Forum Home | Log in | Signup | My Page | Rules | FAQ | Boards | Members | Search
« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next

Re: Why, Mitt, why? 

By: micro in CONSTITUTION | Recommend this post (2)
Fri, 30 Dec 11 3:50 PM | 51 view(s)
Boardmark this board | Constitutional Corner 		Msg. 16680 of 21975
(This msg. is a reply to 16671 by RalphOmega)
Jump:
Jump to board:
Jump to msg. #

Sorry Ralph, but no I am not.

That does not mean I endorse mandated health insurance coverage because as an employer I still consider it a very expensive benefit.

My point is simply that Romney's fiasco in Massachusetts was not the same or even close to Obamacare as many carelessly toss out there.

It also does not mean Mitt is my candidate either.

I really like Col. Allen West, the Florida Congressman who in my opinion should seek higher office in a couple years.

What we truly need as a requirement for any candidate seeking office of POTUS is one who has a firm grasp and experience with BUSINESS as well as ECONOMICS.

Lastly, I am in favor of a LAW that states that NO PRESIDENT has the right or power to issue Presidential orders, period.

That simply bypasses the CONGRESS altogether and if a MANDATE by the President is so good, then why shouldn't it be debated by the people's representatives?
I have had enough of Legislation from the President's Pen, all of them.

Have a great day!

micro...


 - - - - -
View Replies (1) »



» You can also:
- - - - -
The above is a reply to the following message:
Re: Why, Mitt, why?
By: RalphOmega in CONSTITUTION
Thu, 29 Dec 11 6:36 PM 		Msg. 16671 of 21975

Holding your nose already? 

At their core, both plans depended on a deal with special interest groups. In Massachusetts, Romney needed and got buy-in from the powerful hospital, insurance, and corporate lobbies. To win that support, he could not fundamentally change the way they did business. Instead, private insurance companies got more customers thanks to the individual mandate, hospitals kept their beds full, and corporations that failed to insure employees paid only a token penalty of $295 per worker.

Because free-riding corporations were not effectively taxed, Massachusetts had to divert money from the free-care pool that finances safety-net hospitals. And because serious cost containment was not part of the original package, premium costs in the Commonwealth have risen far faster than nationally — by 10.3 percent in 2009, the most recent year available, according to a June 2011 state report

http://articles.boston.com/2011-06-28/bostonglobe/29713400_1_insurance-cost-containment-cost-savings

« CONSTITUTION Home | Email msg. | Reply to msg. | Post new | Board info. Previous | Home | Next