PDA

View Full Version : FLASHBACK: Romneycare was a Tax.



Qtec
06-30-2012, 05:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> FLASHBACK: Romney Acknowledged His Massachusetts Healthcare Plan Imposed A Tax

In what is now a well-known exchange from ABC News’ January 2008 Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney declared<span style='font-size: 14pt'> “I like mandates”</span> when asked by moderator Charlie Gibson about his approach to health care reform in Massachusetts.

But there’s another moment from the debate that’s getting more traction after yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling — on in which Romney says “yes,” when asked is the health reform law he ushered in as governor constituted a tax.

GIBSON: ”Governor … you imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts?”

ROMNEY: <span style='font-size: 17pt'>”Yes, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way; don’t be free-riders.”</span> </div></div>

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>Its official, Romney is a Communist who wants to impose his radical Socialist ideology on decent hard working Americans.</span>

I knew it!

Q

LWW
06-30-2012, 06:08 AM
And?

Soflasnapper
06-30-2012, 10:35 AM
He has consistently denied he raised taxes.

A self-contradiction. Not the first.

LWW
06-30-2012, 10:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He has consistently denied he raised taxes.

A self-contradiction. Not the first. </div></div>

Are you speaking of Romney, Obama, or both?

Soflasnapper
06-30-2012, 10:49 AM
Haha! Good one!

Romney denied he raised ANY taxes while governor. Obama has pledged, and says he's honored his pledge, not to raise taxes on the middle class. While promising and proposing, not so much succeeding, to raise taxes on the upper brackets. There are higher end earners' taxes raised in ACA, which are called tax hikes, and not denied (although they have yet to be imposed in the phased in schedule, coming in 2014).

To date, taxes Obama's raised that apply to the middle class are tobacco taxes and sun-tanning taxes, but these are obviously not applicable broadly to the middle class, and essentially voluntary.

LWW
06-30-2012, 10:51 AM
I be how you can never answer a question, yet convince yourself that you have.

Soflasnapper
06-30-2012, 10:59 AM
Yes, you have to understand the post to understand my answer, so that is asking a bit too much at times.

I was referring to Romney, who says he never raised taxes, and apparently, now says he did, to the surprise of all his primary opponents who said he had all along.

Obama's denial is not that he raised NO taxes, but that he didn't raise them, per his pledge, on the middle class. To find that he has broken that pledge cannot rely on taxes raised on upper brackets, given the qualification of the pledge he made.

eg8r
06-30-2012, 01:15 PM
When did Romney start acting like Obama? And does this mean Romney is your new hero?

eg8r

eg8r
06-30-2012, 01:16 PM
LOL, sounds just like Obama.

eg8r

Qtec
07-01-2012, 05:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When did Romney start acting like Obama? And does this mean Romney is your new hero?

eg8r </div></div>

Romneycare came before Obamacare. Its Obama that has adopted a Romney policy! In fact, he has adopted a Republican idea that was arrived at using Republican values!

Does 'having skin in the game' ring a bell?
Personal accountability?
"No free riders"?..etc?

Fact is, the mandate only became a Govt takeover and unconstitutional when Obama said, "..this is a good idea. I think I will use that."

Americans may be fooled by the Fox noise, but not those of us on the outside looking in, who basically don't give a $hit who wins the election.

If you want to elect a candidate who is a serial liar and bought and paid for by Corporate American, that's your problem.


BTW....Obama may have just saved your life.
If you had an accident and needed numerous operations, your HC insurer can no longer say "sorry man, you have used all your insurance. If you want that hip replacement in order to walk and work again, you have to pay it yourself.

No more. Thank Obama.

Also, HC insurers can no longer reject kids with pre-existing conditions.

Thank Obama.

etc etc etc

Q

eg8r
07-01-2012, 07:17 PM
So then Romney was your hero before he was your hero?

eg8r

Qtec
07-02-2012, 12:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So then Romney was your hero before he was your hero?

eg8r </div></div>

LOL Cat got your tongue? No comment on my post?

