Today Mitt Romney delivered a major speech on Health Care.  He detailed the differences between Obamacare and what he was able to accomplish in the state of Massachusetts, as well as detailing why Obamacare is bad for the country.  You can view the powerpoint by clicking on the image below.

by Jake Gibson | April 05, 2011

With the news that President Obama is officially running for re-election in 2012, we thought it would be interesting to take a look at where some of candidate Barack Obama’s 2008 campaign trail promises stand today.

The president has said he keeps a check list of promises he made during the campaign in his pocket. Last fall Mr. Obama told “Rolling Stone” he figured his administration had “probably accomplished 70 percent of the things that we said we were going to do.”

The watchdog organization Politifact.com* has been keeping track and puts candidate Obama’s list of promises at a staggering 506, of those they say the president has kept 122, or 24 percent. Coincidentally, of the 25 selected as the most significant promises, politifact.com says Obama has followed through on six, for a ‘promise-kept percentage’ of 24 percent.

Here is a selection we thought worthy of inspection:

1) Guantanamo Bay

As a candidate, Barack Obama repeatedly stated his intentions to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, calling the facility a recruitment tool for al Qaeda. With Monday’s announcement by Attorney General Eric Holder that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other alleged plotters in the September 11 attacks would be tried in military courts, it has become even more obvious that Gitmo will not be shutting down anytime soon.

However, some Obama supporters say they don’t see Guantanamo Bay shaping up as a huge problem for the president in 2012.

“President Obama is still trying to shut down Gitmo as soon as possible, it’s just turning out that it’s not possible,” said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi. “But I don’t see that promise really hurting him in 2012, his base probably won’t abandon him over that.”

2) Letting Bush-Era Tax Cuts Expire

As a candidate, Barack Obama said he opposed tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and if elected to the highest office in the land, he would let the Bush-era tax cuts expire. However as president, Obama found that he had to compromise in order to avoid raising taxes for most Americans. In the end, the only way for the president to keep the Bush-era tax rates for couples making less than $250,000 was to also extend current tax rates for what he called “the wealthiest two percent of Americans.”

Once again, Democrats don’t see this as a deal breaker.

“He fought against extending the Bush tax cuts the whole way, he just lost. But once again I don’t think his base will desert him for Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich over this,” said Trippi.

3) Foreclosure Prevention Fund

During the campaign, candidate Obama said he would create a $10 billion fund designed to come to the aid of homeowners at risk of foreclosure. “Too many families are unable to refinance because no one will lend to them, and they are unable to sell their homes because the housing market has fallen,” said Obama in 2008.

The president actually tried to go above and beyond the initial promise by creating a fund that totaled $75 billion. This money came, in part, from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). The problem is the program, for a myriad of reasons, has failed to deliver. As of January 2011, the program had helped only about 500,000 homeowners.

4) Immigration Reform

As a candidate out on the campaign trail, Mr. Obama promised to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. However, during his first two years in the White House, the president spent just about all of his hard earned political capital on passing health care reform and the economic stimulus. So by the time Obama went back to the well for immigration, he was politically broke.

The DREAM act, a bill aimed to provide a path to citizenship for immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, passed in the House but died in the Senate during the lame duck session. With that chance missed, it could be a long time before Democrats and immigration reform backers have the numbers in Congress to make another run at it.

Obama called the failure to pass immigration reform “maybe my biggest disappointment” of the lame duck session but maintains he is still committed to the goal.

5) Restricting Former Lobbyists from Serving in Obama Administration

As a candidate, Barack Obama deplored the prevalence of lobbyists in and around the White House. “No political appointee will be able to lobby the executive branch after leaving government service during the remainder of the administration,” said Obama in 2008.

However, according to politifact.com, the administration has granted waivers to several former lobbyists, allowing them to serve. The administration also allows “recusals,” in which a former lobbyists can recuse themselves from discussions surrounding interests they used to lobby.

6) Iraq War

As a candidate out on the trail, Mr. Obama made the Iraq war one of his main issues and hammered his Republican rival Sen. John McCain over and over on the subject. Obama said he would work with military commanders on the ground in Iraq and in consultation with the Iraqi government to end the war safely and responsibly within 16 months.

