Obama: Romney is just “pretending” his health care plan was different than mine

posted at 1:20 pm on March 22, 2012 by Tina Korbe

Just as conservatives have always warned, if the GOP nominates Mitt Romney for president, the current president will try to use him as a scapegoat for Obamacare. Proof:

“We designed a program that actually previously had support of Republicans, including the person who may end up being the Republican standard bearer and is now pretending like he came up with something different,” the president said.

The Massachusetts plan served as a model for the Affordable Care Act, signed two years ago Friday. Romney, the state’s former governor, has since said the legislation was the correct course for his state but not meant as a model for a national overhaul. But the plan has proved a focal point of criticism aimed at the GOP frontrunner.

In Thursday’s interview, Obama said Republican opposition to the plan, including the Supreme Court challenge, is politically motivated.

Maybe “scapegoat” isn’t exactly the best word. In this interview, Obama was extolling the virtues of Obamacare and tying Romney to it, so maybe he was actually trying to share “credit” for the health care overhaul.

Either way, the only defense Romney has offered for Romneycare — still – is that he signed it into law at the state level. Ann Coulter has argued that that is an adequate defense.

But if for no other reason than that Romneycare included an individual mandate, it’s problematic. Sure, a mandate at the state level is constitutional, but, in case you’ve forgotten, a federal mandate to buy insurance is not constitutional. Moreover, once upon a time, Romney explicitly expressed support for a national mandate.

It’s been two years since the president signed Obamacare into law and, for two years, conservatives have known Romney would be in trouble for the way Romneycare connects him to the least-liked entitlement program in the nation’s history. Two years and I still don’t see how Romney gets around this issue.

Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrohm says the campaign will clear its Etch a Sketch for the general election, but no magic and no messaging will erase Romneycare. It has been and will be his Achilles heel unless and until he completely disavows it.

Phil Kerpen is hopeful that Romney can win Obama in the “battle of the health care flip-floppers,” but I’m not so sure. Will undecideds who despise Obamacare look at Romney and see a clear difference? It’s the same question that’s plagued the Romney campaign from Day One. So, why won’t he do something about it and disavow Romneycare completely?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Gee, I didn’t see this coming.

I’m shocked.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Isn’t that the truth?

liberal4life on March 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Cant wait for the debates already!

liberal4life on March 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Obama: Romney is just “pretending” his health care plan was different than mine

Except yours is going to be heard in front of the Supremes.

Electrongod on March 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Ann Coulter has argued that that is an adequate defense.

Ann Coulter isn’t really adequate anymore.

the_nile on March 22, 2012 at 1:25 PM

The Supremes overturning the mandate will make it much easier for Romney.

youknowit on March 22, 2012 at 1:25 PM

hmmmm hmmm hmmmm

antisocial on March 22, 2012 at 1:25 PM

The Commerce Clause mandate is the gateway to an utterly unrestrained State.

It is anathema to Conservatism.

The Republicans didn’t speak for me, when they supported this travesty and Statism.

I’m a Conservative – without a Party. And, it’s been that way – starting with H.W. Bush.

Reagan is the only Republican I’ve ever believed in, at the Presidential level. The rest have been nothing but glorified Democrats, wallowing in State intrusion and expanded government.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 22, 2012 at 1:25 PM

So, why won’t he do something about it and disavow Romneycare completely?

Too late now. That’s a flip-flop too far at this stage. Would have made a stronger case if he had done it last year.

Bitter Clinger on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Romney: His healthcare mandate goes too far! My healthcare mandate doesn’t go too far enough!

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Who better to kill it than the idiot who beta-tested it at the state level….

Romney to Obamacare: “Cato and I brought you into the world, and we will be taking you out!”

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

So he’s going to run on it as an accomplishment…but credit Romney for it?

And frankly, it’s all going to boil down to what the Supreme Court says. If they throw it out, then Obama has a much harder time defending it and RomneyCare isn’t much of an issue. If they uphold it, though, Obama’s hand is strengthened, as it would be against any of the candidates.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Romney hasn’t even responded yet and Tina is already parroting the Democrat talking points. I might as well spend my time at Daily Kos.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

The Supremes overturning the mandate will make it much easier for Romney.

youknowit on March 22, 2012 at 1:25 PM

IF they do that. Mighty big “if”.

Bitter Clinger on March 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Electrongod on March 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

The point that is being made is Romneycare and Obamacare are similar. So what issue does Romney (the presumptive challenger) have?

antisocial on March 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I find the back story for Obamacare irrelevant. The story for this election is…Obama wants to double down on Obamacare and Romney says he would repeal it.

