is precisely why I do not support Romney. I’m not fond of Gingrich, but he’s better than the others. I will only vote for Romney if I have no other options.

Since Mitt is convinced the Individual Mandate is a conservative concept, wouldn’t he be disposed to appoint Supreme Court justices that agree with him?

Also, since Mitt was in favor of the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, would he be likely to nominate justices that support the individual right to bear arms? Since the individual right hangs by a 5-4 thread, this also seems like a good question to ask.

…

I don’t have a lot of confidence in FL GOP primary voters to do the right thing. Newt has done his best to appeal to the Hispanic, Jewish and senior votes, but it’s not clear that he can overcome Romney’s money and advertising. If he finishes 1 vote behind Romney, Romney gets all 50 delegates. That’s just wrong. Santorum needs to follow Perry’s lead, drop out and endorse Newt. Now.

extremely weak on fighting the issue of Obamacare issue against Obama in the fall. I cannot believe we are about to nominate this guy, he’s more moderate than McCain, got less personality than Dole and makes Kerry’s flip-flopping seem like child’s play.

we all know that newt and mitt are both pretty fundamentally flawed. romney’s flaw is health care… we all knew that. the two deciding factors, though:

1) there is absolutely nothing on this planet that makes me cringe more than people who try to claim that i’m “heartless” for wanting to deport illegal immigrants. newt trying to win the florida hispanic vote by claiming that “illegals are just poor grandmothers and we should leave it up to ‘local panels’ to decide who we should deport and who we shouldn’t is absolutely pathetic.
2) romney is right about newt. he has literally gone to every single state and promised them everything they ever wanted. politicians going to the space coast and promising them that “if you vote for me we’ll spent hundreds of billions of dollars to put a colony on the moon” is exactly why we’re in the disaster we’re in. calling that out was romney’s grand slam response to newt’s south carolina moment.

romney is flawed on health care. if newt is flawed on immigration and spending, i go with romney in a second.

Romney says that people who do not carry insurance will be fined to pay for their care when the state picks up the cost.
That statement is totally untrue in my opinion.
First of all the people most likely to have the state pick up their insurance costs are most likely not employed and probably are not going to file a state income tax return which is when they would pay the penalty. However, if your fail to meet an income threshold you are exempt from the penalty so once again the poor without insurance do not pay the fine.

Second. He incorrectly states as fact that the state will pick up the cost of people who carry no insurance.
Not always true.
Believe me when I say if you stiff a hospital or an emergency room they will most definitely come looking for it.
They will stick a collection agency on your deadbeat butt in a heartbeat.
You don’t just skip out on your bill.
It is no different than stiffing a credit card company.

Another thing. While it is true that an emergency room is required to treat you whether you can pay or not that is the only medical scenario where you will be treated without regard to payment.
No private practitioner will take you as a patient if you cannot prove you can pay.
No dentist.
No eye doctor.
No dermatologist.
That is the very first thing they ask for.

Also Romneycare is not supposed to be available to illegal aliens.
It is most certainly and quite definitely available to illegal aliens.
If Romney wants to talk about the state picking up somebody’s healthcare costs he can start right there mister.

covering up his lies. I also bet Romney has bought Matt Drudge, body and soul.

I agree this was the first time somebody ripped in to Romney for his lies about Romneycare! Rick won the debate because of that!

RINO Art Flescher is already saying that Romney won the debate! I really think Romney & establishment wanted Newt to explode & lose the debate. That is why Newt pulled some of his punches. Also, when Rick was doing the damage to Romney, the best policy is to look presidential & above fray!

I think Newt did what he had to do ….Not lose it! Romney came off as defensive & he really did not have a good come back for Rick’s attacks! The way he reacted, I felt tht Rick landed some solid punches. If Romney is the nominee, forget about bringing Obamacare in the debates. He will be a sitting duck for Obama.

I’d like to see Romney answer the question asked and not stroll off into the weeds with a “let me explain something else” answer.

The facts are pretty specific. He did not help 8% of Mass residents, he did increase the rates of 92%. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck … well Gov it must be NoBamaCare.

maddawg
“No man in the wrong can stand up against a fellow that’s in the right an keeps on a-comin.” -creed of Texas Ranger Captain W. J. McDonald

And I am too drunk to fish.

with mitt spending him into the ground in florida and the entire republican establishment going nuclear on him, newt had to win this tonight… not just “not lose.” he didn’t do it. and if his supposed “giant strength” is debating, i think that’s a problem….

This was the real “tell” from Romney on where he stands on Obamacare.

When Santorum took him to the woodshed over Romneycare, stating that it was the blueprint for Obamacare, that it shared numerous freedom-infringing similarities to Obamacare, and the only difference between the two was state tyranny vs. federal tyranny, Romney in his response said that “Its not something to get mad over.”

Santorum should have stepped right over Romney at that point and stated forcefully that the usurpation of our God-given rights by over-zealous government, whether at the state or federal level, is something that all of us should be mad as hell about.

I know Santorum is often characterized as angry during the debates, and rightly so, but sometimes anger is justified. I’m mad as hell that the country I live in is no longer the country I grew up in, where freedom was not just a campaign platitude.

Anger and discontent with bad government and tyranny was a fundamental starting point for the American Revolution.

All of should be angry at the way government daily intrudes into our lives, both overtly and covertly.