No surprise there.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Not one of you </span>can explain why a <u>Republican idea, implemented by a Republican Governor</u> [ who is now the Republican candidate for the next Pres Election ] suddenly turns into a Commie, Socialist Pinko, Govt Takeover, when a Democrat decides to adopt it!

Q

Qtec
07-02-2012, 12:14 AM
Why are you against you fellow Americans having affordable basic healthcare?

Q

LWW
07-02-2012, 05:54 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you against you fellow Americans having affordable basic healthcare?

Q </div></div>

Who is against it?

This bill raises costs and harms those it claims to Help.

Gayle in MD
07-02-2012, 06:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you against you fellow Americans having affordable basic healthcare?

Q </div></div>

Especially since the need for affordable health care has been acknowledged by both Republicans and Democrats, for decades, and since the "penalty" or "tax" (really doesn't matter what the hell one calls it) is the method for addressing freeloaders, who actually, in many cases, can afford it, but don't buy it, which means the rest of us pay more for ours, when they suddenly become ill, or have an accident.

They are clearly freeloaders, who are hugely responsible for our unsustainably higher and growing costs for health care. The costs would have actually grown higher than they have since the passing of the AHCA. The increases had been showing a greater percentage of higher annual costs, than those since the passing of AHCA.

I am seeing gains in approval for AHCA in polling data, now that more of the factual information is being discussed and explained, and more of the Repiglican lies have been publically exposed.

G.

eg8r
07-02-2012, 07:35 AM
I am against myself having to pay for it at gunpoint by the federal government. Why are you against using common sense?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
07-02-2012, 09:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why are you against you fellow Americans having affordable basic healthcare?

Q </div></div>

Meanwhile, we're being forced to pay for health care for all of the employess of corrupt war profiteering corporations!

Do we have any choice in that?

No!

I'm against wars! But my tax dollars pay for health care for all of wasteful, corrupt, Military Industrial Complex, War Contractors!

I'm against Religions taking tax exemptions, while they are raping our kids, but do I get to have my way about it?

I'm against our tax dollars paying for all previous presidents to live like KINGS, AND their families! Do I have a choice? NO!

I'm against our Congress having health coverage, while denying the same good coverage to the rest of us!

Do I have a choice in that? NO!




If every American who is being forced to pay for things they do not believe in, stopped paying taxes altogether, what would happen then?

Righties can't get it through their thick skulls that we're all paying more, for people who refuse to take responsibility for themselves!

A total flip-flop!

G.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2012, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So then Romney was your hero before he was your hero?

eg8r </div></div>

LOL Cat got your tongue? No comment on my post?

No surprise there.

<span style='font-size: 20pt'>Not one of you </span>can explain why a <u>Republican idea, implemented by a Republican Governor</u> [ who is now the Republican candidate for the next Pres Election ] suddenly turns into a Commie, Socialist Pinko, Govt Takeover, when a Democrat decides to adopt it!

Q </div></div>

That may be true of the assemblage on that side, here, but there is no lack of an explanation from Romney's perspective.

And formerly, it was colorably true: states CAN do what the federal government cannot do, as in, almost anything (if it doesn't unduly burden other rights of citizens). The federal government has limited powers, even enumerated powers, although the interpretation of those limits has been dwindling through the expansion of the various enumerated powers.

This program at a federal level exceeds Constitutional bounds, they said. Fine for a state, or even every state, but not allowable for the federal government.

Romney has stated this theory explicitly, and it was not a bad answer. Incorrect, according to the SCOTUS, but plenty of appellate courts had agreed it was actually impermissible until this recent ruling overturned them.

Now, who DOESN'T have a good answer/argument would be the Republicans in the Congress and at higher national levels of politics, with THEIR proposals to do this at the federal level, going back to the early '90s, <span style='font-size: 14pt'>through and up to about June of 2009.</span> That's when Grassley himself said there was a consensus forming there (among the GOPrs in the Senate) that the individual mandate was the way to go. What was THEIR answer, as to how THEIR OWN proposal of 20 years standing, right up into the middle of 2009, suddenly became unConstitutional, without their having noticed it all that time?

I think is was Orrin Hatch who said, well, we didn't really give that much thought at that time (or, he should have admitted, for the next 20 years).

The fact is that the activity vs. inactivity argument that attempts to limit the Commerce Clause's application is new, only about 2 years old. No one had ever heard of this distinction applying to the Commerce Clause until that time.

And the dirty fact is that there is no such distinction in the COTUS, in the Federalist Papers, in SCOTUS precedent, rulings, or dicta.

So, these ORIGINALISTS themselves make up something not in the text or the history or the deliberations, in order to pretend to have fealty to Originalism. It would be funny, except these things are quite serious. Who says these guys are talking out of their hats and making it up as they go along? Many principled conservative legal experts, who trash this line of argument from that one guy who made up this thing about 2 years ago, on the grounds I state.

In fact, 'regulate' back in the late 18th century had a different set of meanings, including 'to create.'

And also, people HAVE been required to do things they otherwise would not, as in the public accommodations rulings, where store owners and lunch rooms were required to serve people of color, where they otherwise refused to.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2012, 09:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am against myself having to pay for it at gunpoint by the federal government. Why are you against using common sense?

eg8r </div></div>

At gunpoint now equals, according to you, a penalty in the low hundreds of dollars, for which there is no enforcement mechanism in the law?

No, 'at gunpoint' is the current tax arrangement, where they really will come in with guns drawn, seize property and assets, and possibly put you in jail, should you evade taxes.

So we do have that, but this isn't it, not close.

Gayle in MD
07-02-2012, 10:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Romney has stated this theory explicitly, and it was not a bad answer. Incorrect, according to the SCOTUS, but plenty of appellate courts had agreed it was actually impermissible until this recent ruling overturned them.

</div></div>

I thought the rulings in the appellate courts had been three against two, in favor of the AHCA.

The last one being the most conservative District Court, in the whole country, in Washington D.C.?

Additionally, how is it that Red STates have been removing constitutional rights for two years, throwing out civil rights, of women, Gays and American employees of all kinds?

No right to organize into a Union?

No right to get an Abortion?

No right to expect your doctor to tell you the truth about the health and condition of the fetus in your one body!

No right to expect to be able to get birth control, is you happen to be surrounded by red STate Idiot REligious nutjobs, who are allowed to turn you down at the drug counter, if they decide to play God, and refuse to fill your preseciption/

I am sick and tired of every hard earned right of citizens, being skewed and interrupted so deceitfully and so drastically, that every civil rights gain made by those who have been persecuted by Men in Suits and robes, and the wealthy, have been under direct combative corporate attacks against rights and priviledges! While at the same time, we have to witness those same radical RWers, steal, rape and kill, without MY agreement!

G.

Soflasnapper
07-02-2012, 10:16 AM
I thought the rulings in the appellate courts had been three against two, in favor of the AHCA.

The last one being the most conservative District Court, in the whole country, in Washington D.C.?

I think that's right, although I'm not sure on the appellate courts' totals. Judge Silberman, a staunch conservative of high reputation on the right, authored that DC circuit opinion upholding ACA, agreeing with about 90%+ Constitutional scholars that the precedents in place showed this met COTUS muster.

However, who gets to ignore SCOTUS precedents? Not the appellate courts-- they're supposed to rule according to precedent. It is precisely the SCOTUS that may overturn its own precedents (as it does, almost every court session). And it was true that this matter raised unique issues, so it was a case of first impression, and almost a blank slate.

