Whether this can be attributed to concerns over his Mormon religion or not – and it probably does not matter – the ABC News/Washington Post poll shows that the first quarter Republican leader in presidential fund-raising, Mitt Romney,?has higher negatives than Hillarly Clinton or John McCain,?with one-third of GOP voters and?fifty-four percent of all voters responding?claiming they will definitely not support him. The good news for Romney is that only a small percentage of voters know him well, which means there?is an opportunity for him to change a lot of minds.
April 19th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
I just posted this at the fundraising post; we’re in bad shape in the south
Fundraising Totals for the South
(VA, MO, AR, AL, TN, NC, SC, GA, OK, TX, FL, KY, LA, MS)
Total Party:
Democrat- $13,905,221
Republican- $11,140623
Nominees:
John Edwards- $5403991
Hillary Clinton- $4646351
Barak Obama- $3854879
Mitt Romney- $3858594
Rudy Giuliani- $3762123
John McCain- $3519906
April 19th, 2007 at 7:33 pm
We carried every one of these stated in 2000 and 2004. The Dems are competitive in every state, and the ones they are ahead, we are getting killed. Only the top 3 though, Huckabee would bring us to just over a million down
April 19th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
Wow. That’s really surprising…
April 19th, 2007 at 7:49 pm
Hunter, what is happening is that folks are not parsing these polls enough. When they see their favorite candidate with a lead that is all they look at. They don’t look at the unfavorables or the percentage of undecided or the degree to which respondents are certain of their choice at this point.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Republius, as I asked Tommy in the other thread, how valid is this number of 54% refusing to vote for Romney when only a net 14% claim to know enough about his position on specific issues? There are, of course, two ways to interpret this: bigotry is so strong in this country that half of the people feel that it doesn’t matter what positions Romney holds, they won’t vote for him (presumably because he’s a Mormon). The other possibility seems to be that this is a superficial stance, and since people don’t know much, roughly half say they won’t vote for him (presumably because they know who they would prefer to vote for) and half say they would consider voting for him (e.g. not strongly committed to another candidate already).
I hope for the sake of this country that it’s the latter, as I would shudder to ponder the consequences of the former. Econ Grad, Grant, are these valid conclusions to draw from the poll?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/postpoll_041607.html
April 19th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
JF:
I double checked on another poll, and this is the second or third poll where Romney’s unfavorable is higher than his favorable. While those numbers are lower than 54%, they are still higher than his positives, and that’s a problem he needs to address.
hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/mystery_pollste.html
“Two other polls out in the last week showed Romney with negative ratings that were slightly (though not significantly) higher than his positives: Gallup (23% favorable, 24% unfavorable – via Polling Report) and CBS News (10% favorable, 16% unfavorable). Still, the negative percentages on those surveys clearly fall far short of the 54% definitely not support number on the ABC/Post poll. “
April 19th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
JF:
Three polls have his negatives higher than his positives. These are nowhere near 54%, but he still has high negatives. He needs to work on this, or its going to hurt.
hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/04/mystery_pollste.html
“Two other polls out in the last week showed Romney with negative ratings that were slightly (though not significantly) higher than his positives: Gallup (23% favorable, 24% unfavorable – via Polling Report) and CBS News (10% favorable, 16% unfavorable). Still, the negative percentages on those surveys clearly fall far short of the 54% definitely not support number on the ABC/Post poll.”
April 19th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Here is a little more detail re. independent voters:
Among independents Definitely would NOT support
Romney: 53%
Clinton: 51
McCain: 41
Edwards: 39
Giuliani: 35
Obama: 29
what does it all mean?
April 19th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Tommy, I have long been disappointed in the professionalism and competence of the National Journal, and this is no exception.
In the Gallup poll (http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=1618&pg=3), 23% were favorable on Romney, 24% were unfavorable, 36% never heard of him, and 17% had no opinion. Knowing those other numbers, do you still feel strongly that Romney’s in trouble?
