The EFM Feature
Screen Shot 2012-03-02 at 8.51.28 AM

How can David do both?


Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

5 Responses to Supporting RomneyCare, Opposing ObamaCare

  1. Bobby says:

    State solutions are also potential models to improve the status quo. These state solutions can also be a feasibility study as a first step towards eliminating large undisciplined federal programs like Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security. There is no question that many states require balanced budgets; add to that social security lock boxes by local stewards would be safer and more protected because of transparency and fewer hands in the cookie jar! Mitt has proven a state run Medicaid works! Now we need to recognize this as the solution to protect our seniors and our poor! The Federal government has failed, and Mitt has proven the States can succeed!

  2. Marcia says:

    Agree. A state solution to a state problem. No wonder the state approves on a 3 to 1.
    Not a one size fits all government plan forced on us all. No wonder 58% want repeal.
    State solution in response specific state problems., which can be changed at the state level as areas for change are identified

  3. Frozone says:

    Excellent article. I know for those of us that have been following this closely, this is old news. Thanks David for continuing to present this very cogent argument so that those that are just now tuning in will fully understand this issue, and realize it is a non-issue. MassCare does NOT equal ObamaCare.

  4. Flagkeeper says:

    I find it difficult to understand how Santorum repeatedly claims that republicans effectively concede the issue of Obamacare by electing Romney, because, as a governor, he signed into law a state level plan to help get it’s citizens insured (state regulated, not run). If Santorum’s flimsy argument that taking a federalist position to serve the state you represent according to the will of it people precludes Romney from making a legitimate case against Obamacare (in spite of glaring differences and level of government), then how does Santorum have a leg to stand on when he claims to be a champion of national right to work legislation, seeing as he has previously voted against right to work legislation in his own state? He claims he was only serving the people of his state, so apparently federalism is only good for Pennsylvania? That pig don’t fly.

  5. Terry says:

    Why getting rid of Obama Care is an absolute no-brainer!

    I apologize in advance for the length of this article, but government regulated healthcare is something I have experience with, (at the paper work level), so bear with me.

    As one who used to work for a well-known health care intermediary (the “middle man” between government and hospitals/doctors), I know what a shambles America’s healthcare system will be if Obama’s socialized medicine plan is not gotten rid of. Even now, the healthcare system is regulated almost to death. I realize that some oversight and regulation has to take place, but it would fare much better under state supervision. That way, each state could adapt as necessary to its own specific needs, instead being forced to use a one-size-fits-all government system.

    I’ll give you a personal example: Before retiring, I worked in the Medicare Support Services department (just a fancy term for “clerical department) of a well-known insurance company as a clerk. (They had a more official, tongue twisting title for it, but I’ve forgotten what it was, now.) Anyway, I was known as the department computer guru, which meant that I knew more about computers and computer programs than anyone else in our clerical department. Now, the government is BIG on titles, and very strict about employees not performing duties that don’t fall under the job description of that employee’s title. You may be eminently qualified to do a certain task, but if you don’t have the official government title, then it’s absolutely hands off.

    In my case, it was hands off what the three “Techs” in our department were doing. Most of their duties were computer intensive and involved working with Microsoft Excel. Naturally, their pay grade was higher than mine. The conundrum was that I was far more proficient with, and knowledgeable about, Microsoft Excel than they were. Their knowledge of Excel was limited to the very basics. The Excel training they had received upon promotion to their position was from another Tech whose knowledge of Excel was also limited to the very basics. Why wasn’t I promoted to Tech? Because government regulators, during the usual annual appraisal of our department, had determined that three techs was all our department needed. Thus, my involvement with them was limited to making suggestions, and sitting beside them when asked (which wasn’t often) to walk them through a certain Excel procedure.

    On top of the restriction of working only within your title’s job description, was all the government regulations—and believe me, we were regulated to death (figuratively speaking). We had to document, in 15 minute increments, everything we did throughout the day. For this, we used a form known as a “time ladder”. Each job or function we performed had a time limit assigned to it. At the end of the day, we turned the filled out form into our supervisor, and he/she would enter the information into a data base on their computer. At the end of each month, we were graded on how well we had performed. The grades affected our twice yearly appraisals. Get poor grades, and you could be down the road.

    The pressure to perform and get good numbers was very intense, so it was no surprise that we had a fairly high turnover rate in the department. Several of my coworkers had literal nervous breakdowns when I was there. One friend was off work for several months because of it. Thus, it was no surprise that in order to survive the relentless pressure to perform, your attitude had long ago shifted quickly from “doing the best job you could” to “doing it just well enough to get by” so that you could get on to the next task. Sad to say, but many times you “fudged” on your time ladder–taking 15 minutes from a job you did not finish in the allotted amount of time, and adding those 15 minutes to a job you had finished with time to spare. When you’ve got family to feed, you rationalize. You don’t like don’t like doing it, but you rationalize nonetheless.

    The point of my lengthy post is this: by its very nature, federal government control of a just about anything fosters an attitude of sloppiness–performing at the absolute minimum quality required with the most speed you can muster—all to satisfy government requirements that discourage innovation and encourage absolute lock-step adherence to the government’s rules, antiquated or not.

    The above is just one person’s experience with working in an industry that the federal government should not even be involved in, anyway. Multiply that experience by however many federal government healthcare workers there are, and the picture is pretty bleak.

    Obama Care needs to go, and the sooner the better! Healthcare is absolutely and without doubt best left for each individual state to handle.

    Just as Mitt Romney has been saying for years now.

Leave a Reply

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

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>