Why Romney WILL repeal Obamacare!

I saw the idiotic thread today, about why Romney won't repeal Obamacare. I wanted to let it run its course, and then post this thread to help educate the confused. First off, there is no such thing really, as "Obamacare." That being a fact of the matter here, one could conceivably argue it can't be repealed because it really doesn't exist. There are provisions in the ACA bill passed by Congress, which have already gone into effect, and I am not sure how easy it would be to repeal those, or if we even WANT to repeal them. So a sliver of "Obamacare" will probably live on in some form, to some degree. This is important to remember, because it is what Liberals will use to claim that Romney didn't 'repeal' it. There are other provisions in the bill, which need modification, but they can remain intact otherwise... again, Liberals can argue that Romney has reneged on his promise, if even the slightest HINT of Obamacare remains, and that is precisely what they plan to do. Expect this to happen.

What Romney has said, is that he will issue a waiver to all 50 states, that releases them from obligation to comply with the act. In recent speeches, he has modified that to 'repeal and replace' language, which in my opinion, is a bit more aggressive and harder to do. Still, he promises to have a fairly nice majority in the House, and probably a majority in the Senate too, if things turn out like 2010 for Dems. It's very possible the Congress could simply repeal the ACA in full, even including portions which have already gone into effect.

Now.... here is why you need not believe Liberals claiming Romney won't repeal Obamacare... Romney is a former governor of Massachusetts... the most liberal of states... As governor, he signed a law into effect that Obama claims was the model for Obamacare. Mr. Romney has spend the better part of 5 years now, running for president and having to defend his past. In order to win his party's nomination, he had to strongly oppose Obamacare, and make the case why he could be trusted to get rid of it. He continues to present "repeal Obamacare" as his campaign centerpiece. Now Liberals can delude themselves into believing what they want, there is no way on God's green earth that Romney is going to back out on teh centerpiece of his campaign, or alter his position. It is MORE likely that Obama would repeal Obamacare, if reelected. (Pinheads, please avoid misinterpretations with that--I am making a point about the chances of Romney not repealing Obamacare... that's how low they are... there's a better chance of Obama repealing it, than Romney NOT repealing it.) Now think about this, if the RIGHT were out there running around starting threads about how Obama was going to repeal Obamacare if he won re-election... would you buy that? Probably not, right? But what you may think, is that Republicans sure want people to believe that for some reason.

Let's take a look at why some Liberals are being so absurdly ridiculous with this. It's to convince you there is no need to vote for Romney, because he won't do what he said, he won't repeal Obamacare. You see, Liberals watch the polls... it's what they live by! They have seen the polls, and they know this Obamacare thing isn't very popular, and they realize a LOT of people are going to turn out in November to put an end to it. But if they can convince some of you that Romney is a snake in the grass who won't do what he promised, then just maaaaaaybe it'll be enough to tip the scales in the Big O's favor on election night. So that's ALL this is about, making you less inclined to go vote for Romney, if you beef is Obamacare. The absurdity of this on it's face, is enough to draw a belly-laugh, but they are serious! They think we are THAT fucking stupid, that we will be so gullible as to believe, this man has spent all this time and energy deflecting criticisms for his health care plan in Mass., has waged a brutal primary and prevailed with a never-wavering commitment to get rid of Obamacare on Day 1, is somehow going to pull the all-time greatest mother of all flip-flops as soon as elected.

It's not gonna go down that way, and they know this.
 
