I agree with you on state's rights. Romney could have deflected a good portion of the Romneycare attacks by framing it as a state's rights issue. A lot of people still would be opposed to it, but atleast they could accept that it had some sort of constitutional basis. However it worries me quite a bit that I've never heard it brought up by the campaign, its as if they don't care about state's rights at all, the thought never crosses their minds.Dave2 wrote: Speaking of Romney... Part of my problem with the whole "party politics" thing is that, as far as I can tell, neither party is willing to even give lip service to the 10th amendment. For instance, I think Obamacare is a bad federal-level law (and not just because it's unconstitutional). But Romneycare (for which he has taken much flak from the rest of the GOP candidates) was done where such a law would belong — at the state level — if it were a good idea. By implementing it there its effects can be studied without jeopardizing the national GDP and job market. I still think it's a bad idea, but at least he didn't throw the nation's healthcare system into turmoil and push us all further into debt to find out if it'd work. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats seem capable of admitting that some of their ideas are best suited for the state or local governments.
Romney isn't for repealing Obamacare, he is for "repealing and replacing" it. If you don't support Obamacare you have to question what they want to replace it with.