Every single politician that has ever voted yes to any kind of spending has said we’ll let 53% of the population pay for the other 47% of the population.

RomneyCare is not Obamacare. Even if they were the exact same bill, RomneyCare is not ObamaCare. Why?

First off, the reason that people dislike ObamaCare is not the content of the bill. It has almost everything to do with the way it was passed. When people are polled on the individual portions, majorities approve of most of it. Now, the mandate is obviously unpopular, and there are other provision that are unpopular, but on the whole, people approve of the content more than they disapprove.

When Obama and the Democrats passed Obamacare, they basically gave America the middle finger and said bend over and take it. Americans don’t like to be told what to do, and that’s the major reason for the flak against that program.

Now, Massachusetts is not the United States. In Mass, not only was the bill popular, the mandate was popular, and its effects were much reduced due to the already low number of uninsured. People in Mass wanted such a bill. And Romney delivered. Romney was being a good representative of the people of Mass when he did so. We b*tch and moan all the time here about people “not representing us,” but when a large majority demands some form of action, we deride politicians from representing that large majority.

At all levels of government, the founding fathers never intended us to elect politicians, they intended that we would elect representatives, who would use their superior knowledge, skills, and connections to ensure our vision became a reality.

In Mass, Romney acted as a representative of the people: Mass wanted Romneycare, and he delivered. There was no law preventing a mandate, at either the state or federal level, and it’s what the people wanted. At the Federal Level, it most clearly isn’t.

I’m probably in the minority here, but I don’t see any problem with Romney supporting Romneycare while vowing to repeal Obamacare. In my view, it’s not just the text of the law that matters. It’s about the constituent, and what they want.

If I’m a person who makes no money, and pays no taxes, I still benefit from national defense, roads, infrastructure. However, I’m not paying for that service. You are taking money from other to provide benefits to me.

What about people who are incapable of providing for themselves? Is healthcare for Veterans socialism? The government is taking money from everyone else and giving it to only a select few who don’t have to pay into that system. What about care for those who are disabled? Same story.

Social security? Might as well have the slogan “from each according to their ability, to each according to their need.”

Unless the government collects the exact same amount of money from every citizen, then its condoning socialism by this world view.

Now, I agree with you that “Romney forced the insured to pay, through the state, for the uninsured.” And if our politicians tried to do that in my state, I’d fight it, because I disagree with Romneycare. My point is that it is not my state in question here. A large majority of Mass citizens supported–in fact demanded–this form of socialism, and Romney, as their representative, provided it. If Mass wants to become a Communist state, that I could care less. But I won’t fault someone for representing the demands of their constituents, and that is the crux of my point.