Jump to content

This Is Going To Suck For Romney: Individual Mandate Is "personal Responsibility".


Recommended Posts

Right now people who can afford to buy insurance make the decision, ‘I’m not going to buy insurance. I’m going to be a free rider.’ And if I get sick or get in a serious accident, then government’s going to pay for me. That, in my view is the big-government solution we have right now. The alternative – there are a couple of alternatives – one is to say to employers you must give insurance to every one of your employees. I said, ‘No, I don’t want to do that. That’s going to kill jobs.’ And the other alternative is to say to people if you can afford to get insurance, you ought to buy insurance. And if you don’t buy it you’re going to get penalized with a higher tax rate for not having gotten insurance. Now you tell me which of those is the big-government plan and which is the personal responsibility plan.

So Obamacare is not "big-government", it's actually promoting "personal responsibility", according to Romney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with Dave here, I would argue that comparing state legislation to federal legislation is like saying a pancake is the exact same thing as a waffle or that scrambled eggs are the same as an omelet...

So a federal individual mandate is "big government" while a state individual mandate is "personal responsibility".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree with Dave here, I would argue that comparing state legislation to federal legislation is like saying a pancake is the exact same thing as a waffle or that scrambled eggs are the same as an omelet...

I would agree with that to a point. The problem is the rhetoric is too overblown on both sides. He's contradicting himself, not drawing a distinction based on federalism.

I'm sure he'll argue it's the latter though. He's pretty comfortable switching sides. His stance on abortion is an utter and complete joke, and that's true regardless of where his true feelings lie (which I don't think anyone but him knows).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is not the 2004 presidential campaign in reverse I do not know what it is.

You have an incumbent who only has so so satisfactory numbers but by in large is considered likable by the nation.

You have a challenger who were both very rich very astute politicians from Mass who are seen as dryer than cardboard.

Both Bush and Obama's policies draw lots of fire ( which makes sense since they are more similar than a lot of people want to believe)

But both Kerry and Romney both are viewed as flip floppers with no real consistent vision of what they would do.

Like I said in another thread it is almost as if the republicans looked back at 2004 and had a meeting and one said " hey the dems had the right idea but it just needs some tweaking.... I know lets trot out a nearly exact clone of Kerry but lets make him.... morman" and everyone in the room just thinks it is brilliant.

It really should be a sitcom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it won't hurt Romney a bit because many people who vote for Romney simply want Obama gone for personal, not political reasons.

How you can sped almost 4 years blasting Obama care and then vote for the guy who came up with the model is beyond me. Its like the R in front of his name is a magic potion.

Both he and Newt said people who could afford insurance and did not buy it were "free riders" and a burden on the system, and their voters excuse it away. It's amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is not the 2004 presidential campaign in reverse I do not know what it is.

You have an incumbent who only has so so satisfactory numbers but by in large is considered likable by the nation.

You have a challenger who were both very rich very astute politicians from Mass who are seen as dryer than cardboard.

Both Bush and Obama's policies draw lots of fire ( which makes sense since they are more similar than a lot of people want to believe)

But both Kerry and Romney both are viewed as flip floppers with no real consistent vision of what they would do.

Like I said in another thread it is almost as if the republicans looked back at 2004 and had a meeting and one said " hey the dems had the right idea but it just needs some tweaking.... I know lets trot out a nearly exact clone of Kerry but lets make him.... morman" and everyone in the room just thinks it is brilliant.

It really should be a sitcom.

Romney is a Giant Douch.e just like John Kerry.

Obama is the new Turd Sandwich.. sorta like a George W. Bush Whopper Jr.

tumblr_lisivw4Xa91qdq5iq.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would agree with that to a point. The problem is the rhetoric is too overblown on both sides. He's contradicting himself, not drawing a distinction based on federalism.

I'm sure he'll argue it's the latter though. He's pretty comfortable switching sides. His stance on abortion is an utter and complete joke, and that's true regardless of where his true feelings lie (which I don't think anyone but him knows).

No disagreement there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always thought of it as a means to getting most of our nation covered with medical insurance through requiring those who were capable of doing so to exercise personal responsibility and purchase insurance.

Regarding the Federal mandate versus 50 seperate mandates on the state level I have long since favored the federal approach. But my opinions have no doubt been strongly influenced by living in one of the most regressive backward azzed states in the nation. I don't trust South Carolina to do the right thing at any time. Our state government is mostly populated with simpletons, hypocrits, and fools and there's no end to that situation in sight.

