patrick.net

Hey cap'n, you should work for Obamacare. That post was ri-goddam-diculous!

http://www.youtube.com/embed/cQxmc498f3E

bob2356 says

I don't make enough that my own taxes have gone up yet to answer your utterly ridiculous and meaningless question.

That sentence is nonsensical. The syntax cannot be parsed. Does it mean your taxes have not gone up? Because that is exactly what I expected.

bob2356 says

Been taking debating lessons from Glenn Beck I see

Yes, you're so much better at debating:

bob2356 says

That's silly... That's silly.... That's silly.

Yep, debating skills of a 4 year old.

Call it Crazy says

Revenue Neutral???? Really think so????

I didn't say I thought so. I said it was designed to be. Try reading next time. Unlike others here, I do not assume my conclusions; I wait until data is available.

My point was that one cannot simply ASSUME that Obamacare will increase the federal deficit. If one is making that claim, one needs to provide evidence of such.

WHAT THE??? Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a 'moonbat's moonbat', is now suggesting (via tweet) that we delay Obamacare's Individual Mandate till March 31st, 2014?

Wait, WHAT???!!!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/10/23/Report-All-Senate-Democrats-up-for-re-election-in-2014-will-back-delaying-Obamacare-s-enrollment-deadline

- Wasn't too long ago (2-3 weeks?) that Obama refused to negotiate on this?

- So, all you liberal flunkies calling Ted Cruz as 'extremist', blabla, was right after all?

- I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Obamacare is/was an ill-conceived shit-storm abortion, flawed beyond comprehension, rolled out 'still-born style', yet the sheeples shouted down those that had the hard numbers, ie, facts.

- Now Jeanne Shaheen's asking for a delay? Hmmmm? Why's that? Because the '14 elections are coming up, and those like her are running away from Obamacare faster than a rat on a sinking ship.

- The '14 elections will be about one thing, and only one thing: A referendum on Obamacare. When folks continue to get their company-provided insurance policies yanked between now and Nov '14, they will remember the promises that Obama did NOT keep (you get to keep your doctor, your coverage will be the same, your healthcare bill will go down), and will vote accordingly.....

AverageBear says

Wasn't too long ago (2-3 weeks?) that Obama refused to negotiate on this?

No--you've got it all wrong. Obama said he would negotiate as soon as the government was open and the debt limit raised.

He said he would not negotiate ANYTHING under the threat of the debt limit. Which is 100% the correct decision.

tatupu70 says

AverageBear says

Wasn't too long ago (2-3 weeks?) that Obama refused to negotiate on this?

No--you've got it all wrong. Obama said he would negotiate as soon as the government was open and the debt limit raised.

He said he would not negotiate ANYTHING under the threat of the debt limit. Which is 100% the correct decision.

So he said he would negotiate after there was nothing left to negotiate about? In practical terms, this means he would "not negotiate ANYTHING..." So AverageBear has it all wrong only in the most meaningless of pedantic interpretation.

One of the House proposals was a delay in the individual mandate, wasn't it? If the Democrats now support that, it becomes clear that the shutdown was indeed an irresponsible decision made on political caculus (how much can we make the Republicans take the blame for a shutdown...).

Paralithodes says

he said he would negotiate after there was nothing to negotiate about.

That's the point. There was nothing to negotiate about in the first place.

The President should not negotiate to get Congress to do its job. What's next? He has to give something up to ensure that Cantor comes to work?

Paralithodes says

One of the House proposals was a delay in the individual mandate, wasn't it?
If the Democrats now support that, it becomes clear that the shutdown was indeed
an irresponsible decision made on political caculus (how much can we make the
Republicans take the blame for a shutdown...).

Again--the President can't set the precedent that he will negotiate to get Congress to do its job. Congress is not making a concession by doing what they were elected to do.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

One of the House proposals was a delay in the individual mandate, wasn't it?

If the Democrats now support that, it becomes clear that the shutdown was indeed

an irresponsible decision made on political caculus (how much can we make the

Republicans take the blame for a shutdown...).

Again--the President can't set the precedent that he will negotiate to get Congress to do its job. Congress is not making a concession by doing what they were elected to do.

