View Single Post
  #13  
Old 05-15-2012, 01:51 PM
mezz mezz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
"Romney's plan for Massachusetts didn't mandate everyone to buy government health insurance, it provided disincentives for not doing so - like forfeit of one's personal tax exemption for not having insurance among other things."

Ha, ha, ha, ha........

What's the difference?

Your still punishing someone for not doing as they're told.

I'd call that a mandate.
It makes it a choice with financial disincentives rather than a fine for breaking the law. Just one example. The Obama health care bill is sloppy and full of problems like this and worse. Obama's personal input appears to have been minimal. He's too elite to get his hands dirty with the details. His job is to take the credit if it's successful and distance himself if it's not. He doesn't have a stake in anything. Romney fought out details of the legislation at nearly every turn and personally mediated to get things passed in the end. His approach will be a refreshing change. He has a record of advocating tolerance on social issues as well and I'm pretty sure that if he all of the sudden decided to support something like same sex marriage he wouldn't be going around bragging that he is single handedly leading the revolution of social change in America the way Obama is bragging now.
Reply With Quote