Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What Would President Romney Do? Romney’s promised to scrap Obamacare—and if he wins he can do it
Slate ^ | June 28, 2012 | Matthew Yglesias

Posted on 06/28/2012 8:44:44 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

The Supreme Court’s decision to let the core elements of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act stand kicks the fate of the Obama administration’s signature initiative where it properly belongs—into the domain of politics—where a Romney administration would still have ample opportunity to dismantle the main elements of the law.

One thing President Romney probably couldn’t do, however, would be the politically expedient step of simply repealing the legally controversial and politically unpopular fine levied on people who decline to purchase health insurance. Both Romney (who embraced a mandate as governor of Massachusetts) and Obama (who opportunistically opposed a mandate when running against Hillary Clinton) understand the basic issue here. Requiring insurance companies to accept all customers and charge the same price regardless of their state of health (“guaranteed issue” and “community rating” in wonk-speak) are popular but unworkable ideas. If people can buy insurance only after they get sick, then there isn’t enough money coming into the system to cover the bills of the people who are sick.

That’s why even the Obama administration told the Supreme Court that if they struck down the mandate, the guaranteed issue and community rating provisions should go as well. The court did have the option of being devious, and simply kicking the dilemma of what to do with a mandateless market back to the White House. But a future Romney administration would have to internalize the consequences of stripping the mandate and thus would be unlikely to try to isolate it.

This is where Democrats may come to rue the day that they decided to delay implementation of the main parts of their signature initiative all the way until 2014...

(Excerpt) Read more at slate.com ...


TOPICS: Campaign News; Issues; U.S. Congress; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: congress; obama; obamacare; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last
To: factmart; 5thGenTexan
5th, just five months ago, factmart posted here on Free Republicn that, why, if that damned Jeb Bush somehow snagged the nomination, he, factmart, would vote for Obama before he'd vote for Jeb!

The courage of his convictions is so rabbity that he needs Rush, Levin, Palin to tell him how to think, and has the incredibly arrogant audacity to take it upon himself even to speak for "Reagan, in hs grave," who he says would support Romney. Presumably, however, Reagan would vote for Obama before he'd vote for Jeb Bush.

This is to illustrate the utter abandon of factmart's convictions.

21 posted on 06/29/2012 1:50:30 AM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Mr. RomneyCARE AUTHORED ObamaCARE/RomneyCARE.

Like GAY MARRIAGE, MR. RomneyCARE created it,
then got the GOPe to forget that, hoping the
entire American public has no memory, too.

WRONG.


22 posted on 06/29/2012 4:02:58 AM PDT by Diogenesis ("Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. " Pres. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: To-Whose-Benefit?

TWB:

You make great points, but did you see who they sent home on Glee?

This is the real story that is lost in the hubbub of the politics of greed.

This is not my America anymore.


23 posted on 06/29/2012 4:08:50 AM PDT by urbanpovertylawcenter (where the law and poverty collide in an urban setting and sparks fly)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

We will need a Veto-proof Senate...guaranteed. We also then need to impeach us some SC justices.

It is no accident Obama is President, Mitt is his “opposition” and this was the Ruling.

The Hand against We the People is malignant and unseen...


24 posted on 06/29/2012 4:09:32 AM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Clearly to do it legislatively he would need 60 votes in the Senate which he is unlikely to get. Otherwise he could give everyone a waiver who asked for one....I suppose that would last only until the next Dem president.


25 posted on 06/29/2012 4:25:19 AM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

“Bullsh*t

A conservative president could do it..Romney cant and wont”

I second the statement. All this talk of repeal is BS and a means to get us, once again, to stand down.


26 posted on 06/29/2012 6:16:51 AM PDT by WKUHilltopper (And yet...we continue to tolerate this crap...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Would that be the same Mitt Romney whose website proclaims, ‘Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts’?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/romney-website-mitt-will-nominate-judges-in-the-mold-of-chief-justice-roberts/#ixzz1zCDFBnfh

Romney ruthlessly attacked my conservative candidates in the 2008 and 2012 GOP primaries, so I assume he doesn’t need or want my help. Besides, he is already rolling in cash, thanks to donations from the easily deceived.

These conservative candidates for the US Senate, however, are not so wealthy, and they could really use some help. The REAL battleground of 2012 will be the Senate. We need to take it back.

A good first step would be to follow on Twitter & support them:

@tedcruz, @richardmourdock, @DebFischer2012, @sarah_steelman, @JoshMandelOhio. @TeamHoekstra, @Rehberg2012, @RickBergND, @Neumann4WI & @georgeallenva .

Also @SarahPAC .


27 posted on 06/29/2012 8:21:05 AM PDT by Josh Painter ("The lesser of two evils is, by definition, evil." - Josh Painter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montanajoe

Right. GOPe told us loud and clear they did not want the Tea Party protestors out and about yelling about fascistcare. Why would that be other than they supported Obamacare. They won’t overturn it just like they won’t reform anything the communists have done to kill our Republic. They’ll ‘try’, but by accident, fail.


28 posted on 06/29/2012 10:54:49 AM PDT by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Finny
I said I would vote for Obabma before Jeb Bush. I cannot stand American Royalty.

I will Vote for Romney For Obama Or Jeb Bush.

I'm no Reagan, Reagan would vote for Romney or Jeb Bush before Obama.

Were no you stand?

29 posted on 06/29/2012 11:16:04 PM PDT by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Finny
I said I would vote for Obabma before Jeb Bush. I cannot stand American Royalty.

I will Vote for Romney For Obama Or Jeb Bush.

I'm no Reagan, Reagan would vote for Romney or Jeb Bush before Obama.

Were no you stand?

30 posted on 06/29/2012 11:16:27 PM PDT by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Finny
I said I would vote for Obabma before Jeb Bush. I cannot stand American Royalty.

I will Vote for Romney before Obama Or Jeb Bush.

I'm no Reagan, Reagan would vote for Romney or Jeb Bush before Obama.

Where do you stand?

31 posted on 06/29/2012 11:17:44 PM PDT by factmart
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: factmart
Where do I stand? Well, I wouldn't vote for Obama, and I probably would vote for Jeb Bush because his record isn't even remotely in the same neighborhood as Romney's, not even close.

You, on the other hand, would vote for Obama in that circumstance, apparently.

You don't know what Reagan would do, and it is disgusting that you presume to speak for him. That you presume to do so makes you pretty small.

Where do I stand? I am voting FOR a plurality by splitting the vote via third party, in an effort to make it so whichever big-government authoritarian statist wins, Obama or Romney, gets in on the slimmest plurality possible. A president who takes office when the majority of Americans voted against him, is weak, defensive, and vulnerable. Witness Bill Clinton, who got in on a 43% plurality -- a full 57% of Americans voted against him, and he got his butt kicked in the midterms with the Republican Revolution. Does anyone seriously think the Republican Revolution would have happened if Clinton had won with a majority, or if HW Bush had been re-elected?

I accept the hard truth that there is no such thing as voting "against" a candidate -- there is only voting FOR a candidate as the price to prevent (vote "against") a different candidate from winning. Neither I nor any other American can vote "against" Obama OR Romney; we can ONLY vote for someone else. THERE IS NO VOTING 'AGAINST.'

I will be voting FOR a plurality to weaken the victory of whichever government tyrant wins, Obama or Romney.

32 posted on 07/01/2012 4:44:41 PM PDT by Finny (A deal with the devil is ALWAYS a losing proposition. Voting for Romney to avoid Obama is just that.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-32 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson