[clarky07]

why the downvote? there is nothing in the constitution about the federal government providing healthcare. Ergo, based on the 10th amendment it is the right of the states. Massachusetts can do whatever they want. The federal government cannot.

[shrughes]

Everybody already knows about the existence of a "states' rights" opinion on health care, and it's not consistent with Republicans' ideology on the subject. You were downvoted accordingly for making statements that have no basis in reality. You should reconsider believing or sharing your own opinions in the future.

[clarky07]

What does Republican ideology have to do with my comment? How does that make my comment have no basis in reality. Also, I will not reconsider believing or sharing my own opinions in the future. I'm quite sure my freedom of speech is covered.

Note that my comment has since been upvoted, so at least I'm not the only one on hn who has read the constitution.

[shrughes]

Your comment was in reply to one about the Republican candidate's inconsistent behavior when it comes to healthcare reform, defending it as an example of states' rights. But Republicans want government's hands off their Medicare at the state level as well.

[clarky07]

Do you understand what "state's rights" means? It means that the states are free to make up their mind on a matter without the federal government interfering.

You are also confusing one person with a whole party. Just because he is running as a Republican, does not in fact mean that every Republican agrees with him on every issue. He is by all account a very moderate Republican.

Some Republicans might support have a state health care law similar to the one in Mass. Clearly Romney did. Many others would not in fact support that. That is their right. It is also somebody else's right to "want government's hands off their Medicare at the state level." That is a perfectly valid opinion, and it can be debated at the state level.