Tuesday, January 18, 2011

I Support Romney Because Of Romneycare (A Pledge)

Here is a great defense of the individual mandate.
There isn't anything wrong with it, except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom. But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance, because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren't insured, there's no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it.

...

I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.
Sounds like Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi, right? No. It was Chuck Grassley. But that was then and this is now. Grassley has since gotten with the times, and has come out against the individual mandate as an unconstitutional infringement. 

I could also bring up Jim DeMint, Orrin Hatch, the Heritage Foundation, the Club for Growth, and a whole host of other conservative leaders who have also shifted their thinking to match the current tide. But that is not important. Politicians respond to the people. So a more interesting analysis would show how the health care policies of Richard Nixon, George H.W. Bush, and Mitt Romney have been transformed in the last two years to "socialized medicine."

So here is why I support Mitt Romney -- because I am a conservative, not a libertarian. While I want to see the overall size of the federal government shrink and the national debt disappear, I do not believe that the federal government is like a foreign occupying force that needs to be destroyed. I want a smart, effective government, not one that just fights wars and gives out checks to senior citizens.

And I will not back down on the individual mandate. If Obama wants to come to our side, then I welcome him. If he wants to transform his plan into a single payer system, or one with a government option, then I don't welcome him. But I will not spit in the faces of conservative leaders who have paved the way in creating sensible and market-driven health care policies. And I reject the current notion among conservative pundits that there is no action that the government can do to alleviate the high costs and the injustice that is ubiquitous in our health care system.

I also will not allow a bunch of uneducated talking heads on the radio, whose excessive income  derives completely on creating fear and panic, determine the policies of the conservative movement. It is time for the conservatives to stand up against the libertarians and the mercenaries on cable news. There are those in the right-wing who think that I am not conservative. But it not me that has left the conservative movement. I trace my principles and beliefs all the way back to Edmund Burke. It is the right wing who has left the conservative movement.

And that is why I support Mitt Romney. His health care policies were an achievement and if he never becomes President, they will still be an achievement. A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for conservative ideals (limited, but effective government) and a rejection of libertarianism (rejection of government).

103 comments:

Right Wingnut said...

I didn't even need to scroll down. I knew who wrote this from the title alone.

Anonymous said...

He lost me as soon as he compared a health insurance mandate with an automobile insurance mandate.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Pablo, if MassCare is such an acievement, can you explain why insurance premiums have risen since the introduction of the program or why taxes haven't been lowered due to the claim that the state doesn't have to pay for the "freeloaders" any longer?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

ObamaCare and RomneyCare to the end!!!

They're not that bad in their present form.

Is that your position, Pablo?

Right Wingnut said...

Pablo,

If RomneyCare is such an achievement, would you agree that Mitt should capitalize on it by making it the centerpiece of his campaign?

Right Wingnut said...

Pablo,

I took the bait and clicked on your link. The defense of the mandate that you referenced comes from the Talking Points Memo - not eactly a bastion of conservaive thought.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/how-the-health-care-repeal-push-marks-the-end-of-the-universal-health-care-consensus.php?ref=fpi

Pablo said...

"ObamaCare and RomneyCare to the end!!!"

No, that is not my position. I would seek to carry reforms in both plans.

For Obamacare, I think two things would be helpful.

1. It would be financed through a VAT, instead of increasing payroll taxes.

2. There are some regulations that I would do away with, like the regulation against spending too much on administration or retaining too much profit.

I am sure there are other ways for it to improve, but the basic concept I support.

Pablo said...

"I took the bait and clicked on your link. The defense of the mandate that you referenced comes from the Talking Points Memo - not eactly a bastion of conservaive thought."

Holy Crap! The defense of the mandate came straight out of the mouth of Grassley. It was a direct quote. Are you seriously denying that Republicans did not once own the individual mandate?

Pablo said...

"If RomneyCare is such an achievement, would you agree that Mitt should capitalize on it by making it the centerpiece of his campaign?"

He should, but he can't. He has to shy away from it because of the domination of talk radio and libertarians in the GOP.

Anonymous said...

Maybe no one will ask Mitt about mandates in the debates.

Pablo said...

"Pablo, if MassCare is such an acievement, can you explain why insurance premiums have risen since the introduction of the program or why taxes haven't been lowered due to the claim that the state doesn't have to pay for the "freeloaders" any longer?"


First, that is not quite accurate. Insurance premiums have been rising in MA long before the health care reform was enacted and they have continued to rise since it was enacted. You conviently left that first part off.

I think there are several reasons. First, MA has the best health care facilities in the world. Second, health care reform in MA did not have some of the cost-control capabilities of the federal government.

But also the premium jab is not completely correct. The healthcare exchanges set up for those shut out of the employer system have seen premiums decline 40 percent, even as all premiums have risen 14 percent nationwide.

