Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-02-2012, 11:12 AM
 
Location: Chicagoland
41,325 posts, read 44,950,814 times
Reputation: 7118

Advertisements

Rasmussen: Romney within 2 in Ohio « Hot Air

Quote:
Rasmussen corroborates the Q-poll from earlier today showing that Mitt Romney has made up significant ground on Rick Santorum in the key Super Tuesday state of Ohio. While Quinnipiac conducted its survey from Tuesday through Thursday this week, Rasmussen conducted its survey of 750 likely voters entirely yesterday. Two weeks after being 18 points behind Santorum in Ohio, Rasmussen now has him within two:
Voters are coming to the logical conclusion.

Looks like Santorum support is cratering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-02-2012, 12:15 PM
 
1,058 posts, read 1,264,301 times
Reputation: 560
not that i support santorum, but only a modicum of discipline and he would've won in Ohio IMO.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 12:45 PM
 
8,754 posts, read 10,170,036 times
Reputation: 1434
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Rasmussen: Romney within 2 in Ohio « Hot Air



Voters are coming to the logical conclusion.

Looks like Santorum support is cratering.


Good I hope he craters even further. Romney needs a significant lead to make up for the Democrats voting for Santorum again here. The good thing is that this tactic is backfiring and costing Santorum Republican votes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 12:49 PM
 
3,504 posts, read 3,924,430 times
Reputation: 1357
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanrene View Post
Rasmussen: Romney within 2 in Ohio « Hot Air



Voters are coming to the logical conclusion.

Looks like Santorum support is cratering.
what does it matter to you. you'll vote for whoever the GOP tells you to anyways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 01:22 PM
 
Location: NC
4,100 posts, read 4,517,673 times
Reputation: 1372
Quote:
Originally Posted by tropolis View Post
what does it matter to you. you'll vote for whoever the GOP tells you to anyways.
cannot rep you enough.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 01:45 PM
 
26,498 posts, read 15,079,792 times
Reputation: 14655
Quote:
Originally Posted by tropolis View Post
what does it matter to you. you'll vote for whoever the GOP tells you to anyways.
Why are you so rude? Your statement makes it look like you are the close minded demagogue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 02:09 PM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,956,097 times
Reputation: 7458
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
Why are you so rude? Your statement makes it look like you are the close minded demagogue.
The other amusing part of his commentary is that he will vote for Obama no matter what Obama does or who the opposition is.

Pot meet kettle, tropolis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 06:41 PM
 
Location: pensacola,florida
3,202 posts, read 4,434,577 times
Reputation: 1671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post






BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

Friends, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we will be unable to fight Obama on an issue that 60% of Americans agree with us on.


BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate | RedState




Gingrich is on record in the past of supporting individual mandates also....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 06:53 PM
 
26,498 posts, read 15,079,792 times
Reputation: 14655
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pressing-On View Post






BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

Friends, if Mitt Romney is the nominee, we will be unable to fight Obama on an issue that 60% of Americans agree with us on.


BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate | RedState





07/30/09 - Mr. President, What's the Rush? | Mitt Romney Central

This opinion article by Mitt Romney appeared in USA Today on 07/30/2009. It is entitled Mr. President, What’s the Rush?

Because of President Obama’s frantic approach, health care has run off the rails. For the sake of 47 million uninsured Americans, we need to get it back on track.

Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America’s families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There’s a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

No other state has made as much progress in covering their uninsured as Massachusetts. The bill that made it happen wasn’t a rush job. Shortly after becoming governor, I worked in a bipartisan fashion with Democrats to insure all our citizens. It took almost two years to find a solution. When we did, it passed the 200-member legislature with only two dissenting votes. It had the support of the business community, the hospital sector and insurers. For health care reform to succeed in Washington, the president must finally do what he promised during the campaign: Work with Republicans as well as Democrats.

Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary. It would inevitably lead to massive taxpayer subsidies, to lobbyist-inspired coverage mandates and to the liberals’ dream: a European-style single-payer system. To find common ground with skeptical Republicans and conservative Democrats, the president will have to jettison left-wing ideology for practicality and dump the public option.

The cost issue

Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn’t have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn’t cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.

When our bill passed three years ago, the legislature projected that our program would cost $725 million in 2009. At $723 million, next year’s forecast is pretty much on target. When you calculate all the savings, including that from the free hospital care we eliminated, the net cost to the state is approximately $350 million. The watchdog Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation concluded that our program’s cost is “relatively modest” and “well within initial projections.”

And if subsidies and coverages are reined in, as I’ve suggested, the Massachusetts program could actually break even. One thing is certain: The president must insist on a program that doesn’t add to our spending burden. We simply cannot afford another trillion-dollar mistake.

The Massachusetts reform aimed at getting virtually all our citizens insured. In that, it worked: 98% of our citizens are insured, 440,000 previously uninsured are covered and almost half of those purchased insurance on their own, with no subsidy. But overall, health care inflation has continued its relentless rise. Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.

At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don’t care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions. And providers could be paid an annual fixed fee for the primary care of an individual and a separate fixed fee for the treatment of a specific condition. These approaches have far more promise than the usual bromides of electronic medical records, transparency and pay-for-performance, helpful though they will be.

Try a business-like analysis

I spent most of my career in the private sector. When well-managed businesses considered a major change of some kind, they engaged in extensive analysis, brought in outside experts, exhaustively evaluated every alternative, built consensus among those who would be affected and then moved ahead. Health care is many times bigger than all the companies in the Dow Jones combined. And the president is rushing changes that dwarf what any business I know has faced.

Republicans are not the party of “no” when it comes to health care reform. This Republican is proud to be the first governor to insure all his state’s citizens. Other Republicans such as Rep. Paul Ryan and Sens. Bob Bennett and John McCain, among others, have proposed their own plans. Republicans will join with the Democrats if the president abandons his government insurance plan, if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt, if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care reform deserves.

Mitt Romney was governor of Massachusetts from 2003 to 2007.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-02-2012, 07:17 PM
 
Location: pensacola,florida
3,202 posts, read 4,434,577 times
Reputation: 1671
Yawn....not much of a 'smoking gun' if you read the opinion piece Romney wrote.According to polls people in Massachusetts liked and still like the state law.I don't live in Massachusetts so if they are happy i'm happy for them.If other big-lib states like New Jersey, Vermont,Conneticut ,Maryland,New York,and California want to follow suite thats OK by me too.I don't want to live in any of them either...I don't see a problem fighting the issue of a federal program just because a candidate backed a state program in a state where most citizens wanted it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:25 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top