Obviously now, with the ruling in hand, the old Romney justification has vanished. And the GOP senators never had access to this justification anyway.

Gayle in MD
07-02-2012, 10:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I thought the rulings in the appellate courts had been three against two, in favor of the AHCA.

The last one being the most conservative District Court, in the whole country, in Washington D.C.?

I think that's right, although I'm not sure on the appellate courts' totals. Judge Silberman, a staunch conservative of high reputation on the right, authored that DC circuit opinion upholding ACA, agreeing with about 90%+ Constitutional scholars that the precedents in place showed this met COTUS muster.

However, who gets to ignore SCOTUS precedents? Not the appellate courts-- they're supposed to rule according to precedent. It is precisely the SCOTUS that may overturn its own precedents (as it does, almost every court session). And it was true that this matter raised unique issues, so it was a case of first impression, and almost a blank slate.

Obviously now, with the ruling in hand, the old Romney justification has vanished. And the GOP senators never had access to this justification anyway. </div></div>

Some are saying that his decision may have made it easier for the right to repeal.

I'd be very interested in any of your knowledge or opinions on that, if you have the time, that is.

I seem to be reading nothing but contradicting opinions.

Gayle...

eg8r
07-02-2012, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At gunpoint now equals, according to you, a penalty in the low hundreds of dollars, for which there is no enforcement mechanism in the law? </div></div>You miss the point entirely...Taxes will paid for 4 years to cover this gross abuse of our Constitution before any benefits are ever seen. From that point on taxes will have to be increased to cover the growing costs that have not been accounted for at this point. Paying taxes is done at gun point, are you too thick to really pull your head out of your rear and face reality?

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-02-2012, 10:57 AM
They say if it's a tax matter, it is therefore a budget matter, and then able to be done one way or another through the budget reconciliation process, intentionally set up to allow such things to go through with just a 51% vote.

That's less true than they say.

There is the Byrd rule that applies to attempts to push through matters through budget reconciliation, that allows for points of order to be raised when anything being pushed through in that fashion isn't a budgetary matter. Many parts of ACA are not budgetary at all, and instead, purely regulatory.

The other issue is that such matters are supposed to reduce the deficit (using CBO scoring), or at least, not impact the deficit by making it worse, over a 10 year period. (The reason that the Bush tax rate cuts expired in the 10th year, as THEY were passed under budget reconciliation, with I think Cheney casting the 51st vote in the Senate, iirc.)

Overcoming Byrd rule points of order raised in these matters requires a 60 vote threshhold, OR a convenient ruling from the parliamentarian official. We've seen parliamentarians FIRED over inconvenient rulings, replaced with a more compliant official.

Qtec
07-03-2012, 12:33 AM
No,.. YOU miss the point entirely.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Spend the three minutes to listen to Romney talk in that 2007 video before the Iowa caucuses in January, 2008. The content is certainly interesting, but what's more interesting is Romney's demeanor. In that three-minute video, he makes the argument for why the Affordable Care Act works. Of course, the Affordable Care Act was just drafted legislation in some House Democrats' dreams at the time, but the 2008 Democratic platform centered on making sure all Americans had access to affordable health care, just like Romney centered on making that access a 'market-based solution.'

In this video, a relaxed and frank Mitt Romney talks confidently about his solution for Massachusetts and how he handled 'free riders.' I'm guessing his reference to constraints on insurers probably centered around pre-existing conditions, since that's always the central issue in these debates despite what everyone says.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Mitt Romney himself makes the best argument for the Affordable Care Act there is. I dare the Democrats to clip this video, mash it up with Thursday's thin-lipped promise of repeal and make it into a national ad.</span> This should be done not to highlight Romney's agreement, but his lies. </div></div>

link (http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/number-1-reason-gop-wont-repeal-and-replace)


Q

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 12:41 AM
I think in the end, these Republicans who are lining up to refuse cooperation with the AHCA, are going to be blown away by hospitals, who, according to The Wall St. Journal, Hospitals Urge Medicaid Expansion.

