Comments about ‘Letter: Health care differences: Romneycare is not the same as Obamacare’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Oct. 5 2012 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Provo, UT

Oh Mike Richard, Mike Richards. Your hyperbole is always entertaining. I know you think everyone to the left of Attila the Hun is a Communist, but it just isn't true.

Clearfield, UT

No matter whose is "better", the point is, the healthcare system should NOT be run by the government period, federal, state, or local. This is going against the Constitution of the United States and our government officials are just proving they could care less about this important document by completely disregarding it and those who are for it are just proving they are incapable of taking care of themselves and want the government to do everything for them. When are we are American citizens going to realize we need to be responsible for ourselves, expecting nothing from our government??? We give them an inch, they will take a mile and before you know it, we are going to be taxed so heavily by the "take care of the Americans programs" we are going to be poor and craving freedom!!

J Thompson

People attacking the messenger have reached a new low. They openly reject the Constitution but the won't tell us WHOSE plan the favor. Do they want Obama to dictate to us? Do they want Reid to dictate to us? Do they want Pelosi to dicatate to us?

We have a Constitution to protect us AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. That is the purpose of the Constitution!

Those who reject the Constitution, even as they attack the messenger, are telling us that they believe in anarchy.

You can't have it both ways. Either you believe in the Supreme Law of the Land, or you believe that we have no rules and no laws.

Which do ypu believe?

Eric Samuelsen
Provo, UT

Massachusetts health care was a Mitt Romney initiative. That makes it good.
The ACA was a Barack Obama initiative. That makes it bad.
The fact that they're identical is irrelevant.

Provo, UT

@ J Thompson -- I believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I also believe that the Supreme Court (one of the branches of government under the Constitution) upheld Obamacare and said it isn't unconstitutional. So when someone says Obamacare is unconstitutional, I think that perhaps that person is less concerned about whether or not something is constitutional and instead is saying that they disagree with the law. "Constitutional" does not mean "laws I like" and "unconstitutional" does not mean "laws I don't like."

Kearns, UT

Mike Richards: "You either agree with the Constitution or you reject it. Nobody has the right to redefine it."

So you are against all the Amendments then? "Nobody can redefine it." That means no one can change it. You can't have it both ways. If the Constitution is perfect than the Amendments are an abomination.

Your rhetoric tells us that you reject all Amendments to the Constitution, you reject the Bill of Rights and the subsequent Amendments.

You can't have it both ways. Either the the Constitution and be redefined or it can't. If it can't, please start a push to rescind all the amendments. Might as well start with 2 since Bear Arms isn't listed in the Constitution, all guns must go away. Don't forget 1, That is a powerful Amendment there.

Everyone needs to understand that the document wasn't perfect and was made to be redefined as the needs of the country changed over time. That is what makes the document so strong and enduring. Fixed views for the document are not only limiting to the document but also to the country it spawned.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah


What in the world are you advocating? The Constitution includes ALL the Amendments. The Amendments are PART of the Constitution. No PERSON, including Obama has the right to define for us what the Constitution says. We have a defined way to change the Constitution. Three-fourths of the States have to agree on the amendment. Surely you understand the process. My grandchildren understand the process.

Don't use empty rethoric to mask your contempt of the process. Obama cannot dictate our form of goveenment. WE have already dictated that process to him and sealed that process with the blood of patriots.

Salsa Libre
Provo, UT

Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah

Continuing the back-and-forth.

"You're either for the Constitution or you're against it. Since you're not FOR the Constitution, just what are you for?"

Well, you are a true believer, that's for sure. Might we also assume that in addition to your political views, your religious views are as firm and anyone who does not believe as you do is wrong? This sounds too much like the application of Sharia Law in fundamentalist Islamic cultures. Would you like the "rules" of the Old Testament applied and enforced in our nation? One could imagine you joining in on a stoning because there is a religious directive for this action.

As for my views on the Constitution, I take a more progressive approach and try to interpret it in light of the times. But, yes, I support the Constitution. Those who wrote the Constitution had absolutely no concept of how America would be 200 years in the future. So they allowed interpretation and flexibility. That is my position! Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me wrong! Neither does it make you right!

Ying Fah
Provo, UT


Once again for your information, Obamacare is based on Romneycare and was recommended by the Heritage Foundation (and Mitt Romney) as a plan for the United States. Nixon wanted to mandate universal health care and have business pay for it. And Wednesday Romney again stated that he wanted to keep many aspects of Obamacare, i.e. Obamneycare. He said all this before all Americans watching that night except (wink, wink) maybe he was sending a message to conservatives that he didn't really mean what he was currently saying.

And yes, you have your interpretation of the Constitution, but that in no way lessens my interpretation of that same document. So I can say what I say with the same sense of truth as you might claim. However, I am interested in making a better American and believe sincerely that the Constitution was created as a dynamic and living document.

Kearns, UT

Mike, the Constitution was written prior to the Amendments.

Amendments are adjustments that redefined Constitution. That’s something which you have stated you are against. You did state the following: "Nobody has the right to redefine it."

This tells everyone that you are against all changes to the constitution as "Nobody has the right to redefine it."

Now, the Constitution gives the power to create laws to Congress, sign laws to the Presidency and affirm the laws are constitutional to the Supreme Court.
If a law is voted on and passes Congress, is signed by the President and is affirmed by the Supreme Court, then the law is Constitutional.

Each new law that is enacted by Congress is further redefining the nature of the Constitution. That is how the document is meant to be understood. Anyone who does not understand this should not state that something is against the Constitution because it isn't directly stated there.

