09-29-2012, 03:47 PM
Just read this today. Yes Mr. Davis, I actually read something instead of just looking at the pictures. LOL
09-29-2012, 05:34 PM
you have to look at who wrote the article....Larry Bivins works for Gannett Publishing out of Washington DC, its only picked up by their affiliate in Wisconsin..its also one of the reasons that Newspapers are going out of business, so many of them are owned by one conglomerate like Gannett and they all publish the same propanda in each city...
Case in point here in Las Vegas where we should have the best sports page in the country, we actually have the worst, its nothing more than a compilation of wire reports from across the country, and usually not more than 4 pages deep..journalism in this country is at an all time low, both in print and media..There was a time when both Newsweek and Time magazine were well respected but that no longer applies, same goes for the LA Times or the OC Register
09-29-2012, 05:58 PM
I agree with you about the newspapers and media. It's not what it used to be. I just thought I'd put that link up to see what kind of response it would get. Pretty quiet so far.
09-29-2012, 07:07 PM
I'm not thrilled with Romney care either but I guess the people are. In no uncertain terms, Obamacare was never popular. It wasn’t popular while it was being debated, it wasn’t popular when it passed in 2009, and it remains unpopular in 2012 heading into the presidential election. For over three years Obama’s health care law has regularly hit double-digits (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/repeal_of_health_care_law_favoroppose-1947.html) in disapproval, while the desire to repeal the law remains high. Compare this to Romney's healthcare law in Massachusetts. Romney's version has always had broad support among the voters of his state. The bill was not passed against the voters' will. The bill was not passed behind closed doors. The bill was and is popular. Three years after passage, Romneycare was supported by greater than 2-1 margins (http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2009-releases/fifty-nine-percent-support-massachusetts-2006-health-reform-law.html) by residents in Massachusetts. Other polls have shown support even higher than that. Oh, and in the same year that poll was taken, those same Massachusetts voters elected Scott Brown to the US Senate to replace Ted Kennedy. His main promise? To be the 41st vote against Obamacare.
10-01-2012, 12:17 PM
Let's remember....RomneyCare is a STATE program, not federal. I believe Mr. Romeny understands that different states have different problems, different successes and should be able to tailor their healthcare to meet the needs of their constituency. Feds don't need to run healthcare. IMO.
10-01-2012, 01:47 PM
We miss a lot about the whole Romneycare issue without going into its background. Romney crafted a proposal to present to the legislature. (I believe Obama let the legislature put together the hodgepodge, with a lot of wheeling and dealing in the process). The MA legislature modified the Romney proposal in ways that were significant, among them the mandate for businesses to provide health insurance. The next Gov of MA, a Dem, made further changes with made the program financially less sustainable ... and I believe that the program is now in deep financial trouble.
When Romney came into office in MA, that blue state was already on the path to getting universal health care. Romney's proposal might have made it feasible in a sustainable way ... but that is not what the legislature finally passed; nor what is in place now in MA.
Keep also in mind that Romney had no effective veto. Everything he vetoed was subsequently over-ridden by the legislature. I suppose that he could have vetoed this legislation as well, had he stood on pure principle. OTOH, he might have also believed that what he signed was "the least of the evils". As it turned out, the program was later "enhanced" after Romney left office.
To his credit Romney participated in the legislation, which is far different from the role Obama played in getting Obamacare passed. Not to mention the glaring loophole in Obamacare that does not provide any funding for Federal "exchanges" in the states. If the states do not provide a state exchange, there is no Obamacare in that state. And the SC ruled that the Fed govt cannot withhold Medicaid funds to the state simply because they do not "participate" in Obamacare. And nothing will change, unless Obamacare were amended to provide that "missing" funding. There might be a chance of that happening if the Senate does not remain less than its present 60/40; or the House balance should change.