Maybe we can bring up some rapper or 'telepromter' or something to make everyone look in the other direction...and leave poor Dork-Mitten alone.

Mitt is just another recycled failure. This is all the GOP/TP has now. They have no new ideas, the ones they do have have been proved failures and their candidates to date are the same recycled failures looking for a second bite at the apple.

Haha, I got it, Drive-by! Nice one!

It DOES make one think, does it not?

@Pat, Boston and anybody else in Ma.

Have premiums come down yet?

Here's more:

Think Progress:

Romney said in an interview in March of 2010. “I think the President should have been more attuned to what we did in our own state, which is we allowed each state to create a solution to the uninsured in the way that the states thought best, that’s the way the Constitution intended it.”

But Obama, his closest health care advisers, and the plan itself all suggest that Romney got even more than he wished for — a law that closely resembles (but is not identical to) the structure of the so-called Massachusetts experiment. In fact, Romney’s plan contains some policies that are even more liberal (in its standard benefit design and employer responsibility provisions) than those found in the national health care law -

Here's more:

Today's Wall Street Journal per DKos:

It's no accident that RomneyCare's most vociferous defenders now are in the White House and left-wing media and think tanks. They know what happened, even if he doesn't.

For a potential President whose core argument is that he knows how to revive free market economic growth, this amounts to a fatal flaw. Presidents lead by offering a vision for the country rooted in certain principles, not by promising a technocracy that runs on "data." Mr. Romney's highest principle seems to be faith in his own expertise.

More immediately for his Republican candidacy, the debate over ObamaCare and the larger entitlement state may be the central question of the 2012 election. On that question, Mr. Romney is compromised and not credible. If he does not change his message, he might as well try to knock off Joe Biden and get on the Obama ticket.

@Pat, Boston

Anything in Thinkprogress or Daily Kos about whether Healthcare Premiums in Massachusetts have came down yet?

Gee Alan, I dunno - got anything that shows how healthcare availability or choice have deteriorated dramatically in Massachusetts?

Ah Feisty, my favorite troglodyte. You and your minions crack me up. Continuing to attack the right while supporting the Progressive candidate, Obama.

It is so entertaining to watch the liberals on this board attack not just one republican hopeful, but all of them.

I have news for you liberals... Romney will never make it. Gnewt will never make it. Trump will never make it. They do not have the support of the mainstream republicans.

What you do not know liberals, is that a dark horse will emerge. The field is ripe for it and I will expect that candidate to shake the very foundations of your liberalism. There's plenty of time before the election for you to have your pissing contests so I'll sit back and watch you foam at the mouth, copying and pasting your liberal blogs and sources as they spin their way to a definite Obama loss in 2012.

Sorry liberals... Obama doesn't have a chance against the unknown candidate. There's no way for you to battle that candidate so enjoy your boasting right now... it will come to an end. The pendulum is swinging. We've had enough of your Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Obama.

Brianb:

It's pretty hard to fear a candidate who won't even show up.

Maybe when we see his or her face...when he or she makes an announcement...when he or she decides it's the right time spring the BIG surprise...maybe then we'll have to concede to the almighty unknown.

But for now, don't give me a boogeyman. Give me a real name of a real person or sit back down. You can't win an election with an "unknown candidate" (your words).

You guys are stuck with a bunch of LOSERS for candidates. I guess I'd be hoping for a savior too if I were you...

Brianb,

Of course the libbies are attacking any Republican candidate. It is their nature to demagogue the opposition, to shift the view from their weak position to say, the physical features of a candidate, or some other view - move away from the issues. The Progressives have no position other than spending and growing government at the expense of the taxpayer.

Of course it is too early to identify the candidate for the run against the current president. Will a candidate move to the front to challenge this Prez? Of course one will. All we are seeing now are people who believe they have what it takes but find they do not.

The final candidate will indeed challenge the core beliefs of the Progressive-Democrat Party, will have the ability to raise funds, and will touch the core principals Americans are searching for today.

The manner the media and the libbies attacked Trump was funny. Trump isn't in this race, he just wanted to keep his image in front of the public. Would Trump actually reveal his financial record to the public? Hardly, for it could hamper his ability to generate corporate funding for his projects. Like him or not, he does develop more good projects than not.

MSNBC and the Progressives you read here will spin any Obama position to purport a win for Barry, simply because they have an ownership position in his Presidency. And many of the funny cut and paste facts are from web sites owned or controlled by Soros, but accepted as gospel by the libbie fringe.

Big Barry got a bump from the Usama situation, and I applaude him for giving the order to pull the trigger; however, it could have happened on anyone's watch. More power to those individuals who found the rascal, planned the op and kudos to the teams who went on the ground.

Libbies, spin all you want between now and the elections. So much can change in such a short time as you know. The majority of Americans can read, interpret, analyze and determine fact from fiction. Most are already tired of taxes, government spending, big government interfering in their individual lives, waste, more spending and the fact that this government is not providing the leadership they want.

Now we have immigration as an issue at the wrong time. Nothing more than pandering for votes. My Latino friends, also can identify this for what it is. He initially had a platform for the issue, promissed the moon, didn't act on any legislation and now is talking about it without proposing actual plans. They are annoyed at him too.