I am sorry that this seems like a hard concept for many people to grasp. The Constitution is a document that is designed to flow like a river, changing as needed to affirm its nature as the foundation of the country.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

That apple is an apple, except for the flip flop spin used by the Romney supporters.

American Fork, UT

Romneycare is not the same as obamacare. And we need something much more extensive than both. We need canadacare, the single payer system. Health is about people, not insurance. Obamacare doesn't make it. Romneycare is worse.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah


Before things get completely out of hand, let's review the facts.

The Constitution was passed WITH 10 amendments already in place.

The Constitution contains the process by which it can be revised (Article 5).

NOBODY, not you, not the President, not Reid, not Pelosi, or anyone else has the right to REDEFINE the Constitution. The Constitution is what it is, not what Obama tells that it is, or Reid or Pelosi. It stands on its own without the need for their clarification.

NO LAW is Constitutional just because Congress has passed it and the President has signed it. It is required that each law be measured against what WE, THE PEOPLE, have authorized the Federal Government to do in our behalf. The Court decides that, not Obama. Obama thinks otherwise. FDR though other wise. LBJ thought otherwise.

No new law can change the Constitution. Only the PEOPLE in 3/4ths of the States can change the Constitution - as declared in Article 5.

Please read the Constitution and the method that has been approved to change it before trying to instruct us on what it is all about.

Ogden, UT

To Mike Richards 2:12 p.m. Oct. 5, 2012

You either agree with the Constitution or you reject it. Nobody has the right to redefine it. Your rethoric tells us that you reject the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 lists The authorized duties of Congress. The 10th Amendment tells us that ALL duties not authorized ate left to the States or to the people. You're either for the Constitution or you're against it. Since you're not FOR the Constitution, just what are you for?


The fact, Mike, is that the ONLY thing you're for is YOUR interpretation of the Constitution. The FACT that the way you interpret the Constitution and what it really says and means are two different things. I again invite you to really study it instead of just giving it the cursory reading tht you say you've done. It is a truly magnificent document in its depth and breadth, and it is only through long, hard study that you can truly understand and appreciate it. Give yourself a chance to really understand it -- you will be amazed at what it truly is.

Salt Lake City, UT

Mike Richards says: "No PERSON, including Obama has the right to define for us what the Constitution says."

Not to belabor a point made or alluded to by other commenters, Mike, but did it ever occur to you that your statement means that YOU (following your practice of shouting with all caps) do not have "the right to define for us what the Constitution says." So please stop. Your hyprocisy is becoming tiresome.

Kearns, UT

Mike: "NO LAW is Constitutional just because Congress has passed it and the President has signed it. It is required that each law be measured against what WE, THE PEOPLE, have authorized the Federal Government to do in our behalf. The Court decides that, not Obama. Obama thinks otherwise. FDR though other wise. LBJ thought otherwise."

The SCOTUS (Supreme Court) has affirmed that Obamacare is constitutional. Therefore it is valid and can go forward as it is.

Amendments are additions and expansions of the Constitution. Believe it or not, I do understand how they work. They expand the power of the Constitution from the original intent of the architects of the document.

Laws passed by congress, signed by the president and affirmed by SCOTUS are constitutional. That is the point behind checks and balances. Each law, by nature uses the Constitution as its foundation. If it didn't, SCOTUS would strike the law as unconstitutional.

Think of Amendments as additions and renovations to a house, Laws are additions and modifications to the yard. Some make the property better, while others make it worse.

Some understand this, others want to form an HOA to force their ideals on others.

Pleasant Grove, Utah

LDS Liberal

I have lived in several different states. I have lived in 3 foreign countries. I have worked for a health insurance company. Therefore, I know more about the subject than any of my critics.

J Thompson

Of course those who think that the Constitution is outdated, that it is just a piece of paper, that believe in "royalty", would try to tell us that they have the right to "change" the Constitution at their every whim. Obama, the self-proclaimed "Constitutional Expert", has no use for the Constitution. He, like FDR, thought that it should contain a list of "freedoms" bestowed on the people by the government, i.e., the right to a job, the right to own a home, the right to healthcare. That concept takes us right back to King George, who gave us the "right" to serve him as he dictated.

I agree with Mike Richards, completely.

Those who disrespect the Constitution, including the posters who have minimized its importance and its position in limiting government, have done us all a great disservice. They offer tyranny as their form of government. That, of course, is Obama's desire - to rule and to reign from the White House with power over Congress and the Court. He supposes that he "knows" what is best for America and for Americans.

We have Kingmen and we have Freemen in the Americas - again.

L White
Springville, UT

It looks like I tuned in just in time. I was going to make almost the same comment as J Thompson, but he beat me to it.

I read the entire Constitution this morning, again. I read it often to remind me of my duty as a citizen to see that the government plays fair.

Article 6 tells us that the Constitution AND the laws passed by Congress are the Supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution tells us HOW to pass laws and it tells us exactly what kind of laws (enumerated duties) that Congress can pass. The Court decides if those laws are Constitutional, but only as an appellate court. The Court has to first wait for a lower court to rule.

Obamacare was not declared Constitutional. Justice Roberts said that Congress has the power to tax and that Obamacare is a tax. He encouraged us to fix things on our own in the next election. The Court didn't rule on the Constitutionality of the tax, but it ruled against the Interstate Commerce provisions of Obamacare.

If we are wise, Obamacare will be overturned by the peoples' representatives elected next month.

Ogden, UT


"Romneycare IS the same as 'Obamacare.'"

Oops, Romneycare is at the state level. Obamacare is at the federal level. Big difference. Federal power and authority is limited per the US Constitution. State power and authority is not.

to comment

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