They were elected to rubber stamp the President's wishes? As far as Congress "doing it's job," what part of that was not Congress "doing it's job?" What exactly is their "job" in your opinion? Some - crazy right wingers no doubt - would argue that rubber-stamping a CR for year after year for the intention of keeping a lot of the one-time stimulus in effect is an example of Congress NOT doing it's job. They might argue that rubber stamping anything is NOT Congress's job. Is formulation of an actual budget part of Congress's job? Yes or no? If yes, when is the last time a budget (not just a CR) was actually passed?

Also, this idea of the President not setting a "precedent" is nothing but current-day political narrative/talking point that ignores the "precedent" set by almost all previous budget fights, government shutdowns, etc. The President himself was part of this un-precedent when he voted AGAINST debt limit increases.

President Obama has stated that "we are not a banana republic." Maybe this was a complaint.

Paralithodes says

They were elected to rubber stamp the President's wishes? As far as Congress
"doing it's job," what part of that was not Congress "doing it's job?"

Their job is to pass a budget or a CR for the President to sign. Did I miss when that happened and he vetoed it?

But, even more importantly, their job is the pay the bills that come due because of the laws they passed. It's pretty simple, really.

Paralithodes says

Some - crazy right wingers no doubt - would argue that rubber-stamping a CR for
year after year for the intention of keeping a lot of the one-time stimulus in
effect is an example of Congress NOT doing it's job. Is formulation of an actual
budget part of Congress's job? Yes or no? If yes, when is the last time a budget
(not just a CR) was actually passed?

OK--vote in some legislators that will do their job and pass a budget then. Just don't imply that the President should have to negotiate to try to convince them to do their job.

Paralithodes says

Also, this idea of the President not setting a "precedent" is nothing but
current-day political narrative/talking point that ignores the "precedent" set
by almost all previous budget fights, government shutdowns, etc. The President
himself was part of this un-precedent when he voted AGAINST debt limit
increases.

No he wasn't. For you to imply otherwise is simply naive. He was making a statement with his vote, knowing that the bill would pass. Note that the government didn't shut down...

The precedent wasn't about the budget--it was about the debt ceiling. But either way, he was correct. You can negotiate on the budget once the government is open. Republicans didn't want to do that, so they got slapped around a bit before they came to their senses.

tatupu70 says

Paralithodes says

They were elected to rubber stamp the President's wishes? As far as Congress

"doing it's job," what part of that was not Congress "doing it's job?"

Their job is to pass a budget or a CR for the President to sign. Did I miss when that happened and he vetoed it?

But, even more importantly, their job is the pay the bills that come due because of the laws they passed. It's pretty simple, really.

We cross-posted on my edit.

Exactly, their job is to pass a budget. A CR is not equivalent to a budget. Again, when is the last time a budget was passed?

Every cycle has budget cycle has budget fights and negotiations. The only thing unprecedented now is some type of perception that this is NOT normal.

As far as paying the bills that come due - you must be referring to the fake "default" issue of which there was never any risk of, other than a political decision on the part of the President. Because unlike what you write above, it is the Executive branch's job to "pay the bills that come due... ("i.e., interest payments on the debt).

Without a CR or a budget, the government could not make NEW obligations without congressional appropriations. As most discretionary spending is year-to-year, and those that are multi-year are often appropriated in a previous year, an appropiation not made reflects a bill that will not come due.

Therefore, Congress is under no obligation whatsoever to rubber stamp a CR from one period to another.

Meanwhile, the House passed bills to fund certain parts of government (i.e., bills that come due as you call it) but not others, but the Senate took an all-or-nothing approach. Is this not a fact?

tatupu70 says

No he wasn't. For you to imply otherwise is simply naive. He was making a statement with his vote, knowing that the bill would pass. Note that the government didn't shut down...

The precedent wasn't about the budget--it was about the debt ceiling. But either way, he was correct. You can negotiate on the budget once the government is open. Republicans didn't want to do that, so they got slapped around a bit before they came to their senses.

Right - our post-partisan President made a very strong political statement along with a vote against the debt ceiling - things we can now conclude he didn't really believe - for purely political motives... He thought all along that the debt ceiling should be increased in 1996.... Is that about right?