Romneycare, like Obamacare, needs some clever tweeks.

Right Wingnut said...

No, that is not my position. I would seek to carry reforms in both plans.

For Obamacare, I think two things would be helpful.

1. It would be financed through a VAT, instead of increasing payroll taxes.

2. There are some regulations that I would do away with, like the regulation against spending too much on administration or retaining too much profit.

I am sure there are other ways for it to improve, but the basic concept I support.
Pablo

This is where you, and many others miss the boat. Once you enact a government run program, it's subject to reforms. The question is, WHO is responsible for approving and inacting the changes? Many Rombots like to blame Governor Patrick for the current state of RomneyCare. Not having done the research, I honestly don't know if there is any validity to that claim. From my point of view it does not matter. That is always what happens in these situations. Romney knew they would likely override his veto, and that a Democrat would likely replace him in the Governors mansion. He crafted and inacted the plan four years ago. He still owns it, whether he likes it or not. Actually, you'll probably agree with me on that last point.

Now you're in favor of a VAT tax? What else should we tie to your new tax?

Pablo said...

"Romney knew they would likely override his veto, and that a Democrat would likely replace him in the Governors mansion. He crafted and inacted the plan four years ago. He still owns it, whether he likes it or not."

I do agree and I think it was a mostly-successful reform.

"Now you're in favor of a VAT tax? What else should we tie to your new tax?"

A VAT would make the costs of health care more apparent to everyone. Currently over 50 cents of every dollar spent on health care is spent by the government, whether it be local or federal government. We have already had a government take over of health care long before Obamacare. Health care in the United States has largely been funded by taxpayers (over 50%). The question is not whether or not there should be a tax (there must be with 50%), the question is how do we tax in a way that makes the real cost of health care visible and doesn't kill businesses. A VAT would accomplish those goals. A payroll tax would not.

We currently spend something like 17% (approximately)of our GDP on health care. And that number is rising steadily. The level of spending is fine if we were receiving the best health results in the world. But we are not. We need better bang for our buck. And spreading the high risk costs out over a larger pool of insured through an individual mandate is the best way of reducing premiums in the long run and making our health care system more efficient.

OhioJOE said...

"A vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for conservative ideals (limited, but effective government) and a rejection of libertarianism (rejection of government)." That is exactly why some of us are starting to reject Conservatism because we look around and wonder if there is effective government. The argument 'if only Mitt were King, the government would work' sounds silly.

The argument about Auto Insurance also rings shallow. First, most states do not make you pay for collision and no state forces you to own a car.

To paraphrase another chap from MA, if the Romney camp want the election to be about Health care 'bring it on.

illinoisguy said...

Some of you, including you Pablo, are mixing a state's rights issue with that of the federal government. Grassley and others are saying that a mandate at the federal level is unconstitutional. I believe Mitt believes that also. They have no authority at that level to mandate such things. The states do. Massachusetts, including the Heritage Foundation, wanted it at the state level to get rid of the socialist freeloader program they had prior to it's implementation. Nobody with half a brain can claim that the mandate at the state level is anything other than improvement that causes those able to take care of their own health care issues to do so.

SO MUCH CONTORTION!!! Guys, health care premiums have been rising in all states. It has nothing to do with the mandate. If anything, the mandate helps in that regard, so try to stay honest.

Right Wingnut said...

I-Guy,

Just to refresh your memory...

"If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation." - Mitt Romney

illinoisguy said...

Completely out of context:

He has made it clear SO MANY TIMES that he was talking about a model for other states to take those aspects of what they like that would work for their own states. It had NOTHING to do with ANYTHING at the federal level. He has told you a thousand times if he's told you once (if you ever really listen) that each state has their own individual needs and desires, and there is no such thing as a one size fits all.

Right Wingnut said...

I-Guy,

Then he should have said it was a model for OTHER STATEs, but he didn't.

Long after we're done talking about 'blood libels', those words will come back to haunt him...

OhioJOE said...

"He has made it clear SO MANY TIMES that he was talking about a model for other states to take those aspects of what they like that would work for their own states." Obviously, some people had different ideas.

Anonymous said...

IG, if the mandate is the state's answer to save the word from the "freeloaders" and so much wasted money then I would imagine that both the state and the insurance companies are reaping those svaings...if they are then why aren't they passing the savings onto the customers and the citizens?

jr

Anonymous said...

IG, I don't believe in mandates on any level...it's a philosophical belief I have that the government, any government, shouldn't force the citizens to purchase something they may or may not want and then choose who you can purchase it from. If you believe that a state mandate is effective then you must elieve a federal mandate could be effective as well. Romney will look like such a hypocrite in the general with the constitutional argument...it will tough to watch.

jerseyrepublican

illinoisguy said...

Then he should have said it was a model for OTHER STATEs, but he didn't

He did say that in the sentences surrounding that one....on many, many occasions. His detractors would like it if he actually said what you imply, but Mitt has made it perfectly clear from day one that each state is unique, and if they can borrow some aspects of Mass. care, fine, and if not, they can do their own thing.

illinoisguy said...

"IG, if the mandate is the state's answer to save the word from the "freeloaders" and so much wasted money then I would imagine that both the state and the insurance companies are reaping those svaings...if they are then why aren't they passing the savings onto the customers and the citizens?"

Perhaps free enterprize? I thought that was a conservative principal?

illinoisguy said...

"IG, I don't believe in mandates on any level...it's a philosophical belief I have that the government, any government, shouldn't force the citizens to purchase something they may or may not want and then choose who you can purchase it from"

That's your pergogative, but there already was a MANDATE. Taxpayers were MANDATED through taxes to pay for the freeloaders.

"If you believe that a state mandate is effective then you must elieve a federal mandate could be effective as well."

Absolutely not! State's rights are an important thing to Mitt, to me, and to many others. Mass. had a right to adopt what they wanted. People have a right to move if they don't like it.

Anonymous said...

If taxpayers were being mandated to pay for the freeloaders and now they are not then why haven't their taxes gone down in Mass?

The freeloader argument is a red-herring created by the insurance companies to raise premiums and then enforced by the state of Massachussetts via the mandate. Don't they even tell you who you can buy insurance from?

Now I'm not saying that freeloading doesn't exist...

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Absolutely not? IG, you argue in favor of mandates every day. You hate freeloaders. ObamaCare instituted the same mandate...you should be happy. You either like mandates or you don't...you either see them as effective or you don't.

Which is it?

jerseyrepublican

Doug NYC GOP said...

How do the detractors of Romney and MA HeagramlthCare explain the fact the program retains high popularity in the state?

illinoisguy said...

I argue at a state level. I hate freeloaders, and like I said states already have a MANDATE, and that is that taxpayers are being MANDATED to pay for medical bills for people who are freeloading the system. Why do you people think that is ok???? ..... if you don't like mandates, why is it ok for taxpayers to have mandates?

Anonymous said...

IG, if the tax payer mandate was solved then why haven't the taxes gone down in Mass.?

jr

Anonymous said...

Doug, because there is a democrat majority in that state and democrats like it when the government runs the roost.

jr

OhioJOE said...

"How do the detractors of Romney and MA HeagramlthCare explain the fact the program retains high popularity in the state?" Easy, it is Taxachusetts.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Those are weak gents.

The Gov't doesn't control what you think does it?

Slogans?

Anonymous said...

Doug, when people are conditioned to believe a certain thing for the course of their lives...they kinda do.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Anon @11:04am

That's even weaker.

Is it your contention the folks who live in MA are conditioned to like certian things?

Good luck backing up that claim.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Hey Anon -- I may have spoke too soon.

Perhaps your claim has some validity.

Seems most of the objections to Romney and HC are the same as espoused on Talk Radio.

Seems the support and defense of certian political celebrities, are the same as espoused on Talk Radio.

Seems many of the phrases and words I read in opinions, are the same as espoused on Talk Radio.

I'm beginning to see your point.

Rob said...

Jersey Republican
"If you believe that a state mandate is effective then you must elieve a federal mandate could be effective as well."

Your argument is unsound. Comparing what states do at a local level to the Feds at a much larger level creates a completely false premise. By your logic, every state law you support, you would support at a federal level. Your argument is completely contrary to the principle of federalism and the American tradition of government at a smaller (state and local)level being better able to solve the problems of citizens at a local level. If the founders at the Constitutional Convention would have used your logic, they would have dissolved the states of any ability to legislate for themselves, as your logic only leads to big government solutions.

As to the Mass mandate, I support Romney, but I don't like the Mass mandate. However, when given the decision between the single payer system the Mass legislature would have enacted (even against his veto), and compromising and saving at least some aspects of the private sector, Romney did what a competent leader does. He worked with what he had to work with.

The argument that he created a program that was going to be abused later, and that he should have foreseen that is bunk. If politicians followed that rationale as a guiding principle, they would never do anything. If Romney had not acted, Mass would have single payer right now. The funny thing is, had Romney stonewalled the legislature with vetoes, they would now have single payer, and Romney's current naysayers would probably still fault him for it.

Finally, Forbes magazine had an article with some less harsh alternatives to the mandate. It's an interesting read.

http://blogs.forbes.com/beltway/2011/01/18/the-alternatives-to-obamacares-individual-mandate/?boxes=financechannelforbes

Pablo said...

It always funny to watch the comments after a post like this. Let me make a few more myself.

1. I think that the anti-mandaters are right about Romney's federalist defense. There may be truth that a state mandate is ok constitutionally, but a federal mandate isn't. But what is interesting is whether Romney believes that a mandate is good policy. His defense always stems from federalism, but it never stems from policy.