Similarly, in the CBS poll, 10% were favorable, 16% unfavorable, and 74% were undecided/hadn’t heard enough. With such low name recognition, can valid results really be drawn here? I would argue no.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:32 pm
CBS poll is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/CBSNews_polls/april_campaign.pdf
April 19th, 2007 at 8:38 pm
I think the only candidates this poll is relevant for are the Clintons and McCains of the world. The majority of voters have perhaps heard one story at most about Romney.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
The reason is because Romney hasn’t begun to campaign in very many states, but the liberal media has begun to attack him there. His positives will go up and his negatives down as soon as he begins to run ads or when people see him on debates or when they decide it is time to actually take a look for themselves (instead of just watching the news). As with all things when people say I have a negative view or I won’t vote for him, it just represents a balance of their collective opinion.
These people just haven’t gotten the whole story yet. This is like like asking for a verdict when the defense hasn’t cross-examined anyone or called any witnesses. As soon as people get the rest of the story about Mitt (his many accomplishments, his explanation of perceived negatives and his plan for the future) he will have a much better rating.
With each of the other candidates, people already know everything about them or they haven’t heard anything other than MSM praise.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
I’m not arguing that he’s dead on arrival. I’m saying that his negatives are higher than his positives, and that’s not good, no matter how you look at it. The undecided could break along the same lines as the people who have already decided. I don’t think that will happen (personally, I don’t have a strong opinion of him either way), but lets say that 74% breaks 60-40 in his favor. That still leaves a pretty high unfavorable rating. I’m just saying he needs to work those 74% a lot harder.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
This doesn’t worry me a whole lot although it does illustrate an incredible msn bias because that is what these opinions are based on.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Tommy, the two people closest to Romney in the poll are HRC at 45% (definitely would not consider) and McCain at 47%. HRC is known to be a highly polarizing figure and McCain is closely associated with the war in Iraq. I guess I would ask you what would Romney need to do to to alienate the same percentage of people? I find your 60-40 scenario highly unlikely. I understand why you’re saying it, but it could just as easily be 80-20 as 60-40, or even 20-80. We don’t know, which is why I think drawing conclusions at this time isn’t valid.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
JF, you ask a good question, I think (in #5), and have probably self-answered it.
For Romney and his supporters, you hope it is a case of “often wrong but never in doubt.” Seems to me 54% are content to reach a conclusion without admittedly having a whole lot of information at their disposal. In a fast-paced, information overloaded world we often make quick decisions with very little information in order to move on to something else – even for something as important as a presidential preference (though of course responding to a poll is a lot less serious and may be done a lot more casually than casting an actual ballot).
Obviously what Romney will need to do is convince people to give him a second look in many instances – and at least he has a lot of funds to do so. I still think a JFKesque speech from him at some point about his religion would be wise. And I also have said, and still believe, that he needs to comprehensively admit and address the fact that when he first ran for public office his ideology was a lot different from what it is now; instead of claiming to be a lifelong hunter, admit he used to be a moderate to liberal sort and is now a conservative – quit trying to convince folks you have always been conservative (which I assume is just not true).
As a final thought, for better or worse the Mormon issue is a big problem for Romney. The question is how do you handle it? I think the Hugh Hewitt strategy of calling everyone who has a concern over Romney’s religion a bigot and sitting on your high, Ivy League horse and opining that our nation has to be better than that in this election or it is doomed is misguided, both substantively (because I don’t think it is true that all of those who have concerns with Romney’s religion are religious bigots) and politically (because you aren’t going to help people get over their concerns by using a slur in communicating with them).
Marvin Olasky, a social and religious conservative who gave George W. Bush the idea about compassionate conservatism, wrote a column yesterday in which he opined that the personal lives of presidential candidates – which include revelations about their religion and sex lives – are not private. And I agree. I agree with Olasky in thinking voters have every right to scrutinize the religion of Mitt Romney and all the candidates (and James Dobson has already questioned whether Fred Thompson is a Christian, which he is); the adultery of Gingrich and Giuliani that we already know about; and the divorces of Giuliani, Gingrich, McCain, and Fred Thompson. In an increasingly dangerous age we have a right to flesh out (no pun intended) controversy as it surfaces to determine character flaws, though I am not in favor of the media grilling candidates about how many affairs they have had (and the difference is that the alleged affairs of Giuliani and Gingrich became news when they happened while those folks were in office and being payed by taxpayers).