Your claims regarding precedent with debt ceiling increases is current-day political narrative. That's all it is. There was nothing unprecedented going on here. As as far as the shutdown - Democrats were perfectly fine with a shutdown because of exactly what you say - the Republicans got spanked for it. This was of course the expectation regardless of who was at fault (i.e., including shared fault). If the Democrats now support a delay in the individual mandate, then any thoughts that the shutdown was purely due to one side's actions is due to one's own one-sided political bias.

tatupu70 says

OK--vote in some legislators that will do their job and pass a budget then. Just don't imply that the President should have to negotiate to try to convince them to do their job.

The president ALWAYS has to negotiate with Congress on spending issues. It is a set part of the actual budget process, which starts with the President's Budget Submission and continues through the passage of a budget.

As any President signifies his intentions with threats of vetoing budget proposals for one reason or another, he affects budget negotiations. Every President is part and parcel to the budget process. To imply otherwise is, as you say it, "naive."

Congress's job is NOT to give the President exactly what he asks for. Also, if you believe Congress must fund something because "it is the law of the land," then what is your excuse for the President picking and choosing which parts of a law to implement or enforce, despite it being "the law of the land?"

Paralithodes says

Your claims regarding precedent with debt ceiling increases is current-day
political narrative. That's all it is. There was nothing unprecedented going on
here. As as far as the shutdown - Democrats were perfectly fine with a shutdown
because of exactly what you say - the Republicans got spanked for it. This was
of course the expectation regardless of who was at fault (i.e., including shared
fault). If the Democrats now support a delay in the individual mandate, then any
thoughts that the shutdown was purely due to one side's actions is due to one's
own one-sided political bias.

What was the previous political narrative? It wasn't unprecendented for one party to ask that a standing law be negotiated away in return for allowing the governement to pay its bills? Please share when that happened in the past.

The President didn't negotiate because it was the wrong thing to do. And the public agreed with him. You've got the cause and effect backwards.

Paralithodes says

The president ALWAYS has to negotiate with Congress on spending issues. It is
a set part of the actual budget process, which starts with the President's
Budget Submission and continues through the passage of a budget.

Of course. And that happened last year as the Dems basically gave the Reps exactly the budget number they wanted before Mr. Cruz started his nonsense.

Paralithodes says

As any President signifies his intentions with threats of vetoing budget proposals
for one reason or another, he affects budget negotiations. Every President is
part and parcel to the budget process. To imply otherwise is, as you say it,
"naive."

Of course. And the President signaled his acceptance of the Reps number.

Paralithodes says

Congress's job is NOT to give the President exactly what he asks for.

And they didn't last year. The number was much lower than what the President and Dems wanted.

Paralithodes says

Also, if you believe Congress must fund something because "it is the law of the
land," then what is your excuse for the President picking and choosing which
parts of a law to implement or enforce, despite it being "the law of the land?"

I think you'll have to be more specific before I can comment on my opinion.

According to the advance statements, the system had been tested as required but still buckled under an unanticipated flood of visitors when it opened.

Cheryl Campbell, senior vice president at CGI Federal, will tell the panel that testing of the site met industry standards and "passed eight required technical reviews prior to going live on October 1," according to her prepared testimony.

Sebelius on the spot in Obamacare website fiasco

"Unfortunately, in systems this complex with so many concurrent users, it is not unusual to discover problems that need to be addressed once the software goes into a live production environment," Campbell's advance testimony says.

"This is true regardless of the level of formal end-to-end performance testing -- no amount of testing within reasonable time limits can adequately replicate a live environment of this nature," she added.

Oh Oh OH! Yeah so now the that the shit hits the fan, "NOW!" you realize what a do nothing fuck in the ass, the Microsoft Unit Test projects are.

What a bunch of bi polar morons, the IT industry has become, with their pretencious noses shoved up the Gang of fours Ass, and when shit goes wrong, then they say...

"Well it can't be the software's fault, we followed design pattern principals that everyone else is using..."

Has it ever dawned on anyone, that those patterns and principals are SHIT!

I mean if you're a software developer, who's job it is to automate a business process. And you're still around after 5 years, working on the 5th iteration of their software. Then those fucking patterns aren't working and they are for shit.

