Senator Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Sunday that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is "in a pickle" arguing against the president's health care bill because he passed a similar version in Massachusetts.
"He prescribed this. This was his bill," Schumer said on "Face the Nation." He noted Republicans "have ads saying it's a tax increase. Are they going to say, 'Mitt Romney had the biggest tax increase in Massachusetts?'"
"Mitt Romney is in a total pickle here," Schumer said, arguing that the Republican Party is in a tough position: As polls suggest the economy is the top priority of voters, he said Republicans are making health care a top issue in the election, while Democrats in Congress will be focused on job creation.
"The Republican Party's in a box, the Tea Party's pulling them over to just talk about repeal," he said. "They're going to vote on a repeal of health care, litigate a battle that has been going on for four years, and we are going to put on the floor a small business jobs tax cut."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464530/sen-schumer-says-romney-in-a-pickle-over-health-care/
For one, you stupid douchebag. There was not a tax, there was a mandate that that every resident of Massachusetts gets it.
Here is something else for you to look:
Romneycare-> The bill was 70 pages long. Obamacare is 2,000 pages (Most of that is all the kickbacks that were offered in the form of bribes to get people to vote for it).
Romney vetoed significant sections of the bill including the employer penalty for not providing health insurance
-Romney favored an “opt out†provision from the mandate
-No federal gov. insurance option
-Intended as a market driven solution to healthcare
-> No new taxes!
-Romney balanced the state’s budget first, then passed healthcare law
-No cuts to Medicare benefits
-Modest cost to state (only added 1% to state budget)
-> Very strong bipartisan support
-Strong special interest support
-Very popular among the public in Massachusetts
-Strong consensus of approval was built in the state to support the law
-Consensus was built to support an individual mandate
-> Constitutional
-Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Obamacare, Romneycare will remain constitutional
-> A state solution to a state problem
-Through collaboration and discussion, Massachusetts created a consensus among stake holders to support the new law
Obamacare-> Whole bill was 2,074 pages
-Very broad regulation of the insurance industry including an employer penalty for not providing health insurance and no “opt out†provision
-Leaves open the option of creating single-payer gov. insurance in the future
-Intended as a step toward gov. run insurance
-> Increased taxes by $500 billion
-Despite massive federal gov. debt, Obama still passed Obamacare
-Cuts Medicare by $500 billion
-Overall costs unknown!
-> Absolutely no bipartisan support
-Very controversial and divided special interest groups
-Unpopular in nation overall
-No consensus was built to support a mandate
-> Potentially unconstitutional
-Supreme Court has yet to rule on 10th amendment limitations of federal gov. power in regard to this law
-> Federal gov. “one-size-fits-all†plan
-Doesn’t take into account that each state is unique in important ways such as:
1)Vastly different debt levels between states (some states can’t afford new spending on health care)
2)Some states have three times the percentage of uninsured citizens (Much greater costs will be imposed on states with a larger percentage of uninusured citizens)
3)Conservative states will reject implementation of federal gov. plan.
Do you see the difference? Obamacare is crap, and Romneycare was good. A vast majority of Massachusettes residents love it and won't go back to the old system if given a chance.
Since the SOTUS rulling there is an opt out provision for states, but not employers. Unless the states opt out first.
Source:
http://mittromneycentral.com/resources/romneycare/BootinUp (24,801 posts)
1. Good talking points
View profile
hope they work.
Good luck, they won't work. Everyone knows that Romneys version was better because he had people who knew what they were doing figure it out before enforcing it. Obama just took something that he wanted, and shoved it down the throats of millions of people without thinking about the states or citizens before enacting it. The main issue with this is the cost, the bribes to people to get it passed and the fraud that went with passing it. There is no way anyone will ever agree with the plan that Obama has set out. Especially since his premise for it is based solely on the government controlling it, and Romney's premise being based on the free market system controlling it. There is a difference.
On another note: Romney has been saying that he will repeal Obamacare and fix it. I believe he will. As he knows what to do, and none of you goons do.