At this point thats all that matters.

alecj on March 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Romney hasn’t even responded yet and Tina is already parroting the Democrat talking points. I might as well spend my time at Daily Kos.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Hey, give her credit…it took them until after 1 to get the first of today’s bash Romney posts up. Progress. /

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Romney hasn’t even responded yet and Tina is already parroting the Democrat talking points. I might as well spend my time at Daily Kos.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Gee, a little uncomfortable are we?

Bitter Clinger on March 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Ann Coulter has argued that that is an adequate defense.

Ann Coulter is 100% correct.

I get that liberals, and many conservatives, refuse to accept the distinction. But, didn’t Obama teach Con Law at one of the best Law Schools in the country? Should he not know about the 10th amendment, being that it is actually within the Constitution (i.e., the subject of the course he taught), and that any Con Law casebook contains cases dealing with the 10th Amendment.

If Obama tries to say that non-sense, all Romney has to do is just play off what I just wrote. Just because Obama used something as a basis for what he did, does not mean that what is constitutional on a state level is constitutional on the federal level.

milcus on March 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Teeeeeeenaaaaaaa, different from!

This is exactly what we’re going to get ad nauseam if Romney’s the nominee: constant quibbling over the little details of Romneybamacare, with the end result being a door left wide open for government to decide what’s best for us.

TouchingTophet on March 22, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Obama: Romney is just “pretending” his health care plan was different than mine

Except yours is going to be heard in front of the Supremes.

Electrongod on March 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

Slam dunk. That’s as big a difference as anyone should need. Tina admits that the state-level mandate is constitutional. There is a world of difference between a state-level, constitutionally-valid plan, and ObamaCare.

FogDog on March 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Isn’t that the truth?

liberal4life on March 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM

You got that right girlfriend. There’s no bigger insult coming from the mouth of a leftist piece of garbage than calling someone else a leftist piece of garbage.

MNHawk on March 22, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Obama is right for the first time in his life.

Valiant on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

“We designed a program that actually previously had support of Republicans, including the person who may end up being the Republican standard bearer and is now pretending like he came up with something different,” the president said.

He’s nailed Romney with this statement.

Yesterday one of the Romney supporters said those who didn’t vote for him needed to stop arguing about that thread’s issue because we were going to have to defend him on it in a couple of months–as if objections to a policy are rooted only to a persona and not to objections to the actual idea. They obviously think we’re going to bend like pretzels the way Romney does.

Romney supporters are on their own–especially with this one.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

Obama is right for the first time in his life.

Valiant on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

I was thinking that this might be the first time during his presidency that I’ve agreed with him.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

You know who else says it’s the same bill? The guy who worked on writing both Obamacare and RomneyCare. But why listen to him, when the HA Mitt-tards says Romneycare and Obamacare are like oil and water?

Jonathan Gruber, a key intellectual architect of President Obama’s overhaul of the American health care system, is a little frustrated…….

“Zero difference,” he said. “This is, to my mind, the most blatantly obvious case of politics trumping policy I’ve ever seen in my life. Because this is an idea, that four or five years ago, Republicans were touting. A guy from the Heritage Foundation spoke at the bill signing in Massachusetts about how good this bill was.”

He credited Mitt Romney for not totally disavowing the Massachusetts bill during his presidential campaign, but said Romney’s attempt to distinguish between Obama’s bill and his own is disingenuous.

“The problem is there is no way to say that,” Gruber said. “Because they’re the same f****g bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. 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.”

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the disaster upon the land.

I hope Obama and Romney suffer a lot from it.

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Nothing screams Conservative Ideals more than a mandate from a government entity! /s
This is the best the GOP can do..really?? There’s no way we can win the general with these candidates..it just isn’t going to happen.

pj

pj808 on March 22, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Romney hasn’t even responded yet and Tina is already parroting the Democrat talking points. I might as well spend my time at Daily Kos.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Actually, in this case, it is Obama who is (partially) parroting the conservative talking points.

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

The discussion of how different the plans are completely misses the point:

It *is* constitutional for a STATE to issue an insurance mandate, particularly when it is overwhelmingly supported by both the state legislature and the voters.

It is *unconstitutional* for the federal government to impose such a mandate nationally, PARTICULARLY when most of the states legislatures and people do NOT want it.

It doesn’t matter how similar the plans are, the whole context is different.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Slam dunk. That’s as big a difference as anyone should need. Tina admits that the state-level mandate is constitutional. There is a world of difference between a state-level, constitutionally-valid plan, and ObamaCare.

