Prediction: Romney is going to lose ...

[Lando Lincoln]

Romney had a bad day, but it is not "you-didn't-build-that" bad. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

There-in lies the difference between a fiscally conservative Republican and a liberal Republican... fiscally conservative Republicans want the government the hell out of healthcare... totally.

Actually, this illustrates the difference between statists and Constitutionalists.

A statist, conservative or liberal, will argue that the decision on whether to have government involvement in healthcare or not is to be decided at the Federal level, where a Constitutionalist will understand that (like abortion) the decision lies with the individual States. 

In Romney's Massachusetts, Romneycare was supported by more than 80% of the people of the State, 99% of the MA legislature, and nearly every special interest group in the State. Today 84% of the people of the State still approve of it.

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

We have to support the people (and the legislature) of a liberal State like MA, to enact legislature like Romneycare, because in acknowledging their Constitutional right to enact that legislation, we strengthen the equally Constitutional right of a State like Alabama to outlaw abortion, should Roe v. Wade ever fall.

Insofar as Romney and Obamacare...he is on record, as late as July 11 this year, in front of a hostile crowd at the NAACP national convention, on making the repeal of Obamacare one of the first active goals of his Presidency, and Romney knows that not doing so will amount to political suicide.

I expect that he will sign any legislature that comes across his desk that will dismantle Obamacare...what we need to do if we really want Obamacare gone, is seize the Senate, maintain our hold on the House, and elect Romney.   

That takes going to the polls and voting a straight Republican ticket.

Some may argue that they will have to hold their noses, but to me, the higher stench would come from inaction based on unattainable (or unrealized) goals.

[R4 Trump]

Actually, this illustrates the difference between statists and Constitutionalists.

A statist, conservative or liberal, will argue that the decision on whether to have government involvement in healthcare or not is to be decided at the Federal level, where a Constitutionalist will understand that (like abortion) the decision lies with the individual States. 

In Romney's Massachusetts, Romneycare was supported by more than 80% of the people of the State, 99% of the MA legislature, and nearly every special interest group in the State. Today 84% of the people of the State still approve of it.

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

We have to support the people (and the legislature) of a liberal State like MA, to enact legislature like Romneycare, because in acknowledging their Constitutional right to enact that legislation, we strengthen the equally Constitutional right of a State like Alabama to outlaw abortion, should Roe v. Wade ever fall.

Insofar as Romney and Obamacare...he is on record, as late as July 11 this year, in front of a hostile crowd at the NAACP national convention, on making the repeal of Obamacare one of the first active goals of his Presidency, and Romney knows that not doing so will amount to political suicide.

I expect that he will sign any legislature that comes across his desk that will dismantle Obamacare...what we need to do if we really want Obamacare gone, is seize the Senate, maintain our hold on the House, and elect Romney.   

That takes going to the polls and voting a straight Republican ticket.

Some may argue that they will have to hold their noses, but to me, the higher stench would come from inaction based on unattainable (or unrealized) goals.

 

[Oceander]

With respect to the larger question of whether the federal government can Constitutionally have a role to play in health care the answer is a decided "yes."  No, Congress cannot directly dictate who gets treatment and who does not, but Congress can most definitely regulate the interstate aspects of the business of providing health care.  For example, Congress could most definitely set quality standards for medical equipment that is sold in interstate commerce.

[Lando Lincoln]

Actually, this illustrates the difference between statists and Constitutionalists.

A statist, conservative or liberal, will argue that the decision on whether to have government involvement in healthcare or not is to be decided at the Federal level, where a Constitutionalist will understand that (like abortion) the decision lies with the individual States. 

In Romney's Massachusetts, Romneycare was supported by more than 80% of the people of the State, 99% of the MA legislature, and nearly every special interest group in the State. Today 84% of the people of the State still approve of it.

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

We have to support the people (and the legislature) of a liberal State like MA, to enact legislature like Romneycare, because in acknowledging their Constitutional right to enact that legislation, we strengthen the equally Constitutional right of a State like Alabama to outlaw abortion, should Roe v. Wade ever fall.

Insofar as Romney and Obamacare...he is on record, as late as July 11 this year, in front of a hostile crowd at the NAACP national convention, on making the repeal of Obamacare one of the first active goals of his Presidency, and Romney knows that not doing so will amount to political suicide.

I expect that he will sign any legislature that comes across his desk that will dismantle Obamacare...what we need to do if we really want Obamacare gone, is seize the Senate, maintain our hold on the House, and elect Romney.   

