Comments about ‘Mitt Romney: Mass. health law differs from Obama's’

oh policy doesn't matter as long as he claims to be a good LDS member or at least that seems to be the overriding opion on the hunstman thread.

Ha ha ha ha, Romney, it is the same thing. If it walks like a ducks and quacks like a duck but flip flops like a fish out of water, then it is Romney trying to cover up his past. In an election cycle where is party has gone ultra conservative he is sunk, especially in the South.

Don't believe me, look at the 2008 primaries in states south of the Mason Dixon line (the traditional Confederate South), he never finished close to first.

Romney in Suth =Fail

So, John, did you miss that whole lesson on federalism in the 5th grade?

Romney is the ONLY one who leads Obama in the battle ground states.

And I am sick of this RC = OC, learn the 10th Amendment people.

"And I am sick of this RC = OC, learn the 10th Amendment people. "

The fact that one is state while the other is federal doesn't change the fact that they're still almost the same exact program.

"The fact that one is state while the other is federal doesn't change the fact that they're still almost the same exact program."

I'm speechless. It is true what they say about the masses, isnt it?

Romney didn't do well in the south, and it's because of where he spends his Sunday mornings, not his political history.

Sorry Mitt. While states to have rights to enact their own laws (more rights than the feds should have), I have two main problems with this: 1. I believe it's wrong for either government (state or federal) to mandate that people buy ANYTHING. Health insurance or hot dogs, it's wrong. 2. The Massachusetts law IS eerily similar to Obamacare. Expensive, overreaching, and risky. You can paint it whatever you want, but it's only lipstick on a pig.

ONE BIG difference:

Romney's plan is state plan - constitutional (if that is what state wants to do)

Obama's plan is a federal plan with mandates on the individual citizen - UNconstitutional in so many ways.

Civics lesson time. Here in America we like to think we believe in a little something called self-government. This is why the people who wrote the Constitution developed this thing called Federalism, where the national government would only have a handful of functions that necessarily had to be handled by the collective, namely coining money, national defense, the postal service, bankruptcies, you get my drift, while all other powers would be reserved to the people or the states. The idea is that people should govern themselves as much as possible as to avoid tyranny. I don't care how good President Obama's intentions are about my health care. You can't tell me he knows what is best for the healthcare of over 300 million Americans. This why at the very least, something as personal as your own healthcare should be a state issue. Really, I think it's a personal issue, but if the people of Massachusets trust their state legislature enough to hand the responsibility over to them, it's their perogative. However, handing that responsibility over to the U.S. Congress is about as far away from self-government as you can get.

Run away from it, mitt! Run!!

@gogogoff and others

it could not passably be that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of the constitution and the 10th amendment right? They are just simply uneducated fools. Maybe instead of shallow attacks you can explain to us exactly why you think this particular provision violates the constructional limits on power and the 10th amendment. Believe it or not I am not a wild fan of this law and I am willing to listen to reason but shallow attacks do nothing to help your cause. Here is my issue the people voted for Obama with full breath and knowledge and dare I say maybe because he promised to do exactly what he did so I fill uncomfortable with simple shallow attacks as reason to overturn the will of the people.

As one who believes that being called a RINO is much better than being called a typical Republican, I am thrilled to see Romney have the guts that was shown here. He certainly has my vote unless he starts caving in.

@Independent

Nice federalism lesson but you're totally missing my point which is that functionally the two plans are almost exactly the same just on different scales. Whether or not you believe the federal gov't is allowed to do this (I of course think it can) doesn't change the fact that the structure of Romneycare and obamacare are very similar. That's all I'm saying.

Some people who are against Romney are desperately trying to tag him with ObamaCare. If they market him enough, hopefully it will stick. Sorry folks, Mitt's plan for Mass is different in that it is only for a state. There are also over 25 differences that the left have failed to notice. The left simply says, it looks like a duck.

Let me give you another analogy that is much better for those of you who are poultry myopic. The two plans are like a donkey and a quarter horse. They are similar in that they have four legs and look roughly the same but put them on a track and see which one performs. There....is that not a better analogy.

C'mon gang....Mitt will nix the government plan the first chance he gets..is that not enough.

Dear Mitt,

So, your new argument is that the states' right to impose immoral policy is greater than the federal right to do so.

I wanted to support you, truly I did. But I am looking for a candidate who will come out and say, "folks, it's wrong for you to be forced to pay for your neighbor's healthcare or for you to expect them to be forced to pay for yours".

Government healthcare is either moral or it's not. If it is moral, then it's just as moral for the feds to do it as the states or the counties, or the cities, or your neighborhood association.

You're out, Mitt. I know a looter when I hear one.

Next contestant please.

Do you really think his republican opponents are going to let him slide on it? Not a chance. They are going to say it's exctly like obamacare.

Each of us is endowed with certain unaleinable rights, and the 10th amendment does not trump that. The states have no more power to exert control over the people than the federal government, though states rights trump federal powers, except as specifically outlined in the US Constitution. I have heard too many so-called conservatives say that the states can do whatever they want because of the 10th amendment. That is simply not true. The inalienable rights given by God are the supreme law of the land, and that is what the Constitution was established to protect. Romney's argument is weak in implying it's okay for states to implement socialism, just not the feds. Bottom line is, socialism/communism is still socialism/communism, whether it is forced upon the people by the federal government or the state government. And it is still abhorrent and immoral in the eyes of Him who our founders stated inspired our constitution and brought about the founding of this nation.

so romney flip flops once again.

and yes, if socialism is wrong on the national level socialism is wrong on the state level. romneycare gave birh to obamacare, romney has nothing to offer the Office of President that we do not already have.

Romney's State coverage made him responsive to his constituents and respectful of the social contract under which he was elected to govern. Mitt Romney is a man who fixes problems and that is what our country needs. Every state has it's problems and that is what governers must take care of while in office. You people are making this into an anchor around the neck of a person who can help America. Romney is very much a conservative, and if all the consevatives keep running in 20 diferent directions we will loose in 2012 and get to to see what our country looks like after another four years of Obama.
Mitt Romney will create jobs, he will do what it takes to develop the oil industry in North America. He will bring America back from the mess the last two presidents have got us in. I would vote for him.