Here is one that is widely considered to be a promise kept for President Obama. Although about 48,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq as a transitional force, the bulk of the combat forces were headed home by the end of summer 2010.

7) Repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

In the final weeks of a lame duck session, Congress overturned a 17-year-old policy known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” which banned gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military. The repeal calls for a transition period so that the Department of Defense can train all forces by this summer and implement the repeal in the fall.

By signing the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” into law on December 22, 2010, President Obama kept another campaign promise.

Sign a ‘Universal’ Health care Bill

Last but certainly not least is the promise Mr. Obama made to sign a universal health care bill. Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has many detractors, this has to be considered a major promise kept by President Obama.

On March 23, 2010 after months of political battles on Capitol Hill, President Obama signed Democrat-passed health care reform into law, triggering a firestorm that is still working its way through the courts. Many legal scholars and pundits expect the matter will ultimately be resolved in the Supreme Court

Trippi adds that no president can keep all of his campaign promises, yet on the biggest issues, such as Iraq and health care reform, Obama did make good on pledges he made on the trail.

“More importantly the 2012 presidential election will be won on issues of the day, not promises from 2008,” Trippi said. “The buck stops on President Obama’s desk now, you can’t blame President Bush anymore. So if the economy is good and we feel safe as a nation in November of 2012, he’s looking good, however if unemployment is at nine percent, the president could be in trouble.”

The president meanwhile seems eager to talk about his accomplishments rather than specific promises. During a conference call with thousands of grassroots supporters Monday night Obama ticked off some of his signature accomplishments such as health care legislation, Wall Street reform and the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” The president told listeners that in only two years his administration had produced “the most successful legislative initiative” of any president over the last 50 years. “I think it’s important to remind people what we have accomplished.”

*PolitiFact calls itself “a project of the St. Petersburg Times to help you find the truth in American politics. Reporters and editors from the Times fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups and rate them on our Truth-O-Meter.”

Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/04/05/brief-look-candidate-obamas-2008-campaign-promises#ixzz1Ikii7X1K

Growing up, I watched a lot of British comedies.  From Monty Python to “The Young Ones,” I was an avid fan (and still am) of dry, British wit.  One of the best of those shows was “The Two Ronnies” starring Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett.  They had a special gift for playing with the English language that was absolutely hilarious and they often engaged in social commentary.  Here is a fine example (from 1975) of both which gives us a quick glimpse into and concise wrap up of the future of Obamacare…

Mitt talks about the things he believes in when it comes to health care and points out differences between MA health care and Obamacare.  Although there are some similarities, those things that are similar are things that Republicans in the house and Senate were okay with.  The differences are stark and when one really dives in to understanding them, they find that one is a socialist plan and one is a Conservative free marketing plan without a “Public Option.”

There are obvious similarities between Obamacare and what you did in Massachusetts. Do you acknowledge that what you did in Massachusetts has become a model for nation under Obama, whether you wanted it to or not?

And there you have it: the primaries may be more than two years away but he’s already in prime talking point form.

I can’t speak for what the president has done. I don’t know what he looks at… If what was done at the state level, they applied at the federal level, they made a mistake. It was not designed for the nation.

I stand for the things I believe in. I don’t know what the politics are of it.

Jonathan Gruber advised both you and Obama on health care. He told me that you are “the one person who deserves the most credit for the national plan we ended up with.” Is that a title you’re willing to accept?

[Laughs.] I think you’ve already heard my answer on that.

Do you think the Republicans in Congress made a mistake by using Obama’s desire for Republican votes as leverage to align the plan more closely with conservative views? For political reasons, he was almost desperate at first to get bipartisan support for the bill.

I think what President Obama wanted was Republicans to vote for an extremely ideologically big-government plan. And Republicans weren’t going to do that….

But he was elected president, right? Wasn’t there room within those negotiations for Republicans to push his plan to the right if they chose to play ball?

Republicans put forward several pieces of legislation to reform health care, and those were rejected by the president in favor of the Pelosi-Reid plan.

Former Bush speechwriter David Frum wrote the following: “We do know that the gap between [Obama's plan] and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.” Is it fair to say that the new national plan has conservative roots, even if you disagree with it being imposed on a national level?

