Thread: We must find a way to make peace between two groups....

Originally Posted by googler

In the coming weeks and months, Romney will have to clarify once and for all where he stands on illegal immigration.

Even if he announces that he is strongly opposed to illegal aliens who knows if he can be trusted to keep to that once he is elected.

Originally Posted by artclam

Even if he announces that he is strongly opposed to illegal aliens who knows if he can be trusted to keep to that once he is elected.

That could be said about anyone. That's why it's important to review his previous history as a legislator. While serving as Gov. he vetoed a bill that would have given a tuition break to illegals, halted an attempt at giving illegals a driver's license, and attempted to make it legal for state police to question anyone suspected of being illegal which included asking them for their papers.

Originally Posted by MW

That could be said about anyone. That's why it's important to review his previous history as a legislator. While serving as Gov. he vetoed a bill that would have given a tuition break to illegals, halted an attempt at giving illegals a driver's license, and attempted to make it legal for state police to question anyone suspected of being illegal which included asking them for their papers.

But he also passed this a little doozie known as RomneyCARE in which it allowed illegal aliens in the state of Mass. to receive some form of health benefits. If he was strong against illegal aliens he would have refused to sign this into law, never mind the fact that this was a horrendous piece of legislation to begin with.

And then you have him in past interviews giving his support to amnesty at the federal level. Only reason it didn't matter then is because he wasn't President of the United States when he said it right?

You want to look at his history? Well just look at his history as a flip-flopper. It throws everything he's done in the past out the window. That right there should give you pause as to what he truly intends to do once in office.

Originally Posted by googler

But he also passed this a little doozie known as RomneyCARE in which it allowed illegal aliens in the state of Mass. to receive some form of health benefits. If he was strong against illegal aliens he would have refused to sign this into law, never mind the fact that this was a horrendous piece of legislation to begin with.

And then you have him in past interviews giving his support to amnesty at the federal level. Only reason it didn't matter then is because he wasn't President of the United States when he said it right?

You want to look at his history? Well just look at his history as a flip-flopper. It throws everything he's done in the past out the window. That right there should give you pause as to what he truly intends to do once in office.

Just for the sake of facts .......... the Massachusetts health care law didn’t give anything new to illegal immigrants that they didn’t have before Gov. Romney signed the bill into law (no new laws were included in the bill that were specifically designed with illegal immigrants in mind). Furthermore, federal law requires all hospitals to treat illegals that seek emergency care.


Personally, I don't agree with Massachusetts health care law but for the sake of keeping the discussion honest ........ nothing new was included in the law to cover illegals that wasn't already there under the old health care law.

To my knowledge Romney has not flipped his positions on amnesty, tuition for illegals, border security, or driver's licenses for illegals. Also, let's not forget, he supported Arizona's law. Wouldn't it be nice if Obama could say the same?

Originally Posted by MW

Just for the sake of facts .......... the Massachusetts health care law didn’t give anything new to illegal immigrants that they didn’t have before Gov. Romney signed the bill into law (no new laws were included in the bill that were specifically designed with illegal immigrants in mind). Furthermore, federal law requires all hospitals to treat illegals that seek emergency care.


Personally, I don't agree with Massachusetts health care law but for the sake of keeping the discussion honest ........ nothing new was included in the law to cover illegals that wasn't already there under the old health care law.

To my knowledge Romney has not flipped his positions on amnesty, tuition for illegals, border security, or driver's licenses for illegals. Also, let's not forget, he supported Arizona's law. Wouldn't it be nice if Obama could say the same?

That was the excuse Romney's campaign used right? That it was already in the old health care law, so Romney couldn't have POSSIBLY done anything about it. Well he could have introduced a provision to deny coverage to illegals. But no, at that time it was not political expediant to do so, he wasn't running for President so why go through the trouble. Federal law requires illegals be attended to in the ER, but it says nothing about providing other health care services such as those provided by clinics.


Regarding Arizona's law, has he finally taken a position on the Supreme Court's decision to strike down three of the provisions in the law he supposedly supported, but that he probably wants to distance himself from now? Instead he makes generic statements about state rights without ever directly addressing Arizona's law.




