitution and state’s rights. When Jefferson was president, he railed against SCOTUS for their activism.

The fact that the court has ruled on something does not mean that it is tune with the Constitution.

If you think that the Constitution is not the end-all, be-all, then I suggest you should go and live somewhere else.

 

[oldcelt]

And that’s the key element right there, John. Liberals such as yourself who think that you will get more from government when if fact you will get less.

To quote a great speaker…There you go again…if the private system is working so well, why are we having these discussions? Why did Romney pass his package? Why have the Republicans talked about these issues for years?

Liberals, as you so liberally, yet inaccurately apply to me, are people who believe that we have a duty to try to help our fellow citizens. Private and church sponsored programs are great, but they are simply inadequate.

You admit in your thesis that hospitals are already going bankrupt providing care. If you take the time to read all my post on this you will find that I agree completely. And how do they make that up…higher rates to people with insurance.

I further discussed how having equal access to basic/preventative care would save greatly versus the current system of wait until you are sick enough to go to the emergency room.

It’s all there,

John

Oh, and don’t assume for a moment that conservatives are the only one’s willing to make sacrifices.

 

[seekerz]

oldcelt;9752644:

Pretty much. In fact, most of the horror stories used to attack Romney and to get the AFA passed in 2010 were fabricated about people not having access. The truth is that tens of millions who don’t have insurance are eligible for existing federal, state or local assistance. If you go to an emergency room, you have to be treated, even if you are an illegal immigrant.

There was a law passed in 1986 in reference to this.

It’s also why hospitals in California were going bankrupt and out of businesses. That and the fact in some counties you can get a free ambulance to ride to the hospital and that government is reducing reimbursements on some its programs like Medicare.

Its high time for

That is exactly what the Constitution calls for…laboratories of democracy.

Of course the states won’t be equal, they were never meant to be equal but preferential, and the voters can to move to whatever state suits their needs.

Anytime you make something “equal” you lose freedom, and that includes the civil rights amendments…its just that not too many people today are going to refuse service to someone because of skin colour or gender because it isn’t economically viable.

National-level health care has been tried in the UK and Canada and elsewhere, and both places (this is the end-all, be all of the AHA) have unelected government officials who may not even have medical degrees getting between you and your doctor.

I know this because I used to live in the UK

Despite a very low birth rate (which requires massive immigration from places that hate democracy and Western values), women still give births in showers.In fact, Canadian women will drive four hours to Montana or Minnesota to give birth because they can’t in Canadian hospitals.

I heard about a girl who was 19 in the UK and couldn’t get a pamp smear until her mid-20s; by then, she had late-stage cervical cancer and died. Another fellow even used pliers to pull out his teeth; they hurt so bad and he couldn’t see a dentist because of government red tape.

The other thing that happens that doesn’t get reported on: Rape victims are not always treated.

So, John, if you want to subscribe to this liberal utopia that your secular allies on the left are working for, you’ve got to start making **some serious sacrifices.
**
I have yet to meet a liberal who is interested in doing such a thing.

What the Constitution does is protect me and the others on here from such thinking and allows the states to work out all the issues not mentioned in there regardless of how complicated you think they are or how bad you want your entitlement. That is absolutely irrelevant and dangerous but it’s what progressives always resort to because the Constitutional is based on logic and freedom, not emotion.

And that’s the key element right there, John. Liberals such as yourself who think that you will get more from government when if fact you will get less.

There are horror stories in every health system that exists in the world and there are people living with those systems who will either praise or curse them depending on their personal experiences. So exchanging unverifiable anecdotes might be somewhat stimulating from a debate point of view, but they do little to give us an overall picture of which system bests serves its people. For example, I can think of at least one reason other than quality of their health system, which might be an incentive for Canadian women to deliver here…it has to do with their future ability to easily pursue dreams/careers on either side of the border.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

You can’t be serious…I have answered this ad nauseum. Are you trying to say that basic healthcare is available to everyone?

I am well aware of what the clause says, I said it could be argued, I believe successfully, that, in this case, the lack of law would constitute a violation.

John

This is true. We have Romney Care here in Massachusetts, but the surrounding states like NH don’t have health care coverage, except for those making less than $20K per year, and at that it’s limited.

The result has been that people who loose their jobs, end up moving to Massachusetts in order to get Romney Care.

There needs to be an approach where all Americans have equal access to affordable health care.

Jim

 

[oldcelt]

Originally Posted by oldcelt View Post

That’s not my quote seekerz…can you still edit? That’s RLG’s response to me

John

 

[SuperLuigi]

]

.if the private system is working so well, why are we having these discussions?

Government has had a big hand in health care ever since Medicare/Medicaid were passed under LBJ.