Let’s see, I can’t think of a great metaphor. Maybe Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde: they both have two arms and two legs, but they’re very different creatures…there’s simply an enormous difference when you have one plan that imposes massive tax hikes and another that does not. [There's] a huge difference with a plan that dramatically cuts Medicare Advantage and one that does not impose a new burden on senior citizens.

Those are real differences, but aren’t they measures designed to control costs and pay for the plan? The president’s plan has cost controls that the Massachusetts plan didn’t need–tax increases on people earning over $200,000 a year, reductions in wasteful Medicare spending. In Massachusetts, you could just repurpose hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds to pay for it. But that doesn’t work on the national level. So it seems a little disingenuous to call the Democrats fiscally irresponsible, then criticize the parts of the plan that are designed to make it fiscally responsible.

But you see, we go back to the initial premise. I reject the idea of a federal mandate imposed on states and individuals. If you open the door to the federal government, then it leads to all sorts of unattractive elements, such as raising taxes and cutting Medicare. If instead one said at the federal level, “We’re going to give resource flexibility to states to use money they’re already receiving as a way to help the poor buy insurance,” that says, “All right, we’re using funds that have already been allocated, we’re letting states create their own plans, and we’ll see how that works. And we’ll learn from the experience.” That’s the idea of states as the laboratories of democracy. What we’ve gotten into by opening the door to a federally imposed plan is the creation of the Mr. Hyde monster.

Obviously concerned how this might play with GOP audiences when the presidential primary season rolls around, Romney stuck to the PR script and struck a stoic pose:

Many political pundits believe that the passage of Obama’s health-care plan and the related animosity among Republicans toward what you did in Massachusetts has greatly diminished your chances of winning the Republican nomination if you run for president in 2012.

I stand for the things I believe in. I don’t know what the politics are of it.

Original article here.

Romney Launches “Prescription for Repeal”

March 24, 2010 – 10:21 AM | by: Anita Siegfriedt

Mitt Romney’s ‘Free and Strong America’ PAC announced a new donation program today called ‘Prescription for Repeal.’

According to a release, the program’s aim is to “support conservative candidates who will repeal the worst aspects of Obamacare and restore commonsense principles to healthcare.”

The first endorsements go to three conservatives in key Ohio Congressional Districts.

Representative Jean Schmidt of Ohio’s Second Congressional District who is running for reelection to her third full term.

Representative Steve Chabot, who served as Congressman in Ohio’s First Congressional District for fourteen years is running for his old seat.

Steve Stivers, a former State Senator running for Ohio’s Fifteenth Congressional District. His opponent, Representative Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), voted in favor of healthcare reform.

The PAC will send each endorsed candidate a primary election contribution of $2,500.

“America has unfortunately been taken down the wrong path by President Obama, which is why it’s critical we elect fiscally-responsible conservative leaders who will restore commonsense principles to healthcare,” said Romney.

The statement

“Hospitals, doctors, MRIs, surgeries and so forth are more extensively used and far more expensive in this country than they are in many other countries.”

Mitt Romney, on Fox News Sunday recently

The ruling

Mitt Romney offered an interesting explanation of why health care costs so much in the United States. He said there are undoubtedly some bad health insurance companies, and they should be held accountable, but the industry is not the cause of increasing health care costs.

“Our health care costs are very, very high because we use a lot of health treatments. Hospitals, doctors, MRIs, surgeries and so forth are more extensively used and far more expensive in this country than they are in many other countries. It’s not the insurance companies that are driving our health care cost up and up. The reason their premiums are going up is because doctor bills and hospital bills and usage and so forth is also going up.”

For the purposes of our analysis, we sought a comparison of the United States and other economically developed countries. The Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development gathers data on health, medicine, economics and other social indicators.

According to OECD data, Romney is correct about U.S. hospitals costing more but wrong about them being more extensively used. The United States also has fewer hospital beds, shorter hospital stays for acute care and fewer discharges, a measure of hospital visits.

Romney is also right that U.S. doctors are paid more but wrong that they’re used more extensively. American doctors are paid $25,000 to $40,000 more than those in Britain, Germany and Canada. But there are fewer physicians than the average country, and American patients have fewer doctor consultations.

The United States gives the most MRI exams of all the countries monitored by the OECD. And a group of private insurers reports that the average MRI fee is higher in the United States.