This goes from March of 2010 to June 2012

Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
June 23-24, 2012

Date
Favor Repeal
Oppose Repeal

June 23-24
54%
39%

June 9-10
53%
39%

May 26-27
55%
39%

May 12
56%
37%

Apr 28-29
55%
36%

Apr 14-15
56%
37%

Mar 31-Apr 1
54%
40%

Mar 17-18
56%
39%

Mar 3-4
53%
42%

Feb 18-19
53%
38%

Feb 4-5
54%
41%

Jan 21-22
52%
41%

Jan 7-8, 2012
54%
42%

Dec 22
53%
39%

Dec 10-11
55%
35%

Nov 27
53%
40%

Nov 11-12
55%
37%

Oct 28-29
54%
39%

Oct 14-15
54%
38%

Sep 30-Oct 1
51%
39%

Sep 16-17
56%
36%

Sep 2-3
57%
36%

Aug 27-28
57%
37%

Aug 19-20
55%
38%

Aug 13-14
54%
40%

Aug 5-6
54%
40%

July 30-31
55%
39%

July 22-23
57%
36%

July 16-17
54%
39%

July 8-9
53%
40%

July 2
53%
39%

June 24-25
55%
38%

June 18-19
53%
42%

June 10-11
54%
35%

June 4-5
54%
39%

May 28-29
51%
41%

May 21-22
51%
43%

May 13-14
55%
38%

May 7
57%
36%

Apr 29-30
47%
42%

Apr 23-24
53%
40%

Apr 15-16
52%
41%

Apr 9-10
51%
41%

Apr 1-2
54%
39%

Mar 26-27
58%
36%

Mar 18-19
53%
42%

Mar 12-13
62%
33%

Mar 4-5
54%
39%

Feb 26-27
53%
39%

Feb 18-19
56%
40%

Feb 12-13
57%
38%

Feb 4-5
58%
37%

Jan 29-30
58%
38%

Jan 21-22
53%
43%

Jan 15-16
55%
40%

Jan 7-8
54%
40%

Jan 2, 2011
60%
36%

Dec 26
60%
38%

Dec 17-18
55%
41%

Dec 11-12
60%
34%

Dec 5-6
56%
41%

Nov 28
58%
37%

Nov 19-20
57%
39%

Nov 13-14
58%
37%

Nov 5-6
55%
40%

Oct 30-31
58%
36%

Oct 22-23
53%
42%

Oct 16-17
55%
40%

Oct 8-9
55%
39%

Oct 2-3
50%
44%

Sep 24-25
57%
35%

Sep 18-19
61%
33%

Sep 10-11
53%
38%

Sep 4-5
56%
38%

Aug 27-28
58%
36%

Aug 21-22
56%
40%

Aug 13-14
60%
36%

Aug 7-8
55%
38%

Jul 30-31
59%
38%

Jul 24-25
58%
37%

Jul 16-17
56%
38%

Jul 10-11
53%
42%

Jul 1
60%
36%

Jun 25-26
52%
40%

Jun 19-20
55%
40%

Jun 11-12
58%
36%

Jun 5-6
58%
35%

May 28-29
60%
36%

May 22-23
63%
32%

May 14-15
56%
39%

May 10
56%
37%

Apr 30-May 1
54%
39%

Apr 24-25
58%
38%

Apr 16-17
56%
41%

Apr 10-11
58%
38%

Apr 2-3
54%
42%

Mar 27-28
54%
42%

Mar 23-24
55%
42%
 
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 “I like mandates” 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: ”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.”



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politic...dges-his-healthcare-plan-imposed-a-tax-in-08/
 
Romney didn't win the nomination because he promised to repeal Obamacare.

In fact, he didn't actually 'win' anything.

The others ran out of money, and his electorate held their collective noses, and declared him the candidate.
 
It's actually the opposite - not only will Romney not be able to repeal it, he won't even make that much of an effort to. If he wins.

But still - either way, it will be a big victory for conservatives. I'm sure of it.
 
Didn't Dixie predict that Herman Cain would ride a wave of "backlash" to the GOP nomination?
 
Dixie and his backlash predictions.


Whats Funny is the Romney has promised to repeal all portions of the ACA except the one that pays for it, the mandate!
 
He will no matter what, Romney is his messiah

Now, perhaps.

During the primary campaign, maybe not so much.


120326bok-reagan-romney-etch-a-sketch-gop2.jpg


Do you think many conservatives are thinking 'at least Romney is white'?
 
It's actually the opposite - not only will Romney not be able to repeal it, he won't even make that much of an effort to. If he wins.

But still - either way, it will be a big victory for conservatives. I'm sure of it.

It's actually the opposite, WHY? Because you are such a brain when it comes to political analysis? Because Liberals collective HOPE trumps majorities in both houses and the presidency? Because we live in some fucked-in-the-head bizarro world, where everything is opposite as it appears?

Look, I can certainly understand Liberals believing Romney will do the exact polar opposite of everything he is campaigning on and promising... after all, that's what we got with Obama! But aside from Obama, I can't think of an example in political history, where a national political figure has gone out there and promised us specifically what he was going to do, and then did the opposite of that when elected. Even as terrible as Obama has been, (and a great example of your theory...) he still followed through with his promises on his centerpiece issue, he gave us Obamacare!

You've got nothing. The polls are not in your favor. It looks like, your party might be in for a bruising come November, and this is sheer desperation time. It's making you people act like the jackass who adorns your logo. The power of subliminal suggestion isn't going to work here. Refuting what I have said, takes more than just popping in to interject the opposite of what I said and proclaim yourself correct. But I understand, your particular mental capacity doesn't enable you to do much else.
 
How does one explain multimillionaire Mittzie's mandate machinations?




Romney has said he wants to make sure that Americans with pre-existing conditions do not lose their current health insurance.

What he doesn’t say is that he would not keep the provision ensuring this protection in the current law.

What would he do?

Simply say tough luck to people with disabilities?

He still has not explained why he has shifted his views on a mandate requiring health insurance.

This requirement was the defining characteristic of the plan he pushed through as governor of Massachusetts, which served as a model for Obama’s plan.

Romneycare imposed stiff penalties — at one stage more than $1,000 per person — for those who could afford health insurance and did not get it.

Was that a tax increase?

The Republican nominee tries to make the distinction that a mandate is fine on the state level but unconstitutional and bad policy on the national level.

That is a distinction most voters do not get.




http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/us/02iht-letter02.html
 
Back
Top