And here's him back then on comprehensive immigration reform. A man short on principles it seems.


Mitt Romney Supported Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants - YouTube




In conclusion, he's all over the place on illegal immigration and so we cannot exactly find comfort in that if he's elected President he will be strong on the issue.


As I've said, he'll need to address this issue soon, but don't be surprised if he says something you don't want to hear, I know I won't.




And I don't care about Obama. The only good thing he's done was voicing support for gay marriage and even then why did he wait so long? Ah, but of course, because it's politically convenient. He's failed on everything else, so no one here is voting for him. I'm focused on Romney and the Republican party's complete and utter inability to stand on principle.


The lesser of two evils mentality is frankly getting annoying and tiresome and what is driving this country into a ditch.

Last POTUS election, I held on to voting for "principal" and voted for Chuck Baldwin. If I could have built a perfect constitutional candidate, it would have been him. Yeah, I knew he didn't stand a chance, but I also knew McStain didn't either. It was obvious Barakula would win.

This time it's different. People are PISSED off at Obama, I can't think of one person in my circle of friends and family that approve of anything he's done. Romney has a chance, and I feel WE have a better chance of him listening to us if we scream loud enough. Obama just does what ever he damn well feels like and I really resent that. I will hold my nose and vote for Romney.

Although I don't agree with his positions on immigration, I feel he can and will listen and he's got the experience of a business person to run this county like a business. The economy is a shambles and we need that experience right now.

Gay marriage, abortion, etc...they are all "wedge" issues and truthfully don't matter a tinkers dam to someone who is out of work and/or competing with illegals for scarce jobs!

Originally Posted by SicNTiredInSoCal

Last POTUS election, I held on to voting for "principal" and voted for Chuck Baldwin. If I could have built a perfect constitutional candidate, it would have been him. Yeah, I knew he didn't stand a chance, but I also knew McStain didn't either. It was obvious Barakula would win.

This time it's different. People are PISSED off at Obama, I can't think of one person in my circle of friends and family that approve of anything he's done. Romney has a chance, and I feel WE have a better chance of him listening to us if we scream loud enough. Obama just does what ever he damn well feels like and I really resent that. I will hold my nose and vote for Romney.

Although I don't agree with his positions on immigration, I feel he can and will listen and he's got the experience of a business person to run this county like a business. The economy is a shambles and we need that experience right now.

Gay marriage, abortion, etc...they are all "wedge" issues and truthfully don't matter a tinkers dam to someone who is out of work and/or competing with illegals for scarce jobs!

Barakula. Lol. Had to explain to my friends what I was laughing at. Thanks. I think I'll use that one.

Anyways. Most of the people in my school would have turned their back on Obama had Ron Paul been given the chance to run against him. It is clear they are disappointed in his stance on drugs and the wars overseas which are costing us billions of tax dollars and blood. We on the other hand are tired of his entire presidency and so we have at least one thing in common.

But for the love of god, we cannot go from a socialist president to one that will run this country like a "business". He'll drive it into the ground all in the name of appeasing our foreign creditors in China and Saudi Arabia. We'd go from one extreme to the other and that is not what this country needs. And last time I checked, many businesses hire cheap illegal/legal labor all in the name of cutting costs because that's what running a business is all about. This ends up screwing the American worker. Wouldn't be hard to believe Romney has this in his head somewhere and hence his terrible position on illegal immigration.

Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
The State Model for the Affordable Care Act Is Working and Broadly Popular



Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands with Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Timothy Murphy in 2006 after signing into law a landmark bill designed to guarantee virtually all Massachusetts residents have health insurance

Download this brief (pdf)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu..._myth_fact.pdf

Read in your web browser on Scribd
Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law one year ago. It is modeled in large part on the landmark Massachusetts health reform law enacted four years earlier in 2006. Opponents of the Affordable Care Act often attack it by distorting the facts about the Massachusetts experience. They selectively alternate between snapshots of and trends in Massachusetts and comparisons between Massachusetts and the United States.

