Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Saturday, February 23, 2019

Barack Obama’s re-election campaign released a web video on Thursday commemorating the six-year anniversary of the healthcare law Mitt Romney signed in 2006, a law that bears a striking resemblance to the federal Affordable Care Act that the former Massachusetts governor has pledged to repeal.

Featuring testimonials from the experts who worked with both Romney and Obama on their respective laws and the first woman in Massachusetts to get covered under ‘Romneycare,’ the video makes a powerful point: Romney thought his health law would propel him onto the national stage; he even made sure it appeared in his official gubernatorial portrait.

Here’s the video, blasted out to reporters by the Obama campaign:

Whether Romney is able to make his opposition to ‘Obamacare’ appear in the least bit principled will be key to how voters evaluate him in the fall.

  • Share this on Google+0
  • Share this on Linkedin0
  • Share this on Reddit0
  • Print this page
  • 36

17 responses to “Obama Campaign: Happy Birthday Romneycare!”

  1. ObozoMustGo says:

    It doesnt matter. The SCOTUS will strike down Obozocare as they rightfully should.

    • perplejado says:

      Perhaps the United States Supreme Court will strike down the law, and then we can get back to designing a healthcare law which entails a single-payer system, which would be constitutional, and funded entirely by your taxes. It will pass constitutional scrutiny under the “general welfare” clause of the United States Constitution. By the way, our vaunted health-care system is the worst in the world. We spend 17% of our GDP on healthcare, and we trail all other advanced industrial nations in the world with regard to healthy life expectancy, infant mortality, and patient satisfaction. In comparison with the medical services offered in 23 other countries, United States has the highest costs in 22 of 23 cases. For instance, an MRI costs $1080 in United States and $281 in France. An angiogram costs $798 in the US and $35 in Canada. Other countries are benefiting from lower broken healthcare system, as we have now created healthcare tourists. Tiny Costa Rica, with its socialized medicine, received 35,000 visitors from the United States who are designated as medical tourists. As to the socialist aspects of our current system, every time someone goes to the emergency room, hospital, doctor’s office, and does not pay their bills, those costs are passed on to all of us through bankruptcy, payment out of indigent funds supplied by taxpayers, and higher health insurance premiums. In other words, our free enterprise system socializes the costs by raising insurance premiums and taxes. We also ration healthcare by allowing insurance companies to pick only those who are healthy, and thus will pay premiums for many years, without having to pay out on the policies. It’s interesting to note that in the last 20 years, two countries changed their healthcare systems, Taiwan and Switzerland. Neither of these countries are “socialist”, and Switzerland is ranked by the Heritage Foundation as being more economically free then the United States. However when confronted with out-of-control medical costs, neither of these countries adopted our current system after examining all systems in the world. Switzerland instituted a system with private insurance and horror of horrors, an “individual mandate.” Their citizenry is now very satisfied with that system. Finally, Obozo, I would suppose that you will forsake Medicare, if you’re not already enrolled in the system, or if you are enrolled in the system that you will withdraw your enrollment, so that you can purchase insurance in the marketplace. I think it would only be right to given your antigovernment stance. Let us all know how that works out for you.

      • ObozoMustGo says:

        The law will be struck down, hopefully in it’s entirety. You claims that our healtcare system is “the worst” are factually untrue. You probably cite a WHO study from a few years ago that clearly valued “socialized medicine” as a part of what it determines as “quality”. That study, like all “studies” the left does, was cooked from the beginning to try to paint a false picture. Here are some facts for you:

        A recent “Investor’s Business Daily” article provided very interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International Health Organization.

        Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:
        U.S. 65%
        England 46%
        Canada 42%

        Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:
        U.S. 93%
        England 15%
        Canada 43%

        Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:
        U.S. 90%
        England 15%
        Canada 43%

        Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:
        U.S. 77%
        England 40%
        Canada 43%

        Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:
        U.S. 71
        England 14
        Canada 18

        Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in “excellent health”:
        U.S. 12%
        England 2%
        Canada 6%

        And now for the last statistic:

        National Health Insurance?
        U.S. NO
        England YES
        Canada YES

        The fact is that socialized EVERYTHING sucks. It never works. It’s always a one way ticket to rationing, poor quality and service, and HUGE cost overruns that bankrupt the system. You leftist nutjobs love socialized medicine and every other socialized aspect of life because you believe that it’s OK to live off the labor of someone else. Too bad.

        If you leftist nutjobs like it so much, why not move to a different country. Americans dont want your crap socialized medicine. Why do you want to shove it down our throats? Go somewhere else and let us live and die free. I dont want your socialism and neither does any sane American.

        Have a nice day!

        • perplejado says:

          More ad hominem attacks, tsk, tsk, when will you learn, well let’s start with the first argument: Americans don’t want socialized medicine-tell me then why the most popular government program happens to be Medicare? This is a single-payer health insurance system based upon the British Beverage model, that is, that the government covers all or almost all insurance costs. I dare you to try and yank this program out of the aged fingers of all of our senior citizens. As to the statement that “socialized everything sucks”, I think you should stop using our highway system, fire protection, police protection, not to mention subsidies that farmers receive, and tax breaks for corporations. All of these things are socialized costs that are imposed upon all of us, and for the most part work pretty well. I forgot to mention the tax subsidized hospitals, schools, universities, and other institutions which have made this country great. With regard to the cost overruns, at our current rate, our health care system is going to consume more and more of our GDP, making our economy less productive, whereas all other industrialized nations control this cost, thus making them more competitive. As far as trying to shove anything down your throat, my offer is still open for you to either reject your Medicare coverage when it becomes available to you, or to forsake it if you already have it. Obviously I don’t want you shoving anything down my throat any more than you want to have anything shoved down your throat. By the way, the facts for my letter are from the March 26, 2012, addition of Time magazine and the Article “Health Insurance Is for Everyone” by Fareed Zakaria and “The Healing of America” by T.R. Reid. Also, “Investor Business Daily” is an unreliable source for information, and should not be trusted. The statistical evidence used by that source is flawed. A recent survey with regard to physcian satisfaction was recently conducted by NPR and published by the New England Journal of Medicine which nearly opposite numbers on the same question. As to moving to another country with socialized medicince, I’ve already made those plans and will be making the move to such a country when the time comes. I won’t have to worry about losing everything just because I can’t pay my medical bills.

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Fareed Zakaria (an openly committed socialist, and Obozo advisor) writes an opinion piece you trust and one of the most widely read cirulations in America cites studies in a report that is scrutinzed for journalistic accuracy and that’s not trustworthy? You are welcome to your own interpretation of the facts, but not your own facts. And anyone that compares infrastructure to socialized medicine, or socialized transfer payments of any kind from those that earn to those that dont, is a complete idiot. And your argument is too broad respecting which level of government is responsible for what services. The Fed should not be involved in ambulances and police and local schools or hospitals, etc. After all, why take my tax dollars to give them back to me? Why take your tax dollars and give them to me? Why do all of that AND go into massive debt that will destroy all of us? Why?

            And your list of subsidized whatever is EXACTLY THE PROBLEM! YOU LEFTIST NUTJOBS JUST DONT GET IT!!! Where does the money come from in the first place? From productive people that work and earn in the private sector. That’s where! What business does the US Government have subsidizing anything? We should get rid of every last bit of every subsidy and leave people alone to make their own way. Let the government do its job of defense, justice, national infrastructure, and smart but limited regulatory functions.

            By the way, I’d be the first in line to get off the government teet and dependency wheel of SS and Medicaid if allowed. I have 20+ years to go and have no interest in your socialism and NO interest in paying for it. Why dont we do like Chile did and give people a choice, private SS accounts or government accounts? I like that idea. You get what you want, I get what I want. I dont pay for you, you dont pay for me. I keep my money, you give it to the government who will take care of you. Sounds fair, doesnt it?