2. Which leads me to this: I think that if Romney could he would support an individual mandate federally. Why? Because it is good policy. But because Obama did it, he can't. So he goes back to the federalist argument.

3. Jersey is making the same kind of argument as Romney when he says that is rejection of a mandate is a "philosophical belief." He is not arguing against it as policy, but just that he is uncomfortable about it philosophically.

4. Two things that the anti-mandaters haven't proven: that the individual mandate is bad policy and that it isn't conservative.

OhioJOE said...

"If Romney had not acted, Mass would have single payer right now." Now that is bunk!

Pablo said...

"The freeloader argument is a red-herring created by the insurance companies to raise premiums and then enforced by the state of Massachussetts via the mandate. Don't they even tell you who you can buy insurance from?"

That is a bunch of crap. Go back and read what was going on in MA as well as the rest of the country. It is not a red herring.

And the mandate does not raise premiums. Theoretically, mandates stretch high risk costs out over a larger pool of insured. The individual mandate is the only serious proposal to lower premiums.

Pablo said...

"because there is a democrat majority in that state and democrats like it when the government runs the roost."

That is also a bunch of crap. The government does not run anything. An individual mandate does not equal government run health insurance. The government does not set prices. The government does run the health care companies. The government does nothing operationally. The free market determines prices.

Pablo said...

"Seems most of the objections to Romney and HC are the same as espoused on Talk Radio."

Doug, you nailed it. That is the crux of the issue. The conservative movement is run by a bunch of idiots who don't know what they are talking about. All they know is that they make a bunch of money when they portray Barack Obama as the spawn of the devil. And so when Obama adopted Romney's policies of an individual mandate and a health care connector, Romney became a casualty.

If Obama decided to cut the government by 15 percent all around the board, Rush would say that Obama is a socialist because he only wants a 15 cut. There is no winning with Obama.

And I for one am not going to sit back and allow Rush and Beck to determine public policy (something that they clearly don't know anything about) just because they want to continue to get rich. I am going to continue to argue for limited government solutions to problems: like the individual mandate.

Anonymous said...

Pablo, I never said that some people don't freeload the system, I am saying that the "freeloading" wasn't so severe that personal liberties needed to be violated. The red-herring is the term freeloaders, it is used to create a certain dynamic and to take the light off the actual issue...the lowering of health care costs. If a mandate was supposed to save money, then who saved it? The people of Mass have not reaped any rewards via lower insurance premiums or through lower taxes.

jerseyrepublican

OhioJOE said...

"4. Two things that the anti-mandaters haven't proven: that the individual mandate is bad policy and that it isn't conservative." To a degree that is true. One can argue that Conservatism neither promotes nor demotes mandates per se. I oppose mandates as a Libertarian-Conservative, not a pure Conservative. As for whether or not mandates are good or bad policy, is a matter of opinion. I tend to believe in individual freedom, not everybody does to the same degree. I guess in the end, it is just their opinion versus mine.

OhioJOE said...

"That is also a bunch of crap. The government does not run anything. An individual mandate does not equal government run health insurance. The government does not set prices. The government does run the health care companies. The government does nothing operationally. The free market determines prices."

The above statement is only part of the story. Technically, niether MAcare nor, ObamaCare is outright Socialism per se. However, both systems are set up to regulate the free market to death. The Free Market is alive today, but it will eventually phase out by attrition. Europe and Canada did not become Socialistic over-night; the death of private health care was and is a slow death.

OhioJOE said...

" I am saying that the "freeloading" wasn't so severe that personal liberties needed to be violated." BINGO, a case of the cure being worse than the sickness.

OhioJOE said...

"If Obama decided to cut the government by 15 percent all around the board," And you expect us to believe that Mr. Obama will cut spending by 15%?????

Doug NYC GOP said...

If MA care is so terrible, why do the people embrace it?

If MA care is so terrible, why is there no move to repeal it?

I'm not saying it's perfect - no one is, but it does seem to work and the people who live there like it.

It's fine to not like mandates and believe personal liberty trumps all else. So if it's wrong to mandate you to have health insurance, why is it ok to mandate a hospital to treat you?

True, one does not not have to buy a car. But if you do, you have to insurance. You don't have to buy a house, but if you do, odds are you won't get a mortgage w/o insurance.

One does not have to get sick or get injured, but if you do, evidently you don't need insurance. Is that right fellas?

I keep hearing what's wrong with MA care but I don't hear the conservative alternative plans.

Anyone want to clue me in? Oh...and if you do...please detail them, along with all the unintended consequences they might have.

Clock's ticking boys......

Dave said...

MassCare will not be a significant issue in 2012. Sure, Mitt will have to inform people that MassCare would be unconstitutional on the Federal level. He will certainly have to inform them that he will press for full repeal of ObamaCare. But the reason it won't be an issue is that the main issues will be facing the debt crisis, lowering the Unemployment Rate, and reducing the size of government.

