View Full Version : whoops!
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/mitt-romney-praises-israel-government-run-health-care-system-keeping-costs-article-1.1127417
Did Romney just endorse Obamacare? Whoops! Better walk that one back! My favorite quote:
"You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care," Romney told supporters Monday at a fundraiser in Jerusalem. "And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care."
"We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs," Romney added.
((psst, Romney...they have national health care with an individual mandate...I'm just saying.)) :moon:
Of course he admires this system. He set up his own 'Obamacare' in Mass. Why can't the man just be honest and claim his own SUCCESSFUL program?
Peggy are you itching for a fight? Because you'll have plenty of takers here...
Of course he admires this system. He set up his own 'Obamacare' in Mass.
Since Romney came up with his first and the President's is (apparently) modeled on it, shouldn't we call it Romneycare like people in MA already do?
Since Romney came up with his first and the President's is (apparently) modeled on it, shouldn't we call it Romneycare like people in MA already do?
Yup!
The R primaries did a dreadful job of vetting this candidate. Though I am a progressive, I have close family members who are R's, though of the moderate, used to be known as Rockefeller R's. To a one, they are alternately disgusted & mortified by the current R candidate.
ApatheticNoMore
8-3-12, 7:17pm
The R primaries did a dreadful job of vetting this candidate. Though I am a progressive, I have close family members who are R's, though of the moderate, used to be known as Rockefeller R's. To a one, they are alternately disgusted & mortified by the current R candidate.
I don't know. Is there anything wrong with him that isn't what's wrong with most of the Republican party at this point (and yes in some cases, wrong with both parties at this point)? What I mean: are any positions he is likely to take that are any different than what most members of his party would take and if they are different are they different in a worse way? See I'm really not seeing it .... so I see no reason to be particularly mortified by Romney.
Though if my passion was seeing a Romney victory, I guess I might moan and sigh with every gaffe maybe.
Since Romney came up with his first and the President's is (apparently) modeled on it, shouldn't we call it Romneycare like people in MA already do?
Romney was first in US to implement it - I don't think he came up with it. Wasn't it originally a Republican response to the Clinton health initiative?
Not that that was original, either. I believe a number of countries already mandated buying health insurance.
It is interesting watching him dance around condemning Obamacare as failure before it's even had a chance to be implemented without condemning his own healthcare plan as a failure. Which it's not.
Since Romney came up with his first and the President's is (apparently) modeled on it, shouldn't we call it Romneycare like people in MA already do?
Sure, why not! The republicans will eventually try to claim it anyway, sadly convincing many that they were for it all along and , whew! Thank goodness those democrats came around and finally implemented it!
Kind of how Romney is trying to claim success in saving the auto industry! He actually is trying to say it was his idea all along! Un-freaking-believable!
Hey, why don't we just start calling it Romneycare now! Yeah, that's the ticket! You just start calling it that to your republican friends.
You have my permission.;)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/election-2012/mitt-romney-praises-israel-government-run-health-care-system-keeping-costs-article-1.1127417
Did Romney just endorse Obamacare? Whoops! Better walk that one back! My favorite quote:
"You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care," Romney told supporters Monday at a fundraiser in Jerusalem. "And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care."
"We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs," Romney added.
((psst, Romney...they have national health care with an individual mandate...I'm just saying.)) :moon:
Of course he admires this system. He set up his own 'Obamacare' in Mass. Why can't the man just be honest and claim his own SUCCESSFUL program?
No takers on this one! Come on righties! Come and defend your guy!
No takers on this one! Come on righties! Come and defend your guy!
I do not mind RomneyCare in Mass. I've said this many times. I think it is an interesting program and I like watching it from afar to see how it works in that state. It's a state program. Those who live in that state must participate. Run as it is by the state of Mass I am not required to participate. Should I decide that it's a great thing (and I could!) that would greatly benefit me (and it might! in certain circumstances) I might move to that state. 'Cause see, I'd be exercising a choice. To live in that state.