As an example:

Let's say that the Obama administration were to pass a federal mandate that all states in the union were required to issue a statement basically supporting the position that the sun be allowed to remain at the center of our solar system. Our brilliant representatives down in Columbia would immediately initiate a law suit against the federal government stating that the sun is in fact evil and unnecessary to our ongoing existence. And to support her position I'm certain that "Darlin' Nikki" (Haley) would put fourth the claim that South Carolinians would be just fine without the support of the sun because we were forward thinking enough to sue the feds in order to keep our precious stash of those warm and cozy incandescent lightbulbs. They're all a bunch of fools in my statehouse and Governor's mansion. And the citizens of South Carolina are by and large too willfully stupid to recognize or even care about it.

And that (in a rambling, long winded, self congratulatory, sloppy, & very poorly written nutshell full of horrendous misspellings) is why I almost always favor the Federal Government over the amazingly disappointing gaggle of simps that inhabit the halls of power in good ole' South Carolina.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is not the 2004 presidential campaign in reverse I do not know what it is.

You have an incumbent who only has so so satisfactory numbers but by in large is considered likable by the nation.

You have a challenger who were both very rich very astute politicians from Mass who are seen as dryer than cardboard.

Both Bush and Obama's policies draw lots of fire ( which makes sense since they are more similar than a lot of people want to believe)

But both Kerry and Romney both are viewed as flip floppers with no real consistent vision of what they would do.

Like I said in another thread it is almost as if the republicans looked back at 2004 and had a meeting and one said " hey the dems had the right idea but it just needs some tweaking.... I know lets trot out a nearly exact clone of Kerry but lets make him.... morman" and everyone in the room just thinks it is brilliant.

It really should be a sitcom.

Huge difference:

Obama is a COMMINIST

and MUSLIM

and KENYAN

(and black.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it won't hurt Romney a bit because many people who vote for Romney simply want Obama gone for personal, not political reasons.

How you can sped almost 4 years blasting Obama care and then vote for the guy who came up with the model is beyond me. Its like the R in front of his name is a magic potion.

Both he and Newt said people who could afford insurance and did not buy it were "free riders" and a burden on the system, and their voters excuse it away. It's amazing.

People who voted for McCain will vote for Romney. Most people who voted for Obama will again. Two factors will determine the presidency; How many people who voted for Obama will stay home and how many moderates will switch to Romney. My hunch is Obama gets re-elected. He won't get the same turnout, but not many switch simply because human nature dictates people hate to be wrong and switching to Romney forces them to admit to themselves they made a mistake voting for a community organizer 4 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who voted for McCain will vote for Romney. Most people who voted for Obama will again. Two factors will determine the presidency; How many people who voted for Obama will stay home and how many moderates will switch to Romney. My hunch is Obama gets re-elected. He won't get the same turnout, but not many switch simply because human nature dictates people hate to be wrong and switching to Romney forces them to admit to themselves they made a mistake voting for a community organizer 4 years ago.

Or it could be that they don't switch because they think Romney is a worse choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who voted for McCain will vote for Romney. Most people who voted for Obama will again. Two factors will determine the presidency; How many people who voted for Obama will stay home and how many moderates will switch to Romney. My hunch is Obama gets re-elected. He won't get the same turnout, but not many switch simply because human nature dictates people hate to be wrong and switching to Romney forces them to admit to themselves they made a mistake voting for a community organizer 4 years ago.

no, it's more likely that people understand that sometimes the economy has to go through the bad cycles as well as the good ones. This economy was destined to go through these things regardless of who was elected and what they tried to do to stop it. The best hope was for the bad times to last for as short a period as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no, it's more likely that people understand that sometimes the economy has to go through the bad cycles as well as the good ones. This economy was destined to go through these things regardless of who was elected and what they tried to do to stop it. The best hope was for the bad times to last for as short a period as possible.

Yet voters don't act that way. If the economy sucks, the majority party gets tossed out. If it's good, the majority party stays in office. There's no sense that people cast votes on some value of natural economic cycles where incumbents are forgiven for a bad economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the republicans had a strong candiadate they could win this thing, but instead they went to rent-a-president and found the most generic, corporate, feckless and robotic candidate they could find. He seems he could be the guy playing the president in a bad made for tv movie.

There are only two politicians to beat a sitting president in modern presidential history, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Romney is neither.

Once again its just like 04 in reverse.

Had the Democrats had a good candidates Bush would have never been reelected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People who voted for McCain will vote for Romney. Most people who voted for Obama will again. Two factors will determine the presidency; How many people who voted for Obama will stay home and how many moderates will switch to Romney. My hunch is Obama gets re-elected. He won't get the same turnout, but not many switch simply because human nature dictates people hate to be wrong and switching to Romney forces them to admit to themselves they made a mistake voting for a community organizer 4 years ago.

