carlfense Posted June 29, 2012 Author Share Posted June 29, 2012 Romney will get rid of Obamacare like Obama closed Gitmo. This is based on Romney's signature piece of legislation as governor of Massachusetts. If you think he's going to repeal Obamacare, I have a bridge to sell you. I think that (given the chance) he will make a serious attempt at it. The GOP is much better at voting as a unified block than the DNC and will stand a decent chance at repealing it if they are willing to re-write the rules on reconciliation like they did during their last presidency. Romney's own beliefs aside (if they exist) . . . he simply MUST do this to stem a revolt within his own party. 1 Link to comment
HSKR Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Romney will get rid of Obamacare like Obama closed Gitmo. This is based on Romney's signature piece of legislation as governor of Massachusetts. If you think he's going to repeal Obamacare, I have a bridge to sell you. If the House and Senate were Republican controlled and both voted to get rid of it, you really think he wouldn't sign the dotted line? I would agree that he wouldn't to take this on all by himself, but I think he would go along with the GOP if they had the votes to get rid of it. Link to comment
Comish Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Romney will get rid of Obamacare like Obama closed Gitmo. This is based on Romney's signature piece of legislation as governor of Massachusetts. If you think he's going to repeal Obamacare, I have a bridge to sell you. The huge difference between Romney's version and Obamacare is that Romney was vocal from the beginning as a Governor that he was dealing with a STATE'S version vs a federal mandate. Certainly there are parallels and the dems have and will continue to hammer him on it. But the big picture is state vs federal rights and that is an overriding issue that plays into a larger constituency than just health care. Link to comment
krill Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 If the House and Senate were Republican controlled and both voted to get rid of it, you really think he wouldn't sign the dotted line? 60 votes are needed to do anything of significance in the senate. Repeal and replace is a great campaign slogan, but if Romney is elected it won't have that opportunity. I also don't think Romney would be stupid enough to make the same mistake Obama did and become engulfed in the health care morass when the economy is the #1 concern of Americans. Link to comment
HSKR Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 If the House and Senate were Republican controlled and both voted to get rid of it, you really think he wouldn't sign the dotted line? 60 votes are needed to do anything of significance in the senate. Repeal and replace is a great campaign slogan, but if Romney is elected it won't have that opportunity. I also don't think Romney would be stupid enough to make the same mistake Obama did and become engulfed in the health care morass when the economy is the #1 concern of Americans. Did Obamacare get 60 votes in the Senate? or is that not significant to you? Link to comment
Hayseed Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 A tax on doing nothing? Roberts is an idiot and a traitor. A logical solution to the problem of people who don't get insurance and the government ends up paying for it is to tax THEM for the services. This convoluted and idiotic ruling sets precedence that the communist government of the future can force you to participate in anything it deems worthy by taxing you for nonparticipation. It doesn't matter whether or not we vote out Obamatax. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Where was the uproar over the legal requirements to have car insurance? Why is this piece of legislation any more of an infringement on personal rights than requiring insurance for your vehicle? I'd like to believe the level of upset over this isn't simply based on party lines. But I'm having a hard time not seeing it that way. Car insurance and health insurance are different. I understand the necessity of car insurance, but it's not the same as health insurance. Link to comment
Yossarian Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 A tax on doing nothing? Roberts is an idiot and a traitor. A logical solution to the problem of people who don't get insurance and the government ends up paying for it is to tax THEM for the services. This convoluted and idiotic ruling sets precedence that the communist government of the future can force you to participate in anything it deems worthy by taxing you for nonparticipation. It doesn't matter whether or not we vote out Obamatax. Apu: Hello Mr. Simpson, I saw you looking at the beef jerky - would you like to buy some. Homer: I'm not buying that crap, Apu. $5.00 is too much for that stuff. Apu: Very well. That will be 35 cents tax. Link to comment
Hayseed Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 A tax on doing nothing? Roberts is an idiot and a traitor. A logical solution to the problem of people who don't get insurance and the government ends up paying for it is to tax THEM for the services. This convoluted and idiotic ruling sets precedence that the communist government of the future can force you to participate in anything it deems worthy by taxing you for nonparticipation. It doesn't matter whether or not we vote out Obamatax. Apu: Hello Mr. Simpson, I saw you looking at the beef jerky - would you like to buy some. Homer: I'm not buying that crap, Apu. $5.00 is too much for that stuff. Apu: Very well. That will be 35 cents tax. I was thinking of not buying ten.....here's $3.50. Link to comment
'SkersRule Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Where was the uproar over the legal requirements to have car insurance? Why is this piece of legislation any more of an infringement on personal rights than requiring insurance for your vehicle? I'd like to believe the level of upset over this isn't simply based on party lines. But I'm having a hard time not seeing it that way. Because there is no law, regulation, statute, or requirement for anyone to buy a car---yet.. Further, this absurd ruling on healthcare means that if the government wanted to, they could tax me for not having a car. To carry this stupid sh** to it's "logical" conclusion, Congress can now impose a tax on you for not having whatever they think you should, be it a 63" flat screen hi-def tv, solar panels on your house, a 2nd or 3rd job, not having pro-Obama stickers on your car, etc. The idea that Congress has the right to tax someone for not having something, be it healthcare or anything else, is just freaking moronically retarded. Link to comment
Moiraine Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 they could tax me for not having a car. In a way, we already do get taxed for not having a car. Part of Nebraska's sales taxes go toward repairing highways. Of course, it could be argued that everyone buys things that get transported via roads, but those without cars are damaging the roads less than those with cars. To carry this stupid sh** to it's "logical" conclusion, Congress can now impose a tax on you for not having whatever they think you should And then there is help for people with disabilities. Part of that money comes from Supplemental Security Income which "is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes)" "It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" I'm not aged, blind, disabled, or low income, but my taxes help pay for this and I'm fine with it. This ruling isn't going to produce a lot of earth-shattering changes. People are overreacting. 1 Link to comment
lo country Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 The funny thing is now Americans have to prove that they have insurance to avoid a tax, but you do not have to prove your identity to vote............................... Link to comment
Comish Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 If the House and Senate were Republican controlled and both voted to get rid of it, you really think he wouldn't sign the dotted line? 60 votes are needed to do anything of significance in the senate. Repeal and replace is a great campaign slogan, but if Romney is elected it won't have that opportunity. I also don't think Romney would be stupid enough to make the same mistake Obama did and become engulfed in the health care morass when the economy is the #1 concern of Americans. Did Obamacare get 60 votes in the Senate? or is that not significant to you? It did, thanks to our very own embarrassment of a Senator invoking the Cornhusker Kickback...... Link to comment
Comish Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 they could tax me for not having a car. In a way, we already do get taxed for not having a car. Part of Nebraska's sales taxes go toward repairing highways. Of course, it could be argued that everyone buys things that get transported via roads, but those without cars are damaging the roads less than those with cars. To carry this stupid sh** to it's "logical" conclusion, Congress can now impose a tax on you for not having whatever they think you should And then there is help for people with disabilities. Part of that money comes from Supplemental Security Income which "is a Federal income supplement program funded by general tax revenues (not Social Security taxes)" "It is designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" I'm not aged, blind, disabled, or low income, but my taxes help pay for this and I'm fine with it. This ruling isn't going to produce a lot of earth-shattering changes. People are overreacting. People are overreacting I doubt you will be singing this song once it is fully implemented........ Link to comment
Recommended Posts