As long as Mitt is seen as the most competent candidate to deal with those issues, and he will be, MassCare won't be all that relevant.

Mitt can, during the course of several months spent campaigning in the 4 early states, turn MassCare into a plus----but it will be a plus on the margins.

He will win the nomination on more pressing issues.

Doug NYC GOP said...

"If Obama decided to cut the government by 15 percent all around the board," And you expect us to believe that Mr. Obama will cut spending by 15%????? -OJ
------

You are taking Pablo's words too literally. He making an example. His point is, if Obama enacted a policy that agreed with Rush, he would still be considered evil because he didn't go far enough. Rush would keep moving the bar, because he is invested in never agreeing with him.

OhioJOE said...

"why is it ok to mandate a hospital to treat you?" I for one never said it was OK. Personally, I think that those who do recieve hospital care should pay for it. Similarily, I am not opposed to Parents being forced to pay child support.

OhioJOE said...

"His point is, if Obama enacted a policy that agreed with Rush, he would still be considered evil because he didn't go far enough." Haha, that describes a few people rather well when it comes to a certain other candidate.

Doug NYC GOP said...

You may not have said that, but that's the policy of the nation today.

Perhaps if we toss out the mandate, we should toss out the requirement of hospitals to provide emergency care, as well.

BTW, don't know if folks this or not, but wanted a provision allowing people to opt out and self-fund their own medical costs, by posting a bond proving they had the ability to pay. Nifty idea which was taken out over veto.

Anonymous said...

Doug, your comparisons are not comparable and you give the reasons yourself. If I want to own a car, I have to have car insurance - my choice. If I want to own a house/get a mortgage, I have to have home owners insurance. I don't have a choice to purchase or not purchase health insurance under the mandate because if I don't I will get fined. If that concept is alright with you then I guess you wouldn't mind if the government told you you have to buy a chevy car or truck or be fined or you have to sed your kids to college or be fined. Not to mention that the sole purpose of a health care mandate is to gradually head toward a single payer system.

jerseyrepublican

Right Wingnut said...

As I read some of your defenses of RomneyCare, it's becoming increasingly clear how difficult it will be for Mitt to walk the fine line between his plan and that of the president's. Just about any of the above defenses could be thrown right back in his face by Obama (If it's good enough for MA, why is it not good enough for the nation?). The only argument that has any validity is the state's rights issue. That is not likely to be enough for a large portion of the GOP primary electorate.

Anonymous said...

Doug, why isn't the chat box working?

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

RW, but even the state's rights issue will fall upon deaf ears because it will still sound hypocritical. I don't believe the average American cares much about the concept of state's rights. I do but I doubt the average American voter does.

jerseyrepublican

Right Wingnut said...

Some guy in South Carolina isn't going to care that the people like government-run health care in MA.

Right Wingnut said...

JR,

Good point. I just don't think your average voter will research it to the degree that Romney's most ardent supporters do.

OhioJOE said...

So if I understand you correctly, it was Mr. Romney who proposed that people could opt out of the mandate if they posted bond?

Doug NYC GOP said...

OJ - Yes.

OhioJOE said...

"I don't believe the average American cares much about the concept of state's rights." That part would be sad if that is the case.

OhioJOE said...

Well Doug, I am not sure if this is the full solution, but I have just gained a bit of respect for Mr. Romney, at least it shows that his heart was in the right place with regards to the promotion of Free Market values.

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - You are missing the point.

In the examples I cited, the indivdual is trying to aquire a good/service. In order to complete the transaction, they must meet certial requirements or mandates, if you will.

If an individual is expecting medical care or services, wouldn't the same requirements be expected?

If one can guarntee they'll never be sick or injured and need medical service, than the mandate is wrong.

How would you fix it?





If you are expecting to get medical treatment

Pablo said...

"Some guy in South Carolina isn't going to care that the people like government-run health care in MA."

That is the statement of the day. First, there is no government run health care in MA. This is a matter of fact not opinion. Secondly, some guy in South isn't going to care about the details of the plan. That part is correct. Mainly, because they will be misinformed and also because they generally don't care about policy beyond talking points that they heard on talk radio.

Right Wingnut said...

So the fact that T-Paw (while Gov. here in MN) imposed a state wide smoking ban (drove countless bars and restaraunts out of business), championed ethanol subsidies, considered a milage tax (would entail the installation of a GPS unit on your car), enacted a 'green jobs' initiative(gave tax breaks to businesses for reducing their "carbon footprint"), etc. shouldn't matter in a campaign for national office, because of state's rights? If that's the case, all of the above is off the table in the primary debates. T-Paw will be delighted that you won't hold him accountable for any of it.

Right Wingnut said...

"Some guy in South Carolina isn't going to care that the people like government-run health care in MA."

