ADDITIONAL NOTES:
There is lots of misinformation out there about the HealthCare bill passed in Massachusetts with implications that Mitt Romney is in favor of a National HealthCare Plan. Nothing could be further from the truth.
FACT: Romney was a Republican governor with a very Democrat Legislature - Romney DID NOT write the bill - Romney has said that he will give all 50 states WAIVERS and will un-do ObamaCare.
FACT: Bush and every president in history have SIGNED INTO LAW things they did not like. THE VOTERS DID NOT GIVE HIM A REPUBLICAN LEGISLATURE and he did not have the power to VETO BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERRULED. It is that simple. Massachusetts Liberalism is why Massachusetts is in the mess it is today...just like California. Many insurance companies have CHOSEN NOT TO do business in Massachusetts because of their lack of tort reform and litigious atmosphere.
QUESTIONS: (1) Why did Romney decide not to run for Gov. again? (2) How much of what the DEMOCRAT LEGISLATURE did in Massachusetts while Romney was Gov. has been reversed? NONE! (3) Since Massachusetts voters voted in Romney as a GOP Gov and still voted in a 85% DEM Legislature, what chance did Romney have of VETOing anything they came up with? NONE!
ANSWERS: (1) He could not deal with a 85% DEM Legislature ... (2) they have reversed NOTHING ... (3) NO CHANCE ... The voters of Massachusetts tied the hands of Romney in the same way the US voters tied the hands of Bush in his last two years as President. And then naysayers blamed Bush for what the DEMS did in Congress that he had no power to prevent.
Romney is foremost a successful business man - NOT a lifelong professional politician. What political offices has he held? Just the one. How many Presidents have we had that did not hold another political office first? Who would really want a PRESIDENT with no executive experience?
Simply suggesting that you take a good look at him again. Pro- Is ra el - pro-Border Security - Integrity - Honesty - Experience in business - Experienced in government - knows Is la m is our enemy – understands where our “Inalienable Rights” came from and Who our “Creator” is - loves AMERICA!!
Romney "defends" MassHealthCare on the grounds that STATES do already REGULATE insurance. Massachusetts legislature created and presented the bill. Romney knew he would not be successful in VETOing it. Like all governors and presidents, they often have to settle for less than perfect legislation.
Insurance IS going to be REGULATED...we want it to be the 50 states rather than the Federal Govt. This allows for innovation and creativity. That is what we want. WE "FORCE" people to buy auto insurance liability to protect other people from having to pay for injuries; banks require life insurance on business owners to obtain loans to protect the bank; mortgage companies require borrowers to have insurance if their home is financed to protect the bank and stockholders; we require people to obey speed laws and all kinds of other laws to protect others. REQUIRING people to purchase health insurance is to protect others from having to pay for their medical care due to their own lack of responsibility. Time to get real in this HealthCare Debate.
Time to quit implying that Federal Regulation is the same as State Regulation. Insurance is already regulated at the state level. This is where we should want it regulated. Insurance companies will not always do what is best for "The People" in the absence of some regulation. Before falsely trashing Mitt Romney about STATE REGULATION OF INSURANCE, do some homework and realize that there MUST be some regulation of the MULTI-BILLION-DOLLAR Insurance Industry. Regulation is for the purpose recognizing that without it, there will be dishonesty and lack of responsibility by the companies and those seeking benefits."REGULATION" of Insurance Companies by the States has resulted in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS they have bilked out of policyholders over the years.
There was litigation against Prudential in 1994-95 that resulted in $Millions in fines and $2.8BILLION+ in money returned to policyholders. Millions in fines and BILLIONS in restitution have been paid by insurance companies in recent years. PRU, MET, State Farm, Allstate, Hartford ... virtually all companies. The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015, is a United States federal law that exempts the business of insurance from most federal regulation, including federal anti-trust laws to a limited extent. The McCarran–Ferguson Act was passed by Congress in 1945 after the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association that the federal government could regulate insurance companies under the authority of the Commerce Clause. This law is what Obama wants ignored in order to create greater centralized political and economic power in Washington.
|
|