FogDog on March 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Sso what? They’re identical still identical bills. If SCOTUS throws out O-Care it still doesn’t absolve Romney from thinking in the same terms as Obama with regards to health care. He, like Obama’s instinct is to have govt run more stuff. Whether it’s constitutional or not is besides the point. Lots of things are constitutional and are also awful ideas. Romneycare is a perfect example.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Romney hasn’t even responded yet and Tina is already parroting the Democrat talking points. I might as well spend my time at Daily Kos.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

He’s responded to this charge many times – and Willard has been unconvincing each time.

HondaV65 on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Gee, a little uncomfortable are we?

Bitter Clinger on March 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Not really. It just bothers me when so-called conservatives parrot Democrat talking points without first putting a little thought into the subject.

Like her candidate, Rick Santorum, Tina seems to be a Democrat with conservative social views. Like a Democrat, she can’t see the difference between Romneycare as Romney originally proposed it, and the mutant monster that is Obamacare. Hint: Romneycare was originally designed as a conservative alternative to single-payer. Obamacare was deliberately designed to fail and lead us to single-payer. They are vastly different, as Romney has pointed out again and again.

Tina should stick to the posts equating homosexuals with thieves and murderers. She’ll get more hits that way.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Tina, I disagree that the mandate is constitutional on a state level. People should not be forced to make a purchase simply because they are alive.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

I always though Obama was not capable of telling the truth, I guess I was wrong.

social-justice on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Actually, in this case, it is Obama who is (partially) parroting the conservative talking points.

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

The truth isn’t conservative or liberal. O-Care = R-Care just with a few extra 0s of cost at the end. Aside from that, they’re identical.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

What about the fact that mandates were embraced by the Right…that is, until ObamaCare came along?

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Note how Obama is not celebrating tomorrow. Makes you wonder why, if it’s such a good thing.

It is an utter disaster, way more expensive than assumed. It should never be called Obamacare by itself.

It s/b called what it is,

The Obama Affordable Healthcare Act

Then mock the “Affordable” part and especially mock Obama until his last breath.

He lied that the mandate is not a “tax”, now he wants the SC to believe that it is. Well, he’s on video saying that it isn’t.

Then, the oh-so smart Congress forgot to insert a severablity clause. Good luck dummies, on both sides!

Schadenfreude on March 22, 2012 at 1:43 PM

Hey, give her credit…it took them until after 1 to get the first of today’s bash Romney posts up. Progress. /

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:29 PM

So you’re saying Tina shouldn’t have written about Obama’s comments at all?

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 1:43 PM

How are they different, let me enumerate the ways:

1. Obama care was designed to destroy private insurance markets. Romney care was designed to work with private markets.
2. Obama care is a one size fits all product. Romney care only applies to 8% of the population except for the individual mandate.
3. Obama care makes things more expensive by mandating Cadillac coverage. Romney care does not.
4. Obama care creates 1968 new government agencies. Romney care: fewer than 100.
5. The individual mandate was necessary because you can get free coverage at hospital emergency rooms. Obama had huge majorities in congress and could have fixed that problem. He chose not to. Romney had to operate under existing laws, laws that Obama could have changed.

The way Republican’s could have taken the health care issue from the Democrats is to solve it with conservative solutions. Romney gave it a shot. Problem: Most conservative solutions have been outlawed by Democrats.

The Rock on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Slam dunk. That’s as big a difference as anyone should need. Tina admits that the state-level mandate is constitutional. There is a world of difference between a state-level, constitutionally-valid plan, and ObamaCare.

FogDog on March 22, 2012 at 1:33 PM

So if Mitt Romney visits a brothel in Nevada – where prostitution is legal under their constitution – he’s “good to go” for President?

LOL

WILLARD GETS AN “F” FOR BAD JUDGEMENT FOR RESORTING TO SOCIALISM EVEN IN A STATE VENUE.

HondaV65 on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Ti

na, I disagree that the mandate is constitutional on a state level. People should not be forced to make a purchase simply because they are alive.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

agreed…

The healthcare law is tyranny.

I guess some people like tyranny on the state level. True conservatives despise tyranny on state or federal level.

social-justice on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

I get that liberals, and many conservatives, refuse to accept the distinction. But, didn’t Obama teach Con Law at one of the best Law Schools in the country? Should he not know about the 10th amendment, being that it is actually within the Constitution (i.e., the subject of the course he taught), and that any Con Law casebook contains cases dealing with the 10th Amendment.