The most appropriate way to assess the impact of the Massachusetts law is to compare changes over time in things like health coverage and premium costs in Massachusetts to changes over time in the United States as a whole. We use that approach below to debunk many of the myths opponents propagate regarding Massachusetts’s experience with health care reform.
Massachusetts increased health coverage while coverage declined in the rest of the country.
Myth

The Massachusetts law failed to significantly reduce the ranks of the uninsured in the state.
Fact

The Massachusetts health reform law dramatically increased the insurance rate in the state over a period when the national health coverage rate declined. As of the end of 2010, 98.1 percent of the state’s residents were insured compared to 87.5 percent in 2006 when the law was enacted. Almost all children in the state were insured in 2010 (99.8 percent). In comparison, at the national level the health insurance rate dropped from 85.2 percent in 2006 to 84.6 percent in 2010.
Employers continued the same level of health coverage in Massachusetts while dropping people in the rest of the country.
Myth

The Massachusetts health reform law is eroding employer-sponsored health insurance.
Fact

The number of people in Massachusetts with employer-sponsored health insurance has not dipped below 2006 levels since passage of the health reform law. Approximately 4.3 million people in Massachusetts obtained health insurance through their employer in 2006. This figure increased to 4.5 million in 2008 before returning to 2006 levels in 2010. In comparison, the number of nonelderly people in the United States with employer-sponsored health coverage declined from 161.7 million in 2006 to 156.1 million in 2009.

Since passage of Massachusetts’s health reform law, a larger share of the state’s employers have offered health insurance to their workers when compared to the United States as a whole. At the national level only 60 percent of employers offered health coverage to their employees in 2005. This is significantly lower than Massachusetts’s rate of 70 percent at that time. The Massachusetts rate increased to 76 percent in 2009, which is 7 percentage points higher than the national figure for 2010.
People buying insurance on their own in Massachusetts are paying lower premiums. Premiums in the nongroup market have increased in the rest of the country.
Myth

Massachusetts residents are paying higher premiums in the nongroup market as a result of the health reform law.
Fact

Nongroup health insurance premiums in Massachusetts have fallen by as much as 40 percent since 2006 because health reform brought healthy people into the insurance market. In contrast, at the national level nongroup premiums have risen 14 percent over that period of time.
More than 98 percent of Bay Staters met the law’s individual insurance requirement.
Myth

A significant portion of Massachusetts residents are ignoring the mandate and only purchasing health insurance when they need care.
Fact

The size of Massachusetts’s individual market more than doubled after passage of the health reform law. This boost and the accompanying drop in the average cost of individual premiums were due in part to more healthy—and previously uninsured—individuals entering the market. Only 1.3 percent of the state’s 4 million tax filers who were required to and did report their coverage status were assessed a penalty for lacking coverage in 2008, the last year for which complete data are available. About 26,000 of these 56,000 people were actually in compliance for part of the year.
The cost of health care in Massachusetts is in line with expectations.
Myth

The Massachusetts law is bankrupting the state.
Fact

The fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, or MTF, finds that under reform, “State spending is in line with what [the organization] expected.” An MTF report released in 2009 found that state spending on health reform increased from $1.041 billion in fiscal year 2006 to a projected $1.748 billion in fiscal year 2010—an increase of $707 million over the four-year period, half of which is covered by the federal government.

Higher-than-expected enrollment in Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized health insurance program, initially raised fears that policymakers had dramatically underestimated the number of low-income uninsured in Massachusetts. These concerns, however, were unfounded. Commonwealth Care enrollment peaked in mid-2008 with 176,000 members. The MTF attributes the initial rapid growth in Commonwealth Care enrollment to the state’s early success in getting residents signed up for the program.
The majority of people in Massachusetts like the health reform law, and it has gotten more popular over time.
Myth

The Massachusetts health reform law is highly unpopular among members of the public, the business community, and policymakers.
Fact

Support for the law is strong among members of the public. Sixty-one percent of the Massachusetts nonelderly population approved of the law when it passed in 2006. Two years later, 69 percent of nonelderly adults viewed the law favorably. In a survey of employers conducted in 2007—shortly after passage of the health reform law—a majority of Massachusetts firms surveyed agreed that “all employers bear some responsibility for providing health benefits to their workers.”20 A survey of employers conducted a year later—after the individual and employer mandates were implemented— found that a majority of firms believed the law was “good for Massachusetts.”