That is the statement of the day. First, there is no government run health care in MA. This is a matter of fact not opinion. Secondly, some guy in South isn't going to care about the details of the plan. That part is correct. Mainly, because they will be misinformed and also because they generally don't care about policy beyond talking points that they heard on talk radio.
Pablo

You actually made my point better than I did.

OhioJOE said...

"Mainly, because they will be misinformed and also because they generally don't care about policy beyond talking points that they heard on talk radio." Haha, you at least you concede that South Carolinians are smart to find the on switch on their radio. I guess that is progress.

Pablo said...

Yeah, they definitely know how to listen to Limbaugh. There are a lot of smart people in South Carolina, by the way. I just think that the primary is dominated by Rush Limbaugh listeners.

Right Wingnut said...

Pablo,

Are you suggesting that everyone who listens to Rush is...dumb?

illinoisguy said...

I've never seen any of you attempt to argue that leaving things as they were was MANDATE for the taxpayers. They were MANDATED to pay for somebody elses health care. What we are saying is that if there is going to be a mandate, let's have it such that people are required to pay for their own! AND, if you don't do that, come up with another day to rid the situation of taxpayers being MANDATED to pay for the freeloaders. If you're a libertarian, fine, but don't pick and choose the mandate you like or don't like.

Right Wingnut said...

Iguy, I'm visualizing that discussion in a debate...

Romney: "I've never seen any of you attempt to argue that leaving things as they were was MANDATE for the taxpayers. They were MANDATED to pay for somebody elses health care. What we are saying is that if there is going to be a mandate, let's have it such that people are required to pay for their own! AND, if you don't do that, come up with another day to rid the situation of taxpayers being MANDATED to pay for the freeloaders."

Obama: "I couldn't agree more, Mitt. That's one of the reasons that we saw MassCare as the 'model for the nation' that you envisioned back in 2007."

That response could be used over, and over, and over. Mitt will not be able to effectively counter that rebuttal.

OhioJOE said...

"but don't pick and choose the mandate you like or don't like." I am not saying that I like any mandates, but not all mandates are the same. Some are worse.

illinoisguy said...

I agree that some are worse OJ. The mandate causing taxpayers to pay for SOMEBODY else's health care who could pay for their own is the very worst. It is, in fact, pure socialism.

illinoisguy said...

The obvious answer to that debate is that state's have the RIGHT to choose their own method of dealing with this problem.....and that being Constitutional is no small matter.

Right Wingnut said...

Romney: "The obvious answer to that debate is that state's have the RIGHT to choose their own method of dealing with this problem.....and that being Constitutional is no small matter."

Obama: "The constitionality is still being argued in the courts...[followed by a laundry list of people who argue that it's constitutional and a citing of the Commerce Clause]...if it's good enough for MA, why is it not good enough for the nation? Mitt, you called it the 'model for the nation' back in 2007."

illinoisguy said...

RW, I don't claim to be as smart as Mitt Romney, nor nearly as up on this subject matter, so quit putting my comments in quotes as if Mitt is saying them.

Right Wingnut said...

I-Guy,

Ok, I'll preface it with the word "hypothetical" from now on.

illinoisguy said...

Why not just let Mitt supply his own answers? I'm only stating my opinions, and they may not be close to anything MItt might even hypothetically hit on..

Unless, you would like some of us to start hypothetically debating for Palin?

Pablo said...

I have no problem agreeing that Romney will have a difficult time arguing with Obama about health care. My whole point is that he shouldn't have too. Romney should be arguing for the correct reforms, not that Obamacare is a government takeover of the health industry and other assorted talking points.

Right Wingnut said...

It's likely that Obama's answers will be more sophisticated than what I put forth as well. They probably don't need to be, though. You can spout all the "she quit" stuff you want. Everyone knows she resigned. If she wins the nomination, she will have proven she can overcome that. Obama would only be able to go so far with that one....especially when he started collecting a handsome salary as a part time Senator, running a full time campaign almost from the day he was sworn into office.

Anonymous said...

I thought I actually agreed with Pablo, then I realized that he thinks a nationwide mandate is a good idea. Not constitutional=bad idea.

I agree that mandates, even on a state level where they probably are constitutional, stink. However, I cannot get over the idea that I am supposed to pay for people who have the ability and money to get healthcare and choose not to. Then, when something goes terribly, terribly wrong, I am supposed to pay for their cancer treatment, or facial restoration, or even kidney transplant while they have been living a lifestyle that I can't afford because I have been trying to be responsible and pay for my own healthcare. Not to mention saving for my children's college educations, trying to pay off my mortgage--instead of walking away from it for everyone else to pay for--and saving for retirement. There are far too many freeloaders!