Funny how "Legacy" systems survive every ill-fated project attempt to replace those legacy systems, end up being replaced them selves several times, and the legacy systems are still an integral part of the business process.

I'm starting to get the impression that Legacy means, "Back when they did shit right."

tatupu70 says

No--you've got it all wrong. Obama said he would negotiate as soon as the government was open and the debt limit raised.

He said he would not negotiate ANYTHING under the threat of the debt limit. Which is 100% the correct decision.

My understanding is that the House would pass a bill IF the individual mandate was pushed back a year. THEN the debt limit would be raised... Obama refused to negotiate this, the GOP lost the fight, the debt ceiling was raised, the GOP ate crow, and the Obamacare Abortion show was launched, crashed and burned..... and NOW we have Shaheen and other Dems worried about losing their jobs because they are supporting this abortion... That's what I read.

AverageBear says

My understanding is that the House would pass a bill IF the individual mandate
was pushed back a year. THEN the debt limit would be raised... Obama refused to
negotiate this, the GOP lost the fight, the debt ceiling was raised, the GOP ate
crow, and the Obamacare Abortion show was launched, crashed and burned

Other than your colorful description, I think you've got it about right.

Paralithodes says

One of the House proposals was a delay in the individual mandate, wasn't it? If the Democrats now support that, it becomes clear that the shutdown was indeed an irresponsible decision made on political caculus (how much can we make the Republicans take the blame for a shutdown...).

Para,

Are you going to quibble over the semantics, or ignore the elephant in the room? That elephant being how many voters needing to find health insurance between now and Nov '14 are going to grab their ankles on Obama's broken promises?

Are you going to ignore how ALL the democrats wouldn't negotiate on ANYTHING Obamacare-related, and now that Obama's signature project is DOA, they are now suggesting delaying it; the same suggestion that the GOP has been asking for all along? (regardless of the details of the shutdown).

Because I'm loving this show. I'm loving how all the Dems that supported Obamacare that are up for re-election in '14, are now shitting in their pants...

Paralithodes says

So AverageBear has it all wrong only in the most meaningless of pedantic interpretation.

By 'meaningless', do you mean how Obamacare didn't work out of the gate (and probably won't for God-knows how long)? Or by meaningless, how Obamacare is going to convince young, healthy people to get reamed when they apply online? By this I mean submitting ALL personal info, BEFORE they get to choose how they get reamed. (just like Pelosi, you have to vote for it BEFORE you see it....)

Or 'meaningless' in the promises that Obama made when he dreamed up this wealth redistribution scam called Obamacare?

I think I got this nailed as far as my interpretation goes......

AverageBear says

Are you going to ignore how ALL the democrats wouldn't negotiate on ANYTHING Obamacare-related, and now that Obama's signature project is DOA, they are now suggesting delaying it; the same suggestion that the GOP has been asking for all along? (regardless of the details of the shutdown).

No. I should have made my comment in parentheses more clear. We are in agreement. As you observe, the Dems wouldn't negotiate on anything at all, even a delay. That they will now is evidence that the Dems were fully ready for a shutdown, because regardless of any facts, regardless of any pain or effect on anyone else, by and large the Republicans would get the blame, and the Dems would benefit politically. It was a politically calculated decision, just as talk of default was, just as an actual default would have been.

AverageBear says

By 'meaningless', do you mean

By meaningless, I mean that Tat says that you have it all wrong and I respond that you have it all wrong only in the most meaningless of interpretations. His interpretation is that congressional budget negotiations should happen after the decisions are already made: Like negotiating the price of a house after you have already been to closing. For any real-world, meaningful interpretation of the actual budget process, or any negotiations, you had it exactly right.

AverageBear says

I think I got this nailed as far as my interpretation goes......

I agree.

tatupu70 says

I think you'll have to be more specific before I can comment on my opinion.

Did the President not issue a one year waiver/exemption for business compliance with this law? If he did, under what authority did he do so?