Eh. I didn't vote for Obama in 08 but I'm considering it this year because I can't stand the thought of Republicans getting power again when they're in a state of rabid paranoia and growing stupidity. It's about 70-30 Gary Johnson or Obama for me. If the GOP had shown that they learned anything from being voted out in 06 and 08 then I would have considered them, even though I don't necessarily agree with them on many points, but instead to shifted further to the right and became even more uncompromising and radicalized. All I want out of them is for them to finally figure it out and shift to the center but I'm not exactly holding my breath there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet voters don't act that way. If the economy sucks, the majority party gets tossed out. If it's good, the majority party stays in office. There's no sense that people cast votes on some value of natural economic cycles where incumbents are forgiven for a bad economy.

I'm thinking this might actually occur during this election but it all depends on "how bad" things are and how they administration tries to position their message when it comes time to go to the ballot box. You're correct in saying that thus far it has been fairly easy to predict election winners based almost purely on how the economy is behaving. But I really believe that many times the economy is destined to do whatever it is destined to do and the best a President can hope for is to lessen the duration and impact of hard economic times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking this might actually occur during this election but it all depends on "how bad" things are and how they administration tries to position their message when it comes time to go to the ballot box. You're correct in saying that thus far it has been fairly easy to predict election winners based almost purely on how the economy is behaving. But I really believe that many times the economy is destined to do whatever it is destined to do and the best a President can hope for is to lessen the duration and impact of hard economic times.

I agree with the last sentence. However, it's very tempting to always think that this election will be different from all the others, but every election cycle that I've followed has trended in the same eerily familiar direction. In this case, the economy is neither great nor horrible, so the election will be close and some of the campaign events like debates, conventions, and gaffes will have a larger effect on the outcome. [That is, unless something changes between now and August.] Over the past 30 years, however, most elections had a clear early winner based on the state of the economy (and presidential approval).

The one thing that might support your view, however, is the tendency of voters to be more prospective than retrospective. That is, voters tend to vote more often on where the economy will be next year than where it was last year. If most swing voters believe that the economy will significantly improve next year then that could be enough to swing it to Obama.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with the last sentence. However, it's very tempting to always think that this election will be different from all the others, but every election cycle that I've followed has trended in the same eerily familiar direction. In this case, the economy is neither great nor horrible, so the election will be close and some of the campaign events like debates, conventions, and gaffes will have a larger effect on the outcome. [That is, unless something changes between now and August.] Over the past 30 years, however, most elections had a clear early winner based on the state of the economy (and presidential approval).

The one thing that might support your view, however, is the tendency of voters to be more prospective than retrospective. That is, voters tend to vote more often on where the economy will be next year than where it was last year. If most swing voters believe that the economy will significantly improve next year then that could be enough to swing it to Obama.

I'm hoping that as time goes on and people have more access to tons of information by simply clicking a few links on the web we might see more reason and logic used by the voters to determine who they will support. But that ease of access to information can obviously lead to greater volatility, and extremism as well by allowing more members of the "lunatic fringe" to have an unsettling amount of influence on the most gullible, easily manipulated people in our society.

The ease of access to information has often had the exact opposite effect of what I believe most people originally envisioned coming out of these advances in technology.

I feel like we are moving closer and closer to Thunder Dome... Bust a deal, face the wheel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm hoping that as time goes on and people have more access to tons of information by simply clicking a few links on the web we might see more reason and logic used by the voters to determine who they will support. But that ease of access to information can obviously lead to greater volatility, and extremism as well by allowing more members of the "lunatic fringe" to have an unsettling amount of influence on the most gullible, easily manipulated people in our society.

The ease of access to information has often had the exact opposite effect of what I believe most people originally envisioned coming out of these advances in technology.

I feel like we are moving closer and closer to Thunder Dome... Bust a deal, face the wheel.

There's a fantastic book out by Marcus Prior titled "Post-Broadcast Democracy" where he explores what role cable news (and by extension, the internet) has on voters. Sadly, his findings are pretty disturbing. There exists a small percentage of the population that is inherently interested in politics; they enjoy the "sport" or the arguments or whatever, but they consume political information for entertainment purposes. The rest of the population really don't care about politics very much.

When given a choice, those who don't care about politics will tune out by changing the channel to ESPN or some other entertainment. Similarly, on the internet, they go to non-political websites for their entertainment. That means that the largest portion of the American electorate is increasingly getting little or no political information whatsoever.

For those who DO care, however, Prior finds that they are increasingly self-selecting into news outlets and information sources that agree with their partisanship or other political predispositions. Hence, the small number of people who actually care and are informed about politics are increasingly ideologically extremist in their policy views and increasingly uniform in voting for their party.

Prior's results show that those who tune out of politics stop voting on Election Day while those who tune in are increasingly more likely to vote (along party lines). So the electorate as a whole becomes more polarized even while the citizenry at large remains moderate and disinterested. IOW, all of this wonderful technology and access to political information actually creates a LESS informed and interested citizenry, on the whole, while it creates MORE polarization and extremism among those who do vote on Election Day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...