Did you realize that a state is a separate political and geographic entity from the Federal government?
Iris you have all the Republican talking points down pat. RomneyCare is a state program and does not require other states to have it. I guess people in other states don't get sick!!!
Iris you have all the Republican talking points down pat. RomneyCare is a state program and does not require other states to have it.
And that's the point. This sort of program is better done on a state level. Remember "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Iris you have all the Republican talking points down pat. RomneyCare is a state program and does not require other states to have it. I guess people in other states don't get sick!!!
I guess we in different states don't all have to have the same reaction to all things!!!
And that's the point. This sort of program is better done on a state level. Remember "powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Why? Why would it be better to have 50 different little systems, each with their own requirements and regulations and laws, with no consistent standard over the nation? How would that be better for anyone who , say, wanted to go from one state to another? How would that benefit anyone who wanted to go touring on their motorcycle from one state to another? Can you always plan to get sick, or have an accident in your home state? That's pretty good planning! What if the state you have your accident in doesn't really give a rip if you have an accident or not? What if they don't recognize your home state health insurance? What if it's a really poor stare, like Miss, and they refuse to give you that life saving brain surgery cause, 1) they can't afford to give everyone everything (see just about any of Iris' posts) and 2) you aren't of that state so, not so important?
Why is it better to have 50 separate, completely different, health care programs? Should we do this for SS? How about medicare? Why would this be better for anyone who didn't wish to live and die within 50 miles of where they were born?
Why should we have states at all anymore? Can't the Federal government just take care of everything? All these pesky local laws and courts, local school systems, local highway systems, and so on are tremendously inefficient, and cause trouble to today's Citizen Of The World.
Heck, why have nations anymore? Is it fair that somebody from Elbonia can't get cancer treatments at Sloan-Kettering under his Elbonian Healthcare Plan?
Why should we have states at all anymore? Can't the Federal government just take care of everything? All these pesky local laws and courts, local school systems, local highway systems, and so on are tremendously inefficient, and cause trouble to today's Citizen Of The World.
Heck, why have nations anymore? Is it fair that somebody from Elbonia can't get cancer treatments at Sloan-Kettering under his Elbonian Healthcare Plan?
Why indeed have states? What prupose, other than tribal, does it serve?
ApatheticNoMore
8-4-12, 11:18pm
Mostly there are advantages and disadvantages (don't you hate how life is this way with the advantages and disadvantages thing, I tell ya ...). The advantages of more local smaller units of government: they can be more accountable, plus there are limits on how much damage can be done, plus yes multiple tests - if they all are testing different ideas, PLUS it may force some limits on military power (small countries are less likely to become empires - the empire idea is definitely harmful at present - basically what will (has?) destroyed the country ultimately I think).
The disadvantage is if your are trying to solve global (or widespread really) problems with local solutions. A state is trying to solve climate change say. Well ok a state can do the right thing, and if it has say higher efficiency standards and helps out green alternatives and so on it can lead to innovations which help with climate change, so it can do some good. But realistically, it is not a state level problem, really it is not even a national level problem, it's a global problem. Even smog crosses state boundaries. Or take Romneycare, suppose for the sake of argument Romneycare is a great idea and sustainable and wonderful and so on with the economy of MA as it is now, ceteris paribus. *HOWEVER*, if Iris Lily and everyone else (and especially those who are sick) move to MA in order to get Romneycare the potentially sustainable system because unsustainable under the weight of new sick immigrants compared to healthy people, it's just adverse selection at work.
Why indeed have states? What prupose, other than tribal, does it serve?
I think it's a good question and one that should not be dismissed out of hand. Counties used to be much more important - maybe in some places they still are, where I live it isn't much more than a way to say what part of the state you live in.
Some functions scale well, others don't. Some that aren't scaled create a lot of duplicate infrastructure which can be very expensive.
I think one advantage of federal level programs has been to create a more economically homogenous country. If each state had just gone their own way there would be much, much greater economic disparity between states.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.