Unemployment is still high, gasoline is rising, food is increasing at the supermarket, inflation may be around the corner, realestate is still in shambels, healthcare is still in the courts, and the spending continues.

But all we hear is "Blame it on Bush." All presidents inherit problems.....they are ranked on how they work the country out of the inherited issues. And please libbies, lose the racist issue - the ownership of the programs, policies and debt fall on Obama, bless his heart.

The pendulum is swinging, with changes to the Progressive/Democrat Party coming. About time, too.

But keep spinning libbies, you have nothing to sell that the public will buy.

Of course the libbies are attacking any Republican candidate. It is their nature to demagogue the opposition

Be sure to let us know when you get a candidate, will ya'?. Right now, there is no GOP support for ANY of the clowns you have now.

Whats next, exhume Reagan, and put Sean Hannity's hand up his back like a puppet?

Clowns? Can't you converse without a progressive-democratic verbal attack?

Safecracker - there's no spin here - subsidized health care is a universal right and will be coming to a town near you soon. Eventually, the federal mandate will pass. Obama will be our next president and liberal ideology will win the day. We'll also be raising the tax rates quite high in the coming years to increase funding for federal programs that provide services to all Americans. Those are facts that I didn't cut and paste.

I would also like to say that I disagree with you, I don't think a huge percentage of Americans can read at an adult level and they certainly can't analyze or tell fact from fiction (e.g., religion). So I think you're wrong on that score, also.

Ronnie Harper,

Subsidized health care is a universal right? Where in the Constitution is this stated? Or, if not in the Constitution, where in government is this

If the Supreme Court mandates passing, so be it, but I find it difficult to believe it will. Obama MAY continue to be President, but I don't believe it will happen, as well as liberal ideology winning the day. During this next election, the pocketbook will rule, and unless the Obama administration makes dramatic policy changes, the pocketbook will win.

Rather than increase taxes quite high in the coming years to increase funding for federal programs providing services to all, why? Should we not be looking into reducing the size of government to reduce expense, while still providing services?

Are you aware there are 82 programs to improve teacher quality, 56 programs to make people aware of finance issues? The General Accounting Office published this information, but neglected to identify the number of departments and agencies having these programs. Couldn't this be merged into a more efficient agency while reducing the size and expense of the various groups accountable for the programs? I am of the opinion that government can be streamlined, made more efficient, and reduce taxpayer expense.

Wouldn't you want to see what waste can be eliminated from government prior to highly increasing taxes? I believe also, that we need to eliminate from government, the elitists that continue with the ideology, instead find those candidates that have a core belief in change.

Well guy, you may find that a large percentage of Americans can read at an adult level, but where I reside Spanish seems to be the primary language. Not speaking any foreign language other than Hungarian and Polish, I hve no ability to distinguish whether the reading comprehension level is what you state.

As we move into the election cycle, time will tell whether you or I am correct.

What was right about the Massachusetts plan and why is it not right for other states to have it? A piece-meal approach to health care, state by state, won't work. Too many people move from state to state or work in one state and live in another, and doctors, hospitals and the insurance industry will find it onerous to have to have different plans for different places. Health care reform will streamline the process. It doesn't mean a one-size-fits-all policy, but if there are uniform standards, if one can change jobs and states without having to change health care, it will be an economic plus. Gov. Romney would have more credibility if he promised to work with the existing health care reform and adjust it as needed. He can never back away from the issue without fatally damaging his candidacy.

The "piece-meal approach" works today all over our country in the many varied plans Americans have already had through a multitude of employers. Those same plans have stipulations for when their employees get sick while traveling overseas. What is it about involving the government that means we cannot have all of the flexibility and service we have today? Is it because we remove the competition that was driving insurance offering and employment offerings of previous years? Is it because the government doesn't know how to handle the paperwork mess that it would create? People who don't know a business model and the changes that occur frequently to improve it, should not stick their nose in...and government is worst at this because the people changeover in elections too frequently and the new people will break things that work, just to make their mark.

Ira:

You hit is square. Some States would have quality care and others would not. The richest States would have the best plans and more poor, rural states would not. This is exactly what the GOP/TP wants as they continue to divide this country into those that have and those that never will.

In Vermont we are moving to a Single Payor Plan. It has already passed the House and State here and the Governor will be signing it soon.

ira, click on the link to the orignal FT about states options. It is that states can ask for a waiver if they have plan and it is not any less then the health reform law. Vermont is indeed coming up with a plan without gutting the federal health reform law.

MN NICE-2902944...

I knew that under HCR states can opt out if they have a plan. What bothers me is that no one has defined the conditions for opting out. A state says we have a plan...who reviews it, does it need to be better or what they can afford? It's one of those things that I think are so unclear under both HCR and Romney's plan that both states and insurance companies will find loopholes to circumvent the spirit and intent of the law.

IRA:

As it is now, the State plan has to provide the same or better coverage than HCR does. I would review the HCR main points, there is a good article on the Kaiser Health Web site that shows all the provisions of the HCR and the time line for implementation as well.