If Obama tries to say that non-sense, all Romney has to do is just play off what I just wrote. Just because Obama used something as a basis for what he did, does not mean that what is constitutional on a state level is constitutional on the federal level.

milcus on March 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Go over to Breitbart.com, and read about Obamuh and the Critical Race Theory. Of note, and pursuant to same, is the concept that the Constitution is an inherently racist document, and must be disregarded and disallowed, when it best serves the interests of minorities.

Obamuh nominees to the Court – Kagan and Sotomayor – are also proponents of the Critical Race Theory.

I took Constitutional Law, in law school, in ’81 – and it was apparent, then, that the Constitution was to be construed as a political document – and that it said what the politics of the law school professors and the politics of the majority of the Court say it says.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

In Mass. the General Court wanted to create a single-payer state insurance system (many *still* do and are still working to get one). Romney managed to salvage private health insurance so people still have a choice of health insurance plans. That is not a bad thing.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

What about the fact that mandates were embraced by the Right…that is, until ObamaCare came along?

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

What about the fact that the sky is blue? Has as much relevance to the discussion of whether O-Care is the same as R-Care.

Yes some on the right embraced the mandate. Some still do. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And it doesn’t absolve Romney from giving birth to the father of Obamacare.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

“I disagree that the mandate is constitutional on a state level. ”

Disagreement with it doesn’t make it real. States have wide leeway, particularly in the area of insurance. This is why they can ban out of state insurance companies from doing business. It is the only industry of which I am aware that is immune from the commerce clause.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Soft underbelly.

a capella on March 22, 2012 at 1:46 PM

Romney health insurance took up 80 pages, and was written before it was passed.

No one in MA felt an impact until they started layering Obama care over it, with no copays for everything paid for upfront in the premium. And ruining the mini plans. And dumping people in the future from private insurance onto Medicaid instead? (Called Mass Health in MA, http://www.massresources.org/masshealth.html) which is like Medicaid everywhere, and should not be called the Romney plan. The Romney plan made people select low cost private insurance and pay at least some of it themselves.

A lot of people think Mass Health is our insurance in MA, it is the Medicaid CHIPS program.

A lot of the laws regarding insurance were written by our attorney general and our legislature over many years. They were not written by Romney. When Obama says he is modelling after MA, he is more likely looking at things our liberal legislature thinks is a good idea, that are not items in the Romney health insurance reform. You can also notice, that Romney vetoed a lot of things he didn’t like. You, unlike our liberal legislature might honor that prerogative.

Fleuries on March 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Nothing screams Conservative Ideals more than a mandate from a government entity! /s
This is the best the GOP can do..really?? There’s no way we can win the general with these candidates..it just isn’t going to happen.

I thought individual responsibility was a conservative ideal. Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, sometimes it takes a law to get them to do the right thing. The one thing we can all agree on is that the federal behemoth known as ObamaCare is the wrong law, at the wrong level, at the wrong cost.

FogDog on March 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

Mitt will use his etch-a-sketch move to ignore RomneyCare. Rombots will approve.

Maybe Mitt has lucked into the correct position to win over former Obama voters, since they do not have to admit a big mistake in voting for Obama in 2008. These voters can blame their vote in 2008 on not realizing Obama is incompetent. They can feel good about themselves and note that Romney cared about healthcare, like they do.

Romney will use democrats to enact bad policies as president when Republicans in congress oppose him. Romney still sux.

WhatNot on March 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

It is clear that the GOP is in deep trouble when the best both wings can come up with are Romney and Santorum. The base insists on a ridiculous level of purity and the establishment doesn’t have a bit of political sense. It wouldn’t shock me at all if our party went the way of the dodo very soon.

McDuck on March 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

What about the fact that the sky is blue? Has as much relevance to the discussion of whether O-Care is the same as R-Care.

Yes some on the right embraced the mandate. Some still do. Doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. And it doesn’t absolve Romney from giving birth to the father of Obamacare.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:45 PM

Of course it’s relevant. You want to dump on Romney for implementing something a lot of conservatives embraced.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I get that liberals, and many conservatives, refuse to accept the distinction. But, didn’t Obama teach Con Law at one of the best Law Schools in the country? Should he not know about the 10th amendment, being that it is actually within the Constitution (i.e., the subject of the course he taught), and that any Con Law casebook contains cases dealing with the 10th Amendment.

If Obama tries to say that non-sense, all Romney has to do is just play off what I just wrote. Just because Obama used something as a basis for what he did, does not mean that what is constitutional on a state level is constitutional on the federal level.

milcus on March 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Go over to Breitbart.com, and read about Obamuh and the Critical Race Theory. Of note, and pursuant to same, is the concept that the Constitution is an inherently racist document, and must be disregarded and disallowed, when it best serves the interests of minorities.

