• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Will Romneycare destroy Romney's electability?

Is Romneycare Mitt Romney's Waterloo?


  • Total voters
    26
  • Poll closed .

ronpaulvoter

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 9, 2007
Messages
627
Reaction score
111
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Will Romneycare destroy Mitt Romney's electability in the Republican primary?

As far as I'm concerned, he could be Obama lite, or perhaps worse--a Democrat in Republican clothing.

His economic record in "Taxachucetts" is deplorable.

Since repeal of Obamacare would be a top priority for our next president, I could never vote for anyone who created the same kind of monster he needs to slay.

Do you agree?
 
Last edited:
Romney can either hypocritically attack Obama care with crackpot reasons why his health care was supposedly significalntly different or he can endorse Obamacare. With the first option, people will be disgusted by his intellectual dishonesty. The second option is intellectually honest, but turns off his base.
 
Will Romneycare destroy Mitt Romney's electability in the Republican primary?

As far as I'm concerned, he could be Obama lite, or perhaps worse--a Democrat in Republican clothing.

His economic record in "Taxachucetts" is deplorable.

Since repeal of Obamacare would be a top priority for our next president, I could never vote for anyone who created the same kind of monster he needs to slay.

Do you agree?

Given that this issue for conservatives has been brought up constantly for well over a year and a half now. I doubt there are many left who don't know about it already. Despite this, he is still the front runner. So I am guessing not.
 
I choose no because I believe Romney is electable because his more moderate stances appeals to GOPs for whom the healthcare bill isn't the big issue(jobs are), independents and Democrats disgusted with Obama
 
Romney can either hypocritically attack Obama care with crackpot reasons why his health care was supposedly significalntly different or he can endorse Obamacare. With the first option, people will be disgusted by his intellectual dishonesty. The second option is intellectually honest, but turns off his base.

It has already been established that a state can mandate auto insurance and the specific requirements of coverage. Applying that to medical insurance (without the mandate) has also been allowed. Creating a mandate for health insurance, then, would be perfectly within the parameter's of a state's powers. Mandating the purchase of a specific product, regardless of the value/need for that product, is not something the federal government has the consitutional authority to do. In that sense, the mandate in Obamacare is hugely different than the mandate in Romneycare.

I think both programs suck, but there is a huge difference in the validity of O-care v. R-care.
 
I don't know. I'm very reluctant to vote for him because of this reason, and because I don't like his hair. I reserve a judgement today because it may come down to anyone but Obama.
 
It has already been established that a state can mandate auto insurance and the specific requirements of coverage.

Not true. There are many people who do not have auto insurance. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of the people who live in NYC have no auto insurance.
 
I don't know. I'm very reluctant to vote for him because of this reason, and because I don't like his hair. I reserve a judgement today because it may come down to anyone but Obama.

I saw Mitch Daniels on the Daily Show the other day and couldn't help but think, "He'd never get elected with that hairline". Your dig on Romney's hair reminded me.
 
Not true. There are many people who do not have auto insurance. I'm going to guess that the vast majority of the people who live in NYC have no auto insurance.

I guess I have to go into intricate detail with everything I post, eh? I would think I didn't have to clarify that the mandate involves those who own and drive cars.

You can't say there are people who don't own and operate their bodies.
 
Will Romneycare destroy Mitt Romney's electability in the Republican primary?

As far as I'm concerned, he could be Obama lite, or perhaps worse--a Democrat in Republican clothing.

His economic record in "Taxachucetts" is deplorable.

Since repeal of Obamacare would be a top priority for our next president, I could never vote for anyone who created the same kind of monster he needs to slay.

Do you agree?

Romney's liberalism and flip flopping in general will destroy his electability.
 
I guess I have to go into intricate detail with everything I post, eh? I would think I didn't have to clarify that the mandate involves those who own and drive cars.

You can't say there are people who don't own and operate their bodies.

We generally agree on things it seems, but this isn't just a case of not being complete. So what happens if I'm a 20 year old healthy male and decide I do not need health care just like those in NYC have decided they do not need auto insurance because they have no car?
 
Romneycare won't do him in, but the media will.
 
We generally agree on things it seems, but this isn't just a case of not being complete. So what happens if I'm a 20 year old healthy male and decide I do not need health care just like those in NYC have decided they do not need auto insurance because they have no car?

The argument is invalid because of ownership. You can choose not to own a car, but you can't choose not to use your body.
 
The argument is invalid because of ownership. You can choose not to own a car, but you can't choose not to use your body.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I'm choosing to not use health care.
 
I don't see Romneycare as a huge deal. The overall impact in Mass brought slight gains in the coverage for a somewhat high cost. Hardly my idea of a good legislation, but the other candidates aren't proposing anything much better.
 
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. I'm choosing to not use health care.

Car insurance covers the car against catastrophic accidents.
Health insurance covers the body.