Paralithodes says

By meaningless, I mean that Tat says that you have it all wrong and I respond
that you have it all wrong only in the most meaningless of interpretations. His
interpretation is that congressional budget negotiations should happen after the
decisions are already made: Like negotiating the price of a house after you have
already been to closing. For any real-world, meaningful interpretation of the
actual budget process, or any negotiations, you had it exactly right.

lol--That's how you read my position? You're 100% incorrect. My interpretation is that the President shouldn't be negotiating whether Congress does its job. Like I posted earlier, the President shouldn't have to give concessions to force Boehner to come to work.

The President did not veto any budgets. The President did not veto any CRs. In fact the Dems AGREED to the budget number the Reps asked for in a CR. Unfortunately the Reps wouldn't take yes for an answer. The shutdown was 100% driven by a small faction of tea party types that wanted to put on a show.

What difference does it make as long as one person got affordable health care?

smaulgld says

What difference does it make as long as one person got affordable health care?

Big difference! If it cost 100 million to get them that, I'd say we squandered the money and it was not worht it.

FortWayne says

smaulgld says

What difference does it make as long as one person got affordable health care?

Big difference! If it cost 100 million to get them that, I'd say we squandered the money and it was not worht it.

Was kidding!

Call it Crazy says

I provided evidence on how existing Gov't run healthcare has worked out...

Oh, I see - you think that making a claim and providing evidence of something ELSE counts as backing up your claim. Um, wrong.

If you are claiming that ACA has increased the deficit of the federal government, please provide the evidence of THAT specific claim. If it's true, it should be child's play to demonstrate it, correct?

If you don't have evidence, kindly shut the fuck up.

Call it Crazy says

Think this time will be different???

I made no claim. I simply said that you are assuming your conclusion. You claim that ACA will raise the federal deficit, yet you don't have any evidence to support your position. This is the second time I have repeated this. Will I have to repeat it a third time?

Call it Crazy says

So all we have to go on is history and how PAST programs the Gov't has implemented have worked out.....

Got ANY evidence, that ANY Gov't implemented program cost LESS than it was originally projected to be???

My chart above shows Medicare and Medicaid, which only serves a subset of the population.....Do you even think Obamacare will be close to the original CBO scoring??

Want to make a bet on how much Obamacare breaks the bank???

It seems obvious what your position is here. You do not believe that ANYTHING the government is involved in can be successful. Obviously there is no point in arguing with you, as the only thing that would satisfy you would be to return to the irreparably broken free market insurance system with its double-digit yearly premium increases and record profits for the insurance industry. I don't think that's a valid solution to the problem.

Call it Crazy says

Maybe not even one now.....

Data center glitch is latest problem in 'Obamacare' rollout

Funny how you claim the government can't do anything, but then you hold them to a higher standard than the private sector. If I had a dime for every time I hit a website glitch trying to sign up for something or buy a product from a private company, I'd be wealthy. I guess everyone has forgotten how trying to sign up for health insurance from a private company was a nightmare of epic proportions, that eclipsed any of these government glitches. I had to fill out a 10 page form of personal information in the most excruciating detail, then was cross-examined on the info several times by the insurance company, then waited at least a month to find out if they were even going to offer me insurance AT ALL. Yet republicans expect ACA, in the first month of its rollout, to be completely flawless and simple, in a way that no private company has EVER accomplished. I guess republicans are really good at that "selective memory" thing.

Homeboy, you still around defending Obama and Obamacare? You do realize now, that Obama flat-out LIED to the American people.

Even MSM flunky NBC seems like their story is (finally) confirming this. No, it's not Rush, nor Fox, nor Hannity.

Obama KNEW millions would lose their doctors, their health plan, and KNEW they'd have to pay more. Fuckin' liar....

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/28/21213547-obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance?lite

....."Four sources deeply involved in the Affordable Care Act tell NBC NEWS that 50 to 75 percent of the 14 million consumers who buy their insurance individually can expect to receive a “cancellation” letter or the equivalent over the next year because their existing policies don’t meet the standards mandated by the new health care law. One expert predicts that number could reach as high as 80 percent. And all say that many of those forced to buy pricier new policies will experience “sticker shock.” ....