Obamuh nominees to the Court – Kagan and Sotomayor – are also proponents of the Critical Race Theory.

I took Constitutional Law, in law school, in ’81 – and it was apparent, then, that the Constitution was to be construed as a political document – and that it said what the politics of the law school professors and the politics of the majority of the Court say it says.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

People (apparently) do not understand that if there had been no “Romneycare” then Mass. right now would have a single payer state plan and private health insurance companies would be out of business in Mass.

There was no way he could stop it. He would not be able to veto the legislation. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the legislature 4:1. The only thing he could do was propose modifications that the Democrats would accept.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

Hint: Romneycare was originally designed as a conservative alternative to single-payer.

So when did a government mandate become conservative, when said mandate relied heavily on another government entity (Federal..other peoples money) for its funding?

It goes to show that GOP does not equal Conservative..haven’t in a long time.

pj

pj808 on March 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

It is clear that the GOP is in deep trouble when the best both wings can come up with are Romney and Santorum. The base insists on a ridiculous level of purity and the establishment doesn’t have a bit of political sense. It wouldn’t shock me at all if our party went the way of the dodo very soon.

McDuck on March 22, 2012 at 1:47 PM

I agree, kind of. The base didn’t choose Santorum. He was the last man standing of ABRs. Had some of the others stuck around longer, I’m pretty sure Santorum would be a footnote right about now.

But your overall point is valid. The GOP is a dead party walking right about now.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

If Obama tries to say that non-sense, all Romney has to do is just play off what I just wrote. Just because Obama used something as a basis for what he did, does not mean that what is constitutional on a state level is constitutional on the federal level.

milcus on March 22, 2012 at 1:30 PM

You’re right, it is a Tenth-Amendment issue – I could move out of Massachusetts if I didn’t like the state laws there, no loss, no big deal. They can pass whatever moonbatty socialist programs they want in that state, and it doesn’t affect me unless I move there. Sovereignty of the individual states is what our Framers intended.

Moving out of the USA because I don’t like the laws here is an entirely different story.

Harbingeing on March 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Romney hasn’t even responded yet and Tina is already parroting the Democrat talking points. I might as well spend my time at Daily Kos.

You may want to re-read the post bub.

Romney, the state’s former governor, has since said the legislation was the correct course for his state but not meant as a model for a national overhaul.

Romney has defended RomneyCare every time he’s been asked about it. He has refused to back down and only offers a very meek difference that is exactly what Obama is hoping to exploit through the courts following the crazy process he used to get it into law. Bring yourself up to speed on what is the biggest herring in Romney’s basket.

Where’s bluegill’s take?

DanMan on March 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Of course it’s relevant. You want to dump on Romney for implementing something a lot of conservatives embraced.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:48 PM

You can’t have it both ways dude. I’ve heard you and other bots say 1000 times that Romney will repeal O-Care. Then in the next breath you defend R-Care as some sort of free market awesomeness.

It has to be one or the other. Either R-Care and O-Care both suck or they’re both great. You’re intellectually dishonest if you like one but not the other.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM

didn’t Obama teach Con Law at one of the best Law Schools in the country

Two things:

1. Obama has a very twisted idea of the constitution and disagrees with the fundamental idea that federal power is limited to only those powers granted it and states have ALL powers except those prohibited. He said that is wrong and should be changed and that he believes the federal government should be all-powerful.

2. Obama is of the “its legal until it is challenged” viewpoint. He feels he can do whatever he wants and it isn’t unconstitutional until someone challenges it and the supreme court rules. This means he believed he had a chance to keep challenges tied up in lower courts until he was out of office. I think this going to the Supreme Court this quickly caught him by surprise.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Romney:

“Oh hogwash! It’s perfectly okay for the states to violate the Constitution. States can do whatever they want.”

Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 1:53 PM

You’re right, it is a Tenth-Amendment issue – I could move out of Massachusetts if I didn’t like the state laws there, no loss, no big deal. They can pass whatever moonbatty socialist programs they want in that state, and it doesn’t affect me unless I move there. Sovereignty of the individual states is what our Framers intended.

Moving out of the USA because I don’t like the laws here is an entirely different story.

Harbingeing on March 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

That’s cold comfort, if all you’ve ever known – family, friends, roots – are in the offending State.

I don’t think that a people should be forced to become political refugees, under the 10th amendment, or anything else.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM

There was no way he could stop it. He would not be able to veto the legislation. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the legislature 4:1. The only thing he could do was propose modifications that the Democrats would accept.

