Union Cries Foul
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney
is seething mad about the health care reform Mitt Romney just got enacted in Massachusetts. Check this statement out:
Seriously, this is nothing more than Democrats carping about a health care plan that they didn't author. Romney stole their issue, plain and simple. Not like Democrats took the national security issue from President Bush. This time it's real, not imaginary.
The plan speaks for itself. It doesn't need a melodramatic Chuckie Schumer out blabbering about it.
That's logic only in the mind of a pointy-headed liberal.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, April 7, 2006 5:32 AM
No comments.
AFL-CIO President John Sweeney called the mandate "unconscionable" and accused Massachusetts of taking "a page out of the Newt Gingrich playbook. Forcing uninsured workers to purchase health care coverage or face higher taxes and fines is the cornerstone of Mr. Gingrich's health care reform proposals," Sweeney said.You can't get more upset as a liberal than comparing someone to Mr. Newt. Just for that alone, Mr. Romney is worthy of consideration for the presidential nomination.
Seriously, this is nothing more than Democrats carping about a health care plan that they didn't author. Romney stole their issue, plain and simple. Not like Democrats took the national security issue from President Bush. This time it's real, not imaginary.
The plan speaks for itself. It doesn't need a melodramatic Chuckie Schumer out blabbering about it.
Romney is expected to sign the bill, though he may veto a $295-an-employee fee for businesses that don't offer insurance. Romney, a possible candidate for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has compared the individual mandate to car insurance, which the state requires for everyone who owns a car. Massachusetts, under the bill, will also require everyone to have health insurance.Let me get this straight: Liberals are complaining because individuals shoulder part of the responsibility for their health insurance but they've historically been ok with heaping that burden on individuals in the form of taxes?
According to Tanner, that's a false comparison. "Driving has always been seen as a privilege that can be revoked," he said. "This is making me buy a product simply by virtue of breathing."
That's logic only in the mind of a pointy-headed liberal.
Cross-posted at California Conservative
Posted Friday, April 7, 2006 5:32 AM
No comments.