But for Romney, its not something to get mad over…

On Gretchen, she released info on a poll (for those who cling to electibility) that there is only 9 pts between Santorum and Obama.

Rick won this thing hands down. He was articulate and spot on.

Romney lost to Rick and he will lose to Obama because of his unwillingness to call Romneycare what everyone else calls it….a FAILURE

From a fellow Red Sox fan (American League is getting so strong this year!) to another – heard all the people calling to the shows & most of them said “Newt is the biggest enemy for Newt”. That is why the book on Newt is he will say something that will kill his campaign – he is played may be too defensive? Felt that way also in few situations but the alternative would be really bad! Especially in a state with lot of seasoned citizens (especially the ladies).

Sorry, folks, but that says all there needs to be said about Romney’s position and acceptance of a socialized health care model.

And the boos.

What would you do/say were Romney elected and he repealed Obamacare?

just because he’s failed to explain some things doesn’t mean they are not the case.

For instance: Massachusetts with its 85% Democratic legislature WAS going to have universal health coverage. Vetoes would be overridden easily. This must be understood first; it is similar to Nixon with the EPA – he could allow the Democrats to make a new and powerful cabinet department, or he could propose a more limited version, the best he could get, himself. So, was Nixon right or wrong? Would EPA with more power and influence been a good thing to have over the last 40 years?

If Romney hadn’t acted, MA would have had a single-payer plan with the Commonwealth as the payer. That’s what Democrats want anyway, and what they intended. Romney preempted them with a plan which didn’t immediately run ALL private insurance out of the state and forced more people to be responsible with a mandate – endorsed by Newt Gingrich, btw – and the state to be insurer of last resort.

Insurance companies have been leaving anyway – because the legislature makes it impossible to increase premiums enough to match rising costs. While this has nothing to do with Romney, he should admit the system failed – BECAUSE of too much government intervention, not too little or because it was juuuuuust right.

is because it gamed the medicaid system sucking money from the other states, the country as a whole does not have such a luxury to exploit.

of Obeycare, Mitt, literally turns my stomach.
Where is all the angst that was directed at repealing Obeycare? Why isn’t that more of an issue with Romney supporters?

Puzzled.

Regards

It’s puzzling to me why Horowitz intentionally misleads his readers, apart from his animosity toward Romney. I’ve attended multiple high-level meetings on health care–including with Newt Gingrich–and the differences between Romneycare and Obamacare are profound. Every expert in the field understands this, but the so-called conservative pundits are either ignorant or intentionally misleading voters for political purposes.

Santorum repeats the typically simplistic (and inaccurate) talking points that Horowitz likes to repeat, but in the debate he quickly got over his head as Romney patiently explained the differences. And, as Romney explains, he doesn’t like everything about Mass plan because the legislature made changes he didn’t agree with (and overrode his vetoes). Much of what Horowitz blames Romney for is in those overrides of Romney’s vetoes, but he’ll never tell you that.

Romney Supporter Ann Coulter has an article that ran yesterday on policy making a case that on contested policies Romney is more conservative or as is Newt Gingrich.

On Romneycare Coulter says that Newt Gingrich supported it.

So, small government free market exchange voters can not find a consistent opponert of Romneycare in Gingrich.

She also made a point on abortion and Romneys’s flip flops. Is that not why we argue with people, to win them and a flip flop on abortion is GOOD, she argues.

Taking that reasoning a step farther I look at where they all stand now and where will they take us into the future.

I do not decide entirely on where a candidate has been in the past although that record is what they have to offer for some credibility.

With Romney, Gingrich and all four there must be a mix to consider of where they were and where they would go.

The race is dynamic but voters want static records. That does not always happen though.

…that Romneycare’s favorability rating in MA was 3-1 for. That doesn’t sound right to me, but is it? A ratio that high implies that it has the support of a majority in BOTH parties.

Anybody know the truth about Romneycare?

We the people believe in free enterprise except when it comes to health care.

The truth is that we are in short supply of doctors and hospitals. The only way to drive down costs is to flood the market with doctors and hospitals. The only problem is that entry barriers into the medical profession are quite high. Few among us have the discipline (or the funds) to make it through medical school, internship, residency, and medical boards.

Yet we somehow believe that we should be able to lever several hundred dollars to pay for tens of thousands of dollars in medical bills. In fact we become downright indignant when someone suggests we pay up. Clever politicians for years have seduced us with promises of a free ride, and we the people have gladly gone along.

Now we find ourselves unable to personally pay and unable to count on the government to pay. And we continue to demand only the finest care at whatever cost, even at the end of life when there is no cure, just a delay of the inevitable. And we ostricize all who suggest otherwise. We support an army of ambulance chasers whose costs to the system are simply passed back to us in higher prices.

I completely agree that there should be no mandate. I also completely agree that we each need to be accountable for our family medical bills. In fact I believe that if the individual (as opposed to the government or an insurance company) was truly the responsible party, then medical costs would be driven down. The market would not support the $20 box of kleenex that is sold everyday in the hospital.

The cost and delivery of medical care should be local/regional. There was a time in this country where each city/county had a public and/or charitable hospital. The Great Society ran them all out of business, and invited the corporate suits into the business. We need to gather our local doctors and hospitals and start a discussion, and we need to find a way to cut out the federal government.