Mitt Romney: Getting called the "grandfather of Obamacare" is a "compliment"

[Badger]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

[Badger]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

Politico, for someone who idolizes Romney so much you should be familiar with him and his history enough to know that what you just wrote is a pile of crap. Romney didn't have this pushed down his throat by a liberal Democrat juggarnaut to which he grudgingly acceeded to the inevitable; he actively and aggressively presented his similar plan and had a full part in negotiating the final result.

Yes, the Democrats overrode some line item vetos he made in the final product, most notably the employer (with over 10 employees) assessment for not providing health insurance--(but NOT the individual mandate--surely a "tax", no?), plus some other relatively minor changes like extenstion of dental services to the poor. But ultimately the final legislation very much had Romney's mark on it. There's a reason Bay Staters call it "Romneycare". And Romney has (or at least had, before running for president) characterized it as one of, if the triumphs of his administration.

A poll from two years ago showed approval/disapproval of Romneycare at 69-22. Other polls since have shown consistently that approximate 3-1 advantage. You really want to blame that kind of overwhelming support merely on MA's pro-D PVI? Fine, decrease support state by state for increasingly Republican PVI voting and note how many conservative red states would apparantly support Romneycare if it passed in their state in similar form. But fundamentally more important than whether liberal "Taxachusetts" voters support it; ROMNEY obviously supported it!

The point, Politico, is Romney simply can't run against Obamacare having established a not-quite-identical-but-very-closely-resembled program when he was governor. If the Republicans wanted to run against Obamacare, they should've nominated someone with a true conservative record of opposing it for real, or at least not someone who birthed it's fraternal twin at the state level.

[Badger]

So succinctly and eloquently put, Clarence. Another reason Newt would've had just as much problem running against Obamacare.

[Badger]

This is how we win; putting forth a tolerant face all the way with rhetoric that soothes the average female's ear).

Wow.

This explains at lot not only why there's such huge gender gap in this race, but also why women don't post here.

But whaddya expect from a guy who's on record as envying his uber-wealthy client's having trophy wives and wanting to emulate their practice someday?

[Badger]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

Politico, for someone who idolizes Romney so much you should be familiar with him and his history enough to know that what you just wrote is a pile of crap. Romney didn't have this pushed down his throat by a liberal Democrat juggarnaut to which he grudgingly acceeded to the inevitable; he actively and aggressively presented his similar plan and had a full part in negotiating the final result.

Yes, the Democrats overrode some line item vetos he made in the final product, most notably the employer (with over 10 employees) assessment for not providing health insurance--(but NOT the individual mandate--surely a "tax", no?), plus some other relatively minor changes like extenstion of dental services to the poor. But ultimately the final legislation very much had Romney's mark on it. There's a reason Bay Staters call it "Romneycare". And Romney has (or at least had, before running for president) characterized it as one of, if the triumphs of his administration.

A poll from two years ago showed approval/disapproval of Romneycare at 69-22. Other polls since have shown consistently that approximate 3-1 advantage. You really want to blame that kind of overwhelming support merely on MA's pro-D PVI? Fine, decrease support state by state for increasingly Republican PVI voting and note how many conservative red states would apparantly support Romneycare if it passed in their state in similar form. But fundamentally more important than whether liberal "Taxachusetts" voters support it; ROMNEY obviously supported it!

The point, Politico, is Romney simply can't run against Obamacare having established a not-quite-identical-but-very-closely-resembled program when he was governor. If the Republicans wanted to run against Obamacare, they should've nominated someone with a true conservative record of opposing it for real, or at least not someone who birthed it's fraternal twin at the state level.

Like I said, Romney is proud of his accomplishment and Massachusetts likes it. What works for Massachusetts does not necessarily work for 49 other states. Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around as Obama believes. Experimentation at the state level will produce the best results, not conformity forced upon the states from Washington. That's Romney's stance, and it's reasonable from a historical perspective.

Feh. Either it's a good idea or it isn't. Romney hasn't begun to try explaining why romneycare isn't an adaptable model for the NATIONAL health care crisis, because he can't run against a system he spent so much time and effort setting up as governor.

Or are you saying his experience as governor won't translate as president? Or more likely are you simply parroting the party line knowing there's no rational defene for Romney trying to destroy what he himself tried to create.