That takes going to the polls and voting a straight Republican ticket.

Some may argue that they will have to hold their noses, but to me, the higher stench would come from inaction based on unattainable (or unrealized) goals.

Good stuff Luis.  How come you used to piss me off so much? (Mostly kidding.)

[Rapunzel]

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

The Romney surrogate using Romneycare to defend the reason Romney is not responsible for the death of this man's wife has nothing to do with states rights.  It has to do with the surrogate being stupid and showing just how little Romney understands how the majority of Americans outside MA want government mandated healthcare.    It was stupid to take the discussion anywhere near the healthcare argument if the argument you were going to use was "his wife should have lived in MA"... it should have been the woman died 7 years after Romney was not longer affiliated with Bain Capital and 5 years after her husband left the company Bain purchased AND after she left her own job where SHE had insurance coverage....... in no way, shape or form was Romney responsible for this woman's death and neither Bain or Romney or Obamacare had one thing to do with her death... perhaps it would be more revealing to know what kind of cancer the woman came down with, what her lifestyle was and what led to her leaving her job where she had insurance.

[DCPatriot]

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

The Romney surrogate using Romneycare to defend the reason Romney is not responsible for the death of this man's wife has nothing to do with states rights.  It has to do with the surrogate being stupid and showing just how little Romney understands how the majority of Americans outside MA want government mandated healthcare.    It was stupid to take the discussion anywhere near the healthcare argument if the argument you were going to use was "his wife should have lived in MA"... it should have been the woman died 7 years after Romney was not longer affiliated with Bain Capital and 5 years after her husband left the company Bain purchased AND after she left her own job where SHE had insurance coverage....... in no way, shape or form was Romney responsible for this woman's death and neither Bain or Romney or Obamacare had one thing to do with her death... perhaps it would be more revealing to know what kind of cancer the woman came down with, what her lifestyle was and what led to her leaving her job where she had insurance.

Rap, the surrogate knew that she didn't want to get down in the gutter defending who didn't 'kill' his wife.

Why argue such a ridiculous charge?  Plus, she didn't know at the time, that the guy was offered a buyout....or she would have worked that in her statement.

[Rapunzel]

Rap, the surrogate knew that she didn't want to get down in the gutter defending who didn't 'kill' his wife.

Why argue such a ridiculous charge?  Plus, she didn't know at the time, that the guy was offered a buyout....or she would have worked that in her statement.

DC she "should" have been smart and savy enough to tell the questioner that Governor Romney is sorry the man lost his wife, but he in no manner, shape, or form had any connection to her death either in a direct or indirect manner.  No way should she have said what she said... anyone saying what she did does not belong in the job of spokesperson.

[famousdayandyear]

DC she "should" have been smart and savy enough to tell the questioner that Governor Romney is sorry the man lost his wife, but he in no manner, shape, or form had any connection to her death either in a direct or indirect manner.  No way should she have said what she said... anyone saying what she did does not belong in the job of spokesperson.

Clueless spokesman.  What a concept from the Romney campaign.  Why not hire the best and the brightest in the campaign to save us from total tyranny?

[Rapunzel]

Andrea Saul CV = spokesperson Charlie Crist = Spokesperson John McCain 2008... WHY would anyone hire her for a spokesperson in 2012!!!!!!!!

[Luis Gonzalez]

With respect to the larger question of whether the federal government can Constitutionally have a role to play in health care the answer is a decided "yes."  No, Congress cannot directly dictate who gets treatment and who does not, but Congress can most definitely regulate the interstate aspects of the business of providing health care.  For example, Congress could most definitely set quality standards for medical equipment that is sold in interstate commerce.

Actually, what you are describing is an expansion of the Commerce Clause, beyond what may have been the original intent of the clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Congress did not invoke the Commerce Clause for the first 100 years of our existence, and the original intent was to deny the sort of discriminatory State legislation that had been previously permitted under the Articles of Confederation, such as passing legislation which would prohibit goods manufactured in one State to be sold within the boundaries of the State generating the legislation.

Many Constitutional scholars describe the original intent of the Clause as being more of a directive to Congress to regulate the manner under which Commerce would be conducted, but not in the current endless powers that Congress has given itself to regulate, dictate, and control commerce, manufacturing, and even what one may do with the fruit of one's own land.

