Quantcast

Comments about ‘Romney seeks to address health care woes at New Hampshire event’

Return to article »

Published: Saturday, March 5 2011 10:14 p.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
David B.
Cedar City, UT

If he is worried why did he sign his Romneycare bill in the first place.Both are bad laws and the people don't want to be told which doctor to see and be told what's the best treatment by some beaurocrat.Romney as far as I'm concerned he has hamstrung himself and in my opinion would not be a good choice for President.

Screwdriver
Casa Grande, AZ

But, since then, the similarities with Romney's 2006 law in Massachusetts have increasingly been dogging him. The state's universal coverage law has a more sweeping mandate for people to get insurance than exists in Obama's law and penalizes the uninsured more severely.

My goodness, the offical flop on healthcare is here from Romney. AND he not being truthfull about it. It's EXACTLY what the right wing is complaining about now of being "forced to engage in commerce".

Ya, ya. It's making people take personal responsibility when republicans do it and socialism when democrats do it.

I'm getting whiplash from the right changing positions so quickly.

$250,000 a year was middle class a few years ago and shouldn't be taxed more, but now $50,000 a year an a small pension is living on the hog for teachers...

making fun of the president used to be treasonous and aiding and comforting the enemy and now it's just dandy.

"Deficits don't matter" Cheney said, now it's all that matters.

Life is precious - unless you can't afford the medicine.

Don't kill the innocent - unless it's colateral damage

Kimber
Salt Lake City, UT

I am a volunteer for the Affordable Care Act. This new bill is not a "federal take over of healthcare" as Romney and so many others say. It has already begun and it is a start to help our country with a very bad problem in our insurance industry. The start includes.
1. Chidren can no longer have "pre-existing conditions" (this un-cival practice for United States denied children care because of a condition that they had prior to getting insurance) And this is the very reason people have insurance! (To help them in a crisis). Coming up, this will extend to others.

2. Children up to age 26 can no longer be "kicked off" their parent's plans until such a time that they get their own plan, get married, or until age 26 (whichever comes first)

3. All people must be covered to get preventative services on their health insurance plans to help prevent illness and other conditions. This is a good practice to help people stay well.

The bill does not take over people's rights...it just extends them since it makes insurance companies accountable where they were not before.

Mark B
Eureka, CA

"I'm just like all you other candidates, only more so. 'Peculiar people'? You must be talking about those tree-hugging, freeloading, peacenik Democrats. I hereby take a pledge to balance the budget while repealing all taxes and enforcing world democracy."

LDS Liberal
Farmington, UT

He's against it while running in the GOP primaries....

and

will flip-flop and take full credit for it in Mass. and for National Healthcare in the general election.

That's politics.....

David
Centerville, UT

Romney took a risk by pushing the Massachusetts health care law. If it worked, he would be a visionary leader. The nation watched as Massachusetts passed this law. It was supposed to be a model that other states, and perhaps the nation could follow. There was no talk of states rights at that time. But things changed as the country suffered through the Great Recession, federal spending tripled in just 2 years, a wave of voter discontent for budget deficits and the national debt swept across the country. Voters sent a message that we did not like the way Democrats and Obama were governing. Now Conservatives and Independents are backing away from Obamacare as quickly as possible.

Also, we must recognize that a politician in Massachusetts, even a Republican, must sound somewhat liberal. Matheson does it here in Utah: he is a Democrat but tries to sound like a Republican so he can get re-elected.

But this issue has definitely come back to haunt Mitt. I am sure, given his presidential aspirations, that he now wishes he had never pushed Massachusetts health care into law.

Considering
Stockton, UT

Actually, under the federal constitution, the federal government IS supposed to run the Post Office, and is even specifically empowered to build "post roads" to those ends.

Amtrak is another story entirely of course.

And while Romney is SAYING many of the right things right now, I'm afraid that talk is cheap.

At its core, the problem with Romneycare is the same as the core problem with Obamacare: Government, at any level, really has no business micromanaging the citizens' lives. And as we've heard from the pro-abortion crowd for decades, there are few relationships more important, few decisions more intimate and private, those those dealing with our own bodies and our medical treatment.

Yes, it is overtly unconstitutional for the federal government to impose an individual mandate to buy health insurance. But it is no less of a bad idea for States, ANY State, to do likewise.

We need to drop most of the government mandates that currently exist: from free ER care to mandates on providing morally repugnant services to tax codes that encourage using "insurance" to pay for routine care. Let the free market and real charity come back.

ljeppson
Salt Lake City, UT

"...rea charity come back. " Like the jars on 7/11 counters?

David
Centerville, UT

Re: Considering 11:02 p.m. You make a good point: mandating health care at the federal and the state levels are bad. Micromanaging peoples lives creates bad policy, is bad for business, is bad for the family, bad for individuals, and is bad for the country.

The reason that states and the federal government are trying to control healthcare (which one might think is a private enterprise) is because of Medicaid and Medicare. Government leaders see the writing on the wall--future mandated spending for healthcare in these programs (Medicaid and Medicare) will be much much more than we can manage (it is huge already!).

So government is actively trying to find ways to reduce costs. They do this by setting salaries for doctors, establishing benefits offered by insurance companies, mandating everything they possibly can. This is micromanaging and I don't think it will work.

Government could scale back Medicaid and Medicare, which is probably what should happen for the sake of the public good (I speak of the national debt). But for every reduction, there will be a howl from those who are losing benefits.

Best not to have started down this road to begin with.

Doug10
Roosevelt, UT

Imagine Mitt deriding the president, has he done anything other than that of merit in the past 2 years?

Mitt where is your answer to the loss of jobs?

Where is your leadership in fixing government spending?

Where is your answer for illegals?

What is your answer today on healthcare?

How would you change direction if elected and stop whining and begin leading?

Earlier this week the press noted you are trailing Huckaby in the polls. Mr. Huckaby has evident shortcomings and biases and if you are behind him, what does that say about you and your attitude?

We need help in our party Mitt. Stand up be honest and announce your intentions. If you are not going to run and continue to use all your energy running down the president then go do it elsewhere.

If you are going to run then stand up, be a man and start some positive forward movement in this country.

Right now you are a disappointment to those of us who have supported you throughout the years.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments