What is Mitt Romney's Health care plan if Obamacare is Repealed? Does anyone know?

by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru Posted 2012/05/17 15:30:46

Related Topics: Mitt Romney, Obamacare, Health Care, Romney, Mitt, Health

Read More

29 votes
Read all 91 opinions
View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	Yes it is this:	17 votes	59%
	He doesn't have one.	12 votes	41%

Add a comment above

Cliff 2012/05/17 18:37:41

Yes it is this:

+3
Tort reform, legalize interstate insurance nationwide, end excessive regulation of new procedures and new drugs, promote competition between providers by having transparency in pricing etc.
>> See Replies

More polls by Assassin~ Badass Buzz Guru

Rusty Shackleford 2012/05/17 15:42:57

He doesn't have one.

+3
WE DON'T NEED ONE

The Constitution of the United States of America does not give power to the federal government to regulate our healthcare.

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/17 18:53:59

Yes, it does. Check out the commerce clause.

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/17 20:30:07

No, your "commerce clause" argument means that there is no limit to their power, they can get to do anything they want.

Why don't you check out the 10th Amendment?

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/17 23:10:59

Does or does not the Constitution grant authority for Congress to regulate commerce among the states?

Well, does it?

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/18 00:05:33

BETWEEN the states ONLY, not among the states.

They were only given that power to ensure that the states all treat each other equally.

The federal government does not have the authority under the Constitution to regulate commerce between myself and my doctor withing my own state.

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/20 19:27:11

You should read the Constitution.....it specifically states 'among the several states', not between.

How can you pretend to support a Constitution when you don't even know what it says?

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/20 19:39:35

So according to your interpretation, there are no limits placed upon the federal government by the Constitution.

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/21 21:34:40

Of course there are. However, many of those limitations are being ignored by those on the rightwing, while they point out supposed (but not actual) violations of other limitations.

The difference is that there are some who see.....and some who don't.

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/21 21:37:22

Is there a list of these limitations somewhere? Or do we just play it by ear?

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/21 21:54:03

They are found in the Constitution and mostly in the Bill of Rights.

Let me run some down for you. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, but that doesn't stop the rightwing from wanting to shove evangelical Christianity down the throats of the American people, willing or not.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures but the first thing the rightwing wanted to do after the attacks on 9/11 is to have everyone be searched by the TSA. It also guarantees that people should be secure in their homes and papers, but the right embraced GW Bush's practice of warrant-less wiretapping and wants everyone to have to produce government issued ID whenever asked by law enforcement or in order to vote.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees a person's right to a trial and against self incrimination, but the right wing wants to have the government be able to hold Muslims without charge and indefinitely as well as make people submit to drug testing.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a persons right to sue anyone at any time for any thing - - but the right wing wants to limit those rights through so called 'tort reform'.

The Eighth Amendment guarantees freedom from torture, but I don't see that is a big priority of the right wing, do you?

...

They are found in the Constitution and mostly in the Bill of Rights.

Let me run some down for you. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, but that doesn't stop the rightwing from wanting to shove evangelical Christianity down the throats of the American people, willing or not.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees that people are protected against unreasonable searches and seizures but the first thing the rightwing wanted to do after the attacks on 9/11 is to have everyone be searched by the TSA. It also guarantees that people should be secure in their homes and papers, but the right embraced GW Bush's practice of warrant-less wiretapping and wants everyone to have to produce government issued ID whenever asked by law enforcement or in order to vote.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees a person's right to a trial and against self incrimination, but the right wing wants to have the government be able to hold Muslims without charge and indefinitely as well as make people submit to drug testing.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees a persons right to sue anyone at any time for any thing - - but the right wing wants to limit those rights through so called 'tort reform'.

The Eighth Amendment guarantees freedom from torture, but I don't see that is a big priority of the right wing, do you?

However, no where do I see any guarantee against paying taxes or participation in programs which better the whole, and the interesting thing is that many different judicial bodies throughout the years have seen it the same way.
(more)

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/21 22:17:44

I like how you skipped the 2nd and 10th, was that intentional?

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/21 22:24:02

I also skipped the third, sixth and ninth because they, like the second and tenth, are not pertinent to this discussion.

However, since you bring up the Second Amendment, I suppose that you were not aware that from 1798 through 2008 it was never interpreted by any court to mean private ownership of arms, were you?

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/22 15:02:20

It didn't need to be interpreted, the intention is obvious.

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/22 18:42:42 (edited)

Then why does it start with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"? Do you really believe that arming the citizenry to the teeth will ensure the security of a free state?

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/22 20:22:35

I do.

In England, some people could own guns for hunting, but they were prohibited from having well regulated militias. It is my right to form a militia.

Are you one of those progressives that try to twist the meaning of "well regulated" around to suit your needs?

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/22 20:42:58

So, then, you support your neighbor's ownership of a thermo-nuclear device?

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/22 21:24:07

Technically, yes, practically, no.

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/22 23:47:43

Sorry, you either are or you're not....kinda like being pregnant.

So, are you for it or against it?

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/23 11:20:34

Then yes, according to the Constitution, the federal government does not have the authority to restrict the people from bearing arms.

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/23 15:09:58

Bzzzzzzzzzzz....wrong answer. As I said, from 1798 - 2008 the Supreme Court never interpreted the 2nd Amendment as a carte blanche for Americans to be able to purchase and keep arms as each individual sees fit.

Even the activist justices on THIS radical, rightwing court didn't even go that far.

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/23 20:06:48

It didn't need to be interpreted, the intention is obvious.

If the Founding Fathers didn't believe that individuals had a right to defend themselves, why didn't they disarm them right away?

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/30 15:52:24

Have you ever read about the Whiskey Rebellion and the ramifications doing with private gun ownership?

reply
Rusty S... to justfred 2012/05/30 21:09:12

Nope, all I can say for sure is that I am armed and will remain so for the rest of my life.

reply
justfred to Rusty S... 2012/05/31 23:12:54

Me too.

Do you have a point other than the one on the top of your head?

reply
Rebel Yell 2012/05/17 15:41:36

Yes it is this:

He wants to let states decide. In other words, he doesn't have one. Obama already beat him to the states idea last year when he called all governors to a meeting. He told them that if they could come up with an alternate to the ACA, then go for it. Vermont went to work on that idea.

reply
justfred 2012/05/17 15:41:28

Yes it is this:

+2
If you get sick, die quickly.

reply
robbt1 to justfred 2012/05/17 18:38:22

Got the flu? JUMP OUT A WINDOW. Romney2012

reply
Uranos7 to justfred 2012/05/17 20:42:04

Is that what you did before Obamacare?
Obviusly not.

reply
justfred to Uranos7 2012/05/17 23:11:57

You're right....the RepubliCONs want you to suffer a long time so your medical bills eat up all your life savings to go to profits for their campaign contributors.

reply
Uranos7 to justfred 2012/05/18 04:01:44

Romneys plan will make it affordable for everyone by giving them a refund on thier tax return to cover part of thier premium costs

reply
justfred to Uranos7 2012/05/20 19:28:46

LMAO.....the problem with Romney's plan is it does nothing to help regulate the premium costs. If we actually got a tax break for part of our health insurance premiums, the insurance companies would see a boon available to them and raise your premiums, accordingly.

reply
Uranos7 to justfred 2012/05/20 20:20:32

Obama's does not either and does not help anyone pay for anything. It's wording is against unreasonable increases in premiums but as everyone knows companies employ lawyers just to make increases sound reasonable already.

reply
justfred to Uranos7 2012/05/21 21:35:55

Which is why the end game answer is to take the for profit insurance companies (and their slick lawyers) out of the picture, entirely.

reply
Uranos7 to justfred 2012/05/22 07:06:08

The only countries that have no private insurance are communist dictatorships such as North Korea where the government decides who lives or dies.

reply
justfred to Uranos7 2012/05/22 18:44:48

How do you figure? What for profit insurance company operates in Germany? In England?

reply
Uranos7 to justfred 2012/05/22 19:54:09 (edited)

There are lots in both I have relatives in England you see the socialized health care system in France, England, and Germany do not cover everything so people buy supplemental insurance to cover what it does not. Also with the financial situation the governments of those countries are cutting back the services provided creating a widening market for them.
[ Much like medicare does not cover everything here ]

reply
justfred to Uranos7 2012/05/22 20:43:53

I asked you to name one....and not a 'supplemental' one, either.

Just name one.....

Don't worry, you can take your time, I won't hold my breath.

reply
Uranos7 to justfred 2012/05/22 21:59:58

more info...
Bayer UK/Ireland - Concentrates on the growth and core businesses of health care, nutrition and high-tech materials.
http://www.bayer.co.uk/
more info...
BMI HealthCare - Providers of private hospitals, independent health care and health screening.
http://www.bmihealthcare.co.uk/
more info...
Department of Health - Provides health and social care policy, guidance and publications for NHS and social care professionals.
http://www.dh.gov.uk/Home/fs/en
more info...
there are more but hopefully you get the idea.
http://uk.ezilon.com/uk/busin...

reply
justfred to Uranos7 2012/05/22 23:52:46

Sorry. Bayer Pharmaceuticals has branched out to do research in the medical arena, but there is nowhere on that website that they offer insurance.

BMI Healthcare DOES offer private health care services, but they are not an insurer.

The British Department of Health does not qualify as a private insurer.

So far you have yet to show me even one....keep trying, though.

reply
Uranos7 to justfred 2012/05/23 00:57:03 (edited)

t is possible to purchase additional cover for your health: private health insurance is available from major insurers such as BUPA. Private health insurance entitles you to certain privileges if you become ill: waiting times for diagnostic procedures and for treatment tend to be shorter, and you may be entitled to a single room in hospital rather than a bed in a ward. You will be required to pay for private health insurance cover however, and premiums can be fairly expensive.
Major private health insurers in the UK include: Bupa, AXA PPP Healthcare, Norwich Union, Standard Life, Freedom Healthnet, HSA, and General & Medical. There are many more insurance providers operating in the UK however, and most banks and building societies now offer cover.

reply