In your specific example, the originalists would respond that the Commerce Clause would require that the manufacturers of medical equipment sold in in interstate commerce would supply full disclosure of all information pertaining to the equipment they manufactured, that they would provide proof of liability coverage, and absorb all costs associated with their equipment harming end users due to flaws in manufacturing.

Given that minimalist view, the market itself would weed out substandard, inadequate, and poorly manufactured and designed equipment, and those manufacturers would simply fail.

In today's acceptance of the nanny nature of the current definition of the Commerce Clause, as stated above, substandard equipment meeting minimal government standards, built more economically and sold at a lower cost to the consumer, would control the marketplace, destroy the market for better equipment that exceeds those standards, is manufactured better, and is more efficient. As a result, the market suffers, quality suffers, and eventually, the very consumers that excessive regulatory actions under an expansive definition of the Commerce Clause sought to protect, would suffer the greatest of all.

[Luis Gonzalez]

If we are to believe, as we should believe, that politicians serve the people who elected them, then we have to understand that, in the case of Romneycare at least, Mitt Romney and the MA legislature acted as the people who elected them wanted to act.

The Romney surrogate using Romneycare to defend the reason Romney is not responsible for the death of this man's wife has nothing to do with states rights.  It has to do with the surrogate being stupid and showing just how little Romney understands how the majority of Americans outside MA want government mandated healthcare.    It was stupid to take the discussion anywhere near the healthcare argument if the argument you were going to use was "his wife should have lived in MA"... it should have been the woman died 7 years after Romney was not longer affiliated with Bain Capital and 5 years after her husband left the company Bain purchased AND after she left her own job where SHE had insurance coverage....... in no way, shape or form was Romney responsible for this woman's death and neither Bain or Romney or Obamacare had one thing to do with her death... perhaps it would be more revealing to know what kind of cancer the woman came down with, what her lifestyle was and what led to her leaving her job where she had insurance.

I have absolutely no clue what your response has to do with my quote.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Good stuff Luis.  How come you used to piss me off so much? (Mostly kidding.)

It's a talent I have.

[Rapunzel]

I have absolutely no clue what your response has to do with my quote.

Because your quote going on about how great MA thinks Romneycare is has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

I could care less if MA likes Romneycare or doesn't like Romneycare, he is running for President of the USA, not MA and the majority of Americans who will be voting are not in favor of Obamacare. 

This is not a states rights issue it is a surrogate who totally shot the campaign in the foot today problem... same as the etcha-sketch guy a couple of months ago.......


 

[R4 Trump]

Because your quote going on about how great MA thinks Romneycare is has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

I could care less if MA likes Romneycare or doesn't like Romneycare, he is running for President of the USA, not MA and the majority of Americans who will be voting are not in favor of Obamacare. 

This is not a states rights issue it is a surrogate who totally shot the campaign in the foot today problem... same as the etcha-sketch guy a couple of months ago.......

Not that he needs it but I am going to defend Luis on this one.

He was not comparing or referring to what happened today. He was only  explaining what are states rights issues and what the majority in Mass wanted.
I did not take his comment to mean anything but that.

We are all upset today that the  Idiot Andrea Saul screwed the pooch and should be fired, IMO. But that wasn't what his comment was about.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Because your quote going on about how great MA thinks Romneycare is has nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

I could care less if MA likes Romneycare or doesn't like Romneycare, he is running for President of the USA, not MA and the majority of Americans who will be voting are not in favor of Obamacare. 

This is not a states rights issue it is a surrogate who totally shot the campaign in the foot today problem... same as the etcha-sketch guy a couple of months ago.......

I don't respond to the subject, I joined a ongoing conversation at a point when the conversation engaged me, and it appears that other members and admins in the group seemed to appreciate my post.

I discuss what I wish to discuss, when I wish to discuss it, and with whom I wish to discuss it.

You can opine at will, that's your prerogative, but this thread began long before the surrogate issue came into being this morning, so how this discussion should revolve around an issue that did not exist at the time that the thread was posted is a tad confusing.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Not that he needs it but I am going to defend Luis on this one.

He was not comparing or referring to what happened today. He was only  explaining what are states rights issues and what the majority in Mass wanted.
I did not take his comment to mean anything but that.

We are all upset today that the  Idiot Andrea Saul screwed the pooch and should be fired, IMO. But that wasn't what his comment was about.

Thanks.

[R4 Trump]

Thanks.

Well we are all pissed off today given what Andrea Saul did on Fox, so emotions are high and things can get misconstrued. It happens..
I just wanted everyone on the same page!