Romney needs to make voters feel comfortable with his religion. It is a burden of running. And the burden should not shift to voters such that they are assumed to be religious bigots just because they have questions about the faith of Romney that they know very little about. Romney needs to address and answer their concerns; question the motives of voters in this respect and claiming they have no right to their questions and concerns is wrong and will doom his candidacy.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Republius (#15), I wholeheartedly agree that Romney is trying way too hard to convince people that he’s ultra-conservative, and it’s only damaging him. He should state that he would uphold the conservative position and leave it at that, but trying to prove that he’s been that way all along is only making matters worse.
I actually disagree with you on the JFK speech, which I believe would tear the GOP apart. Faith is one of the greatest things that sets us apart from the Democrats, and essentially stating that faith will not influence his decision making process would be admitting that the idea of the social conservative is a fraudulent one. JFK was able to do this because the Democratic party is hostile to religion, JFK wasn’t a good Catholic to begin with, and he was exceptionally charismatic. I don’t think it’s possible for a Republican candidate to do this and survive, or if he does survive, for the GOP to emerge with the same level of integrity. I would sooner see Romney withdraw from the race than be forced to make this kind of speech.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Republius made my point for me. That’s what I was trying to point out. I said 60-40 as a guess. Bottom line is, he needs to work to make sure those numbers don’t go the same way.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Romney’s campaign says that they are waiting to deal with the flip-flop issue until he has higher name recognition so it will make a bigger impact. I imagine they are thinking the same thing about the inevitable religious speech he will give.
April 19th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
I don’t care about the religion, he just needs to work on his image harder with those 74%
April 19th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
dskinner: that’s exactly right. He’s got to prove he’s not a flipflopper to those who aren’t familiar. If he doesn’t he’s in deep trouble. He has to show that he’s been straightforward.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
He is working on those undecideds, but only in the early primary states. It doesn’t make fiscal sense to campaign hard in other states. He is building his organization from the ground up (not hanging from a tree like Giuliani and Thompson) and the last thing to happen is for his national numbers to go up. We are starting to see his national numbers creep up.
The next big things are the debates. I think that Mitt will dominate those debates because he has the right answers, the best delivery and the most presidential look which translates into credibility in debates. I think his numbers will bumb up then. His numbers will hold or only drop slightly when Thompson announce in early June and when he wins the 2Q fundraising his numbers will jump again.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
This has absolutely nothing to do with this thread but….
This is a nice article about the recent VTech massacre.
http://freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/04/when-mass-killers-meet-armed-resistance.html
April 19th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
dskinner11 (in #21), I think there is a risk for Romney, however, that bad national numbers are going to negatively influence some voters in early primary and caucus states. No, you can’t afford to advertise nationally now. But what you can do is give the speeches on your religion and on your political epiphany from moderate/liberal to conservative that will get free national media coverage.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Republius, you are right. If Romney is still polling well behind by the Iowa caucuses it will hurt him with undecideds. It won’t necessarily be fatal though. Kerry polled in the single digits nationally before Iowa but was able to win because he had the better organization on the ground.
When I said they are going to wait I meant until sometime in the late summer or fall. We are still 8 months until Iowa.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
dskinner11 (in #24), I analyze Iowa in 2004 a little differently. I think Kerry was handed a gift when Dean and Gephardt destroyed each other with negative advertising, letting the Senator from Massachusetts slip to the front unimpeded simply because he was the cleanest front-runner left. Dean and Gephardt had good Iowa organizations, too.
And if you are Romney, you do not and cannot rely on a strategy of hope in early states that your main contenders knock themselves out, like Dean and Gephardt did in Iowa, such that you can float to the top unscathed.
I agree that the timing of the speeches we suggest for Romney is crucial and difficult – too early and not enough folks are paying attention, but too late and you have died a death by one-thousand cuts already.
In politics you are either on offense or defense, and defense loses. Romney is on defense and cannot wait too much longer to attempt to get back on offense. Very few are listening to Romney’s ideas or absorbing his record of achievement in the private and public sectors; his message is being drowned out by questions about his religion and over his ideological changes over the years (which, in turn, are being fueled by amateurish campaign stunts like joining the NRA and claiming to be a lifelong hunter).
