"RomneyCare" was/is NOT a "Republican bill".

[phleshdef]

I'm getting sick of hearing this crap. Why are people calling this state healthcare program a "Republican bill" when it was crafted and passed by a state where 80-90% of the state senators and house members that supported it were and still are Democrats?

Just because Mitt Romney supported it and signed it doesn't make it a Republican bill. Mitt Romney also used to support a woman's right to choose, so I guess thats a Republican idea now as well? Mitt Romney should not be labeled as either a liberal or a conservative anyway, he is an ideological opportunist (technically known as a Complete Bullshitter), but thats neither here nor there.

Both the Mass. healthcare system and our near future national healthcare system have merits and flaws that can be thoughtfully debated. But when we keep saying that President Obama "passed Romneycare" and that its a "Republican plan", all we are ultimately doing with those phrases is using them as slurs and its not providing an accurate context at all.

Regardless of how you feel about its effectiveness, the bill that created Massachusetts health care plan was a production of the Democratic party.

[polichick]

1. Thanks for posting this - I'm sick of the "we're like you" bullshit...

...as if Dem ideas have to be approved by those throwbacks.

[EFerrari]

19. The problem is, it's true. n/t

[vaberella]

36. The problem is, it's not. Gruber, the designer of both models, even stated...

that Romneycare was a frame work. But there were various things ignored in the Romneycare model and several places where they went wrong in defining the model---because they weren't setting it up for bringing in revenue and the like. Yes, Romneycare provided the framework but then it was changed massively in order to accomodate so many people and also to negate the negative results that happened in Romneycare. He had a 2 hour interview on this on C-SPAN.

Further more it's not even a Republican bill as the OP suggested. They never supported this...it was only Romney who proposed it and got it through in Mass. But to say it's Republican is not true.

[EFerrari]

38. Much earlier than Romney.

Wasn't this Nixon's idea in the first place?

[phleshdef]

43. Yea and its an idea we should have took Nixon up on.

[EFerrari]

44. That's perfect.

LOL

[phleshdef]

47. Are you telling me that the next 30 years after that chance were better off?

[EFerrari]

58. I'll refer you back to the title of the OP.

Have a nice day!

[phleshdef]

60. Nixon's bill would have covered pre-existing conditions.

There are people that died younger than they should have because we didn't do that when we had the chance.

[HughMoran]

46. By today's standards, Nixon is a liberal

...though I'm not necessarily agreeing that it was Nixon's idea - just sayin...

[phleshdef]

48. Nixon wasn't a conservative at all. He was completely nuts, but not a true conservative.

[Oregone]

71. Today's standards in the post-Reagan/post-Bush America suck

Real liberals and labor opposed the NHIPA then, as it should of been. Now they stand to the right of where Nixon was on the issue

[HughMoran]

72. It takes time to pry public opinion back to being reasonable

This is where much of the friction is here - some propose to do what is possible in today's political climate (hoping for a slow but steady movement back to the left), others want the idealistic solution right away. Slow but steady usually wins the race.

[Oregone]

75. Is there an attempt to pry?

Or just to win in the current political climate?

That is also a point of friction, you know.

I attempted to start a thread on this issue recently, without much takers (but starts with a good G&M article about the reform):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=433&topic_id=244594

[HughMoran]

76. It's almost impossible to imagine having a conversation with someone

...who can't acknowledge the beginnings of something historic in the HCR bill that passed last week.

I'm not even going to attempt it - I've never had any luck accessing a closed mind. :hi:

[Oregone]

79. Every piece of legislation is a piece of history in some respect

But they all vary as to what their idealogical foundations are, which influences the directions they trend towards in the future.

I find it as close-minded to think this is an uber-awesome achievement in the liberal ranks of FDR's New Deal and Civil Rights legislation.