Constitutionally, the federal government is limited in what it can do to improve the health care situation. I think they should begin by repealing Obamacare. They also need to find ways for people to legally purchase insurance across state lines. Even that might engender a certain amount of friction with the states, but I think it's necessary. After that, pretty much everything will have to be handled on a state level. The only way I will be convinced to give up Mitt's "bond" idea--yes, he proposed that as an option, but the legislators wouldn't hear of it--or an individual mandate, is if we make absolutely every single person (except the mentally handicapped, of course) responsible for their own health care. If you listen to people, they will tell you they can't afford health insurance, but somehow they can build big homes, or travel extensively, or have 4 plasma screen tv's with satellite connections. People who can afford insurance should either buy it or take the consequences when they don't. I shouldn't have to make up the difference!

And yes, I know there are poor people among us, and we'll have to do what we can to help them have insurance, too. The debate isn't over, but I see the health care rolls burgeoning, and as long as someone else is paying for it, they will only go up. We must find ways to make people be responsible for their own!

AZ

Doug NYC GOP said...

RW - "You can spout all the "she quit" stuff you want. Everyone knows she resigned."

Is there a difference?

Setting aside the word games, just earning the GOP nod would not square the "Leaving Office Early" issue with opposing Indies and wavering Dems.

What the reasons for ending early again?

Doug NYC GOP said...

OhioJOE said...

Well Doug, I am not sure if this is the full solution, but I have just gained a bit of respect for Mr. Romney, at least it shows that his heart was in the right place with regards to the promotion of Free Market values.

January 19, 2011 2:08 PM
--------------

Appreciate your comments and being open minded.

I am surprised however, that being so opposed to a person, you haven't researched his positions a little more throughly.

Tell you what -- No Apology is coming out in papaerback on Feb. 1st. Why not pick up a copy and we can critique afterwards.

Anonymous said...

Hey Doug, couldn't OJ say the same ting about you and your lack of interest in researcing Palin? I've already caught you twice with misinformation you believed to be true. I'll tell you what...both of Palin's books are out in audio format...Palin can read them to you.

jerseyrepublican

OhioJOE said...

Haha, Jersey,

"both of Palin's books are out in audio format" Darn, If I would have known that I would not have bought the book version. I do not expect some people to buy Mrs. Palin's book(s) or even listen to her beautiful voice, we would be doing well if some people researched the term blood libel. Notice how they kept quiet all of a sudden when the guy from TN produced that phrase.

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - The only "error" you caught me on was the issue of her ability to raise defense funds, in relation to the "Quitting" issue. I didn't realize Alaskan state law dictated otherwise.

(Still did she really have to quit due to $$$$? In earning $12 million in 2009, she easily could have defended herself. The courts threw them out no?)

What was the other one, Mr. Prosecuting Attorney?

Anonymous said...

Doug, I don't remember what the other one was...something you said last week.

jerseyrepublican

Right Wingnut said...

Doug, She would not have earned the $12 million had she remained Governor. Had she stayed, the frivilous ethics complaints likely would have cost them millions. As you know, the Palins were not a wealthy family. Would you remain in your current job if every other day you were greeted with a frivilous lawsuit upon arriving to work...with no means to pay for your defense?

Doug NYC GOP said...

Doug, I don't remember what the other one was...something you said last week.

jerseyrepublican

----
Hmmm...you don't remember the issue, but you remember I was wrong. Interesting premise.

Anonymous said...

Doug, I don't remember a lot of things you write on this blog...it doesn't mean that half of them aren't probably wrong.

BUT...

Give me some time I'm sure it'll come back to me.

jerseyrepublican

Doug NYC GOP said...

RWN - Here's an honest answer. But first a quick memory refresher:

Palin inks book deal in may 2009. She the goes on to resign in July 2009. Palin's mega-hit book was released in November 2009. She earns a mega-million paycheck as an advance for the book.(http://www.adn.com/2009/05/12/793061/palin-signs-deal-for-memoir-to.html)

RWN - Your question is innaccurate, as Palin would indeed have the abilty to pay for her defenses out of pocket, via the book deal advance. The estimated legal costs were $500K-1 Million.

Now on to your question: "Would you remain in your current job if every other day you were greeted with a frivilous lawsuit upon arriving to work...with no means to pay for your defense?"

Probably not, with no means to pay. If I did have means, that's another story.

Doug NYC GOP said...

JR - Just tweaking you back.

Anonymous said...

Doug, me too. If I didn't respect you I wouldn't bust your chops so much.

jerseyrepublican

Right Wingnut said...

Doug, You're making many assuptions. You're assuming that the frivilous complaints would have stopped. The numbers you present would likely have continued to multiply. In addition, you're not taking consideration the significant costs and resources devoted to this by the state.

In addition, those reports of her book advance were never confirmed. You should know by now not to take reporting on Palin at face value. Her book would likely not have been as sucessful had she not had the time to devote to her book tour. Furthermore, she probably would have been subject to even MORE ethics complaints for doing the tour in the first place. She couldn't even leave the state without the ankle-biters going on the offence.

