sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 8:03 PM

I have started to read it & it is very interesting. Will get back to you tomorrow with some legitimate questions that hopefully you will not shrink from answering- most chiefly, what went wrong? “Talking Points” on the first page would be a great start I would think.

Well I’m not sure a person who prefaces a question with “well he’s still a RINO for plenty of other reasons” is open to listen but……

Well I’m not sure someone who supports Romney is worth listening to but… thanks anyway. Regardless of that unnecessary comment, I’ll check out the link.

If that’s what you mean by the GOP Establishment well then I guess I’m in good company.

GOP Establishment? WTF? Conspiracy coded language and thinking like that is stupid.

I’m not apart of any “GOP Establishment” [insert evil background music].

The Heritage Foundation is a good place to start your sincere quest for knowledge:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/HealthCare/upload/bg_1953.pdf

There is a lot of innovation & market friendly ideas in Mitt’s plan and anyone idiot enough to simply toss Romney aside as a viable POTUS candidate because they think he’s a RINO in their rino eyes better get use to the idea of Obama for 8 years.

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

If you, like a lot of the GOP Establishment, really think that Romney can beat Obama in 2012, then you really should get used to the idea of 8 years of Obama.

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Any links you could provide to back up what you are saying would be very helpful as well.

sheryl on August 30, 2009 at 4:54 PM

Well he’s a RINO for plenty of other reasons but that’s beside the point. Explain why the miserable failure in MA is not Romney’s fault in any way.

There is a lot of innovation & market friendly ideas in Mitt’s plan

Then why has it failed so badly? I will listen, I sincerely want to know.

And archer52…your statement “His inability to accept that the concept of government providing healthcare to all is wrong is the main reason I can’t vote for him as President.”

Good grief do you even understand the argument that is taking place on this topic.

Do you understand the concept of government paying for health insurance for those who can’t afford it versus the government BEING the health insurance/insurer?

From your statement above I don’t think you. And until you understand the fundamental nature of the argument I don’t think you have the facts to critize Romney.

Or the Heritage Foundation for that matter(Rush and Sean’s favorite think tank). They helped and advocated bringing this healthcare model to MA.

There is a lot of innovation & market friendly ideas in Mitt’s plan and anyone idiot enough to simply toss Romney aside as a viable POTUS candidate because they think he’s a RINO in their rino eyes better get use to the idea of Obama for 8 years.

Here is Romney defending his disastrous plan:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/07/mr-president-whats-the-rush.html
“Because of President Obama’s frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.“
For the sake of 300 million Americans, any politician using the bogus 47 million uninsured number is a no-go.

xblade on August 29, 2009 at 10:38 PM

Exactly. A Republican who mimics the talking points of Obama/Pelosi/Reid will never be the GOP nominee.

Case closed.

Huckabee has much more to answer for

Just looking for info here, what are the major beefs with Huckabeee so many here are referring to? Because I don’t think I could support Romney unless he came out & admitted what a mistake this all was & I do NOT see that happening.

His inability to accept that the concept of government providing healthcare to all is wrong is the main reason I can’t vote for him as President. He is that type of politician that thinks government does belong in every aspect of our lives, how much is the only question. I believe this is a false argument.

http://truthandcommonsense.com/2009/08/12/heres-a-novel-thought-respect-the-old-young-and-infirm/

Personally, I think expanding health care could evolve into better healthcare.

But that’s obviously just a belief.

I do know, certainly, that privatization has led to some really nasty stuff.

It’s hit that tipping point, for sure.

AnninCA on August 30, 2009 at 1:27 AM

The problem is that in California capping the price that a utility can charge for electricity, and forbidding long term contracts with electricity suppliers is called “deregulation.”

If I remember correctly, they hired a contractor to administrate a state run insurance program. While this might technically be considered privatization, it is in fact nothing but shifting the blame.

If Romney wants to gain the respect of Conservatives, he’ll confess this huge error and expose the ugly truth and take the hit for the sake of sparing us ZeroCare. He won’t get to be president, but TS to that.

This is a sword screaming to be fallen on, and it’s singing Mitt’s name.

Maquis on August 29, 2009 at 8:21 PM

It’s not only to gain respect of conservatives; it’s far more important that he prove he’s a man of principles and not some political hack who wants to bask in the glory of higher office. I would actually support the guy if he went on a campaign pointing out what a mistake he made and this proves to the country that government run health care is a disaster. I doubt he will, he’s just another oily politician.

If you keep bring previous performance, facts, and reality to the argument you will lose because Obama is doing this. Don’t you understand it’s OBAMA.

Romneycare provides hard evidence of the unintended consequences of certain practices.

This is much better than one side telling the other side what they think will happen. Romneycare happened and it can be dissected.

Opponents of Obama’s package should move fast to take apart the details procided here. Creeping coverage is one of the worst. It happend in the UK. Everyone’s favorite disease gets added and the basics get reduced to cover the fringe

This helpe bring down social security, which was originally for old age, but soon got young widows with childern under 18 and disability added. Nice idea, but widows could stay home collecting for 18 years if they had kids, and disability got expanded to include drug addiction, alcoholism, and mental illness. And disabled adults could get more money as they had more kids. And kids could get benefits beyond 18 if they were still in school. And disabled adult kids could collect forever. And so it goes.

When politicians control the purse it is opened over and over until empty