I don't understand why Republicans are against "Obamacare" and support Romeny? Romeny gave us "Romenycare" in MA. And yet he says he is against "Obamacare"? Sooooo it's ok for MA to have Romenycare but it's not good for the rest of the nation? He gave this to us and then left and has since changed his mind? Makes no sense...

In MA, you HAVE to have health insurance. If you can't get it through your employer than you must purchase it through the state. Every month that you don't have insurance you are penalized on your Personal Tax Exemption. Insurance costs vary on your situation some plans are 250.00 a month, some are upwards of 750.00. Either way your required to have insurance..

I'd also like to add that one of the reasons for this MA universal health care was to eliminate people using our emergency rooms as their primary care. Before Romenycare, you'd wait in an emergency room on average 4 hours, after Romenycare you still wait in an emergency room for 4 hours... Emergency rooms are so bad, people actually call an ambulance to try to get around the wait.. They triage people coming in on ambulances now and send then to the waiting room to be seen. Guess the hospitals got wise the that gig..

I don't understand why Republicans are against "Obamacare" and support Romeny?

In case you didn't notice he failed to get the presidential nomination, in part because of his health plan in MA. Even stronger is the states rights argument though. MA can do what MA sees fit but AK might see a different solution. When the federal government controls it we're all subjected to it whether it works or not. This is the reason why powers not explicitly granted to the federal government belong to the states and the PEOPLE. Just because you support something on a state/ local level doesn't mean you're a hypocrite if you choose NOT to support it on a national level.

If you really want to see corruption and corporate greed, centralize power in Washington. There are much fewer people to bribe.

@Jeisun: "Romeny gave us "Romenycare" in MA."

That is an excellent reason to vote against Romney for election to any public office.

I say that if the Republicans really believed in States' Rights and actually tried to be a part of the process, we might have gotten something workable. Like using the power of the Federal Government to incentivize and coordinate a 50 state approach. Open things up across state lines, while letting the best ideas compete for greater implementation.

Sadly, what Mike above has not realized, is that state politicians are greater in number but cheaper overall (in Texas and Illinois you can get deals on State Senators by the dozen).

I also like the idea of selling insurance across state lines. However, I will not vote for it unless we can stop it from becoming like the credit card industry. I do not want to see states bidding for company HQ by promising virtually NO oversight and then pushing their lack of rules onto me in my state.

It's evidently the Republican Way.

The thing is, all the bleeding heart liberals in Mass who wanted this health care law for everyone got it. Every other common sense person in that state moved out. Let the bleeding hearts enjoy paying for all the M@!$%#s who are lazy, non-working and welfare recipients.

Jim what you and people like you refuse to remember is that we're paying for it anyway. We're already paying for the lazy person. We're also paying for the stingy person who refuses to purchase coverage and if he/she requires emergency care - we're paying for it. This is why the Republicans proposed universal health care - BACKin the Nixon DAYS!

People have short memories, lets not rely solely on FoxNews to remember for us, um-kay?

Correction, Tommy. You are already paying for it if you live in a pro-union/pro-welfare state, such as Mass, NY, Cali, Illinois. A right to work state, no. You have the right to work, and therefor, if you choose to work, have the right to buy health insurance.

Jimi you know nothing about what you speak. You are paying for it IN ANY STATE IN THE UNION! Get a clue. Every time someone uses an emergency room that is uninsured YOU WILL PAY FOR IT through higher hospital and insurance costs no matter where you live. That is what many people like you just REFUSE to understand. People like him are totally clueless and can't use logic to figure things out. :p

What an incredibly stupid comment---you don't have a fit when you have to buy auto insurance or fire and property insurance on your mortgaged house, etc. What you apparently don't comprehend is that requiring someone to take the responsibility for the cost of their healthcare by purchasing insurance (even if it is subsidized) actually protects YOU from having to pay a higher cost for HIS/HER care. Wake-up!~

@Dave973: "It's evidently the Republican Way."

Of course. That's why we nominated Mitt Romney as our candidate for president in 2008. Wait, no, actually we rejected him as candidate for the presidency, because he is a RINO(Republican In Name Only). Romney is a closet liberal. That's why we ran him off.

@betty: "Why strike your own health plan just because a Democratic president followed your model?"

Nice try. You sank your own party by trying to ram healthcare down U.S. citizens throat, and lost control of congress, and now you would like to hang it on us because RINO Romney did a similar experiment in that most liberal of states, Massachusetts, five years ago. I guess that "ObamaCare is RomneyCare is RepublicanCare" is the new knee-jerk liberal mantra, destined to replace "I blame Bush" as the go-to half-baked sound-bite.

Sorry J. Hill. Your try is an epic fail.