[Rivergirl]

Thanks.

Well I am fit to be tied because Hannity couldn't wait to exploit this dumbass woman's comments.

Were they more important than the BIG LIE.  Hell NO.  But ratings demand that these people trash Romney.   Might be good TV but the future of our country depends on us ridding ourselves of the leftist trash in the white house.

JMO

[R4 Trump]

Well I am fit to be tied because Hannity couldn't wait to exploit this dumbass woman's comments.

Were they more important than the BIG LIE.  Hell NO.  But ratings demand that these people trash Romney.   Might be good TV but the future of our country depends on us ridding ourselves of the leftist trash in the white house.

JMO

You are right, but the problem is Mitt's surrogates need to tighten up what they say! This woman was a disaster! She didn't really stick to the topic of the lie, she had to mention Romneycare.. Anyone with any sense, would have never done that!!

Mitt needs to come out and be forceful against all the obama machine crap! If he doesn't have people who can be pitbulls, then replace them with ones who can
We do have to win! It is more important than anything in our lifetime!
but put the people in front of the cameras that can get the job done correctly!

[R4 Trump]

One more thing! Anyone on this forum could have handled that interview 100% better than Andrea did today! We all have the facts and we all know better than to give Obama ammunition!

[Oceander]

Actually, what you are describing is an expansion of the Commerce Clause, beyond what may have been the original intent of the clause.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[2]
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Congress did not invoke the Commerce Clause for the first 100 years of our existence, and the original intent was to deny the sort of discriminatory State legislation that had been previously permitted under the Articles of Confederation, such as passing legislation which would prohibit goods manufactured in one State to be sold within the boundaries of the State generating the legislation.

Many Constitutional scholars describe the original intent of the Clause as being more of a directive to Congress to regulate the manner under which Commerce would be conducted, but not in the current endless powers that Congress has given itself to regulate, dictate, and control commerce, manufacturing, and even what one may do with the fruit of one's own land.

In your specific example, the originalists would respond that the Commerce Clause would require that the manufacturers of medical equipment sold in in interstate commerce would supply full disclosure of all information pertaining to the equipment they manufactured, that they would provide proof of liability coverage, and absorb all costs associated with their equipment harming end users due to flaws in manufacturing.

Given that minimalist view, the market itself would weed out substandard, inadequate, and poorly manufactured and designed equipment, and those manufacturers would simply fail.

In today's acceptance of the nanny nature of the current definition of the Commerce Clause, as stated above, substandard equipment meeting minimal government standards, built more economically and sold at a lower cost to the consumer, would control the marketplace, destroy the market for better equipment that exceeds those standards, is manufactured better, and is more efficient. As a result, the market suffers, quality suffers, and eventually, the very consumers that excessive regulatory actions under an expansive definition of the Commerce Clause sought to protect, would suffer the greatest of all.

Very simply:  nope. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Very simply:  nope.

Can't argue against that level of eloquence.

We'll agree to disagree.

I just don't see the original intent of the Commerce Clause being so broad that it allows the Justice Department to shut down a private farm because the milk it produces for self-consumption may impact interstate commerce.

That expansive view of the Commerce Clause is wrong. 

[famousdayandyear]

Not that he needs it but I am going to defend Luis on this one.

He was not comparing or referring to what happened today. He was only  explaining what are states rights issues and what the majority in Mass wanted.
I did not take his comment to mean anything but that.

We are all upset today that the  Idiot Andrea Saul screwed the pooch and should be fired, IMO. But that wasn't what his comment was about.

From a borderline newbie.  I'm taken back when a mod intervenes when Rap can take the on the issue when necessary.  His comment had NOTHING to do with Rap's post.  How in the h3ll did the Commerce Clause work itself it this thread. 

BTW:  Verbosity does not equal clarity. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

From a borderline newbie.  I'm taken back when a mod intervenes when Rap can take the on the issue when necessary.  His comment had NOTHING to do with Rap's post.  How in the h3ll did the Commerce Clause work itself it this thread. 

BTW:  Verbosity does not equal clarity.

Having read all the rules and regs on the site, I fail to find that "stick strictly to the posted topic" one, in fact, I've seen the forum's ownership take off on tangents that had nothing to do with the posted topics.

Having said all that...

You're a newbie like I am a newbie.

We know each other, and for a long time.

You're not using your real fake name, are you?

We have history, don't we?

I love a mystery.

Hmmmm...