What a perfectly empty statement. Well done.
Easy. Because when governing a city, a state or the nation, one has to follow laws in place. There are things you can do in one instance that you can’t do in the others. As Governor, Romney used the told at his disposal, acknowledging the laws dictating what a state an or cannot do, and crafted a plan accordingly. The President of The UNited States has both different tools at his disposal and a different set of laws dictating what the federal government can and cannot do. Assuming that a plan that works is one situation should—or can—be adopted to another ignores that reality. Surely you’re aware that the Constitution outlines the proper role of states and the federal government, and those to things are not identical.
For those who think the Constitution, is not the law of the land, possibly. For the rest of us, it makes perfect sense.
If Governor Romney had come out early in his opposition to the PPACA by stating clearly the differences between it and his own Massachusetts health care insurance reform law then the voting public might have had an opportunity to actual consider the merits and constitutionality of each system. As it is, the Supreme Court has ruled on the constitutionality of PPACA and it is currently a valid law. So, as we say down here in the South, that dog won’t hunt.
So the message here is that Obama’s health plan is actually a pretty good program; it was just enacted at the wrong level of government.
Okay, I can deal with that. Personally, I’ve never been much into the states rights argument. As far as I’m concerned the issue is good laws vs bad laws. I don’t really care what level of government enacts them. If it’s a good law, I don’t care if it’s federal, state, or county.
No, Romney also said he had a BETTER plan that should not be enacted by the Federal government.
Aside form the ridiculously contorted reasoning that Roberts dreamt up, which had less to do with the merits of the law than the reputation of his court, Obamacare is a really, really bad idea on a national level. The Constitutionality of it is one thing, the intelligence of it is another. If a state does somethong and it doesn’t work we’ll, it’s fairly easy to go back. Not so with a national program.
You state this as if it’s obvious but I don’t see any reason for this to be true. The federal government and state governments enact and repeal legislation by pretty much the same method. There’s no apparent reason why it would be easier to “go back” on a state program.
t’s easier because if one state, say, completely fucks things up there are 49 other states not fucking up. For example. Let’s say the ObamaCare has some unintended consequences and screws things up royally. For the sake of argument, let’s say that it causes a bunch of health insurance companies to go out of business completely. So far, no big deal. But then, some unintended, unforeseeable consequences come about and we want to turn back the clock. Well, with all those health insurance companies now out of business, we can’t just revert back to what we had.
Now, imagine the same scenario with, say MA. Same unintended consequence come about and the people want to revert back to what they had. It’s easier because those health insurance companies never actually closed their doors. They were providing their usual services in places like NY, NH CT, MT, AZ, CA, TX.
So, the risk is greater with any federal plan. It’s harder to turn some humongous ocean liner than it is to reverse course for a ferry.
Anyway, just an example.
And you called John Robert’s reasoning contorted.
Your logic is indisputable. So I’ll be voting for Obama. If we need to have a law repealed, it’s be 17% easier for a President with five letters in his name to sign something than it would be for a president with a six-letter name. Imagine if someday that one extra letter was the only thing between life and death - we’d be foolish to take that risk.
This logic is perfectly sound assuming people can freely move between the states. They can’t. It’s actually extremely hard to do so, especially for the middle class who are very dependent on their jobs to support themselves and their family.
This is actually why I’m in favor of a larger federal umbrella: so that people can transition between states more easily and therefore so that states can experiment and diversify more on the things the fed doesn’t need to handle. If someone can move from Massachusetts to Arizona and be assured of the basic necessities of life like healthcare coverage, access to support for food and housing, aid in job hunting in the new location, then states can more freely diversify on the less basic issues of life that pertain more strongly to that state’s geography and culture.
Otherwise, all you do is trap people who can’t move out into a state they don’t want to be in.
You’re arguing two different points here. One, is a reply to what I wrote. The other is simply a (valid) argument for national care. As far as the first one, I think you’re missing my point. While the ability to move yo another state is very helpful, my point went to the state’s ability to change course—for everyone.
All these words, yet none of them counter anything I said. Well, I least you tried your best.
My best? No, your post was so weak and helpless I took pity on it.
But if you want a different response, I’d point out that your hypothetical is based on the premise that Obama’s health care program will be such a success it will drive all private health care companies out of business while also being such a failure there will be calls to repeal it. The inherent contradiction of your theory is that the program will simultaneously be an overwhelming success and overwhelming failure. It probably won’t be either but it’s impossible it will be both. The only people who could believe such an impossibility are those who have cognitive dissonance to a level so extreme it would qualify as a mental disability. Therefore, I’d imagine you’d find a ready audience for your views at any Romney rally.
You forgot the part where Romney refuses to tell anyone a single detail about this “better” plan that he has. For all you, me, and the American people know, Romney’s better plan could be Scientology or Trancendental Meditation.
In what way is Massachussetts different from Washington that would make Romneycare any less effective or appropriate in Washington?
I think he’s referring to the fact that you are channeling the founding fathers, claiming to read their minds while entirely ignoring our entire history since then. Especially the civil war when the notion of state sovereignty took a bit of a hit.
I know you think that the founding fathers would have put the tenth amendment in bold italic underline ALLCAPS if they only had the technology back then. But they didn’t. The 10th amendment has to be read with the rest of the constitution (including the commerce clause and the general welfare clause) and in light of 236 years of jurisprudence and the Civil War. Just because some people think the civil war isn’t over yet doesn’t mean that its all still up in the air.
Or are we supposed to follow your interpretation of the constitution over that of generations of supreme court justices?
Washington starts with a W and Massachusetts starts with an M. So whatever you do in Massachusetts you have to flip it for it work in Washington. It takes Diff’rent Strokes to move the world.