Mitt Romney is doing everything he can to tout the stupid republican ideal of repealing the health care reform while trying not to look like a hypocrite when questioned about the health care laws of his own home state—the ones he put into effect. As can be expected he isn't doing a very good job. The more Romney discusses his stance on the reform laws the more he makes himself out to be a liar and someone who will change his stance the minute he might just get a big wad of cash out of the flip-flop.
While griping about the individual mandate that taxes individuals who can afford yet refuse to acquire health care on the national level, he supports it in Massachusetts. Why is it good for his state but bad for the nation? Even Rick Santorum could see through Mitt Romney when it came to health care reform. How are you for the reform when you are in charge of a state and against it when you are in charge of a nation? Conservative leaders are hoping the general public is too stupid to put two and two together to equal four. The only way they succeed in repealing the health care reform is a total sweep of the presidency, house and senate. If conservatives continue to refuse to read and understand that the person they have nominated to run this country is a two-face liar then the country is in for a world of hurt.
The Romney campaign is continuing to try to deceive the nation in regards to Obamacare. The Wall Street Journal published a scathing editorial that called out the campaign for trying to deceive the nation just long enough that people will not realize that all Romney is doing is flip-flopping on major pieces of legislature. This past Thursday the Romney campaign went so far as to call out the Obama camp insisting that they are the ones who are flip-flopping on their stance of the health care reform. Umm what? Obama has always stood behind the reform and the fact that the supreme court ruled the penalty for not getting health care a tax is not his fault. When will Romney and his conservative sheeple learn?
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 45
Failure to do so usually requires a retraction.
"One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It's very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. . . . Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it." - Ronald Reagan
"The Liar Obama Tries to Develop an Excuse For Obamacare"
There, that's it. I appreciate accuracy...
Wake up and learn something. And, after you've awakened, try reading the Constitution.
A State experiment, as idiotic as it was, has nothing to do with Federal Control of an entire Nation.
Wake up, Puryear. Read the Constitution.
There is a huge difference between what a state government can do, and what the federal government can do.
That is a major basis of the entire Constitution.
He has said over and aga9in, as a State, they had the right to do it.
As a Federal Government, they do not - and as the SCOTUS affirmed, if it is not a tax, it is not Constitutional.
Since Obama has repeatedly said it is NOT a tax, then it is un-constitutional according to Obama.
And you interjected that Romeny is dishonest, because he defended Romney care, but is against Obamacare.
Now, is Obama telling lies when he says it is not a tax?
Because if that is true, it is unconstitutional.
If that is NOT true (and he is telling lies), then he lied to the general public!
But ignore Obama and his lies.
Romney (who I do not much like by the way), has defended what he did, as being in States Rights (which it is), and stated repeatedly that the Federal Government is not given that same right.
Mitt Romney = LIAR!
I am positive you understand the difference between what a state government has the constitutional right to do, and what the federal government has the constitutional right to do.
Having read so many of your comments and posts, you can not be saying that with a straight face!
You are FAR from stupid!
It is beneath you to take a stance based purely on party rhetoric.
There is no "flip-flop", contradiction, or lie, in supporting a state law, while condemning a national law that is essentially the same.
The U.S. Constitution designated the difference.
This "band-wagon" is un-becoming for you to jump on.
So I may have oversimplified it in my comment. ;)
What I am well aware of is that Mitt Romney will say ANYTHING to get elected. I am 100% positive that after the Affordable Care Act has been in place and working and saving money and lives -- let's say 15 years down the road -- and Romney were running for President, he would be taking full CREDIT for drafting the plan FIRST in MA!
Mitt Romney is a liar. If he were telling the truth, his stance would not continue to change as the wind blows.
Dislike Obama all you like, but Romney? Mitt Romney is a viable alternative???!!
And BTW, the highest court in the land ruled that the Affordable Care Act IS constitutional. So, I am hard pressed to see much difference between "Obamacare" and "Romneycare".
Only if the fee is a "tax", which mewans Obama has lied to us.
If he did NOT lie, then he must admit, that it IS unconstitutional (according to the highest court in the land).
So which is it - did he lie and it IS a tax - or did he sign an unconstitutional law? (if he did, by insisting the 'fee' is not a tax, then he is duty bound by his own sworn affirmation to have it overturned).
One has to be true - they can not both co-exist, under the very arguments you have presented.
Is he a liar?
Did he not uphold the Constitution?
Pick one.
I sit corrected - you apparantly do NOT know the difference between state rights and federal rights.
I apologize for the over-estimation.
However, Romneycare mandates that nearly every resident of Massachusetts obtain a state-government-regulated minimum level of healthcare insurance coverage and provides free health care insurance for residents earning less than 150% of the poverty limit.
Residents must indicate on their tax forms if they had insurance on December 31 of that tax year, had a waiver for religious reasons, or had a waiver from the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority (aka the Connector). The Connector waiver can be obtained if the resident demonstrates that there is no available coverage that is defined by the Connector as affordable.
If a resident does not have coverage and does not have a waiver, the Department of Revenue will enforce the insurance requirement by imposing a penalty.
I'm no lawyer but that sounds an awful lot like the Affordable Care Act.
http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474981461649
Did you just mis spell my name on purpose? If so I forgive you if not do you feel better now? You immature twerp
Are you still calling me Dirt on purpose? My name is DIRK. I will respond with examples but I am at work currently and do not have time at this momment. This evening I will respond.
I started to go through your list but it is so biased that would be impossible! Almost every item is a very biased interpretation. Examples would be, highest Debt your Website wants to count the Trillion dollar Stimulus and the second half of Tarp against Bush, nothing to do with Bush, Obama over rode all of Bush's budget for 2009.
Apology tour that is the only thing you can call what Obama has done and that is what Mitt Romney has called it.
I don't believe you are even open to a discussion about these topics. Each Item that I read is even more backward than the last time I started to read them. Again I say do some research yourself. The crap on your referanced website is mostly spin and statements and have nothing to do with substance.