            Have a nice day!

          • ralphkr says:

            Hey, Obozo, the US has already given the people a choice to pay for a private pension. They are call IRAs, 401ks, etc. and have been around for many, many years.

          • ObozoMustGo says:

            Why cant I opt out of the public system and have my contribution plus the employer match go into a private account? That’s what they did in Chile in 1980 and that has been a HUGE model of success. Private accounts returned about 8% per year and government returned less than 2%. The government system is fiscally sound and the private system of course if fiscally sound because everyone owns their own retirement. I think north of 90% Chileans opt for the private system. They do this because they are smart and freedom of choice for people is a good thing. Contrast that system to ours and you see that SS is an abject failure and Ponzi scheme.

          • ralphkr says:

            Really, Obozo, SS is an abject failure and a Ponzi scheme??? Obviously you have a very different definition of “failure” and “Ponzi scheme” than most people and the legal system has. SS is a stunning success and has a far lower overhead than any insurance company annuity in history. Of course, you probably consider things such as life insurance, annuities, stock dividends, and interest on savings as Ponzi schemes. By the way, we should hire the 90% plus of those in Chile who have gotten 8% returns on their investments to replace all of the American stock brokers since the average return on investments since the end of the Clinton administration has been negative figures, in fact, a vast majority of small investors in private schemes have seen their earnings PLUS their capital greatly depleted (in some cases to zero). Of course, that is to be expected when we have a Republican president. Historically, business gains with a Democratic president and stagnates under a Republican president. I can speak from personal experience since the majority of my income comes from investments: During 8 years of Clinton my income increased by $80,000 followed by a $37,000 decrease during 8 years of G.W.Bush, and shows a very tiny increase this year as it is taking a far longer time to recover from H.G.W.Bush than from G.W.Bush. Kindly note that I only listed income change since if I were to list changes in overall value of my investments losses under both Bush would be much more and the gains under Clinton and Obama much greater.

    • joyscarbo says:

      Bozo..once again, you’re chirping the Fox News, repbulican party line and ignoring the facts that are right in front of you. Your boy, Romney, has no real point of view that he isn’t willing to change at the drop of a dime.

  2. Ed Feraco says:

    It does matter Obozo! Fool!

  3. howa4x says:

    I think the president should flood the airwaves in this birthday celebration and thank Romney as many times as he can for being the pioneer of the individual mandate

  4. I just wish Romney would pick a stance and stick with it. The reason that the Republican party will not win is because they are wasting time complaining about what they think President Obama is doing wrong. Instead they should be focusing on selling us their vision of what they plan to do. Not repeals of what has been done but an actual vision for the future of this country.

    • ObozoMustGo says:

      uhhh… Ingrid…. throwing out the sheetsandwich that is Obozocare is a great vision for America!

    • joyscarbo says:

      There IS NO VISION in the Republican party. As long as they are hell-bent on wanting to villianize Obama with their insane, unfounded, paraoid ideas they’ll get nowhere. Repubs are soooo focused on how much they hate the man that they are virtually unable to come up with any positions that make any sense. They are cutting off their own noses to spite their face!
      Meanwhile, the only reason Mitt is the presumptive candidate is because he so pliable, he may as well be playdough!! And I don’t mean that he’s flexible…he has no ideas of his own. He’s for something one minute and then denies it the next. Who wants this kind of man in the white house??!! He’s for gun control in when Gov of Mass…now he’s pandering to the NRA, talking about how he isn’t for gun control. He says he’s for protecting a woman’s right to choose, now he says he’ll overturn Roe v. Wade. He’s a talking head, “yes man” for whatever group he’s facing. Mitt comes off as disgenuine and inarticulate.
      Repubs are their worst enemy!! They will do themselves in.

  5. Its funny how anyone would forget how he wanted Detroit and the big 3 to fall on there face and this is want we want for president, i guess GOP has nobody better to come up with to run this country , God help us all.I wouldn’t vote for someone like that who likes to even fire people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.