...."Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”
That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.
Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”
“This says that when they made the promise, they knew half the people in this market outright couldn’t keep what they had and then they wrote the rules so that others couldn’t make it either,” said Robert Laszewski, of Health Policy and Strategy Associates, a consultant who works for health industry firms. Laszewski estimates that 80 percent of those in the individual market will not be able to keep their current policies and will have to buy insurance that meets requirements of the new law, which generally requires a richer package of benefits than most policies today."........

Call it Crazy says

You just keep believing that Obamacare will be different THIS time when the gov't attempts to provide healthcare to the masses...

The government isn't providing healthcare. Healthcare is being provided by the same doctors and hospitals that have always provided it. You don't even know what the fuck you are talking about.

AverageBear says

Homeboy, you still around defending Obama and Obamacare? You do realize now, that Obama flat-out LIED to the American people.

God, how long are you Rushbots going to keep harping on that one note? ObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLiedObamaLied. Yeah, we fucking get it. He exaggerated, and admitted it was an exaggeration a long time ago. If you have a catastrophic plan that doesn't cover anything, it won't be allowed anymore, so no, you can't keep your shitty healthcare plan that would have bankrupted you if you got sick. Boo fucking hoo. I mean, didn't you catch a clue when they said "There will be minimum standards for insurance policies"? That has been well known for 2 or 3 years now. What did you think "minimum standards" meant? Quit acting like this is some shocker that's knocking the wind out of you. You trying for an academy award or something? What else ya got? Or is that about it?

Why are you guys so hell bent on keeping shitty health insurance policies that don't cover anything?

Homeboy says

Why are you guys so hell bent on keeping shitty health insurance policies that don't cover anything?

NO you need to ask YOUR self that question.

Liberals mantra is "It's better than nothing." for every shitty thing they do or attempt to accomplish.

This is one of those times in a rare occasion where "Nothing is better than the something we've been given."

CaptainShuddup says

NO you need to ask YOUR self that question.

Liberals mantra is "It's better than nothing." for every shitty thing they do or attempt to accomplish.

This is one of those times in a rare occasion where "Nothing is better than the something we've been given."

Sorry, but this is complete nonsense. You guys are complaining because ACA has minimum standards for insurance which is resulting in current plans that DON'T MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS to be discontinued.

So again, why are you hell bent on keeping your shitty insurance? Try to answer without just saying you hate liberals. We are well aware of the fact that you hate liberals.

ThreeBays says

Oh no, this was tried and tested. Thank your Romney-care in MA. Thank you Repubes for modeling the way forward for the ACA.

Hum... you might as well called it Kennedy-Care for MA... it was all about
compromise..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Reform_coalitions

And there are sharp differences... for one...

If ObamaCare Is So Bad, How Does RomneyCare Survive?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/20/romney-care-massachusetts-healthcare-reform/

Employers are not up in arms over universal, affordable healthcare coverage either, says Widmer. A two year old study from Urban Institute revealed that concerns over employers dropping coverage or scaling back benefits because of health reform have not been realized. That’s a claim many Washington Republicans have made about ObamCare, saying it would cause U.S. small businesses to hold back on hiring because of mandated insurance laws. In Massachusetts, companies were never mandated to provide health insurance.

“We fought hard against that. Romney was in our corner. The House was not. If the House got their way, an increase in the payroll tax would have definitely been punitive,” says Widmer. “I have not seen any evidence at all that healthcare reform has hurt state businesses.”

The Senate went to work in 2005 to devise a plan to cover at least some uninsured residents over a three year period, but Romney actually said that it was wiser to just cover everyone. The House came up with their own proposal but it was shot down by the Senate and Romney, who was against tax increases and mandates for businesses. Both houses of government were firmly controlled by Democrats.

Although Romney was against mandates for business to supply healthcare coverage to employees, he was okay with mandating residents to get health insurance. He was coming from a business background, afterall, and the more people paying into the system, even if it was just a couple hundred a month, the more money the system would have available to cover everyone. Where Romney did not budge was on tax increases, called a “fair share assessment” by the Senate, that was to be levied on businesses with at least 10 employees. They had to pay around $295 per employee per year under the law. Romney vetoed it.

ThreeBays says

We will remember when you are up for election again, and your candidate does a full 180 like promising to undo all sequestrations set up by the eevil socialists

LOL.. your in San Mateo...there are no GOP there.. pointless to remember anything.