Whay do you think she resigned, Doug?

Doug NYC GOP said...

RWN - Are you not making a lot of assumptions yourself?

You are assuming the lawsuits would be relentless. You are assuming her advance would be insignificant. (Typically they are not.) You are assuming decreased book sales and even more lawsuits.

If the defense process was followed, could we not assume the same outcome, as what eventually happned, that they would be dimissed or rejected? So with a little a time, effort and resources, they have been battled and deterred.

Is that at least a reasonable assumption?

Why do i think she resigned?

I don't believe the reasons are 100% either way. I think she was bothered by the lawsuits and the distractions. She also is a smart woman and figured out, the pastures - political and financial - were greener outside the Governor's mansion. I don't think it was just a money grab, just as I don't subscribe to the belief her motivations were as self-less and noble, as her admires point out.

(Your cue to respond with a Romney jab)

Right Wingnut said...

Doug,

I was hoping you would respond by saying she couldn't handle the pressure of the job...that she couldn't take the heat...the libs chased her away...or something to that effect, but you didn't take the bait.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Does that mean I passed? Did my approval rating tick up a notch? Quick call Gallup!

I told you my answers were honest. ;)

Noelle said...

This has been an interesting and lively debate. Just to add my 2¢ here, I think Romney's has only 2 challenges in winning the nomination. The first is his health care reform that was passed in MA, and the second is his religious faith.

Regarding his faith, that is clearly a ridiculous issue, but that won't stop a few people from supporting him. The legitimate issue is his record on health care reform. I am a conservative, MA is a very liberal state. I'm glad I don't live there and have to live under such liberal "leadership." That being said, health care is a complex issue. Romney and others who worked on it spent a very long time researching, studying, analyzing, compromising, and fighting, to get a result that in the end was overwhelmingly supported by the people of Massachusetts. There are elements of it that I don't like and that are not well received by conservatives. The problem I see is that those who don't support Romney, rather than look at the complexities of the plan, acknowledging both the good and the bad, they only talk about the points they don't like and argue in soundbites rather than really understanding the complexity of the issue.

To say that the MA healthcare reform is a model for Obamacare is ignoring some very significant factors. 1st, Romney BALANCED THE BUDGET before tackling the health care issue. Obama didn't. 2nd, Romney DID NOT RAISE TAXES to implement the MA healthcare reform. 3rd, Romney's bill was 72 pages long. Obama's was 2,700 pages. That is significant because how much is hidden in those 2,700 pages? You can't hide in 72 pages. 4th, the MA healthcare reform is constitutional in Massachusetts. The constitutionality of Obamacare is still in the courts, but I believe that it is unconstitutional, and the current VA ruling says so too. 5th, the MA healthcare reform was designed specifically for Massachusetts. It is a relatively wealthy state, with already relatively low numbers of uninsured. Obamacare intends to impose the same solutions on Tennessee, West Virginia, Nevada, Oregon, California, Alabama, and all the rest, even though each state has its own unique issues to address. Finally, Romney succeeded in getting support from both sides of the aisle. He was able to compromise and find solutions that were satisfactory to both. No one group was entirely happy, but all had the opportunity to participate and contribute to the debate. Obamacare was forced upon us all without getting input or support from Republicans.

Doug NYC GOP said...

Noelle, I am pea green with envy!

I wish I could have summed up the Romney-HC issue, in such a reasoned, classy and eloquent manner.

Very well said.

Do I have your permission to furnish this into a front page post?

Noelle said...

Sure. I do have 1 edit, however. In the beginning of the 2nd paragraph I said "but that won't stop a few people from supporting him." What I wish I would have said is "but that won't stop a few people from refusing to support him." If you wouldn't mind making that change, as well as any other editorial corrections you might see fit to make.

Doug NYC GOP said...

I will make those changes and try to get to it later tonight for a tomorrow post.

Thanks!

Anonymous said...

The devil is in the details.

jerseyrepublican

Anonymous said...

Listen, this conversation is getting old. Romney supporters do not believe MassCare will affect his chances in the primaries or the general...everybody else does. For some it might be political posturing, for others they are truly analyzing the situation. And, then, there are others who are in between. Pablo, for instance, acknowledges it will be an issue...and you don't get much bigger of a Romney supporter than he. I also think it will be a major problem and the entire issue will be off the table if Romney makes it into the general. Others believe that Romney can succinctly and quickly sum up his argument into 30 second or less soundbites and that his deep understanding of healthcare will only heighten his chances against Obama.

No one can honestly answer at this juncture so we must leave it as...only time will tell. But, no matter what anyone says, it will be much harder than some think and much easier than others think...until we know for sure I'll leave you with this...mandates suck!!!

jerseyrepublican