RE: Romney changes position on ACA

RE: Romney changes position on ACA (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Hillwilliam -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/9/2012 9:46:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 You know our side never had a problem with eliminating pre existing conditions, right? It's the mandate that's forcing everyone to buy insurance we want repealed. Why should I have to pay for the health care of every fucker that's too lazy to buy insurance? Wouldn't that be socialist that people are entitled to things that they refuse to pay for? Who is forcing you to buy insurance... Other than Obama? Are the republicans forcing you to carry insurance instead of paying out of pocket? If you don't understand the difference, nothing I type will matter. You guys keep bringing up this Heritage plan... Tell me, was the plan ever voted on? Presented in a bill? Signed by the President? Fought in the courts? If you answer no, the point is moot. Proposals don't matter, the laws on the books are the only thing that matter. Let me spell it out rob. I buy insurance. A lot of people don't. They show up at the ER and get treated and they don't pay. Said treatment is expensive. I'm gonna let you in on a deep dark seekrit. There isnt a money fairy that magically pays those bills that uninsured folks run up. The cost is passed on to those who have insurance like me. This makes my bills higher. Therefore, My insurance company charges me more in premiums so they can turn a profit. The bottom line is I am paying for the healthcare of those who refuse to buy insurance. With mandated insurance, I dont have to pay for the healthcare of those lazy Socialist fuckers. They have to step up and pay their own bills.

Lucylastic -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 5:39:35 AM)
Romneys "changes of position" in 33 weeks....533 times, yep its a blog, yep its got links to "disagreements" with his words, yep its as liberal as you can get, but what the hell http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/08/mitt-romney-616-lies-in-33-weeks/ Have a great day

TheHeretic -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:21:26 AM)
We'll have to elect him, to find out what he does with it. [8\|]

Owner59 -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:26:00 AM)
Here`s 14 I got from that liberal rag ...BusinessInsider...... 14 Bald-Faced Mitt Romney Flip-Flops That Were Dug Up By John McCain http://www.businessinsider.com/14-bald-faced-mitt-romney-flip-flops-that-were-dug-up-by-john-mccain-2012-1?op=1#ixzz264ab3WUj

mnottertail -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:26:22 AM)
He will flip-flop. So, we don't need to do that.

tazzygirl -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:30:12 AM)
Interesting how there is suddenly no talk of RINO on this one.

Owner59 -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:36:41 AM)
'Roe v. Wade has gone too far.' 'I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.'

DarkSteven -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:37:51 AM)
I don't get it. I think this is a myth created by Bush and Rove. Bush was an extremely weak candidate and wasn't really able to tout his own record (two unpopular wars and a shit economy) in his reelection drive. So he tore up Kerry instead. One of the things he did was claim that Kerry was a flip-flopper and changed positions. AFAIK, changing positions had never been an issue before. IIRC, for example, Clinton and Reagan had changed positions due to changing political realities, to get legislation passed. And to me, evolving positions are a sign of maturity. But this took Bush's bullheaded inflexibility and portrayed it as a strength. While Romney makes me uneasy with the number of positions he's changed, I honestly don't see flexibility as a weakness, especially in compromise situations.

Owner59 -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:37:52 AM)
'It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.' 'I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.'

Owner59 -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:47:51 AM)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI9yjhd8b84 [:D]

Owner59 -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:52:09 AM)
The Ultimate Mitt Romney Flip-Flop Collection......in his own words(ie from his mouth). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_pgfWK3sxw&feature=related

tazzygirl -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 6:52:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DarkSteven I don't get it. I think this is a myth created by Bush and Rove. Bush was an extremely weak candidate and wasn't really able to tout his own record (two unpopular wars and a shit economy) in his reelection drive. So he tore up Kerry instead. One of the things he did was claim that Kerry was a flip-flopper and changed positions. AFAIK, changing positions had never been an issue before. IIRC, for example, Clinton and Reagan had changed positions due to changing political realities, to get legislation passed. And to me, evolving positions are a sign of maturity. But this took Bush's bullheaded inflexibility and portrayed it as a strength. While Romney makes me uneasy with the number of positions he's changed, I honestly don't see flexibility as a weakness, especially in compromise situations. I dont view this as flexibility. I view this as pandering to the female vote... long enough to get into office. Then he will flip again.

thompsonx -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 11:21:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 You know our side never had a problem with eliminating pre existing conditions, right? It's the mandate that's forcing everyone to buy insurance we want repealed. You are upset because you are being forced to buy better coverage at a lower cost???why?

