Nanker Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 The Mass constitution allowed for it. Until Roberts was going to be outed, it wasn't in the US Constitution. The premise of "Romneycare" was there were about 9.8% of the population without coverage that got health care services by just showing up at the ER and stiffing the HC system and duly-paying insured people foot their bill through higher premiums and fees. Romneycare was based on trying to instill some personal responsibility in that segment. About 5% still weren't insured under Romneycare after two years. Obamacare, on the other hand has no such moral argument. The premise is this: Everyone's going to get coverage and we'll make people who can afford to pay for it, otherwise they'll get a subsidy from the taxpayers. We'll increase whatever taxes we need to to pay for the additional coverage, and if the insurers go broke - we'll give them a bailout. So far, 2.2 million people have signed up for coverage under Obamacare. Reportedly over 5 million lost coverage. The "most transparent administration" in the history of the Union will issue a report on just how many tens (if not hundreds) of millions of Americans gained coverage through Obamacare - when it sees fit, or gets a round to it, or well... whatever.
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 there are significant differences between the two. for one, I don't recall hearing how Romney had to make post-passage changes to it via executive order to keep it from blowing up in his face. secondly (and much more importantly) it was implemented at the STATE LEVEL. he wasn't trying to force ideology on the whole country, and anyone who disagreed with the law enough could always move to another state in order to be free of it. I'm sure there are other here who could easily provide other/better distinctions between Obamacare and Romneycare. It was also bipartisan, and passed in the open. No "we have to pass it to see what's in it," "Republicans can sit in the back seat," reconciliation bull ****.
gumby Posted January 29, 2014 Posted January 29, 2014 Obamacare? Don't you mean Romneycare 2.0? Personally I'd want nothing to do with either.
Dean Cain Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 The Tea Party is a shill. They bow before the same handlers that Obama & Boehner do.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 The Tea Party is a shill. They bow before the same handlers that Obama & Boehner do. This is a drastically incomplete thought.
Dean Cain Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 This is a drastically incomplete thought. The debt ceiling debate, the Ted Cruz filibuster was a charade. All talk no walk should be the tea party name. Disappointed is an understatement.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 The debt ceiling debate, the Ted Cruz filibuster was a charade. All talk no walk should be the tea party name. Disappointed is an understatement. Cross-posting, you should stop talking about things you don't understand. It makes you look foolish.
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Cross-posting, you should stop talking about things you don't understand. It makes you look foolish. Fixed.
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 The Tea Party is a shill. They bow before the same handlers that Obama & Boehner do. Which Tea Party are you referring to?
Dean Cain Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Which Tea Party are you referring to? Tea Party Patriots & any Koch Brothers backed hack group. The Tea Party is not our answer. What we need is a real voice. Ted Cruz is a f'ing fake.
Keukasmallies Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Dems, Repubs, Tea Party; we have no control over any of those entities. The only thing each one of us can do is to find challengers with whom we're relatively comfortable then vow to vote the incumbents out of office. We can B word, moan, and curse the establishment, but remember: We voted them in. Vote, vote against all incumbents.
3rdnlng Posted January 30, 2014 Author Posted January 30, 2014 Tea Party Patriots & any Koch Brothers backed hack group. The Tea Party is not our answer. What we need is a real voice. Ted Cruz is a f'ing fake. There are hundreds of Tea Parties. You obviously don't get the movement, so I won't give you schit about being a wolf in sheeps clothing.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Tea Party Patriots & any Koch Brothers backed hack group. The Tea Party is not our answer. What we need is a real voice. Ted Cruz is a f'ing fake. I'm interested in hearing about your individual morality and political philosophy. Any chance you'd be willing to pontificate?
DC Tom Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 I'm interested in hearing about your individual morality and political philosophy. Any chance you'd be willing to pontificate? Search his posting history. He's a Tea Partier. Troll. And not even a good one.
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Search his posting history. He's a Tea Partier. Troll. And not even a good one. He strikes me as a turd's turd.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 Search his posting history. He's a Tea Partier. Troll. And not even a good one. To me anyone who even mentions Koch brothers reeks of occupy wall street and all that stupid 1% crap
B-Man Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 . The Tea Party is not our answer. Speak for yourself sir. Faux conservative, Koch obsessed rants are a dead giveaway. .
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 I'm interested in hearing about your individual morality and political philosophy. Any chance you'd be willing to pontificate? my question iswould you actually consider what he says or just continue to consider him as a BHL and ignore what he says regardless? http://www.teaparty911.com/info/candidates.htm Where are the Romneys, Palins, Pauls, Cruz's? or is this the real TEA Party? http://www.teapartypatriots.org/?gclid=CK3vrNSdprwCFaQfwwod3kQArg or this one? http://www.teaparty.org/ or this one? http://www.theteaparty.net/
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 my question is would you actually consider what he says or just continue to consider him as a BHL and ignore what he says regardless? What kind of idiot question is this? I asked him what his individual morality and political philosophy is. What am I going to do? Argue with him and tell him that his philosophy is not his philosophy? Jesus... do you have to focus on being dumb to come up with **** like that? http://www.teaparty9.../candidates.htm Where are the Romneys, Palins, Pauls, Cruz's? or is this the real TEA Party? http://www.teapartyp...CFaQfwwod3kQArg or this one? http://www.teaparty.org/ or this one? http://www.theteaparty.net/ You've answered your own question, and you don't even realize it.
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 30, 2014 Posted January 30, 2014 What kind of idiot question is this? I asked him what his individual morality and political philosophy is. What am I going to do? Argue with him and tell him that his philosophy is not his philosophy? Jesus... do you have to focus on being dumb to come up with **** like that? You've answered your own question, and you don't even realize it. He hasn't figured out that there is no central control to the tea party but its a grass roots movement of like minded citizens angry at the direction of the country and that our representatives care more about their careers than doing the job they were elected to do. We are taxed enough already. We dont need someone to tell us what to do or think we have realized these conclusions von our own.
Recommended Posts