Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Socialists Vs. Romneycare

I am still steaming over the accusation that Romneycare is "socialized medicine." So I decided to email all the socialist blogs I could find on the web and ask them what they think about Romneycare and Obamacare. Guess what? They don't agree with Mike Huckabee. One socialist said that anyone who thinks that either Obamacare or Romneycare is socialist is simply ignorant. I won't replicate my findings here since it is quite a long blog entry and I am still adding to it as I get more responses, but you might want to go and take a look. It really shows that Huckabee is out of his league on this one.

7 comments:

Bill589 said...

But isn’t it government run healthcare?

Everybody has to give more money to the government, so that the government can distribute it as it sees fit, giving some of it (after government workers get paid) back to the people.

Whatever you call this, it’s bigger (therefore more expensive and more powerful) government. This is the opposite of what the TPM wants.

We have to repeal Obamacare. We already have three big ‘entitlements’ that are destroying our country. Adding a forth is ridiculous.

Mitt has many strengths. I wish he could let Masscare go. I’m sure he could run a big government 1000 times better than Obama, but that’s not the point. We need smaller government.

Revolution 2010 said...

Pablo,

Well done. Very interesting Post.

It goes to show you that anyone who calls Romneycare a socialist program, doesn't know what they're talking about.

It's nice to read that there is a sort of benchmark on this rather than folks just throwing that term around hoping that it sticks.

hamaca said...

Bill,

I don't want to defend RomneyCare, because I don't think it's conservative.

What I want to address is a couple of your comments, which I think are a bit inaccurate, though I don't disagree with much of your overall premise.

First, I don't see it as government run healthcare. It's a government mandate (this is the government part of it) that everyone obtain private insurance for use with private sector healthcare providers, e.g. doctors.

Second, "We need smaller government". True. That's conservative. Agreed. I think Mitt's challenge as governor was that MA was on track to come up with something even more government-run, more liberal, than what was actually negotiated and implemented.

So, either you play ball and get something in place that you were able to influence OR you stand on the corner giving conservative speeches while the powers that be put into place something closer to single payer.

Those were the prospective options: a) single-payer, b) RomneyCare. Status quo was not an option.

Strangely, RomneyCare is one reason I support Romney. Not because I like RomneyCare. I don't. It's because Mitt was able to play hardball in the big leagues and get something far more conservative (or less liberal if you like) than would have otherwise been the case without his intervention.

I think many of Romney's supporters also would not want anything at all like RomneyCare in their state. The dynamics in their states may well allow for something more conservative.

What I think many are trying to defend is the notion that RomneyCare is no more liberal than the concept that all hospitals must provide what can end up as free health care to anyone who shows up. Neither of these options is ideal. But both are better than anything in the direction of complete government take-over and single payer.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know of an objective comparison of ObamaCare and MassCare? I think it would be very helpful.

-Martha

Bill589 said...

hamaca,
Thanks for responding to me. If you understand the basic TPM message, that’s where I am pretty much at. I don’t like Obamacare, and some people - now including Obama, and Huck - say it’s like “Romneycare.” If that is true, a reasonable question would be, ‘Can Mitt, therefore, repeal Obamacare?’

Martha’s inquiry about a comparison of the two, especially for simpletons like me, would be a good thing. I want a smaller, less expensive, less intrusive federal government - closer to the limitations set in the constitution. If Mitt can offer that, I can vote for him.

Anonymous said...

Bill, David French (or maybe Charles Mitchell)at Evangelicals for Mitt did a very concise blog post about the differences between Obamacare and MA care. They are both really smart lawyers. David French works for the Alliance Defense Fund. You may find it helpful. I'm not good at linking anything, so you'll just have to find it yourself. Sorry!

AZ

J said...

Great article! I really liked it!

I recently wrote an blog about why RomneyCare isn't socialized medicine: http://conservativesamizdat.blogspot.com/2011/04/romneycare-not-socialized-medicine.html