Thursday, May 31, 2012

RomneyCare/ObamaCare Issue

Conservatives have been tying themselves in knots over how to resolve backing Romney in spite of the fact that he has not-yet disavowed RomneyCare, the alleged, and most-likely-to-be-true model for ObamaCare.  ObamaCare is the biggest among the many big Obamanations foisted on our country by Obama and fellow Democrats.
ToeJamm posted an article rallying the troops to swallow the problems inherent with backing a candidate responsible for RomneyCare.  jeff00139x opposed, then grudgingly acquiesced to steeling himself to fill in the dot for Romney.  I'm not sure where KP is on this, but feel certain it's not an easy choice for him.   Melkor, I think is happy with Romney.  I could not believe that Republicans would choose to remove the most significant arrow in their quiver in their fight to overthrow Obama, but, understand that Obama must be overthrown regardless, and see numerous other hefty arrows left.
Well, the guys at the Powerline blog, who oppose RomneyCare and are generally very conservative, have posted an article in response to liberal douchebag EJ Dionne, pointing out why there are critical differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare that make it not impossible for a conservative to not be a hypocrite for supporting Romney while opposing ObamaCare.  This won't make you pleased as punch for Romney, just allow you to explain your apparent hypocrisy.

Read the article for the details, but their main points:

- Constitutionality: Conservatives rightly challenge ObamaCare on Constitutional grounds.  RomneyCare is at the state level where there are no constitutional issues.

- Affordability:  Massachusetts could afford RomneyCare, America can't afford ObamaCare.  Says Powerline,
Taxes were not increased and funds were not “borrowed” to pay for Romneycare. This is not true of Obamacare.
- Regulatory Oppression: ObamaCare is a 2000 page document, RomneyCare comes in at 70 pages.  Says Powerline,
In Massachusetts, insurance companies were not, effectively, placed under government control, nor did Massachusetts become the default health care provider in that state.
This is not to say that Conservatives should applaud RomneyCare.  This is to say that is does not appear to violate the Constitution, it appears to be an affordable act that Massachewtions :) wanted, and it does not overwhelm the private enterprises providing these services in the state with regulations.

6 comments:

  1. "eff opposed, then grudgingly acquiesced to steeling himself to fill in the dot for Romney." I WILL NOT/CAN NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY. And I prefer not to be mentioned by name so if you could edit the post and put jeff00139x. Of course Melkor would be happy with Romney as he supports international socialism through the IMF/WorldBank.

    A good retort to some of what is said in the Powerline blog is here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u-NJkmzXhQ. And http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/01/30/how_the_health_care_mandate_suckered_beltway_conservatives

    A person whole believes in classical liberalism can not support Romney. To do so does means that they are a hypocrite. There are no critical differences between Romneycare and ObamaCcare.

    The choice that Americans face for who will be their president reminds of the situation in Egypt: they can chose a candidate from the old regime or vote for the Muslim Brotherhood. A choice that does not please a lot of Egyptians. A lot of Egyptians in interviews that I have seen express their dismay at the situation and feel that they don't have a choice and that their revolution and the people have been betrayed. Basically the Egyptians got played for a fool. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/this-is-what-democracy-looks-like-beck-reviews-the-disturbing-list-of-egypts-current-presidential-candidates/

    As for taxes not being increased or borrowed to pay for Romneycare: as the powerline blog notes, the only reason that this was possible was because Massachusetts received money from the Federal government. So every Federal-tax paying citizen helped to foot the bill. As noted previously: http://robinsontalkingpoints.blogspot.com/2012/01/obamneycare-httpwwwbloggercomimgblankgi.html

    "No. 2 is that Romney did not raise taxes to pay for his bill. Now, both of those differences sound like they reflect very well on Romney—he didn’t expand a big-government program that most people associate with poor folks and therefore do not like, and he didn’t raise taxes.

    And he didn’t raise taxes because—ready?—the federal government paid for about half of it ($385 million, largely in Medicaid money). And the federal government paid for about half of it largely because of the efforts of ... Jon Gruber, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology health economist who worked on Romney’s bill, has said, with only slight exaggeration: “They’re the same fucking bill. He [Romney] just can’t have his cake and eat it too. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.”"

    At the core and in principle Romneycare and Obamacare are no different. They are both the crowning jewel of socialism and will greatly destroy individual liberty.

    Romney wrote an opinion piece in 2009 saying that he would repeal the bad parts of Obamacare and keep the good parts. Even the Republican leadership in the Congress want to keep the "good parts" of Obamacare.

    Americans don't have a choice come this November. Unless you consider a choice between a socialist and a communist a choice. Voting for Romney will not change the long term nor significantly the short term direction America is headed. People need to wake up and slap themselves into reality as to what is happening in America and the world. Of course most wont. Politics is not the arena in which the fight for freedom and limited government is taking place.

    If there is not a major shift in the electorate and an awaking and a third party formed after this year's elections, then the fight for limited government and liberty will have been lost to be followed not long after by another dark age.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I stand corrected regarding your vote jeff00139x. Fair enough.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And name edited! Of course, you may want to change your post name as your name is all over this blog.

    Flame is out there and watching!

    ReplyDelete
  4. We all are being watched by big brother: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/avoid-words-prevent-homeland-security-spying-social-networks-211947512.html

    The Republican party does not stand for limited government and classical liberalism. They stand for most of what the Democratic party stands for. Obama could have been easily, totally, utterly, humiliatingly, devastatingly, politically defeated with a conservative candidate. Polls show that most Americans are conservative. Why did the Republican party, to include Tea Party Republicans, get behind Romney even when it wasn't guaranteed that we was going to win? That says a lot about who the Republican party is.

    I keep coming across a lot articles like this:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/former-hedge-funders-fearful-forecast-were-looking-at-the-biggest-economic-shock-the-world-has-ever-seen-theres-nothing-we-can-do-to-stop-it/

    "Former co-manager of the GLG Global Macro Fund Raoul Pal has joined the growing chorus of economists who believe the global economy is headed in the absolute wrong direction.

    What does the Goldman Sachs alumnus see on the horizon?

    Mr. Pal, who writes for The Global Macro Investor, a research publication intended only for larger institutions, hedge funds, and family offices, believes that a global banking collapse and massive defaults will bring about “the biggest economic shock the world has ever seen” — and there’s nothing we can do to stop it.

    Well, that’s pretty dire. Does he have anything to back up his claims?

    We’re glad you asked. Without further explanation, here is “The End Game,” Pal’s impressively comprehensive (and grim) presentation on the current state of the global economy:"

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well, if this indicates a trend, then maybe there is something we can do about the inevitable collapse. The common reasoning for why our leaders will not do what is necessary is that it would spell political doom. The case in Wisconsin shows that it can be done. Wisconsin is not Texas either.

    "The importance of Walker's victory cannot be understated. This is, after all, Wisconsin -- the birthplace of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees and the first state to permit collective bargaining. Not since Ronald Reagan in 1984 has Wisconsin voted Republican, and in 2008, Obama took the state by a whopping 14 points." (http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/06/opinion/bennett-walker-victory/index.html)

    This is an article from CNN. Even CNN is willing to print something like this. Like I stated before, could this be a trend? A glimmer of hope?

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think what happened in Wisconsin is a good thing. Lets hope that the politicians can take on the looming debt crisis:
    "The Congressional Budget Office is again warning that the government's mounting debt problems threaten to swamp the economy unless policymakers move to arrest out-of-control deficits."

    "The national debt would balloon to almost equal the size of the economy after a decade and would swell to twice the size of the economy in 25 years, the CBO says, assuming existing tax and spending policies stay in place."
    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/05/cbo-issues-bleak-long-term-budget-outlook/#ixzz1x4cqr9qC

    Something must be done and done soon.

    A difference that I see between Wisconsin and the larger national scene is that in Wisconsin it was about the public vs. the public unions and in the national scene it is the public vs. the public. In other words, the American people are going to have to elect politicians that will take away all of their, the public, government benefits and handouts. "Some astoundingly grim news on the "economic recovery" front: half of American households are receiving government funds to support themselves." http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katehicks/2012/05/26/recovery_half_of_american_households_living_on_government_benefits

    Americans are going to have to be willingly to endure some tough economic hardships and privations as enacting the necessary reforms to prevent the coming debt crisis will mean a short depression. When I see the American people willing to give up social security, medicare, food stamps, WIC, the GI Bill, VA disablility, section 8 housing, welfare, and etc. Then we can know that things have turned for the better.

    ReplyDelete