Comments about ‘Obama pulls Romney into health care law launch by citing Mass. law's slow start’

Return to article »

Romney: Plan for one state not meant for entire country

Published: Wednesday, Oct. 30 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
ute alumni
paradise, UT

no longer bush's fault now it is romney's. rich! it doesn't get any better than this.

The Rock
Federal Way, WA

Romney's health care law was different:
1. It was not designed to destroy private insurance markets.
2. It did not grant government the unbridled power to all your financial and medical records.
3. Romney's health care law was not over 2000 pages long and did not create 1968 new government agencies.

Romney Care was ill advised, just no where near as bad of Obama Care.

tucson, AZ

"And he's pointing to the bipartisan effort to get the program launched in Massachusetts to encourage his opponents to stop rooting for his law's failure."

Ah, but see Mr. President, the Massachusetts law was a bipartisan effort from the get-go. The Obamacare jam-down came at the expense of bipartisanship because not a single Republican voted for it. So, unfortunately, the time for you to have engaged in sincere bipartisanship has long since passed.

I, personally, feel absolutely no need to now support a law I never supported in the first place, and which you jammed down over my strenuous objections. You made your partisan bed, Mr. President, and now you can sleep in it -- barbs and all.

And, for the record, I am very much rooting for this law's utter and complete failure.

Las Vegas, NV

Amazing isn't it? He never fail, He will always find something to blame - what a remarkable talent this dude has

DN Subscriber 2

Always blaming someone else.
Never "in the loop" knowing about anything that turns out badly.
Never does what he says. (Well, except "fundamentally changing our country" which has been for the worse.)

Our President cannot be believed on anything. Our friends know this, and our enemies as well.

Salt Lake City, Utah


If something has to be bi-partisan in Washington to be any good, this President has no chance. Republicans made the commitment from day one that anything he proposed they would oppose. If it wasn't so important to the country I would kinda hope a republican would win the White House so I could sit back and watch the democrats repay the republicans for their obstructionism for the last six years.

Oh and by the way the ACA was drafted from what were largely republican ideas that they had previously favored until President Obamas name was attached.

Headline this winter. Republican members of the House led by Jason Chaffetz hold hearing to look into whether President Obama really caused the snow storm that blanketed east coast. Chaffetz wants to who knew what, when and why the President did nothing to stop this snowstorm. Senator Mike Lee threatens a non filibuster till the facts are known in this matter.

Mcallen, TX

There he goes again.

Pointing his finger at someone else.

tucson, AZ


So the President is justified in jamming down a bill over uniform Republican opposition (for entirely valid policy reasons, in my opinion) and then whining that Republicans are hoping for its failure? He can't have it both ways -- either he insists on the partisan approach he has taken with all that entails or he reaches across the aisle as he claimed he would when campaigning. To suggest as you have that the President's failure to engage in bipartisan dialogue is entirely the Republicans' fault is a canard. Good luck with that one as the President is being clearly seen for the petulant, "my way or the highway" partisan hack he has been since taking office.

clearfield, UT

Fred 44

And, on top of azreader1s point, the public opinion polls showed that the majority of people did not want the ACA. Plus, all the lies that are now documented to have been said by Obama himself in order to "sell" this to the people. Of course Pelosis "We have to pass it to know what is in it," will go down as one of American histories most famous dumb statements. And to further the whole story, if the Democrats and Obama had not rammed this bill through, there never would have been a T-Party that took over control of the House. The T-Party is largely a response to Democrat Party arrogance.

Oream, UT

@azreader1 So you are saying that Republicans tried to stop the ACA and now have every right to undermine it and cheer for its failure? I didn't want to go to war with Iraq but didn't try to undermine it. There are many laws that I don't like but don't think I should hope for their failure.
You say the president didn't have bipartisan support and that is true, but it is still the law of the land. And btw, when are you going to start calling for the repeal of Medicare?

The Deuce
Livermore, CA

I have a novel idea, why doesn't Pres. Obama have Romney run this program? This would please everyone and have someone as the director who actually knows how to make something happen. Seems logical and bipartisan at the same time.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

The Deuce

You know, that idea is just outrageous enough to have merit. However, two problems. One, the Romney health plan in Mass. is not really working as well as was hoped for. And Two, if Obamacare did begin to work as was promised by Obama himself, namely lower cost, keeping your health plan and doctor if you want, ect. then it could undermine what I think may be Obama and the Democrats end game. Namely such a mess that the government takes over health care completely (New Health Care Deal Two) and makes everything a government single payer program.