Wait a minute! You've just admitted he CAN'T and WON'T provide leadership on health care as president. He apparantly wants the healthcare system to be addressed by 50 state governors and legilatures rather than as a nation. Wow. Thanks for being so uncharacteristicallyy frank about Romney's shortcomings.

[Badger]

Politico, please explain.

Romney supports Romneycare in his state, not at the federal level. Romney is proud of his achievement in Massachusetts because it is what Massachusetts wanted. What Massachusetts wants, and what Massachusetts can afford, is not necessarily what 49 other states want, let alone can afford. Romney realizes this and respects this fact, unlike Obama. On day one, Romney will grant waivers to the states via executive order. States will be free to choose whether or not to have the individual mandate.

Romney believes in state diversity, not Obama's federal conformity. Romney believes the states control Washington whereas Obama believes Washington controls the states. Romney favors decentralized government whereas Obama favors Big Government. Romney wants an America of opportunities, freedom and personal responsibility. Obama wants more and more government until we are without opportunities, without freedom and without responsibility.

Good night, and good luck.

So hje supports central planned socialized medicine that takes away freedom, but only imposed by state governments rather than the feds. Got it.

We both know that Massachusetts is about the only place where it plays. It helps kids and poor students, and people in Massachusetts like it, so there is no real harm. A veto by Governor Romney would have been overridden, so Romney got the initial proposal reformed in such a way that taxes would not need to be raised to pay for it. You should at least give him some credit for that.

Politico, for someone who idolizes Romney so much you should be familiar with him and his history enough to know that what you just wrote is a pile of crap. Romney didn't have this pushed down his throat by a liberal Democrat juggarnaut to which he grudgingly acceeded to the inevitable; he actively and aggressively presented his similar plan and had a full part in negotiating the final result.

Yes, the Democrats overrode some line item vetos he made in the final product, most notably the employer (with over 10 employees) assessment for not providing health insurance--(but NOT the individual mandate--surely a "tax", no?), plus some other relatively minor changes like extenstion of dental services to the poor. But ultimately the final legislation very much had Romney's mark on it. There's a reason Bay Staters call it "Romneycare". And Romney has (or at least had, before running for president) characterized it as one of, if the triumphs of his administration.

A poll from two years ago showed approval/disapproval of Romneycare at 69-22. Other polls since have shown consistently that approximate 3-1 advantage. You really want to blame that kind of overwhelming support merely on MA's pro-D PVI? Fine, decrease support state by state for increasingly Republican PVI voting and note how many conservative red states would apparantly support Romneycare if it passed in their state in similar form. But fundamentally more important than whether liberal "Taxachusetts" voters support it; ROMNEY obviously supported it!

The point, Politico, is Romney simply can't run against Obamacare having established a not-quite-identical-but-very-closely-resembled program when he was governor. If the Republicans wanted to run against Obamacare, they should've nominated someone with a true conservative record of opposing it for real, or at least not someone who birthed it's fraternal twin at the state level.

Like I said, Romney is proud of his accomplishment and Massachusetts likes it. What works for Massachusetts does not necessarily work for 49 other states. Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around as Obama believes. Experimentation at the state level will produce the best results, not conformity forced upon the states from Washington. That's Romney's stance, and it's reasonable from a historical perspective.

Feh. Either it's a good idea or it isn't. Romney hasn't begun to try explaining why romneycare isn't an adaptable model for the NATIONAL health care crisis, because he can't run against a system he spent so much time and effort setting up as governor.

Or are you saying his experience as governor won't translate as president? Or more likely are you simply parroting the party line knowing there's no rational defene for Romney trying to destroy what he himself tried to create.

Wait a minute! You've just admitted he CAN'T and WON'T provide leadership on health care as president. He apparantly wants the healthcare system to be addressed by 50 state governors and legilatures rather than as a nation. Wow. Thanks for being so uncharacteristicallyy frank about Romney's shortcomings.

Again, Romney believes in the states controlling Washington, not the other way around. Romneycare does not work everywhere, nor is it wanted everywhere, so Romney does not support forcing Romneycare upon those states. If you do not like that, do not vote for him. If you want the next four years to look like the past four years, vote for Obama.

The question isn't about Obama, its about Romney. Good job ducking the question.