And we want this guy to turn back all the damage that has been done to this country by the past couple of Administrations? Someone who couldn’t stand to his principles (yeah, I know) and do the right thing even if he didn’t have enough votes? This capitulation from the GOP establishment has got to stop at some point if we are to save this Republic. None of these guys have what it takes unfortunately.

pj

pj808 on March 22, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Oh, I can think of one pretty significant difference between Romneycare and Obamacare: Romneycare wasn’t enacted against the will of the majority of affected citizenry.

In a debate, Romney need only say that he is running for President, not dictator.

A spite- vote for Obama and you’re the enemy.
A non-vote is a vote for Obama and you’re the enemy.
Don’t cry when you get treated like the enemy.

M240H on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

You’re right, it is a Tenth-Amendment issue – I could move out of Massachusetts if I didn’t like the state laws there, no loss, no big deal. They can pass whatever moonbatty socialist programs they want in that state, and it doesn’t affect me unless I move there. Sovereignty of the individual states is what our Framers intended.

Moving out of the USA because I don’t like the laws here is an entirely different story.

Harbingeing on March 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Wrong. If you live in the other 49 states RomneyCare still affects you since the federal govt is paying for a good portion of the costs.

Also, even if R-Care is constitutional and you can move out of MA, why in the world would you want the guy who created it as president? You’re saying you would pack up and move out of your state to get away from Romneycare, yet you’d elect the man who implemented it for president? That makes absolutely no sense.

I agree that MA can do whatever it wants no matter how idiotic the ideas are. But I disagree that we have to reward politicians in MA who do those idiotic things with the keys to the white house.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

What about the fact that mandates were embraced by the Right…that is, until ObamaCare came along?

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

Actually, Heritage and Cato repudiated mandates long before Obamacare came along.

Resist We Much on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

So if Mitt Romney visits a brothel in Nevada – where prostitution is legal under their constitution – he’s “good to go” for President?

HondaV65 on March 22, 2012 at 1:44 PM

Can you say “non sequitur”? Republicans don’t nominate men who visit prostitutes, whether it’s legal or not. For Dems, it might be a badge of honor, but that’s another story.

FogDog on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

How many times does Romney have to say it? Applying the plan to one state is different that applying it to the entire country.

nazo311 on March 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM

There was no way he could stop it. He would not be able to veto the legislation. Democrats outnumbered Republicans in the legislature 4:1. The only thing he could do was propose modifications that the Democrats would accept.

So when Harry Reid says boo! Romney will give him everything he wants too. Wonderful.

Everything Reagan did was with a DEMOCRAT MAJORITY in the house. That’s what a leader does, he gets the other side to see things his way and work with him. He doesn’t just throw his hands up and give the other side everything they want.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Actually, Heritage and Cato repudiated mandates long before Obamacare came along.

Resist We Much on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

…after supporting them.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

You’re right, it is a Tenth-Amendment issue – I could move out of Massachusetts if I didn’t like the state laws there, no loss, no big deal. They can pass whatever moonbatty socialist programs they want in that state, and it doesn’t affect me unless I move there. Sovereignty of the individual states is what our Framers intended.

Moving out of the USA because I don’t like the laws here is an entirely different story.

Harbingeing on March 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

That’s a load of $&@&*. So what happens if every state does the same thing? Then what, genius?

No, the Framers did not intend to have states violating the Constitution. Only a Romney supporter would bend reality that far.

Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Romney hasn’t even responded yet and Tina is already parroting the Democrat talking points. I might as well spend my time at Daily Kos.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Yeah, why don’t you? Then I won’t have to scroll by your posts anymore.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I don’t like MittCare and I am not defending it, but it is constitutional. Obamacare is NOT. States can mandate their citizens purchase health insurance. The Federal government cannot.

I’ve discussed the various legal precedent on this on previous occasions and, if anyone is interested, you can read it here:

Obamacare: Do Not Resuscitate

Resist We Much on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Pssst…. just because an idea is constitutional, does not make it a good idea.

Pass it on.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Tina you need to check your facts, Romney has never “explicitly expressed support for a national mandate”. Its been refuted several times, you sound like someone from the HuffPo. Stop it.

Wags on March 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

He’s nailed Romney with this statement.

INC on March 22, 2012 at 1:37 PM

So, you are buying what Obama is selling?

LOL!!!!

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

How many times does Romney have to say it? Applying the plan to one state is different that applying it to the entire country.

nazo311 on March 22, 2012 at 1:56 PM

Violating the Constitution in one state is different than violating it in the entire country. Is that what you just said?

Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

What if Romney had set a tax rate of 100% in MA. Would have been perfect constitutional, right? Stop thinking of RomneyCare in terms of is it or isn’t it constitutional.

It’s an awful policy regardless of whether it’s legal. And we should not reward the guy who came up with the idea by electing him president.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 2:01 PM

Not only is it defferent state v fed, costs didnt go up in our MA health plans until the Dems got control of the governors office, hello Deval Parick. Once in the office with all Patirck’s appointments, they started mandating the crap out of coverages and guess what? The cost of health care insurance skyrocketed in this state.

Rich on March 22, 2012 at 2:02 PM

…after supporting them.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Heaven forbid a mind is changed. Must support something to the bitter end, I suppose.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Welfare to Works- Thompson

Romneycare- Romney

Both designed at the state level with the hope that they go national and that the “author” gets national recognition and the Presidency. Whether “going national” means state by state or President Romney withholding Federal Funds until the State complies (21 alchohol rule by Reagan) I don’t see much difference.

journeyintothewhirlwind on March 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

But I disagree that we have to reward politicians in MA who do those idiotic things with the keys to the white house.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

So your vote is some kind of reward? Like giving a treat to a dog ?
Its easy to fall for the media’s scheme that elections are popularity contests, but the fact of the matter is your are hiring a person to perform a job in government. They work for YOU ! Its not an emotional process.

and…. the most experienced person to hire and manage the next 4 years in the WH is Mittens.

FlaMurph on March 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

That’s a load of $&@&*. So what happens if every state does the same thing?

Then you would have to buy health insurance.

Then what, genius?

Then everyone would have health insurance.

No, the Framers did not intend to have states violating the Constitution.

Oh, really? Is that why some states had state religions?

Only a Romney supporter would bend reality that far.

Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Only an ignoramus, like you, would bend reality that far.

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

It’s pretty simple really. Romney supporters are exactly like Bill Clinton supporters. No matter what he does, or did in the past, they’re going to excuse it until the day they die. Just as with Clinton, if video was brought forward showing Romney shooting 18 people in a liquor store in 2004, his supporters would say …

“he’s only human”

Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Tina you need to check your facts, Romney has never “explicitly expressed support for a national mandate”. Its been refuted several times, you sound like someone from the HuffPo. Stop it.

Wags on March 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

What about that inconvenient little editorial your cat Mittens wrote for USA Today? Refute that.

steebo77 on March 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM

after supporting them.

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Heaven forbid a mind is changed. Must support something to the bitter end, I suppose.

lorien1973 on March 22, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Mittens can flip flop 17 times before breakfast, but Heritage withdraws support from RomneyCare and it’s shoot the messenger time for the Rombots.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM

The discussion of how different the plans are completely misses the point:

It *is* constitutional for a STATE to issue an insurance mandate, particularly when it is overwhelmingly supported by both the state legislature and the voters.

It is *unconstitutional* for the federal government to impose such a mandate nationally, PARTICULARLY when most of the states legislatures and people do NOT want it.

It doesn’t matter how similar the plans are, the whole context is different.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Yes, the context makes all the difference. Forcing people to do something is constitutional conservative if it’s done at the state level. And government mandates are good, as long as “the people want them.”

Keep banging that freedom drum.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

It is *unconstitutional* for the federal government to impose such a mandate nationally, PARTICULARLY when most of the states legislatures and people do NOT want it.

It doesn’t matter how similar the plans are, the whole context is different.

crosspatch on March 22, 2012 at 1:41 PM

1. Amazing that you’re so sure it’s unconstitutional. I guess the supreme court has no idea what they’re doing hearing 6 hours of argument in the most hotly contested case in decades. Sadly, asserting something with asterisks doesn’t make it so.

2. What do state legislatures have to do with whether the ACA is constitutional?

cjw79 on March 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Pssst…. just because an idea is constitutional, does not make it a good idea.

Pass it on.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Assuming arguendo, that the Commerce Clause mandate will provide Utopian healthcare to all, and that it works wonders.

The fact remains – that it is an unrestrained use of State force – on the People. And, once the People became used to this kind of force, and embraced it, the People would be reduced to servants of the State and its unrestrained will upon them.

THAT is the danger of the mandate – the use of unrestrained power by the State.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Too late now. That’s a flip-flop too far at this stage. Would have made a stronger case if he had done it last year.

Bitter Clinger on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Yeah.

Romney hasn’t even responded yet and Tina is already parroting the Democrat talking points. I might as well spend my time at Daily Kos.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 1:26 PM

Santorum and Gingrich have been saying that Romneycare would bite Mitt is the azz, and they are right. Romneycare sucks; now you own it. Too bad, so sad.

