Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli who has moved to
fast track Virginia's case against Obamacare to the Supreme Court had this to say about the Massachusetts health care mandate:
Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has no trouble with the individual mandate to buy health insurance enacted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. The Virginia lawman said the Massachusetts law is perfectly legitimate because of the sovereignty of the commonwealth.
“If the individual mandate (under Obamacare) is upheld, it would be the end of federalism,” Cuccinelli said, appearing before the House Judiciary Committee on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. “States can operate perfectly well as a sovereign entities, but those rights would be gutted if the individual mandate were allowed to stand.” (emphisis mine)
The full story is
HERE.
13 comments:
Noboby is arguing that RomneyCare is illegal.
It is what the MAJORITY of Massachussetians want, is it not R.W.N. ?
Evelio,
That line will not work. It does not explain how RomneyCare and ObamaCare are different. Furthermore, voters in South Carolina don't care that the residents of the People's Republic of Massachusetts like government run health care.
My arguments are less about the legitimacy of RomneyCare itself, and more about the perception of the law among the masses. I believe if Romney is the nomination, ObamaCare will be off the table.
It won't be off the table, because Romney won't let it be.
If it is not Repealed before the election, Romney will be Obamacare's biggest critic.
RWN,
"My arguments are less about the legitimacy of RomneyCare itself, and more about the perception of the law among the masses."
Your concern is trying to put forth an argument that you think will keep Romney from the nomination and NOTHING ELSE.
You ignore the issue of state's rights and you ignore the fact that Mitt's MASSACHUSETTS law, doesn't affect you. It only affects those who WANTED IT in MA.
Phil, You either didn't read my comment, or failed to comprehend it...
RWN,
"It does not explain how RomneyCare and ObamaCare are different."
How's this
one was for a state only. The other affects the entire country.
one is Constitutional the other is not.
THOSE are the only RELEVANT differences!
zeke
RWN,
We have been over these words before, almost too many times. I read your statement and I get the following:
1)"It does not explain how RomneyCare and ObamaCare are different."
Well for one thing, one is legal, the other is not. Further, ObamaCare is ultimately designed to kill off the insurance and end up as a Single Payor plan. MassCare is not. At 2500+ pages, versus Romney 70 page plan, I'll bet there are many differences we have yet to discover.
2)"Furthermore, voters in South Carolina don't care that the residents of the People's Republic of Massachusetts like government run health care."
Since you obviously have your finger on the pulse of the SC populace, perhaps you'd like to share some data to back up your rhetoric. In addition, why focus on SC? Is it because you don't think the voters in IA, NV or NH care or is SC the first state you Palin has a shot?
3) "My arguments are less about the legitimacy of RomneyCare itself, and more about the perception of the law among the masses."
So are you saying you'd rather people belive the perception or the reality? Are you arguing against people learning about the differences and making an informed opinion? It seems you are far more interested in promoting and re-enforcing the negative perception of MA Care, rather than discuss or evaluate the truths about it. Following that logic, no voter should reconsider Palin and just continue to go about believing the perceptions, no?
For me, it's getting to the point now where I put people into 2 groups on this issue:
1. IDIOTS, those who are TO STUPID to see the differences between the 2 plans even if the Muppets were hired to explain it.
or
2. Those that DON'T CARE that they are different. As long as they can push the belief that they are the same.
This entire discussion is getting boring. MassCare is legal...awesome. The real question is this...
Will President Obama, effectively, convince the electorate, with the help of the MSM, that ObamaCare was based on Romney's MassCare?
If he does, the next question will be...
WIll the electorate care enough about Federalism, or state's rights, to support Romney's case?
And finally...
Will Romney have a detailed, national, health-care reform plan to counteract ObamaCare?
These are all questions that will be asked.
jerseyrepublican
Valid points JR, and that will be part of the political debate, as it unfolds.
"Will Romney have a detailed, national, health-care reform plan to counteract ObamaCare?"
That's a question ALL of the eventual candiates will have to answer, and in a deltailed manner. Calling for the repeal of ObamaCare and offering platitude with out solutions, won't cut it.
Romney on the other hand, has been out there for a year now, being quite clear and consistant, telling people about the difference ObamaCare and MassCare, as well as urging the States decide what is best for themselves, rather that trying to apply a one-size-fits-all nationwide plan.
Despite small segments of the media & blog world decrying this issue is his doom, Romney's message is registering with people. So far no has polled the question directly and his numbers remain very competitive.
JR,
"Will Romney have a detailed, national, health-care reform plan to counteract ObamaCare?"
I believe Romney will offer NO ALTERNATIVE. THIS is good.
He will push for repeal and then as President ask congress to come up with things that will create an atmosphere that helps states achieve there own health care needs; i.e., Buying across state lines.
Also, repealing the law Reagan enacted that requires emergency rooms to treat anybody.
Warning! Warning!
Truth post! Palinites and Huck's army, put your blinders on before reading!
Post a Comment