The Republicans started demonizing 'Obamacare' long before it was 'shoved down our throats' as you so indelicately put it.

I've done the research - it's clear you haven't done anything but whine that a democrat called your republicans out on the carpet for lying.

'Obamacare' is pretty close to what Mitt Romney has been pushing for years. Well - that is before Romney started demonizing the Obama version of his own ideas.

The issue is that the right wing doesn't care about what 'Obamacare' could be or do. They only care that the muslim not-American-born communistic socialist leaning facist Obama is behind it, therefore it's automatically wrong for America.

And it was that way even before 'Obamacare'.

The only significant difference between then and now is that people who can afford insurance are required to buy it so that all the rest of us Americans who forced to pay the medical bill for these freeloaders don't have to pay for them via higher bills and higher taxes.

We already pay for the uninsured who can't afford insurance via taxes and higher medical fees.

I'll give that idea a BIG second vote!!!!!!!!!

Regardless of how you feel about your respective representative, they are entilted to health care, just like any other federal employee, including the military etc.

Why not just make sure ALL Americans have the same coverage as the Senate and Congress? Oh, right, that would be some sort of -ism that we couldn't tolerate here. Better to let people use the emergency rooms (the highest cost and most inefficient care possible) and go without than make sure everyone has access to the "best healthcare in the world". Got news for all of you who trash "Obamacare", we are already paying for those who do not choose to purchase healthcare either by choice or by lack of funds. The HCR act IS the REPUBLICAN version which is a huge boon to the insurance companies. Personally, I would prefer national health insurance but that will never happen here. BTW- I have been in the healthcare profession over 32 years, so I do have an idea what really goes on.

While we're at it let's send the PUKES on Wall Street to federal prisons "OFF SHORE"!!

The govenment requiring people to buy insurance is a stupid compromise. The government should provide health insurance and stop the insurance companies form dictating the care my doctor can give me while taking 20% of my money off the top for the "service."

The government should provide health insurance

Actually by your thinking they should provide "healthcare" for free.

Um, it's only a states right if the federal government LETS it be a states right. It was a states right to deny Blacks from eating at the same lunch counters until the federal government took it away. THANK GOD!

Separation of powers? Time to retake civics, my friend. The separation of powers refers to the three branches of the Us government -- executive, legislative and judicial. These three branches are designed to provide checks and balances on power within the federal government. It has nothing to do with federal vs state rights. The nature of that relationship is very complex and murky. But it is important to remember that it led to a very bloody civil war in this country that cost at least 620,000 American lives and the South lost.

An excellent point, Sandy.

You may not like it, but the constitution give the Federal Government the power to regulate commerce which exchanges will fall under.

In just about every case where these was a challenge to the Feds about States rights over commerce, the Feds won. They'll win this one too if it ever gets that far.

Also, if you take the items in the preamble in order as the higher priorities first, which is common practice, contributing to the general welfare of the citizens is only second to a striving for a more perfect union. It trumps everything else and the bill of rights.

Providing health care for all of our citizens is providing for the general welfare and is the most constitutional thing anyone could conceive of. If you think that's socialism, then you either don't know or don't like the original 1787 constitution, not even considering the later amendments.

A dog's IQ tops at about 30. As you know, you can train a dog to bark at specific things. Similarly, some people reject concepts simply because they come from a particular group. What I find baffling is why they seem to gather within the Republican party.

@Mardox: "A dog's IQ tops at about 30. As you know, you can train a dog to bark at specific things. Similarly, some people reject concepts simply because they come from a particular group. What I find baffling is why they seem to gather within the Republican party."

Oooh, Aaaah, the righteous, the liberal democrats, born to suffer, persecuted by the ignorant masses who flock to political parties with the most minimal of animal intelligence.

Meanwhile, conveniently ignore the iron-clad fact that every type of bum looking for a free handout without having to work comprises a significant portion of the Democrats rank and file voters. Five children out of wedlock, no job, not looking for a job either, stone cold reliance on government handouts, votes Democrat and encourages every person they know and encounter to vote Democrat, that's better than dog intelligence? Feeling guilty about something?

having states do it is better because they're closer to the people, if they screw it they'll only hose their own state and if you really dont like it, its not so big a deal to move to another state. The states are still too different for a national, one-size-fits-all approach.

@m18c22: "I still don't understand why Republicans bash the basic notion of nationwide health care; especially when it was the last law that Romney pushed through as a REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR in Massachusetts!"

Gee, I don't know, maybe because it's against our principles? You remember those, right? Principles?

This is a point I think we can all agree with. Once we fully implement the overall health care solution, it has to include everyone. The same coverage and rules should apply to the rich, the middle class, the poor, federal and state government employees, etc...