You have to submit your plan the the Feds for approval. You just cannot put one together and run with it.

US Navy Disabled Veteran - Retired

So the standard is the same or better with federal approval. Thx for the info.

Ira:

You got it. Great posts again today.

Quote me correctly. I did not say:

"You build a record, you own in"

I think you should. Start with the one where Osama gets found and dispatched, will you?

Really bilweeler, you didn't say that!!! WOW

"Of course, he can't win a GOP primary with the Mass Health Care plan on his watch. But that's the way it works. You build a record, you own it."

OK, how did I miss read the above? You saying you didn't write that? haha priceless!!

"Osama gets found and dispatched", care to explain that or better yet, what does that mean?

3wolves:

You quoted me as saying "You build a record, you own in."

I repeat. That's not what I wrote.

No. You cannot use THAT line and say it came from me. Because it didn't. I certainly don't want anyone misquoting me using an obvious error that demonstrates your lack of proficiency in English. You made that error, now YOU own it. So don't try to attribute it to me.

If you're going to quote anyone, please use the "copy/paste" function. It will prevent you from introducing your own errors into something written by someone else. You might want to proof read your posts before clicking on "post."

Are you having a good laugh? I hope so. It's at your expense, whether you realize it or not.

""Osama gets found and dispatched", care to explain that or better yet, what does that mean?"

Yes- the comment was made that 'you build a record, you own it'. I hear this a lot about Obama's record. SO- Let's start with Obama's record that includes finding and dispatching Osama Bin Laden. He owns that record, too, right? Now you get it?

Wolfman needs to close the laptop, and get back on the work computer as the 'Spanky' we all know and love...

DBO:

Spanky or 3 Wolves....we're gonna own HIM by the end of the day.

Wow UAW, that is great you could withstand $50 - $100K cost for an illness. You are in about a 2 - 4% of American category. Most of us could not do that. I work three jobs, am fighting breast cancer (yes, without insurance) and taking care of a mom with Alzheimer's. It is tough as I worry about my mom and what will happen to her after I'm gone. I will not survive as I don't have the money for the full treatment necessary, but I accept that. I think that most of us middle class, lower middle class & poor realize the writing is on the wall. We will die when faced with devastating illnesses. Perhaps that is what Sarah Palin had talked about when she referred to death panels. Feel blessed that you don't have to walk in another's shoes.

Linda, I am truly sorry to hear about your illness and your situation with no health insurance. But I think one of the reasons that it costs so much to treat illnesses is because soooooo many people do have government paid healthcare insurance w/o worrying about healthcare costs. This system has lead to ever increasing costs because nobody questions a bill. Dr's and Hospitals have free reign to charge what ever they want why? Because the patient approving the service isnt the same as the person paying the bill.... As far as a deductible it doesnt have to be $50-100k. It could be $5k or $1k or $-0-K the point is put people in charge of thier own risks and costs would balance out accordingly.....

Linda-I assume you're talking about all of Congress right?

3WolvesandaMoon,

Yep, that is all of Congress who gets those great benefits. Weird that they talk about "sacrifice" and yet I have not heard one peep that they'd change any of their great salaries or benefits. Therefore, I believe NOTHING that a Republican politician has to say EVER because they are in it for themselves only and the rest of us be damned.

JFK:

Fact check? You're kidding, right? Since when is the GOP interested in facts?

Oh. Yeah. You're right. The GOP/TP folks are interested in facts about Obama:

• Birth certificate?
• He's a Kenyan?
• He's a Muslim?
• He's a Socialist? Communist? Marxist?
• He's the Anti-Christ?

Yup...they're really interested in the facts, aren't they? Face it. "Facts" are very troublesome to the GOP/TP types. Facts have a well known and obvious liberal bias. RIGHT?

biwheeler- you forgot "He's a tall guy" and "He's got big ears" and my favorite "even though, unlike his predecessor, he can juggle two or more tasks at the same time adn therefore we KNOW he personally, singlehandedly, sat at a desk and made out the invite list to all the poets the other day"

DBO:

You're right! I should have been more thorough....LOLOL!

Seriously, though, it's really hard to believe anyone could think there hasn't been sufficient "fact" checking done on the President. Even more difficult to believe is that the opposition is interested in "facts." They are in 24/7 denial of facts that don't fit their agendas.

JFK...if you're reading this, thanks for the laugh!

Lets see, he said the tax burden on the wealthy is the lowest it has been in 50 years, it was actually lower in 86. He also said we doubled our exports which is a lie. Again no fact check. I believe he also said that if there was a government shutdown people wouldn't get their social secuirty checks. I don't even want to get into the stuff he lied about on Paul Ryans plan.

But you go ahead and make fun of his ears, his birth certificate, etc.

JFK:

Fact check:

Tax burdens on the wealthy:

Chart

Debating the tax burden (NY Times)

JPMorgan CEO: Wealthy should carry tax burden

No SS checks if government shuts down

I didn't include your claim that exports have doubled. I'm sure you've already seen the Politifact website evaluation of that statement.

Don't claim there's been no fact checking. There has. You just don't like the results.