Why DON'T they like Romney?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

I think Romneycare is fine for the state of Mass. States get to make their own decisions for their citizens, not forced by one-size-fits-all mandate by the feds. Vive la difference. That has not turned me off Mitt despite the constant yammering from my intellectual superiors who seem to think I cannot see the analogy. I guess that's why this point is played about 50,000 times daily on the mass media outlets, they only want what is best for me. Isn't it a shame that I'm too stupid to see this?

---

1. Unfortuately, as in other circumstances the states were not doing the job and thus we had the highest number of uninsured of all the western industrialized countries. We as a nation spent the most per capita. People were suffering and dying for lack of access. These are the facts. If the states had done their jobs properly no problem. Same deal with civil rights, worker protections etc. Clearly states don 't always do the right thing.

2. States are permitted to opt out and set up their own comparable systems.

3. I do not understand what is so objectionable about setting up a system of information so that citizens make more informed decisions. Picking an appropriate health care plan ain't easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rosebud

1. Unfortuately, as in other circumstances the states were not doing the job and thus we had the highest number of uninsured of all the western industrialized countries. We as a nation spent the most per capita. People were suffering and dying for lack of access. These are the facts. If the states had done their jobs properly no problem. Same deal with civil rights, worker protections etc. Clearly states don 't always do the right thing.

2. States are permitted to opt out and set up their own comparable systems.

3. I do not understand what is so objectionable about setting up a system of information so that citizens make more informed decisions. Picking an appropriate health care plan ain't easy.

---

your #1: That the States were not doing "the job" that you think they should have been doing is your construct. You wanna the Romneycare? You move there. Maybe I will too if I need it. And then soon, Mass. will not be able to afford it. But whatever.

your #2: Required to set up "their own comparable system" is still a Nanny G mandate. That is no argument against Obamacare.

your#3: I don't know particulars of what you speak which I assume is one of the 10 million points in the Obamacare legislation. But theoretically, anytime Nanny G takes on setting up a "system" of whatever, you can bet that it is bloated and ridiculously expensive and made to employ people who will then vote for the bureaucrat in the White House, so that's my objection.

My brother moved to Louisianan a number of years ago. He is a native Californian and his wife is from Louisianan. He says the people there still say the did not need the federal Nanny G to force them to desegregate their schools and do away with white and negro restrooms in public buildings. They would have done it eventually. Sure they would have!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

...anytime Nanny G takes on setting up a "system" of whatever, you can bet that it is bloated and ridiculously expensive and made to employ people who will then vote for the bureaucrat in the White House, so that's my objection....

---

My understanding is that our for-profit medical "care" system, designed to line the pockets of Pharma and insurance companies, costs us twice as much per capita as the state-run systems in the rest of the developed world. I don't care who runs health care as long as it's non-profit and affordable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

My understanding is that our for-profit medical "care" system, designed to line the pockets of Pharma and insurance companies, costs us twice as much per capita as the state-run systems in the rest of the developed world. I don't care who runs health care as long as it's non-profit and affordable.

---

Would you extend that philosophy to other goods and services needed for our well-being? Should producers of food, shelter or energy also be required to operate on a non-profit basis?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iris lily

your #1: That the States were not doing "the job" that you think they should have been doing is your construct. You wanna the Romneycare? You move there. Maybe I will too if I need it. And then soon, Mass. will not be able to afford it. But whatever.

your #2: Required to set up "their own comparable system" is still a Nanny G mandate. That is no argument against Obamacare.

your#3: I don't know particulars of what you speak which I assume is one of the 10 million points in the Obamacare legislation. But theoretically, anytime Nanny G takes on setting up a "system" of whatever, you can bet that it is bloated and ridiculously expensive and made to employ people who will then vote for the bureaucrat in the White House, so that's my objection.

---

You really don't do your argument much good. Y railing against this muthical nanny state.

Go to any other modern industrialized country and they wouldn't trade their nanny state health care for the risk of dying a premature death for the "freedom" we enjoy here.

They think we're insane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LDAHL

Would you extend that philosophy to other goods and services needed for our well-being? Should producers of food, shelter or energy also be required to operate on a non-profit basis?

---

I might. "Non-profit" doesn't mean people aren't getting paid for their work; it just means there are no investors with their greedy fingers in the mix.

co-ops :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaneV2.0

I might. "Non-profit" doesn't mean people aren't getting paid for their work; it just means there are no investors with their greedy fingers in the mix.

---

So you might prefer an economy where at least the basics are produced by governmental or quasi-governmental organizations? I would think that under those circumstances private non-profits would need to be so heavily regulated (to prevent the organization's leadership from allocating themselves crypto-profits) that they would in essence be creatures of government. No more family farms or private medical practices? Who would decide where to allocate capital?

We already have some infrastructure in place--like regulated utilities (I still shudder when I think of those Enron thugs yukking it up about wiping out retirement funds--Google "Grandma Millie," if you're in the dark.) Food profits are reportedly slim already (hard to believe re breakfast cereals). We have subsidized rent. In general, I'm fine with capital investment in R&D, high-end fashion, non-essentials in general. But I'm no policy wonk--too short an attention span.