The Massachusetts health reform law was also a bipartisan achievement, drawing support from both sides of the aisle throughout the process. The law was passed by a Democratic legislature with support from its Republican members and then signed by GOP Gov. Mitt Romney.
Massachusetts is building on its 2006 reforms to promote better quality care at lower costs.
Myth

Current Gov. Deval Patrick is proposing to ration health care in Massachusetts.
Fact

Gov. Patrick’s proposal would make Massachusetts a leader in nationwide efforts to reform health care delivery and bring down costs. The governor has proposed new tools for achieving integrated care—by holding providers accountable for working with each other and their patients to coordinate and delivery higher-quality care at a lower cost.

These innovative tools encourage providers to deliver better care—replacing the current payment system’s set of incentives that provide more care regardless of value. Indeed, more care can sometimes be harmful to patients. Hospital-acquired infections and medical errors are among the most common causes of preventable deaths and injuries in U.S. hospitals. Medical errors accounted for 238,000 preventable deaths in Medicare and cost the program $8.8 billion from 2004 to 2006. A recent study found that sepsis and pneumonia caused by hospital-acquired infections resulted in 48,000 deaths in 2006 and cost the program $8.1 billion.
Conclusion

The Massachusetts health reform law is a success story from every perspective. The state has expanded health coverage to almost all of its residents, maintained a strong market for employer-sponsored health insurance, gained the support of the business community and the public, and is moving forward in containing costs. We can look forward to a similar positive experience across the nation as we implement the Affordable Care Act modeled in large part on the Massachusetts law. Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst at the Center.

Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst, and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst for American Progress.

Download this brief (pdf)

Read in your web browser on Scribd

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, and health care)
202.741.6285 or kpeters@americanprogress.org

Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org

Print: Laura Pereyra (ethnic media, immigration)
202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org

Radio: Anne Shoup
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or lhamilton@americanprogress.org

Web: Andrea Peterson
202.481.8119 or apeterson@americanprogress.org



Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts


Here is more on MA healthcare law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massac...th_care_reform




Share on facebook Share on google_plusone
Share on linkedin Share on email More Sharing Services
Massachusetts Health Care Reform: Six Years Later

In 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' comprehensive health reform designed to provide near-universal health insurance coverage for state residents. Building on a long history of health reform efforts, the state embarked on an ambitious plan to promote shared individual, employer, and government responsibility.

This brief examines Massachusetts' experience with coverage and access to care over the last six years, as well as the state's ongoing efforts to deal with persistent high health-care costs. The brief also compares Massachusetts health reform with the national reforms included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law by President Obama in 2010.

Reports, Studies and Toplines Icon Issue Brief (.pdf)


Information provided by State Health Care Reform Initiative
Publication Number: 8311
Publish Date: 2012-05-21

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8311.cfm



Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law could flatline his 2012 ambitions

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz20uKfsDVc



And this is the short list it goes on and on, but wait I am still waiting for the truth, and about Romeny and Paul on amnesty Romney Wants it, Paul wants Attrition....

Originally Posted by kathyet

Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts
The State Model for the Affordable Care Act Is Working and Broadly Popular



Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney shakes hands with Massachusetts Health and Human Services Secretary Timothy Murphy in 2006 after signing into law a landmark bill designed to guarantee virtually all Massachusetts residents have health insurance

Download this brief (pdf)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issu..._myth_fact.pdf

Read in your web browser on Scribd
Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts

The Affordable Care Act was signed into law one year ago. It is modeled in large part on the landmark Massachusetts health reform law enacted four years earlier in 2006. Opponents of the Affordable Care Act often attack it by distorting the facts about the Massachusetts experience. They selectively alternate between snapshots of and trends in Massachusetts and comparisons between Massachusetts and the United States.

The most appropriate way to assess the impact of the Massachusetts law is to compare changes over time in things like health coverage and premium costs in Massachusetts to changes over time in the United States as a whole. We use that approach below to debunk many of the myths opponents propagate regarding Massachusetts’s experience with health care reform.
Massachusetts increased health coverage while coverage declined in the rest of the country.
Myth

The Massachusetts law failed to significantly reduce the ranks of the uninsured in the state.
Fact

The Massachusetts health reform law dramatically increased the insurance rate in the state over a period when the national health coverage rate declined. As of the end of 2010, 98.1 percent of the state’s residents were insured compared to 87.5 percent in 2006 when the law was enacted. Almost all children in the state were insured in 2010 (99.8 percent). In comparison, at the national level the health insurance rate dropped from 85.2 percent in 2006 to 84.6 percent in 2010.
Employers continued the same level of health coverage in Massachusetts while dropping people in the rest of the country.
Myth

The Massachusetts health reform law is eroding employer-sponsored health insurance.
Fact

The number of people in Massachusetts with employer-sponsored health insurance has not dipped below 2006 levels since passage of the health reform law. Approximately 4.3 million people in Massachusetts obtained health insurance through their employer in 2006. This figure increased to 4.5 million in 2008 before returning to 2006 levels in 2010. In comparison, the number of nonelderly people in the United States with employer-sponsored health coverage declined from 161.7 million in 2006 to 156.1 million in 2009.

Since passage of Massachusetts’s health reform law, a larger share of the state’s employers have offered health insurance to their workers when compared to the United States as a whole. At the national level only 60 percent of employers offered health coverage to their employees in 2005. This is significantly lower than Massachusetts’s rate of 70 percent at that time. The Massachusetts rate increased to 76 percent in 2009, which is 7 percentage points higher than the national figure for 2010.
People buying insurance on their own in Massachusetts are paying lower premiums. Premiums in the nongroup market have increased in the rest of the country.
Myth

Massachusetts residents are paying higher premiums in the nongroup market as a result of the health reform law.
Fact

Nongroup health insurance premiums in Massachusetts have fallen by as much as 40 percent since 2006 because health reform brought healthy people into the insurance market. In contrast, at the national level nongroup premiums have risen 14 percent over that period of time.
More than 98 percent of Bay Staters met the law’s individual insurance requirement.
Myth

A significant portion of Massachusetts residents are ignoring the mandate and only purchasing health insurance when they need care.
Fact

The size of Massachusetts’s individual market more than doubled after passage of the health reform law. This boost and the accompanying drop in the average cost of individual premiums were due in part to more healthy—and previously uninsured—individuals entering the market. Only 1.3 percent of the state’s 4 million tax filers who were required to and did report their coverage status were assessed a penalty for lacking coverage in 2008, the last year for which complete data are available. About 26,000 of these 56,000 people were actually in compliance for part of the year.
The cost of health care in Massachusetts is in line with expectations.
Myth

The Massachusetts law is bankrupting the state.
Fact

The fiscally conservative Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, or MTF, finds that under reform, “State spending is in line with what [the organization] expected.” An MTF report released in 2009 found that state spending on health reform increased from $1.041 billion in fiscal year 2006 to a projected $1.748 billion in fiscal year 2010—an increase of $707 million over the four-year period, half of which is covered by the federal government.

Higher-than-expected enrollment in Commonwealth Care, the state-subsidized health insurance program, initially raised fears that policymakers had dramatically underestimated the number of low-income uninsured in Massachusetts. These concerns, however, were unfounded. Commonwealth Care enrollment peaked in mid-2008 with 176,000 members. The MTF attributes the initial rapid growth in Commonwealth Care enrollment to the state’s early success in getting residents signed up for the program.
The majority of people in Massachusetts like the health reform law, and it has gotten more popular over time.
Myth

The Massachusetts health reform law is highly unpopular among members of the public, the business community, and policymakers.
Fact

Support for the law is strong among members of the public. Sixty-one percent of the Massachusetts nonelderly population approved of the law when it passed in 2006. Two years later, 69 percent of nonelderly adults viewed the law favorably. In a survey of employers conducted in 2007—shortly after passage of the health reform law—a majority of Massachusetts firms surveyed agreed that “all employers bear some responsibility for providing health benefits to their workers.”20 A survey of employers conducted a year later—after the individual and employer mandates were implemented— found that a majority of firms believed the law was “good for Massachusetts.”