April 19th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Has anyone been following Romney’s “YouTube spotlight” turn? I think he’s done really quite well, and his few responses (I have no idea if he intends to do more, but I think he should) are extremely well done. Warm, personal, and seemingly non-scripted. I think Romney might be the first candidate I’ve seen, including Barack Obama, who seems more comfortable in a youtube setting, then in ordinary speechmaking. And from the looks of things (particularly the ratings of the videos and some comments), people seem to agree. I’d argue, something similar will happen on the broader political stage. But, it’s a little frustrating to watch him getting massive youtube exposure, and not immediately using the forum, through perhaps other types of messages, to enhance his image.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
JF (#16), I am not at all implying that Romney should give a speech pledging that his faith will not influence his decision making process. For a true person of faith, which I believe Romney is, that would be a lie; your faith informs your decision making process, but when there is a conflict between your faith and the law or your faith and the greater good for the country your duty has you follow the law and serve the country first (as JFK instructed in his speech).
What I am advocating is that Romney give a speech in which he attempts to make voters more comfortable with it and puts it in context as to how it would impact his work as president. He should try to get voters to embrace his faith as a plus rather than allow them to view it skeptically as a negative. And the only way he can do this is by initiating a dialogue, which I think you do with one major speech so that the issue can be addressed and then as quickly as possible dispatched.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
Republius,
I totally agree with you, on both fronts. For a true person of faith, saying their faith wont play a role in crucial decision making would be a blatant lie. But Romney needs to address the issue, perhaps a major address to the Southern Baptist Convention (??) sooner rather than later.
However, part of me thinks it wont make a difference. That kind of speech worked for JFK because Catholicism, even though maintaining different practices and traditions, believes the same biblical truths as protestant christianity. Mormonism however, has fundamentally different beliefs and is not christianity. I know this is not a religious site and I do not wish for this to discend into an online holy war, I am just stating why I think an address like that would not work when it comes to Romney.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
Geoff (in #28), I am a lifelong (no pun intended, Romney supporters) Roman Catholic who frequently sees folks in public and private life with misconceptions and prejudices about my faith. And I have read about what JFK had to similarly overcome in 1960 (when I was a mere child). But I am willing to admit that it seems to me that Romney has a far greater hurdle to traverse when it comes to his Mormon faith, which many in the public have a lot more questions and a lot less information about than what JFK was dealing with in terms of Catholicism in 1960.
But I think Romney has to give the speech. He cannot win sustaining these kinds of numbers. And the numbers won’t move in his direction enough, if at all, without the speech. What would move them in his direction with this issue absent a speech?
Mormonism need not be Christianity (and that is not a debate I want to have because I don’t think it is necessary to the issue of many voters being uncomfortable with the Mormon faith) in this context, it need only be made palatable to voters who would otherwise consider Romney but do not feel comfortable with his faith. I do not believe only Christians can win the presidency (even assuming that the Mormon faith would not be considered by many to be Christian). What I believe is that it is easier to win the presidency being a Christian and that candidates of other faiths will probably need to make some voters comfortable with their beliefs. And how do you do that other than with a JFKesque speech?
Lecturing people to rise above their religious bigotry, a bigotry that in most instances (I am convinced) doesn’t even exist, and disingenuously suggesting that the religious beliefs of presidential candidates should not be at issue, as Hugh Hewitt claims, cannot possibly work becaue it cuts against the facts and what most people believe. So now what, Romney folks?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
I remember Kennedy making a point that he wouldn’t be letting the Vatican set policy, Romney may have to do the same by saying he wouldn’t let “Salt Lake” (don’t think he should mention The Profit) dictate policy. His religion is a major issue, but I think the fact he’s too polished is also. To me it comes across kind of like a car salesan.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
For Republius:
weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/535owmrt.asp
April 19th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
In JFK’s speech he didn’t say look Catholicism is the same as what you believe. He said the Pope won’t control me and he implied look, I am the same as any other Democrat.