Oream, UT

@ The Rock
You say RomneyCare is different than Obamacare, but you are wrong:

1. It was not designed to destroy private insurance markets. -- Uh no. This is the govt working with private insurance companies, just like RomneyCare. If you want to destroy private markets look at single-payer and Medicare.
2. It did not grant government the unbridled power to all your financial and medical records. -- This is not true. You only have to show your records if you are going to be subsidized by the govt. And it is the IRS who is doing it. You know, the agency who already knows your financial records.
3. Romney's health care law was not over 2000 pages long and did not create 1968 new government agencies. --It is not creating 1968 new govt agencies, and it is a law for a national healthcare not just one state, which may be why it is 2000 pages long, as though that matters.

Does everyone understand that unless we pull something together then people will die without insurance? Is this not a Christian undertaking? Or maybe you have a better idea. I would like to hear from all those who are now on Medicare.

Bountiful, UT

He is vainly grasping at straws to justify his pet program without having to change it.

But the bottom line is this: When you have such large majorities (67% in New York, 82% in Kentucky, 87% in Washington, etc.) who are enrolling in Obamacare, and then in the end, choosing to sign up for Medicaid, that does not bode well for the much sought after financial success of this supposedly “Affordable” Care Act. He is not going to get his much needed 2.7 million young-folks to sign-up in order to help pay for this “train-wreck.”

At this rate, without significant changes to the law, Obamacare is doomed to collapse under the weight of its own financial shortfall.

Mcallen, TX

Government take over of healthcare is opening the door to communism--Ronald Reagan 1961

True or false?

Oream, UT

"Government take over of healthcare is opening the door to communism"--Ronald Reagan 1961. That is True. He was talking about Medicare.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO


"....Ah, but see Mr. President, the Massachusetts law was a bipartisan effort from the get-go. The Obamacare jam-down came at the expense of bipartisanship because not a single Republican voted for it...."

Ah, but see Azreader, that was the doing of Republicans whose idea of compromise is demanding that the other side make all the concessions. To them, give and take means they do all the taking and the other side does all the giving. Bipartisanship is a two way street. For too many of this new generation of young Republicans, that's a concept that seems to be beneath their dignity.

Cedar Hills, UT

here we go again - Barack is back out on the campaign trail trying to gin up his base for Obamacare. I really wish the man would at least pretend to govern and meet with members of congress to FIX this thing instead of just running around on AirforceOne wasting tax payer money on a propaganda tour. I'm certain he has screened his audience to be ONLY those who are getting the free stuff and certainly not those poor souls who have seen their insurance get cancelled and then get to see the sticker shock of Barack's new exchange plans....2-3 times what they were paying before they got kicked off. Alot of angry people out there and I doubt few are listening to any more promises from Mr "if you have insurance you can keep it" Obama.

Cedar Hills, UT

Maybe by Barack just "saying" Obamacare is good it will actually magically make it good? Maybe when he returns from his little road trip this thing will all work perfectly and everyone will love it? Maybe by "saying" everyone loves Obamacare everyone will actually just start loving Obamacare? I honestly think this is how this guy thinks....just say it and people will believe it. Hey it worked for 4 years why stop now?

Bob K
porland, OR

Let's all remember 2009 a little better, folks.

President Obama lost a lot of fans on his own side by continually asking republicans to come up with a health care law, in co-operation with democrats, until he was finally forced to make the proposal himself. He wanted both sides to contribute, so everyone would be behind it.

At NO point did republicans come on board and add any expertise or help. They knew that they were being lobbied too hard, not only to avoid reforming healthcare, but to do anything and everything that would make Mr Obama and the bill fail.

NOW, the comments above me are pretty darn critical, some horrible, some fair. However, no one can cite "the republicans had a better version but Obama would not take it"

Does it not defeat the interests of the USA for one party to stay out of an important reform, then later complain it has flaws? Is it not more American and more Christian to recognize it needed to pass, and help to make it better?

Isn't it more American and more Christian to offer help in fixing any problems?

to comment

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