The Massachusetts health reform law was also a bipartisan achievement, drawing support from both sides of the aisle throughout the process. The law was passed by a Democratic legislature with support from its Republican members and then signed by GOP Gov. Mitt Romney.
Massachusetts is building on its 2006 reforms to promote better quality care at lower costs.
Myth

Current Gov. Deval Patrick is proposing to ration health care in Massachusetts.
Fact

Gov. Patrick’s proposal would make Massachusetts a leader in nationwide efforts to reform health care delivery and bring down costs. The governor has proposed new tools for achieving integrated care—by holding providers accountable for working with each other and their patients to coordinate and delivery higher-quality care at a lower cost.

These innovative tools encourage providers to deliver better care—replacing the current payment system’s set of incentives that provide more care regardless of value. Indeed, more care can sometimes be harmful to patients. Hospital-acquired infections and medical errors are among the most common causes of preventable deaths and injuries in U.S. hospitals. Medical errors accounted for 238,000 preventable deaths in Medicare and cost the program $8.8 billion from 2004 to 2006. A recent study found that sepsis and pneumonia caused by hospital-acquired infections resulted in 48,000 deaths in 2006 and cost the program $8.1 billion.
Conclusion

The Massachusetts health reform law is a success story from every perspective. The state has expanded health coverage to almost all of its residents, maintained a strong market for employer-sponsored health insurance, gained the support of the business community and the public, and is moving forward in containing costs. We can look forward to a similar positive experience across the nation as we implement the Affordable Care Act modeled in large part on the Massachusetts law. Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst at the Center for American Progress and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst at the Center.

Nicole Cafarella is the Payment Reform Project Manager and Policy Analyst, and Tony Carrk is a Policy Analyst for American Progress.

Download this brief (pdf)

Read in your web browser on Scribd

To speak with our experts on this topic, please contact:

Print: Katie Peters (economy, education, and health care)
202.741.6285 or kpeters@americanprogress.org

Print: Christina DiPasquale (foreign policy and security, energy)
202.481.8181 or cdipasquale@americanprogress.org

Print: Laura Pereyra (ethnic media, immigration)
202.741.6258 or lpereyra@americanprogress.org

Radio: Anne Shoup
202.481.7146 or ashoup@americanprogress.org

TV: Lindsay Hamilton
202.483.2675 or lhamilton@americanprogress.org

Web: Andrea Peterson
202.481.8119 or apeterson@americanprogress.org



Myth vs. Fact: Health Care Reform in Massachusetts


Here is more on MA healthcare law
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massac...th_care_reform




Share on facebook Share on google_plusone
Share on linkedin Share on email More Sharing Services
Massachusetts Health Care Reform: Six Years Later

In 2006, then-Gov. Mitt Romney signed Massachusetts' comprehensive health reform designed to provide near-universal health insurance coverage for state residents. Building on a long history of health reform efforts, the state embarked on an ambitious plan to promote shared individual, employer, and government responsibility.

This brief examines Massachusetts' experience with coverage and access to care over the last six years, as well as the state's ongoing efforts to deal with persistent high health-care costs. The brief also compares Massachusetts health reform with the national reforms included in the Affordable Care Act (ACA) signed into law by President Obama in 2010.

Reports, Studies and Toplines Icon Issue Brief (.pdf)


Information provided by State Health Care Reform Initiative
Publication Number: 8311
Publish Date: 2012-05-21

Massachusetts Health Care Reform: Six Years Later - Kaiser Family Foundation



Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law could flatline his 2012 ambitions

Read more: Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health care law could flatline his 2012 ambitions - Kasie Hunt - POLITICO.com



And this is the short list it goes on and on, but wait I am still waiting for the truth, and about Romeny and Paul on amnesty Romney Wants it, Paul wants Attrition....

Oh geeeze, Kathy did you HAVE to post a pic with FAT FACE in it!? Now I'm going to have nightmares again. LOL!

Oh geeeze, Kathy did you HAVE to post a pic with FAT FACE in it!? Now I'm going to have nightmares again. LOL!


Hey it's my right I am a transplanted "Bostonian" born and bred LOL