The United States also appears to have an above-average rate of surgeries and three times the average rate of same-day surgery, according to the OECD.

Romney was right about MRIs, surgery, hospitals and doctors costing more in the U.S. And he was right about higher rates of MRI exams and surgery here, but wrong about hospital usage and doctor consultations. We’re rating this Mostly True.

Alex Holt, Times staff writer This ruling has been edited for print. For the full ruling — and others — go to PolitiFact.com.

A newly hired conservative political analyst for CNN says the more Americans learn about the Democrats’ healthcare legislation, the less they like it.A vote could occur as early as Sunday in the House on the Democrats’ healthcare bill.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) needs 216 votes to pass the measure. On Thursday, Republicans lost an effort to force House Democrats to hold a direct vote on the measure.

Erick Erickson is the editor of Redstate.com and a political contributor for CNN and its new program John King, USA, which debuts Monday night. He says the odds are in favor of Democrats passing the bill in the midst of widespread public opposition.

“I will guarantee you this, that one way or the other there will be a Resurrection Sunday this year — but not for healthcare if it doesn’t make it past Easter,” he predicts.

Erickson believes Democrats who support the planned government takeover of healthcare are blinded by their liberal ideology. He says that many lawmakers go to Washington with a mindset that they have been elected to use their best judgment — and that “the people back home” lack the facts in determining how pieces of legislation will benefit them.

“The problem for the Democrats in this case is that the more facts people do learn, the less and less they like healthcare,” says Erickson. “But they are so removed and insular in Washington from the rest of the nation, they’re going to be in for a very rude awakening if they pass this measure and then go home for the Easter holiday.”

The House will first have to approve the Senate healthcare bill, and then both chambers will pass a package of fixes agreed to in negotiations with the White House.

Source: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=942684

Anyone remember the great alarm the Democrats portrayed when the “Nuclear Option” threatened their agenda?  Everything the left is accusing the GOP of in this video is precisely what they are doing today with the threat of “reconciliation.”

Watch and enjoy.  It is amazing to see how much in denial Barack Obama is in the fact that his nationalized health care plan went down the drain, especially after all the absolute promises he made to people that it would pass…by the end of 2009!

Not that I am against people having faith, or exercising faith, in accomplishing worthy and noble tasks, but one thing I cannot stand is “absoluteness,” especially when it has to do with the “you cants” because of such and such a reason” type of reasoning.  Anyone can do anything they want because human potential is virtually unlimited.

But this is the main concern I have with “absolute” individuals -and I know many- is that when you ARE wrong, what does it say about your judgment??  These are people who are highly delusional.  Why?  Because in their “narrow-mindedness” they have failed to create an awareness of possible alternatives or to see “the bigger picture,” that they somehow put themselves into a state of mind that doesn’t offer them more resources or intelligence for being able see possibilities beyond what their narrow minds allow.  Pretty shallow indeed.

Such is the case with Barack Obama.  As you can clearly see in this video, Obama was very absolute that this health care bill was going to pass.  Now his credibility is shot, and he failed(let’s not forget the democrats in MA and in Senate) to see the potential of a Republican winning the Senate seat which was occupied by the late Ted Kennedy, that was before declared anointed for a Democrat Senator only!  By the way, kudos to Former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney for the almost non-recognizable, yet obviously profound help in showing Senator Elect Scott Brown the way to victory!

The left assumed that the Massachusetts seat was already theirs and they failed to work hard to keep it.  Yes, the people sent a signal of discontent, but Martha Coakley sure didn’t campaign like it was possible she could lose.  And now?  The fate of the health care bill.

Three cheers to Barack Obama for breaking another promise to the American people and making it more likely that Mitt Romney will defeat him in 2012!

Oh, and just a side not -Huckabee says that Brown’s election in Massachusetts was bad for the GOP because it will cause Obama to move to the center.  “The Huckster advocates voting for Dems so Obama will not notice and react.
This guy is overdosing on Twinkies. He is a certified Whack Job if he thinks Scott Brown is good for Obama and bad for the GOP!  Futhermore, does this mean that Mike would rather see Obamacare take hold of this country?”

By the way, do you think that this image of Obama is fading?  Let’s HOPE!

Click on image to enlarge