That is what Romney will do. He will tell people I am my own man and my church won’t tell me what to do and look even though we don’t believe the same thing that doesn’t matter because even though our beliefs our different our values are the same.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
Thanks, Tommy (in #31), I had seen that.
Undoubtedly Fred Thompson is planning to wage a more unconventional presidential campaign, which I think Newt Gingrich will do as well if he gets in and which may work well during this cycle due to the circumstances. But though Fred Thompson can probably wait, as a practical matter, for awhile to get in the race and line up the votes he needs, I am not sure he can wait too much longer to start raising the money he is going to need to be a viable contender for the nomination. I think Gingrich can raise more money faster than Fred Thompson and can wait longer to get in. No way Fred Thompson can wait until fall to start raising the money he will need to be competitive – there are simply not enough “Law and Order” viewers to do such.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
Here are some notes I compiled from the FoxNews/OpinionDynamics poll that was released this evening:
1st choice
Rudy 35%
McCain 16%
Romney 10%
Gingrich 9%
Fred Thompson 8%
Tommy Thompson 4% (not that Tommy has NO support, but my guess is at least 2-3 of his 4 points were mistakenly voted for Tommy when they were intended for Fred…like Jewish senior citizens in Palm Beach voting for Buchanan in 2000.)
2nd choice
Rudy 21%
McCain 18%
Gingrich 16% (that’s pretty strong for someone not actively running)
Romney 10%
Fred Thompson 6%
Question: Do you plan to contribute money to the candidate you are currently supporting?
Plan to contribute/Don’t plan to contribute/Net differential
Rudy 10% plan…70% don’t plan…(-60%)
McCain 14% plan…74% don’t plan…(-60%)
Romney 3% plan…84% don’t plan…(-81%) (perhaps the most ominous polling data for Romney to date)
There were a series of interesting questions within this poll that didn’t so much extract respondents’ opinions as much as they tested their knowledge. What it exposed was evidence of an anti-American bias within the Democratic party; perhaps scientific proof (if polling is a science) that there is, in fact, a distinct prevailing anti-American sentiment amongst Democrats, and it is that self-loathing that results in a distorted perception of reality.
Gas prices in the US – higher or lower than in most countries around the world?
33% of Democrats incorrectly say ‘higher.’
Only 51% of Dems correctly answered ‘lower.’
By contrast, 21% of Republicans wrongly said ‘higher.’
But 67% of Republicans know they’re ‘lower.’
Quality of healthcare in the US – higher or lower than in most countries around the world?
Dems – 25% said ‘lower.’
GOPers – Surprised to see even 19% saying ‘lower.’
In all fairness, this could be attributed to sheer ignorance. Not everyone has traveled internationally.
Who should decide when US troops leave Iraq – the president or Congress?
The constitutional, factual answer is the president, though ‘both’ is also an acceptable answer, as Congress can adversely influence the president’s ability to wage war by cutting off funding.
But, Congress cannot, by its own, make that decision. There’s only one commander in chief.
So, how did Democrats respond? Well, almost predictably, 52%…a majority of Democrats said members of Congress. They’re either dead wrong, or they don’t want to acknowledge that this isn’t a matter of opinion, but President Bush’s constitutional authority. For comparison’s sake, only 14% of Republicans answered ‘Members of Congress.’
In what might be the most bizarre question in this or any poll…
Question: How many tattoos do you currently have on your body?
86/87% of Republicans/Democrats don’t have any.
9% of Republicans have one.
Only 2% of Democrats have one.
7% of Democrats, however, have three or more.
Statistically, 0% of Republicans have three or more.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
I agree, he is needs to get in soon. If he doesn’t declare by the first two weeks of June, he’s done.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:25 pm
And while I’m at it, Here is the links to Thompson’s blog. Has his comments on VA Tech shootings:
abcradio.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=4&y=2007
April 19th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
Tommy,
Well, here’s hoping.
That he doesn’t get in. I have no qualms with saying I would prefer to not have him in the way of my candidate….Although almost all polling to date shows him hurting Giuliani the most while barely affecting Romney’s base of support.
April 19th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
“Quality of healthcare in the US – higher or lower than in most countries around the world?
Dems – 25% said ‘lower.’
