Romneycare Upheld by Supremes; Romney Livid

“Romneycare”, also sometimes called “Obamacare” except NPR (National Public Radio) who call it “National Healthcare Law”, has been upheld by the Supremes. Not the Motown band, but the Supreme Court. Presidential candied-date Romney, who inspired the law, spoke from a balcony in Washington D.C. with the capitol as a backdrop, disclaiming and divorcing himself from his creation whilst drooling bile. He insisted “The only way to get rid of [Romneycare] is to vote for me, Mitt Romney, for president”. This implied that he would somehow single-handedly overturn the Supreme Court, leaving him to personally kill his child. I’ve come to call the legislation “O’RomnaBomneyCare” to celebrate the delicious ironies that are presented.

The entire picture was surreal, but the fallout from the Supreme’s decision is worth noting. Everyone will be able to get health insurance, regardless of “pre-existing conditions”, and regardless of their income. The quality of that insurance is certain to be unequal across the classes, which should please Republicans who are otherwise put out. The cost of health insurance should come down, but probably won’t, leaving plenty of room for more legal wrangling and lobbying with consequent coke-and-callgirl parties to blow off steam and stress in Washington. Children will continue to be able to benefit from parent’s health insurance, leaving no doubt that the average 26 year-old is about as mature as an 18 year-old was 30 years ago. Insurance companies will profit even more than before, as every citizen (and illegal immigrant) will become a customer under the force of law. And that’s just for starters. For more unbiased reporting on this development, and the current state of affairs in general, I suggest “This Modern World” by Tom Tomorrow.

  • Carl Burger

    “O’RomnaBomneyCare” – I love it! Government has never been more of a circus what with these clowns (or are they clones) going at it.

    What if the president were to stand up for “quality in government”? No, wait, if he did that, then he’d be held to the same standard. So it will never happen, and the country will continue to spin down the toilet.

    Nice job, guys! (they pee where they sleep)

    • Baran

      Don’t fall for the line that Massachusetts insurance refrom is the same as Obamacare. From you column it appears that you have. Sorry for you to have been deceived by whitehouse talking points. Obama needs you to think so and has tried so hard to make Romney out to be just like him. Its a lie.Romney’s plan, the original bill he signed, has little in common with Obamacare which set up multiple gargantuan bureacracies to regulate health care and take decisions away from doctors and patients. It has caused employers to drop coverage in advance of its implementation. It raises premiums. But premiums went down in Massachusetts when it was first inacted. Also, more MA employers extended coverage to their employers, which was a pleasant result and unexpected. Romney’s plan kept health care decisions with doctors and patients while Obamacare creates decision boards and so called death panels. The narrative in the press is that they are one in the same, Romney’s plan and Obamacare. This helps Obama as he positions himself for 2012 and weakens Romney. But wise up! Its a false assertion. If you beleive this its because you have gotten your info from Obama’s talking points and a liberal media who prefer Palin because they think that would make 2012 so much more fun. Romney’s bill was only 70 pages and not shoved down voters throats. Its was bipartisan and gratefully received by providers, patients and insurance companies whose concerns were all addressed over a two year process. This was insurance refrom not healthcare refrom Obama care is healthcare refrom no its health care industry takeover. On the road to socialized medicine. Romney’s plan keeps healthcare in the private sector and that my friend is a HUGE difference. Take the wool off from your eyes. Don’t be deceived by those who want you to think they are the same. And if you think Fox News offering of snippets of Romney defending his plan was weak, I submit you are letting the media lead you to your conclusions rather thatn searching it out for yourself. I have heard him well-defend it as conservative and creative way of spending money they were already receiving for free care at hospitals and putting it toward insurance instead.So until you know a way to bring insurance to the uninsured, I would ask that you stop comparing Romney’s to Obama’s. While Romney’s was focused on the uninsured, Obama’s clearly focused taking over healthcare fo all mankind. That is the major thrust of it. So figure out a better way and lets compare that to Romney’s plan. And I mean Romney’s plan, NOT the derivative of it that now exists after five years of democrat tinkering.An another thing. What in the world does your being a Mormon have to do with anything? Why even bring it up? When is there ever going to be a faithblind society if you keep bringing that up? It doesn’t matter what your religion is or what any presidential candidate’s religion is. Period.Lori,Again, I have not heard the White House say anything about Romney. This is my own reaction. The only people I have heard questioning this position of Romney’s are conservative commentators.And as to a faithblind society, my point is that I am NOT for Romney, in spite of our similar religious beliefs. But I am confident that a poll would reveal a strong correlation between being an LDS Republican and being pro-Romney.I do, however, believe it entirely appropriate to weigh a candidate’s religious beliefs in deciding whether or not to vote for him or her. For me, I am mostly interested in how faithful they are to those beliefs, whatever they are, than in which particular religion they espouse. Here in Mesa, when I heard that our recently released stake president was running for the state legislature, I signed up to help his campaign and voted for him. In that case I knew him personally and knew he was a good man of solid integrity and a strong conservative. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

      • Emrah

        .. doing it the right way?? That doesn’t even make sense unless Paw has become governor of Mass while everyone was looking away. What one governor does for HIS state cannot be compared to what another governor does for HIS state. Each state has its own constituencies and needs .. what’s right for one is not right for another. This is just another example of why Paw is not ready for prime-time .. another reason is that shooting poison arrows at someone’s back when you can’t even defend your words to their face is very unbecoming for someone who wants to be President. Just makes you want to see the person get a real good smack-down, whether you care for Romney or not. Paw should go back under his rock.