Lightswitch on March 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

This and the etch-a-sketch remark by Romney’s advisor vindicate all of the conservatives who voted against Romney in the primary.

lea on March 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

But I disagree that we have to reward politicians in MA who do those idiotic things with the keys to the white house.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 1:55 PM

So your vote is some kind of reward? Like giving a treat to a dog ?
Its easy to fall for the media’s scheme that elections are popularity contests, but the fact of the matter is your are hiring a person to perform a job in government. They work for YOU ! Its not an emotional process.

and…. the most experienced person to hire and manage the next 4 years in the WH is Mittens.

FlaMurph on March 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Give me a break, you know exactly what I meant. I don’t want the guy who thinks govt run health care (at the state level) is a good idea as president. I don’t care if it’s legal. It’s still an awful idea. And it shows me his outlook on the world, ie the govt is there to solve all our problems.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

What about the fact that mandates were embraced by the Right…that is, until ObamaCare came along?

changer1701 on March 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

What about the fact that I don’t give a damn who embraced mandates? I don’t want them.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Yes, the context makes all the difference. Forcing people to do something is constitutional conservative if it’s done at the state level. And government mandates are good, as long as “the people want them.”

Keep banging that freedom drum.

JannyMae on March 22, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Beautiful.

OhEssYouCowboys on March 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

See above at Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Thank you for proving my point. You’re embarrassing.

Gregor on March 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Not only is it defferent state v fed, costs didnt go up in our MA health plans until the Dems got control of the governors office, hello Deval Parick.

Rich on March 22, 2012 at 2:02 PM

And even then the costs rose AT A LOWER RATE than the national average.

But let’s not confuse the ABRtards with facts.

Gunlock Bill on March 22, 2012 at 2:08 PM

So when did a government mandate become conservative, when said mandate relied heavily on another government entity (Federal..other peoples money) for its funding?

It goes to show that GOP does not equal Conservative..haven’t in a long time.

pj808 on March 22, 2012 at 1:49 PM

From American Spectator:

The Massachusetts law is different in important ways from the plan that Romney pushed as governor. Few voters know, for example, that Romney strongly opposed the employer mandate and wanted an escape from the individual mandate — allowing people to instead be able to post a bond if they were uninsured and had big medical bills. When Romney signed the law, he believed it contained the escape hatch, but legislators removed it before final passage.

Why did he push Romneycare? The state was at risk of losing $385 million in federal Medicaid money, and the Bush administration insisted Massachusetts make changes to get more residents covered and keep the money flowing.

Romney also wanted to find a way to make it easier for small businesses and individuals to get insurance that would be portable from job to job. To get around federal tax law restrictions and to make health insurance portable, he adopted the Heritage Foundation’s proposal to create exchanges that would allow individuals to have portable insurance and pay premiums with pre-tax dollars.

Romney wanted people to be able to purchase real health insurance that would have covered catastrophic events. Instead, the legislature insisted on including all of the 50-plus health insurance mandates already on the books. The legislature allowed the high-deductible plans only for some young people aged 18-26.

• Employer mandate: Vetoed. The bill called for a mandate on employers with 11 or more workers to provide health coverage or pay an annual fee of $295 per worker. Overridden.

• Covering certain immigrants: Vetoed. The bill included a provision that would allow some non-citizens to qualify for coverage under the new health plan. Overridden.

• New bureaucracy: Vetoed. The bill created a powerful new bureaucracy, called the Public Health Council. Overridden.

• Limiting improvements to Medicaid: Vetoed. The bill restricted changes to Medicaid to make the program more efficient. Overridden.

The health reform plan Gov. Romney pushed in Massachusetts was different in key respects from the model that became Obamacare but few people know the truth about Romneycare.

Unless Gov. Romney takes steps to clarify and remedy his position, he will continue to have trouble convincing Republican voters he is serious about repeal and will have an even harder time mapping a clear plan on health reform should he be elected president.

Those last two paragraphs make more sense than anything an ABR or a Democrat has to say about how Romneycare and Obamacare are identical.

Mr. Arkadin on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Based on comments above, it seems some people seem to be very confident that O-care will be struck down by the Court. I’m not. My prediction is 5-4 or 6-3 to uphold the core of the law. I would love to be wrong, but the Court is very wishy-washy when it comes to the federal/state divide.

McDuck on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Face it Mittbots, had Romneycare been called DevalPatrickCare instead you’d all be screaming about the abuse of state power inherent in the mandate. But it’s called RomneyCare and so you twist yourselves into a pretzel to defend the indefensible.

angryed on March 22, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4