[LeftyAndProud60]

2. That bill sucked though. And even Obama said a lot of ideas came from the Heritage Foundation. NT

[xultar]

4. Phuckin A +1

[phleshdef]

5. If it sucks THAT bad, why does such an enormously high amount of Mass. citizens approve of it?

[ProSense]

16. No, the bill doesn't suck.

The bill was produced by the Democratic legislature and includes a lot of excellent reforms.

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care reform bills.

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.<19> He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.<20> Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.<21><22> The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

link

This is why Romney doesn't want to take credit for it, but it's impossible for him to run from it. The media has already branded it with his name.

President Obama is turning the tables on the Republicans by attributing elements of the plan to Republicans. He's destroying the critics arguments because despite what they say, Mass is number one in terms of the number of people covered. President Obama can be confident because unlike Mass' plan, which had no cost controls, the bill he signed includes significant cost controls.

[Cha]

20. I was just going to say..Does this SUCK? Thanks,

you beat me to it.

What's so SUCKY about this.. "In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care reform bills.

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.<19> He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.<20> Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.<21><22> The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.

You can't just say it SUCKS and not explain WHY.

[phleshdef]

21. It sucks because it HAS to, otherwise it doesn't make Pres. Obama look bad.

[Cha]

32. I know..but, Knee jerkers need to be exposed to facts..

even on the periphery.:)

[Cleita]

82. Remember NAFTA. How are people thinking about Clinton these days? n/t

[xultar]

3. First, there are conservatives in MA, Scott Brown proved that.

Second, You guys are acting like no conservatives had a hand in the MA bill I'm sure it would have been TOTALLY different if Dems were completely running the show.

[phleshdef]

8. Dirty Secret: Scott Brown is not all that conservative.

And Dems were and still are almost completely running the show in the Massachusetts state government. I know math is hard, but not THAT hard.

[Jennicut]

15. Conservatives in New England would not be considered conservatives in

other states. New England is quite different in that Repubs here are not like the socially nutso/hate gov. types. They are usually prochoice and slightly fiscally conservative. Brown's own record was moderate.

[karynnj]

23. It was written in a legislature where Democratic leaders can pass

anything and override a Governor's veto. So, I really do not see that it would have been totally different.

I do think that what Obama is doing in referring to it as Romney's bill is brilliant - Romney looks, with his flaws, like he might be the best the Republicans have - now, there are some possibilities that I don't know much about - notable Palenty, but they have had a hugh number of possibilities self destruct - there was a time when Jindal and Sanford were mentioned.

[phleshdef]

25. And according to the history of the program, they did pass a lot and override a lot of vetos.

[DJ13]

6. Republican Sen. Chafee propsed a near duplicate to Romneycare/Obamacare

back in 1993 to try and counter Clinton's HCR.

[phleshdef]

12. I kinda like Lincoln Chafee. But I don't see how that changes anything I said in my OP regardless.

[Hippo_Tron]

40. It was actually his father John Chafee

[progressoid]

41. It was Lincoln's father, John. And the plan was eerily like the GOP plan of '93.

Sadly, we've passed their plan. It now has support of Democrats yet is too liberal for even the Repubs that supported it just 17 years ago.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d103:SN01770:@@@L&summ2=m?0;tatus
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Graphics/2010/022310-Bill-comparison.aspx

[Cleita]

7. It was originally crafted by the Heritage Foundation, which is a right wing

think tank. Obama said so himself.

[phleshdef]

10. I don't care who said what. The Mass health plan is still a Democratic party plan.

[Jennicut]

9. Mittens was a moderate to liberal Repub in the New England style

of Repubs. He has tried to pretend he was not like that since he ran for the Repub primaries a few years ago. An opportunist is correct.
And like CT, Mass has had a Dem majority in their legislature for years.

[Richardo]

11. You're completely missing the point of the remark.

It's not to confer credit, it's to make a political point refuting Republican claims that the Democrats' unilaterally rammed through some socialist horror as a health insurance reform measure.

I can't believe people here can't (or won't) see that.