Between that and tort law, it’s been a long, long time since we’ve had what you would call a private system.

It would be foolish to call anything perfect, but why would anyone use government to fix a problem when its been tried over and over and over and does not work!

Why did Romney pass his package?

Romney passed his package because it was
a) Constitutional, since states have plenary power over things not stated in the Constitution

b) the people of MA wanted it and
c) He had a legislature that was 85% democrat with strong veto power.

Why have the Republicans talked about these issues for years?

…you just noted Romney’s health care law in MA…

The republicans have been talking about these issues, its just that the media doesn’t cover them properly. If they did, the RNC would have a cakewalk every single swing election.

As the left loves to point out, it was the Heritage Foundation who experimented with a policy requiring Americans to buy insurance as a means of personal responsibility.

The idea didn’t last too long and got scrapped because of the foreseen impact on increasing government.

Liberals, as you so liberally, yet inaccurately apply to me,

Yeah, sure.

are people who believe that we have a duty to try to help our fellow citizens. Private and church sponsored programs are great, but they are simply inadequate.

In terms of the US Constitution, you have no obligation whatsoever to provide for your neighbor other not to interfere in his freedom unless it threatens your own.

As a Catholic, I don’t subscribe to not helping people, but I don’t want to impose those beliefs through government.

Private programs (which are the same as Church programs since there is no federal religion) would be much better off if the people were able to keep more of their tax money and such programs are subject to the free market.

The problem with government-run health-care or anyone else is that it underbids and manipulates the free market forces. That’s called crony capitalism and all three political representations are neck-deep in it.

You admit in your thesis that hospitals are already going bankrupt providing care. If you take the time to read all my post on this you will find that I agree completely. And how do they make that up…higher rates to people with insurance.

Actually, the hospitals I mentioned compensated by shutting down.

The people paying higher rates are being forced to

I further discussed how having equal access to basic/preventative care would save greatly versus the current system of wait until you are sick enough to go to the emergency room.

The information you have posted is inaccurate. Making things “equal” is the ultimate market manipulation and the surest way to lose freedom.

Also, people don’t have to wait until they are deathly ill to go to the emergency room. The free ambulance rides I refer to are in San Diego where people will call not because they are too injured to go the hospital on their own but because they were lazy and wanted a ride.

In the UK, it’s been estimated that 52% of patients who use the emergency room don’t need to. As a result, its harder than heck to get a doctors note for when you are really sick.

People do that over there and in San Diego for one simple reason:

It’s free.

Here’s how you fix the health care system:

1. Repeal the AHA
2. Reform tort law
3. Allow states to sell insurance across state lines.

Oh, and don’t assume for a moment that conservatives are the only one’s willing to make sacrifices.

(laughs)

They aren’t, but the difference is they don’t demand that others make sacrifices they themselves would not entertain.

I don’t have to assume anything, I know that liberals are not willing to make the sacrifices they demand of everyone else.

They always think they are a cut above the rest.

An Obama re-election would show them without reservation just how much democrats and government care, and that’s why some libertarians I know of (not me personally) would relish such an event.

 

[Julia_Mae]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who has called for scrapping President Barack Obama’s 2010 U.S. healthcare law, said in remarks aired on Sunday that he likes key parts of “Obamacare” despite his party’s loathing of it and wants to retain them.

Romney, who faces Obama in the November 6 election, has vowed throughout the campaign to repeal and replace the Obama healthcare law. But asked about the Obama healthcare law on NBC’s “Meet the Press” program, Romney said, “Well, I’m not getting rid of all of healthcare reform.”

news.yahoo.com/romney-says-keep-parts-obama-healthcare-law-155146420.html

 

[oldcelt]

tort law

See, we agree on something, but good luck changing that with all the lawyers in Congress.

The republicans have been talking about these issues, its just that the media doesn’t cover them properly. If they did, the RNC would have a cakewalk every single swing election

No, the Democrats would point out that all they do is talk on the federal level.

I don’t have to assume anything, I know that liberals are not willing to make the sacrifices they demand of everyone else.

They always think they are a cut above the rest.

Horse-hockey

BTW, we have had a grand experiment with Libertarianism in this country…I think we all know how that worked out. If you don’t believe me, you can read Jefferson Davis’ rather lengthy treatise on the subject.

John

 

[CatholcCrusader]

This is nothing new.

In 2009 the Republicans in Congress were begging for an issue by issue approach instead of one giant bill.

Existing conditions? Okay, pass a one page law saying that insurance companies can’t deny for pre-existing conditions.

Changing jobs? Okay, pass a one page law saying that insurance companies have to keep you on if you change jobs.

This is what Romney is saying. Keep the few bits and pieces that are good (and that is very few indeed) and trash the rest of it.