You can choose not to have your car fixed if you're in an accident.
You can choose not to have your body fixed if you get cancer.

But if you own and use a car, you must insure it by legal requirement.
It is completely justifiable, therefore, to say that if you use your body you must insure it.
 
Car insurance covers the car against catastrophic accidents.
Health insurance covers the body.

You can choose not to have your car fixed if you're in an accident.
You can choose not to have your body fixed if you get cancer.

But if you own and use a car, you must insure it by legal requirement.
It is completely justifiable, therefore, to say that if you use your body you must insure it.

I'm 50 and I have not done anything that would have caused me to need health insurance since I was a kid.
 
Will Romneycare destroy Mitt Romney's electability in the Republican primary?

As far as I'm concerned, he could be Obama lite, or perhaps worse--a Democrat in Republican clothing.

His economic record in "Taxachucetts" is deplorable.

Since repeal of Obamacare would be a top priority for our next president, I could never vote for anyone who created the same kind of monster he needs to slay.

Do you agree?

No. Because Republicans don't actually have a problem with anything in it, other than the Affordable Care Act has Obama's name on it. The Republicans suddenly discovered they had a principled objection to the individual mandate at precisely the moment Obama included it in the ACA. Up until then, an individual mandate was not only acceptable to Republicans, it was part of GOP orthodoxy. Hell, the individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation. John McCain ran on a very similar health care platform in 2008 (complete with individual mandates and "death panels") and got 47% of the vote including the vast majority of Republicans. It was barely even an issue.

I have no doubt that Republicans will get over their *ahem* principled objections to Romneycare and get behind him if he's the nominee. It won't even be that hard for him to pull it off. All he needs to do is what he's already doing: Split some hairs to show how it's marginally different from Obamacare, and maybe start calling his individual mandate by some less-threatening euphemism. And most Republicans will accept that, because I don't think that very many of them actually give a damn about any specific part of the Affordable Care Act or Romneycare.
 
Last edited:
No. Because Republicans don't actually have a problem with anything in it, other than the Affordable Care Act has Obama's name on it. The Republicans suddenly discovered they had a principled objection to the individual mandate at precisely the moment Obama included it in the ACA. Up until then, an individual mandate was not only acceptable to Republicans, it was part of GOP orthodoxy. Hell, the individual mandate was the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation. John McCain ran on a very similar health care platform in 2008 (complete with individual mandates and "death panels") and got 47% of the vote including the vast majority of Republicans.

Hillary would likely disagree with you.
 
I'm 50 and I have not done anything that would have caused me to need health insurance since I was a kid.

And my dad has never been in a car accident.

Doesn't mean it won't happen.
 
Hillary would likely disagree with you.

Yep, the irony is that it was more of an issue among Democrats than Republicans in 2008 (although it really wasn't a big issue for Democrats either; I doubt many Democrats based their vote on this issue). Virtually every serious Republican health care plan for 15 years included an individual mandate (in fact it was their idea), and now it's suddenly outrageous, unconstitutional, and socialist. I call bull****. I don't believe for one second that the GOP suddenly saw the error of their ways and that the party's views evolved over the span of a few months, which just happened to coincide with the debate over the Affordable Care Act.
 
Last edited:
And my dad has never been in a car accident.

Doesn't mean it won't happen.

No it doesn't. But all the same, if I choose to not drive, I do not have to buy insurance.
 
Yep, the irony is that it was more of an issue among Democrats than Republicans in 2008 (although it really wasn't a big issue for Democrats either; I doubt many Democrats based their vote on this issue). Virtually every serious Republican health care plan for 15 years included an individual mandate (in fact it was their idea), and now it's suddenly outrageous, unconstitutional, and socialist. I call bull****. I don't believe for one second that the GOP suddenly saw the error of their ways and that the party's views evolved over the span of a few months, which just happened to coincide with the debate over the Affordable Care Act.

As you seem to agree with me, it's the same position they held 20 years ago when Hillarycare was defeated.
 
Car insurance covers the car against catastrophic accidents.
Health insurance covers the body.

You can choose not to have your car fixed if you're in an accident.
You can choose not to have your body fixed if you get cancer.

But if you own and use a car, you must insure it by legal requirement.
It is completely justifiable, therefore, to say that if you use your body you must insure it.
So, the only option, to avoid this insurance, is death. Wherease before, it was just a matter of signing your name or not. That's the choice we are forcing on people?
 
Will Romneycare destroy Mitt Romney's electability in the Republican primary?

As far as I'm concerned, he could be Obama lite, or perhaps worse--a Democrat in Republican clothing.

His economic record in "Taxachucetts" is deplorable.

Since repeal of Obamacare would be a top priority for our next president, I could never vote for anyone who created the same kind of monster he needs to slay.

Do you agree?

No. It will hurt his electability among conservatives but not against most moderates and independents.
 
Back
Top Bottom