Posted on 10/28/2013 8:37:22 AM PDT by Olog-hai
OK. I can answer only in this way. Romneycare is no more a form of socialism, than it is is a form of socialism that my state requires me to have automobile insurance. It is basically the same concept.
Obama himself has cited “Romneycare” as a model for the ACA.
Socialism is still socialism. Doesn’t matter if it’s in “one state” or not. Remember that Stalin’s model for socialism was called “socialism in one country”.
Or “no less a form of socialism”? Enough arguments have been made that connect compulsory automobile insurance and socialism.
As I understand the Constitution, states are pretty much free to do whatever they want, unless it is specifically prohibited by the Constitution. States regulate issues such as marriage, abortion, automobile because they are not covered by the Constitution. States even have the power and authority to set up an official state religion (the federal government cannot of course) if they so wanted to.
The Tenth Amendment is not a free-for-all.
And governments that contravene the model of a republican form are specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
Yes of course Obama and all of the rest of the Democrats cited Romneycare——a very small and tiny program meant for only one state——FOR POLITICAL COVER. The reality is obamacare is VASTLY different from Romneycare. Romneycare only used funds ALREADY allocated to the state through MEDICAID. It did not spend any NEW money. Obamacare is going end up costing TRILLIONS. There alone is a huge difference.
Apples and kumquats comparison...
Auto insurance is optional, based on whether or not you choose to operate a motor vehicle. There is no law MANDATING that you MUST operate a motor vehicle, thus requiring vehicle insurance.
Health insurance has been deemed compulsory, mandatory simply for existing in these United States of America.
So then you are opposed to the state government requiring you to purchase automobile insurance?
I cannot believe any FReeper would think the mandate is a good idea
A newer socialist brick builds upon an older socialist brick. I’m afraid I do not see the capitalist angle here.
2) RomneyCare increased taxes: "Technically the last day to sign up for insurance in compliance with that mandate was November 15, though as a practical measure Massachusetts residents actually had until January 1, 2008. Those without insurance as of that date will lose their personal exemption for the state income tax when they file this spring. In 2009, the penalty will increase to 50 percent of the cost of a standard insurance policy." ?(Emphasis Added) - http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare
3) RomneyCare caused increased spending: "The Massachusetts plan might not have achieved universal coverage, but it has cost taxpayers a great deal of money. Originally, the plan was projected to cost $1.8 billion this year. Now it is expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million. Over the next 10 years, projections suggest that Romney-Care will cost about $2 billion more than was budgeted. And the cost to Massachusetts taxpayers could be even higher because new federal rules could deprive the state of $100 million per year in Medicaid money that the state planned to use to help finance the program." (Emphasis Added) http://www.cato.org/policy-report/januaryfebruary-2008/lessons-fall-romneycare
So, each of your arguments having been disproved, all we have is the equivalence of RomneyCare and 0bamaCare, one of which you approve because it had a (RINO) tag on it.
RomneyCare was a liberal policy predicated on GOVERNMENT FORCE, HIGHER TAXES and SPENDING. You approve of it. You're a liberal.
I refuted his car insurance argument earlier with no rebuttal forthcoming. That’s a dead horse. He lost.
Yes those demographics are changing but rather than try to emulate Democrats pandering we need to appeal to minorities in ways that align with our principles stated policy aims. The GOP in Texas has done an excellent job of appealing to minorities especially Hispanics without selling their soul on immigration policy. They also have a sizable number of Hispanic GOP officeholders including Ted Cruz. The Florida GOP has been historically successful also though they have slipped in the past few years. The GOP hurt themselves the most with self inflicted wounds when they embrace the rhetoric and the premises of Democrats and attack each other suggesting latent racism etc and clouding the immigration issue so much that it looks like the GOP want open borders and are the ones looking for near slave labor to make them rich. So they end up taking a hit on both sides and winning very little.
Reply to my #23 or STFU about car insurance.
OK. I see your point. And I respect it. Now. My question for you: An uninsured fellow walks into a hospital. Needs care. Perhaps having a heart attack or chest pains, could be anything. He receives treatment and care. He is later given the bill. He says he cannot or will not pay. Now what?
I live in CA. One cannot function in CA without a car.
Just a moment and the Governor can MANDATE that you contract with the Public Transportation Utility and make illegal purchasing cars on the open market for personal use.
Just like Romney, making some kinds of economic transactions required, and others illegal.
Problem solved!
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.