[phleshdef]

13. Oh yea, I get why Obama is pointing it out. And he SHOULD point that out.

[OHdem10]

14. Could it be, that people who say it is a Republican Bill: The Mass

Bill, HCIR, are so close to Bills produced by Richard Nixon.
then Bob Dole Bill (alternative to Clinton Health Care)
that they are saying these are Bills with a Republican
Philosophy.

To be a philosophically Democratic Bill it would have had
to be Single Payer or at the minimum have a public option.

It is better to have a philosophically Republican Bill
passed by Democrats than no bill at all.

Once it is law, it is much easier to improve than to be
year after year just trying to pass HCIR.

Yes, Democrats passed the bill and deserve the credit. I
do not believe anyone disagrees. It is the philosophical
approach of the bill.

[phleshdef]

18. Richard Nixon is also responsible for OSHA and EPA as well but...

...yea, those Mass Democrats are all philosophical Republicans in disguise!

There is no bare minimum requirement for something to be a Democratic bill. But if you are talking liberal philosophy vs conservative philosophy, this type of bill is definately liberal. The conservative philosophy would be to not have a bill at all and let people deal with their own problems.

[karynnj]

27. Actually there was a huge grassroots movement demanding

things that would function as OSHA and the EPA do - neither were things that Nixon himself led on.

[phleshdef]

29. That doesn't matter at all. Nixon was not opposed to those types of things.

Nixon was a lot of bad things. A true conservative was not one of them.

[karynnj]

30. I agree - and the President gets credit even when it is not something they led on

(It bothers me that Bush gets credit for aid for AIDS in AFRICA, when it was pushed by Kerry and Frist, then written by the SFRC - but he did support it - and for that deserves some of the credit.)

[Uzybone]

17. Democrats are the bad guys to some now

so I'm not surprised that the democratic legislature of Massachusetts is getting slammed now.

[MannyGoldstein]

22. First Off, Romney Proposed It

Second, his partner-in-crime was the Democratic House Speaker, Sal DiMasi. Sal then left his post to become the head lobbyist for Mass. hospitals, but there was so much furor over the obvious conflict of interest that this was aborted. Sal is now under indictment for extortion and other such things.

[phleshdef]

24. What Romney proposed was not the final bill that got passed.

The legislature amended the hell out of it and his proposal was not the only one considered for the final bill either.

[MannyGoldstein]

26. Pretty Similar - What Are The Substantial Differences? nt

[phleshdef]

28. Romney's proposal has numerous changes and all his vetos were overridden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform#Reform_coalitions

In fall 2005 the House and Senate each passed health care reform bills.

The legislature made a number of changes to Governor Romney's original proposal, including expanding MassHealth (Medicaid and SCHIP) coverage to low-income children and restoring funding for public health programs. The most controversial change was the addition of a provision which requires firms with 11 or more workers that do not provide "fair and reasonable" health coverage to their workers to pay an annual penalty. This contribution, initially $295 annually per worker, is intended to equalize the free care pool charges imposed on employers who do and do not cover their workers. The legislature also rejected Governor Romney's proposal to permit even higher-deductible, lower benefit health plans.

On April 12, 2006 Governor Mitt Romney signed the health legislation.<19> He vetoed 8 sections of the health care legislation, including the controversial employer assessment.<20> Romney also vetoed provisions providing dental benefits to poor residents on the Medicaid program, and providing health coverage to senior and disabled legal immigrants not eligible for federal Medicaid.<21><22> The legislature promptly overrode six of the eight gubernatorial section vetoes, on May 4, 2006, and by mid-June 2006 had overridden the remaining two.<23>

[MannyGoldstein]

42. As I Said - The Changes Weren't That Substantial

They were good changes, to be sure - but didn't change the substance of it.

And I'm not seeing how RomneyCare is substantially different than Obama's 2,700-page wonder.