mnottertail -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 11:24:36 AM)
Who is forcing you to buy insurance... Other than Obama? Are the republicans forcing you to carry insurance instead of paying out of pocket? If you don't understand the difference, nothing I type will matter. And if you dont carry it, there is no difference, nobody is forcing you to have it, you are paying out of pocket, a distinction without a difference.

thompsonx -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 11:26:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheHeretic Ok. And if he's elected, I expect he'll govern in a manner consistent with the lifetime of success and achievement on his resume His record as a financial scammer is well documented...I find it most instructive that you find his "lifetime of success and achievement" to be something of merit.

thompsonx -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 11:29:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: graceadieu You know, I really understand the feeling behind this, I do. I don't like having to pay for people's unpaid hospital bills, either. But because not everybody has coverage, lots of people go in and get care from the ER and don't pay, and then everybody else has to pay more to cover them. At least with required coverage, those people have to pay for their own damn self. What is your alternative to aca? If you see a poor person who is ill and has not the resources to help themselves what is your solution?

thompsonx -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 11:36:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Why should I have to pay for the health care of every fucker that's too lazy to buy insurance? Wouldn't that be socialist that people are entitled to things that they refuse to pay for? Yours is a problem of faulty defiitions: Being unable to afford insurance is not the same as being too lazy to buy insurance. Under socialism the rule is: From each according to their ability and for each according to their production.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 11:39:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam Why should I have to pay for the health care of every fucker that's too lazy to buy insurance? Wouldn't that be socialist that people are entitled to things that they refuse to pay for? Yours is a problem of faulty defiitions: Being unable to afford insurance is not the same as being too lazy to buy insurance. Under socialism the rule is: From each according to their ability and for each according to their production. So you seem to be saying that all these Far Righties who can afford but do not want to be 'forced' to purchase insurance are even failures as socialists.[8D]

subspaceseven -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 11:47:19 AM)
Not a flip-flop, this is what his campaign released 2 hours after the interview.. In reference to how Romney would deal with those with preexisting conditions and young adults who want to remain on their parents’ plans, a Romney aide responded that there had been no change in Romney’s position and that “in a competitive environment, the marketplace will make available plans that include coverage for what there is demand for. He was not proposing a federal mandate to require insurance plans to offer those particular features.” So they are saying the "free market" wi;; take care of people with pre-existing.....Not the same as a law requiring insurance companies to provide insurance to people with pre-existing conditions... Speaking of flip flopping, lets not forget the Ryan and how he voted for the defense cuts calling them a victory for the GOP when he voted Yes to them, but now even though his vote is listed as YES, he is claiming he did not , weekend interview with Nora O'Donnell O’DONNELL: Now you’re criticizing the President for those same defense cuts you’re voting for and called a victory. RYAN: No, no — I have to correct on you this, Norah. I voted for a mechanism that says the sequester will occur if we don’t cut $1.2 trillion in government. … We can get into this nomenclature; I voted for the Budget Control Act. But the Obama Administration proposed $478 billion in defense cuts. We don’t agree with that, our budget rejected that, and then on top of that is another $500 billion in defense cuts in the sequester. O’DONNELL: Right. A trillion dollars in defense spending, and you voted for it! RYAN: No, Norah. I voted for the Budget Control Act. O’DONNELL: That included defense spending! RYAN: Norah, you’re mistaken. http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/09/816861/ryan-i-didnt-vote-for-the-defense-cuts-i-voted-for/ Can these two support any thing they have supported in the past????? Jeez and these two want us to trust them on their budget ideas they will only share after they are elected, one has to be a fool to support these idiots

subrob1967 -> RE: Romney changes position on ACA (9/10/2012 1:29:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Why should I have to pay for the health care of every fucker that's too lazy to buy insurance? Wouldn't that be socialist that people are entitled to things that they refuse to pay for? Who is forcing you to buy insurance... Other than Obama? Are the republicans forcing you to carry insurance instead of paying out of pocket? If you don't understand the difference, nothing I type will matter. You guys keep bringing up this Heritage plan... Tell me, was the plan ever voted on? Presented in a bill? Signed by the President? Fought in the courts? If you answer no, the point is moot. Proposals don't matter, the laws on the books are the only thing that matter. And the ACA law is legal. Next. Did I say it wasn't legal? It is the largest middle class tax increase in the history of the country... But we're supposed to keep that part quiet, because Obama is the middle class President[;)]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875