Mitt Romney's Obamacare Becomes US Law

Barack Obama vs Willard Mott Romney

The historic Affordable Care Act, cynically dubbed by its opponents as Obamacare, was upheld today by the US supreme court along purely ideological lines, with Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative icon, breaking ranks with his fellow conservative justices and voting to uphold the act, arguing that Congress had the constitutional authority to levy taxes, which the justices interpreted the mandate to represent.

One man that should have been very and proud and honored this day as a co-architect of the law, the man whose effort as governor of Massachusetts provided the model for Obamacare is the Republican presidential candidate Willard Mitt Romney. The Affordable Care Act was entirely designed using Massachusetts' health care delivery model as a template. Most aspects of the law were implemented after a rigorous study of the Massachusetts experiment. And yet the most uncomfortable man in the country today is no other person than Mitt Romney, as the realities of Republican politics mean that he essentially has to run away and publicly demonise and denounvce a care model that he championed while he was governor. Somewhere deep in governor Romney's heart he b believes Obamacare is right, but to garner the courage to come out openly and state it would be a foolhardy venture that would be tantamount to near certain political suicide. So the poor Governor came out firmly against the law in a hastily prepared public address lacking any conviction and firepower.

Romney's Uncomfortable Moment

Romney's main argument against Obamacare is the rather lame statement that Massachusetts was a State and US a country and by that reasoning, what could be applicable in Massachusetts can not be applicable in the country as a whole. Romney does not however explain as to why a law that is good for Massachusetts cannot be good for any other state or what makes the people of Massachusetts different from people in other states. If the government should not have hands in health care, why was the government of Massachusetts involved in health care?

Romney views the health care mandate today as government overreach, but finds it hard to explain why the same could not have been said of Massachusetts. He finds it difficult to explain why in the case of that State, he himself himself could not have been accused of having overreached when he was a governor. If Romney could overreach to protect the people of Massachusetts, was it wrong for President Obama to do all he could to protect  the American people?

Mitt Romney wants to essentially have his cake and eat it. People are now more increasing convinced that he is so desperate for the presidency that he is essentially willing to sacrifice whatever core beliefs he has to gain the support of Republicans, especially those in the Bachmann/Palin /Limbaugh led Tea Party camp whose main purpose of seeking congressional leadership was to basically attempt to impose their own parochial ideological view points on the American people by obstinately refusing to seek any middle ground on any issue supported by Democrats.

The Best of The Tea Party

The Tea Party basically wants to impose a constitutional theocracy on the people of America that would refuse to grant any privileges to anybody who they do not agree with; same sex couples, the jobless, the uninsured, illegal migrants, women's health advocates. To Tea Partiers, people are poor by design and lack of effort. any attempt to help the poor is essentially viewed as socialism, a term that has come to symbolize any act by government to directly assist the poor. Their rallying cry is the defense of the constitution, a document written by men who claimed that all human beings were equal, yet refused voting and other rights to women and minorities. Tea Partiers are mostly middle age and old folks who do not want anybody to touch their "medicare". The argument that comes to mind is why is it mandatory to pay Medicare taxes to cover health expenses for the aged and yet be unconstitutional to expect to be taxed to cover everybody?

A Tea Party Elder

The primary role of government in a capitalist economy is to protect the welfare of citizens and provide security while maintaining law and order. The question that comes to mind is why should the intervention by the government in ensuring access to health care be even a matter of contention. The government owes its funding and existence to the sweat of hardworking citizens. What is wrong if these citizens that the government depends on are taken care of when they are sick? If hospitals cannot turn away patients from emergency rooms, is it not wise to prevent people only going to hospitals in emergencies in the first place?

Another complaint tea partiers love to loudly make is that they do not want anything to stand between them and their doctors. Tea Partiers however largely fail to realize that one entity comes between they and their doctors daily, their insurance companies! Doctors prescribe treatments and medications that insurance companies refuse to pay for or  suggest alternative treatments and sometimes only pay for generic medications, are they not essentially coming between the patients and their doctors?

America's Optimistic Soul

When Barack Obama became president in 2008, this country was on the edge of a cliff. The banks were in bad shape, the three major car producers; General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were staring bankruptcy in the face and the whole economy was on the brink of implosion. Against the cries of capitalistic agents like Mitt Romney who would rather have seen these companies go bankrupt, president Obama provided the stimulus to keep these institutions operating, as he concluded that America's strength lay in the strength of its financial institutions and its manufacturing sector. He enacted health care reform on the basis that a healthy citizenry translated to a healthy economy and vice versa economy. Within short order the Bush depression was reversed with some signs of economic growth.

In 2010, the tea party took over the House and have essentially brought the country to stand still, saying no to almost every idea from president Obama, just to fulfill the pledge they made in running that the only thing important to them  was to see that the president does not win reelection, and all other things; the economy, roads, jobs, etc, were secondary.

Who can You Believe?

Barack Obama has never been one to run away from controversy or shy away from making politically unpopular decisions and though a lot of his detractors would cry themselves hoarse shouting that he is a socialist and unAmerican, millions more will vote for him in November. He does not change his color on a daily basis, like an etch-a-sketch, to satisfy every shade of political opinion. Even those who do not like the president will not disagree that he is a strongly moral man with solid family values and love for mankind. What else would we want, a president who can never make up his mind?