[Cha]

50. So? BD..all his proposals got changed and overidden by the Mass Dems..nt

[Zen Democrat]

31. Romney opposed the bill before he signed it. It was written by Democrats ... primarily Ted Kennedy.

Romney signed it because there were enough votes in the legislature to override his veto. So he signed it and took credit for it for years. Now that it's an albatross in Teabagger World, he's running for the door.

"Oh what a tangled web we weave ...."

[Warren Stupidity]

34. Ted Kennedy wrote the mass health bill?

That would be unusual for a federal rather than state senator.

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Why would you choose to argue this point?

Romney is the only non-total nutcase left standing for 2012. Why not stick him with his Romneycare, which is massively similar to Obamacare, even if it was (obviously) passed by a Democratic Party dominated legislature?

It kills Romney with the batshit crazy majority of the Republican Domestic Terrorist Party. That would be a good thing.

Romney took credit for it when it was in his interest to do so, so we should obligingly insist on his taking credit for it when that will sink his campaign.

As to your point: the bill was proposed by Romney, adjusted by the legislature, passed by the legislature, signed by Romney. It is Romneycare.

[phleshdef]

35. What I'm really arguing is that this is not a legitimate slur against HCR and the President.

[Warren Stupidity]

85. I don't view it as a slur. Nor would Obama.

He set out to implement HCR even a Republican (prior to the evolution of Batshit Republican) could support.

In fact, the similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare are something we should push back at the Batshit Crazy Party at every opportunity, especially when they claim they had no input and that it was shoved up their asses and down their throats and into their ears and rubbed up and down their chests.

[quiet.american]

37. K&R nt

[murdoch]

83. K&R

[ClarkUSA]

39. The architect of RomneyCare is a liberal economist. Also, Hillary's HC plan was RomneyCare to a T.

It's funny to note that some of the DUers who are complaining about President Obama's HCR didn't appear to have the same objections to Hillary's HC plan even though they are basically the same thing.

But there's a caveat: ObamaCare is better than RomneyCare because the architect of the latter tweaked the former to avoid the problems of the latter:

It was Gruber who designed Romneycare----and Gruber said that all the mistakes that happened in Romneycare they tried to avoid in this bill or used other mechanisms to counter those issues. You should have sat there and watched his 2 hour talk on C-SPAN, it was extremely informative.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=253948&mesg_id=254123

[Cleita]

49. Privatization of health care is not liberal by even

the most elastic definition of the word.

[phleshdef]

51. Healthcare is all ready privatized. This bill increases government influence on a private industry.

You may not think its going to work, thats fine. But there is nothing conservative about this bill. Even mandating that people get private coverage is the antithesis of conservative principle. Its undeniably an increase in government influence.

[Cleita]

80. Sixty percent of health coverage in this country is from the government,

the Veterans Administration, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIPS, Tri-Care and others before this reform. You say the mandates increase government influence. Yes, it creates a new victim class of people who will be forced to buy the product of a private industry even if they can't afford it. You can be sure any subsidies will be for the most inferior products that these companies can offer. Trust me. I know. I have Medicare Part D that operates exactly like this exchange does. I get subsidized providing it's the cheapest generics, but the govt. pays a high price because there are no price controls at the end of the drug providers who can charge anything they want to and that is because the drug company lobbyists made it that way through their conservative bought and paid for Congress people on both sides of the aisle. The insurance companies did a comparable coup through conservative DLC Democrats and obstructionist Republicans.

[phleshdef]

81. And every single one of those items you listed remain from the government.

What does that have to do with anything I said? Oh yea, nothing.

[Cleita]

84. What it says is that the other forty percent should be covered by the

government preferably with an improved Medicare and the Hell with the insurance companies. Let them go sell policies for yachts and mansion security instead.

[Oregone]

54. The architect was many decades before this particular bill

[DevonRex]

45. Forgot to say I gave this a rec so here's a kick to go along with it.

:hi:

[Oregone]

52. Some of its predecessors (Dole & Nixon insurance reforms) were

So what if the Democrats moved to the right to embrace Republican ideas? You have a point?

