One was decided by the people of a single state, by and for themselves. The other presumes to dictate what individual states must do.<quoted text>The 77% that got a tax increase were the same 77% that got a tax relief voted on to last one year. The 2% tax decrease was part of Social Security paid by an employee. You sure are an ignorant foreigner.
If ObamaCare is so bad than why has it not been stopped in Massachusetts were it started? That state is doing very well with RomneyCare after 6 years. No one in that state is trying to overturn it.
Romney's central point was that what's good for one state may not suit another and that states should have the freedom to choose what works best for them rather than have to conform to a federal one-size-fits-all plan, the ultimate costs of which are not really knowable. People who tell you they know what it would cost are fibbing. Off the record, every honest person in Washington will tell you: Nobody knows.
Whether one likes or dislikes Obama's health care plan this has always been the crucial point. Keep it small; keep it simple; leave it to the states. Within that framework, what Romney did in Massachusetts is entirely defensible. It was an experiment; it was bold; it was imperfect.
Even a perfect plan, however, wouldn't necessarily be popular or work in, say, South Carolina. But Romney would argue that South Carolinians should have the choice to create their own solutions.
Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Rom...