The Reddest states who have signed up, already, to this latest obstruction of anything Obama, are mostly states where the numbers of people without coverage is higher than the national average, South Carolina, for example, comes in at 19%.

Hospitals will force this upon those governors, IMO. The hospitals are more than ready to access Federal help, to deal with their costs of serving the uninsured.

Mississippi, Kentucky, South Carorlina, Texas, Alabama, Lousiana, all of them with numbers of uninsured, higher than the national average.

Repubs are just continuing to dig their hole deeper and deeper. The outlandish lies on sunday morning, were a new low for Republicans! The biggest tax hike in the history of the universe, according to them, but actually, about exactly where Clinton's tax hike was, Bush One, AND Reagan's were actually higher, although he also cut them, it averages out about the same, since President Obama, has cut them also.

G.

Qtec
07-03-2012, 12:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Taxes will paid for 4 years to cover this gross abuse of our Constitution</div></div>

In the long run, it will save money.

If you have a car/auto, are you not mandated by the Govt to have insurance?
Why is that do you think?

Q

LWW
07-03-2012, 04:47 AM
Everything imposedby government is done either through violence or the threat of violence.

eg8r
07-03-2012, 07:30 AM
I said it was a tax from the beginning. Now you say Romneycare was a tax and that he is your hero now. What is your problem?

eg8r

eg8r
07-03-2012, 07:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In the long run, it will save money.</div></div>Yeah right. That is a lie right from the beginning. There is absolutely zero evidence or proof this could be true yet there is a century of proof that Government run programs are overbudget and cost more than they were originally estimated.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If you have a car/auto, are you not mandated by the Govt to have insurance?
Why is that do you think?</div></div>Hello McFly, you can make the choice to not have a car, but you don't get the choice to not breath.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
07-03-2012, 11:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Everything imposedby government is done either through violence or the threat of violence. </div></div>

Where is the violence or threat of violence in enforcing parking tickets? Parking 'illegally' (without paying the meter) is not a crime, and likewise not paying it doesn't elevate to the status of a crime.

Gayle in MD
07-03-2012, 11:33 AM
I can't see any difference regardless of what it's called.

Taxes and penalties, are the same damned thing, except for when a Repiglican hears the word, "Tax" and then they decide if its a tax, or not, according to whether it helps the rich.

If it helps anyone but the wealthy, they call it a tax!

We are penalized through taxes, all of the time, and also favored by taxes. Both the same damned thing.

This Repiglican created Tax hysteria, is nothing but a big scam anyway. They are blowing more money on subsidies, aka corporate welfare, and by pushing us into wars to benefit their corrupt war profiteering pigs, and wasting billions more on defense spending, for BS that isn't even worth paying for anymore, much of it obsolete, all in the prosecution of warring against others, for nothing, anyway. Just makes everything worse!

There is no government spending as damaging to our country as all of the wasteful, unjustified spending, with the least oversight,.... or more corrupt, and damaging, as the Military Industrial Congressional Complex, war contracting scam. If we just creacked down on that one thing, we'd be doing just fine economically, in no time!

That is robbing us more than any other single thing.

Do you ever hear of a Repiglican addressing this problem?

Hell No!

Is that a tax on all of us?

Hell yes! Just another Repiglican scam, to redistrubute the nation's wealth, to the richest corporate pigs in the country.

hence, they all want Mitsey, who will push us into another idiotic, un-necessary, pre-emptive war. He's got the same Neocon pigs in his organization that helped Bush to lie us into the Iraq Fiasco!

What did we get from that? NOTHING BUT DEBTS AND LOST BLOOD, ALL FOR NOTHING!

Now Iraq is in a civil war. It has been in a civil war, ever since Bush started yapping that The Surge Worked.

It did not! It's a civil war, just as I predicted.

Disgusting!

G.