[phleshdef]

53. Nixon was not a conservative.

[Oregone]

55. So it was a liberal bill then too? Why did the liberals oppose it?

Why did Ted Kennedy claim the NHIPA was a handout to insurance companies, written partially by them?

[phleshdef]

56. "Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut

"Asked about his greatest regret as a legislator, Ted Kennedy would usually cite his refusal to cut a deal with Richard Nixon on health care.

http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/09/ted_kennedy_richard_nixon_and.html

[Oregone]

59. Kennedy did "cut a deal". It was called the Kennedy-Mills Compromise Bill

Are liberals suppossed to capitulate 100% to the whims of the other side?

And BTW, many liberals even oppossed Kennedy's deal from the left. You do realize that, right? So if Nixon's reform was liberal, Kennedy's deal was even more to the left of that, why the fuck did so many liberals still have problems with it?

I think you are going to fail in framing this legislation--legislation built upon forced purchases in a capitalistic system that disproportionally shifts the cost burden on the lower classes--as "liberal". The fact of the matter is that the political spectrum has just shifted

Hell....if this is not a right-wing reform, that must make Canadian healthcare "fringe", eh?


:rofl:

[phleshdef]

61. Kennedy said it was his greatest regret, you were the one that brought him up, not me.

Most of us here want single payer or something similar. That has nothing to do with my argument. Its still a liberal bill. Words have definitions that aren't subject to opinion.

[Oregone]

63. That aside, at the time, him, an army of liberals, and all of labor opposed the Nixon bill

And when he went to cut a deal with the compromise plan, a slew of liberals and labor oppossed him from the left (though, I think Kennedy-Mills would of been a great plan due to its distribution of the burden).

So its tough to call the Nixon bill anything shy of "right-wing" in the political context of the 1970's. Yes, Nixon may look "liberal" today, but is the post-Reagan/post-Bush world really a good measurement for political alingment? How would such a bill play in other industrial countries today?

[phleshdef]

65. The post Reagan/ post Bush world happens to be the one you currently reside in.

[Oregone]

67. And its not the one Nixon resided in, so things like "Nixon was not a conservative"

Are complete crap...

You are comparing Nixon to the current political spectrum to make statements about his ideology, yet Im not allowed to refute his status by pointing out that the very context he operated in positioned him on the right?

Look, in 1970 Nixon was a right-winger capitalist, and the liberals of the Democratic Party oppossed the bill.

Now, the Democrats stand more the the right than Nixon did. It does not make the current reform suddenly "liberal". The concept of liberal doesn't change instantly, whenever politicians veer one direction or the other.

[phleshdef]

68. I'll fix my statement then. Nixon IS not a conservative.

[Oregone]

69. And the bill IS not liberal

Unless you change your idea of "liberal" constantly based on whatever the United State's Democratic Party thinks. Then, by tautology, it would be

And, eh, this, Romney-Care, etc, most certainly have Republican origins, no matter which way you cut it.

[phleshdef]

73. So the federal govt regulating the insurance industry and subsidizing the purchase of...

...insurance for those that are too poor to afford it is a conservative idea? Is that what you are now saying?

[Oregone]

77. Not exactly. Its a product/service necessary for the general welfare and industrial competitiveness

There should be no regulating the private industry, as there should be no private industry involved. Any reform that preserves their expensive for-profit involvement, as well as the disproportionate burden and distribution of their services, is from the right.

In the context of this argument, Kennedy treaded towards the center in his compromise by reducing their roles to paper pushers administrated by the federal government, but funded progressively (an idea rejected at the time from the left & labor).

[phleshdef]

57. And yes, it was liberal as far as standards of liberal vs conservative go.

The true conservative way would be to have no kind of federal government structure in place, let people deal with their own problems.

