Of course nobody knows exactly how he'll respond to having his feet held to the fire by the grass-roots but we do know McCain will feel no compuction about kicking us in the groin and poking us in the eye.
Like I said, I could be wrong but I think our chances of having our voices heard stands a better chance with Romney.
Simple answer - no.
His explanation was that people who could afford coverage were blowing it off and going and getting care that would wind up being free. Since cutting off free health care would never fly the plan was to force people to pony up.
God forbid anyone in Massachusetts should have to pay their own tab....
Hillary has announced that she now wants to garnish wages for forced coverage, just like Romney did in 2005. That must make her a conservative in the eyes of Romney supporters.
Of course, Mass-Care is a horrible idea with a worse implementation. And it will be seen for what it is before this election cycle is over.
The difference between Romney and McCain is that Romney will acknowledge that “there are problems with the system, and that it’s not suitable for one-size-fits-all National Healthcare but will serve as a learning experience to the states who want to implement something like this”.
McCain, on the other hand will say that the “system worked, and if it didn’t than it’s only because it didn’t have the time or enough money to work, and we have to make sure that with some minor tweaks to the system it’s implemented on a national level before it’s too late for people who are dying or go bankrupt due to lack of medical insurance”.
Any government-subsidized, “universal” health care is a poor, and likely dangerous, idea. I think in the long run it will do more damage to the economy and society than, for example, amnesty for illegals.
As far as the president is concerned, it comes down to his view of federalism. Is there any sign that Romney endorses the notion that the FEDERAL government should play any role (let alone an expanded role) in the delivery, funding, or regulation of health services? If the scope of Romney's health-care stupidity is limited to state-wide application, then I can overlook it. Stupid ideas or not, such powers are reserved for the states (or, more accurately, are not related to those expressly enumerated functions of the fedgov), to be freely voted upon by people within the state, and limited in scope to those within the state only. Nationalization is the cancer we cannot easily escape.
"Conservative" was not what FReepers were calling Romney in 2005.
Romney Does Flip and Forces Catholic Hospitals to Distribute Morning-After-Pill
“Is Romney’s Healthcare Plan Conservative?”
No and it is just one reason that I am going to need an industrial sized clothespin when I vote for Mitt.