Comments on: Romney clarifies health care mandate position
Add a Comment
- If I were to take away your car, it would be theft.
If I were to take away your health, it would be murder.
The two are not the same. - Reply to this comment
- You can call it a tax, fee, or almost anything. You just can't call it something "good" for the USA.
- Reply to this comment
- A man of great political convictions. Whatever the polls tell him, he will be convinced of it.
- Reply to this comment
- Mitt Romney is Taxing Himself...I cannot even bear to listen to his LIES !!!
- Reply to this comment
- Romney has a consistent narrative.
1. He will say what he thinks you want to hear.
2. Later, He will say something opposite #1 when he thinks you want to hear that version.
3. That is the philosophy of the Used Car Salesman.
4. That is the politics of someone who will say ANYTHING to get elected.
5. That is Willard Mitt Romney ( soulless, spineless, robotic) - Reply to this comment
- Romney is "Flip Flopping" again. He is "World Renown" for this. He reminds me of Microsoft, they always get it right the 3rd time around.
- Reply to this comment
- Once again Mr. Romney flip flops (or shakes the Etch a Sketch). What's even more troubling is Mitt exhibiting no spine and being controlled by power brokers in the GOP. Is this what we want in a President?
- Reply to this comment
- Just another one of the Mormon's Flip-Flops.
- Reply to this comment
- Justice Roberts and President Obama both have a political stake in this.
Obama wanted the law upheld, and, as a Constitutional Law instructor has consistently stated that the mandate comes from the Commerce Clause, not the power to tax. I believe that he does not agree with Roberts on based on his extensive understanding of the Constitution, not on political reasons.
Roberts broadened Congress' power to tax but shrank their power to create law through the Commerce Clause. Roberts understands that everybody knows that his court has simply looked at the uniforms of the two parties, and not where there pitch is placed (to use his own baseball umpire analogy).
This ruling did not 'save' the Roberts court. It will be viewed as a partisan, political failure. Too much damage has been done, too many nonsense rulings based solely on political expedience.
This ruling is a win for corporations, which is probably why Roberts decided to break from Republican orthodoxy in this one case.
Insurance companies get millions of new customers. Hospitals will get paid for their services rather than having to write off a huge portion of uninsured. This will bend the health care cost curve down, which will help the majority of businesses who provide health care coverage availability to their employees.
Mitt Romney, meanwhile has flipped and flopped. He proudly instituted ObamaCare when he was governor, and now he's against it. The other day he said the mandate wasn't a tax, now it is.
It's hard to believe that Mitt Romney actually is the GOP presidential candidate, but, considering the clown troupe he ran against, what choice did they have? - Reply to this comment
- One of the few individuals who worked on health care reform under both Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama said on Friday that the controversial individual mandate provision was virtually identical in the bills signed into law by each of them.
"They are very similar," said Jonathan Gruber, a professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an interview. "They aren't the same exact mandate, but they have the same basic structure." Gruber was a key architect of the sweeping health insurance reform legislation that Romney passed as governor of Massachusetts. In addition, he advised Democrats and the Obama administration on how to build the Affordable Care Act.
As that 18-month process unfolded, Gruber famously unloaded on Romney for his attacks on Obamacare, arguing that the two were the "same f***ng bill." Those similarities, he said on Friday, extend to the individual mandate. - Reply to this comment
