• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

It seems to work here

RoadKing

Silver Member
Site Supporter
I rarely get involved in a serious discussion here but I have something I want to say. Mitt was Governor here and he did a decent job considering all the Democrats running everything else. A Republican Governor in Massachusetts is truly impotent unless he's willing to cut deals.

The Democrats and some Republicans are crucifying him on "Romneycare". I think it works here for several reasons. Most of this state is very crowded, population per square mile. Within 40 miles of where I sit there has to be 5000 doctors, 40 large hospitals, 500 MRI/ CAT Scan machines. All these entities have employees aides, nurses, doctors, therapists, technicians etc. earning pay and supporting families. Mandatory health insurance guarantees everybody can if he or she chooses to have access to treatment.

I don't think this can work in less populated areas with a more normal number of healthcare facilities per capita. I strongly believe mandatory healthcare, like many other programs, should be chosen state by state.

Some things that work in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut would bankrupt states like Wyoming, Maine and Alabama. My only point is that mandatory health care has not hurt us here, in fact it has helped our economy.

Mitt Romney voting & backing this bill was not wrong in this state.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
I rarely get involved in a serious discussion here but I have something I want to say. Mitt was Governor here and he did a decent job considering all the Democrats running everything else. A Republican Governor in Massachusetts is truly impotent unless he's willing to cut deals.

The Democrats and some Republicans are crucifying him on "Romneycare". I think it works here for several reasons. Most of this state is very crowded, population per square mile. Within 40 miles of where I sit there has to be 5000 doctors, 40 large hospitals, 500 MRI/ CAT Scan machines. All these entities have employees aides, nurses, doctors, therapists, technicians etc. earning pay and supporting families. Mandatory health insurance guarantees everybody can if he or she chooses to have access to treatment.

I don't think this can work in less populated areas with a more normal number of healthcare facilities per capita. I strongly believe mandatory healthcare, like many other programs, should be chosen state by state.

Some things that work in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut would bankrupt states like Wyoming, Maine and Alabama. My only point is that mandatory health care has not hurt us here, in fact it has helped our economy.

Mitt Romney voting & backing this bill was not wrong in this state.

Good points. These types of decisions are best left up the the states to decide. Vermont is going to single payer. That is Vermont's choice. If it works for us fine. Just like what Massachusetts has works for them. Fine.

We do not need the Federal government sticking it's nose into our business dictating to us the way we need to live our lives. We should be making these types of decisions on a state level.

Things started down hill in this country 150 years ago when we started referring to ourselves The United States instead of WE United States.
 

jimbo

Bronze Member
GOLD Site Supporter
I've got two hot button issues in this election. UHC and illegal border invaders. UHC needs to go. Not be reworked, just go away. A Mitt presidency means we are forever stuck with UHC, which we cannot afford. His stand on immigration is better, but his flip flopping is so bad I don't trust him. Once again, illegals need to go. No path to citizenship, no extenuating circumstances. Just a steady stream headed south.
 

Doc

Bottoms Up
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
I rarely get involved in a serious discussion here but I have something I want to say. Mitt was Governor here and he did a decent job considering all the Democrats running everything else. A Republican Governor in Massachusetts is truly impotent unless he's willing to cut deals.

The Democrats and some Republicans are crucifying him on "Romneycare". I think it works here for several reasons. Most of this state is very crowded, population per square mile. Within 40 miles of where I sit there has to be 5000 doctors, 40 large hospitals, 500 MRI/ CAT Scan machines. All these entities have employees aides, nurses, doctors, therapists, technicians etc. earning pay and supporting families. Mandatory health insurance guarantees everybody can if he or she chooses to have access to treatment.

I don't think this can work in less populated areas with a more normal number of healthcare facilities per capita. I strongly believe mandatory healthcare, like many other programs, should be chosen state by state.

Some things that work in Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut would bankrupt states like Wyoming, Maine and Alabama. My only point is that mandatory health care has not hurt us here, in fact it has helped our economy.

Mitt Romney voting & backing this bill was not wrong in this state.
Good post RK. I agree that it should be left up to each state. Each has it's own peculiarities and issues to overcome.
 

tiredretired

The Old Salt
SUPER Site Supporter
I've got two hot button issues in this election. UHC and illegal border invaders. UHC needs to go. Not be reworked, just go away. A Mitt presidency means we are forever stuck with UHC, which we cannot afford. His stand on immigration is better, but his flip flopping is so bad I don't trust him. Once again, illegals need to go. No path to citizenship, no extenuating circumstances. Just a steady stream headed south.

I wonder when and if the Barry and Holder's lawsuit against Arizona will make it to SCOTUS. Haven't heard much about that. Could be another embarrassing moment for those two bone heads. :whistling:
 

loboloco

Well-known member
To have UHC or not should be a state decision. While it has worked well in Mass, it has been a disaster in Tenn. San Francisco tried for a UHC system there and it quickly turned into a nightmare and is getting even worse.
Each state should determine what best suits its own needs instead of having a federal mandate shoved down their throats. that is kind of the point of 'states rights' and 'state sovereignty'.
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
The only way you can have true universal health care in the US national system is medicare for all, paid for in your payroll tax or taxable income. The problem with states is they tend not to run things well such as schools etc. Some states can't even run a police department much less a local government.
 

squerly

Supported Ben Carson
GOLD Site Supporter
This whole concept of Universal (anything) pisses me off. People need to pay their own friggen bills and stop asking someone else to take responsibility for their needs. I've got kids of my own to pay for, don't need to be paying for other peoples stuff too.
 

Big Dog

Large Member
Staff member
GOLD Site Supporter
The problem with states is they tend not to run things well such as schools etc. Some states can't even run a police department much less a local government.

Are you implying the feds run things better ............. REALLY??? You have to be joking!

Education .................. NOT
Law enforcement ....... NOT
 

joec

New member
GOLD Site Supporter
Are you implying the feds run things better ............. REALLY??? You have to be joking!

Education .................. NOT
Law enforcement ....... NOT

What I'm implying is our government be it local, state or federal has been pretty useless at running anything for a few decades now. Medicare and the VA systems do work by the way.
 
Top