[Oregone]

62. Ah, only if you think the conservatives really believe in a "free market" over a profitable market

"Free markets" are not inherent in capitalism, an idea that conservatives often behold above all else. The only thing inherent is that there are private owners of production, who are the benefactors of the profits. This reform is built upon a foundation of capitalism--and forced private transactions at that--which will make sure health costs in some part be distributed as dividends to private shareholders of these insurance companies.

Being that this reform is founded upon notions that preserve capitalism (not socialism) and deem the expense of private industry worthy, and being that it utilizes and authoritarian mandate, I don't think it would fall on the political compass anywhere near where a traditionally liberal reform would.

[phleshdef]

64. That was a real long winded way of saying that liberalism automatically means anti-capitalism.

I'm not sure I buy into that.

[Oregone]

66. In many ways it does

The very struggle that liberalism seeks to peacefully facilitate--that between the owner class and the working class--is only exacerbated by allowing a system necessary for the general welfare to disproportionally burden the lower class, disproportionally benefit the owner class with services, and disproportionally reallocate wealth toward the owner class through the distribution of those services.

[IndianaGreen]

74. You are confusing liberalism with neo-liberalism

Romney Care was written by a neo-liberal.

[IndianaGreen]

70. I don't recall Obama campaigning for RomneyCare, but he now brags about it

This cure leaves the disease untreated

March 29, 2010

THE MAIN thing you hear from supporters of the health care law is that it's a historic expansion of coverage for tens of millions of people. But there's an underside that doesn't get as much notice, isn't there?

THE BIG problem with the bill is that so much money and power is being handed to the private health insurance industry, which is the cause of the problem in the first place.

There are two ways that coverage will expand. One is a Medicaid expansion. Now if middle-class Americans want to tax themselves to pay for health care for the poor--and I think we should--we could have done this without the rest of the legislation.

The other big expansion is the so-called individual mandate that basically tells people that they have to buy private insurance. So if you have insurance through your employer right now, you have to keep it--whether you like it or not. If you don't have insurance, you'll be forced to turn over thousands of dollars to the private health insurance industry.

Under the new "exchanges" set up under the law for the uninsured to go to buy insurance, people will have to spend up to 9.5 percent of their income for policies that cover only 70 percent of health care costs. So you would still be in a situation of having insurance that was so skimpy that you would have difficulty getting care when you needed it.

As you know, Massachusetts has the prototype of this reform. If you go on the Internet to look at our insurance exchange, it's called the Massachusetts Connector.

http://socialistworker.org/2010/03/29/cure-doesnt-treat-the-disease

[Robbins]

78. Here's The Thing

Obama Is comparing Health Care Reform to Romneycare as attempt to wound him.This Is first attempt to make Romney as flipflooper.
This guy used to pretend to be Liberal Republican.Running to left of Ted Kennedy on Gay Rights.Being ProChoice.Saying In 2001 he
was not part of ReaganBush crowd.This Is all politics here.

While Health Care reform was more conservative than most would have wanted stilll better than what Republicans offered.Which Is nothing.

[Toasterlad]

86. Spin, Tiny Dancer! Spin For All You're Worth!

[phleshdef]

88. I love cliche trolling that fails to support or refute a damn thing.

[Toasterlad]

90. Not As Much As I Love All the Turd-Polishing That Goes On Here.

[SnakeEyes]

87. Let them claim it's Romney's.. for now.

The Republican base will bury him for it and other things he did in MA when he becomes the nominee in 2012. I'm pretty certain that Romney is going to even more disliked by the right than McCain was. Obama will keep the moderates and independents because they are actually getting help and will see that once we get passed all the spin and hateful rhetoric of the HCR debate. He wins in a landslide.

[bvar22]

89. Dear Mr President...

Dear Mr President,

Many thanks for passing my Health Care Bill.
You had me scared with all that "Change" stuff for a while.
Glad to see you are still on our side.

Thanks Again,
Mitt Romney