GOPers – Surprised to see even 19% saying ‘lower.’”
The issue with healthcare in America is surely the cost, not the quality?
April 19th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
[...] Mitt Romney Has the Highest Negatives of Any 2008 Presidential Candidate in Either Major Party at Th…. Double [...]
April 19th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Jaype,
It’s hard to determine what is meant by “quality”. Because of the largely free market way our health care system works, certain aspects of health care delivery differ substantially from socialized systems. For instance, Internists (essentially non-specialists) are far more prevalent, relatively speaking, in socialized countries, while specialists are far rarer. This is because it’s not particularly more lucrative to be, say, a pediatrist in socialized countires, versus a general physician. In America, brain surgeons are compensated handsomely, and well beyond levels of ordinary doctors because, well, brain surgery’s HARD, and important, and those who require it are simply willing to pay more for the service (if only because they often have no choice). So in America, we end up with awfully good brain surgeons, because it’s A.) A more competitive field, both within actual neurosurgeons, and prior to becoming a neurosurgeon (chaffe is weeded more easily). So in terms of anything of truly life threatening importance, or various types of skilled specialities (including, unfortunately I suppose, cosmetic surgery’s), America does quite well. But because of the harsh disparities in incomes, fewer medical students are becoming Internists (general physicians), and as a result, there’s simply less skill available in the “talent pool”, then there might otherwise be. Now, alot of this is mitgated by the fact that we simply have more people, in general, entering the medical field then other countires, because even our Internists make as much as, or more, then the average doctors in other countries, but I think its probably fair to say that, because of these difficulties (and some others that’d take an awfully long time to go into) America could be said to trail a few countries in terms of dealing with general care.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
Matt, I totally disagree. As a medical student I know quite a bit about this subject since I am very passionate about it. The only problem with healthcare in America is that some 45-50 million Americans don’t have any way to pay for it. If you have healthcare coverage it takes hardly anytime to get in to see a family doc, an internist or a pediatrician (the 3 main primary care fields). It does however take sometime to get in to see specialists although not nearly as long as it takes in other countries. The reason for relatively less primary care docs (they still represent more than half of all doctors) is because the those doctors are paid more in the US.
In other words the U.S. healthcare system has a much higher peak than other countries but a narrower base. If you include the people that don’t have healthcare then the US system isn’t as good as other countries. If however you only look at the people who are receiving care, the US system far exceeds even those of the rest of the world.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
#5 Jeff, the poll question certainly seems valid. The question is how useful are people’s opinion of a candidate they aren’t familiar with?
I would say that a voters first impression of candidate is priceless because voters will tend to see everything later on through the prism of their early perceptions. People don’t tend to use all new data to reinforce what they already think.
That is what Mitt has to overcome to win.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:31 pm
Dskinner11, why would you include people who don’t have insurance? Can we be sure those people can’t buy insurance, as opposed to, say, using the money to buy plasma TVs?
April 19th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
JF, I don’t think we should include those people when evaluating the system, I was trying to infer that Matt may have been doing that.
April 19th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
Bankruptcy are now predominantly medically related. The current healthcare market is inefficient and needs to be restructured. Since much of the medical system is already regulated it makes sense to change the regulation to allow a healthcare system that provides healthcare efficiently.
As a researcher I’ve been reading a lot of health economics literature and it seems there is a clear path towards a better healthcare system in America.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:03 am
While researching Romney’s healthcare plan for Massachusetts last year, I remember reading that 70% of the estimated 40-45 million uninsured in this country are at least doing well enough that they don’t qualify for Medicaid. This would suggest that the lack of health insurance more often than not is a result of fiscally or personally irresponsible behavior rather than an issue of unaffordability. The free market libertarian in me says we shouldn’t require a healthy male in his early 20’s, who could well go 10-15 years without having reason to see a doctor, to pay for healthcare he’s highly unlikely to ever use. He should be able to take that risk, but at his expense, not the taxpayers. And yet the Republican in me that promotes personal responsibility point out that we require every driver on the road to carry liability insurance, and this is no different. Unless we’re prepared to have the federal government garnish the wages for life of all irresponsible Americans who require medical attention, I’m somewhat resigned to the idea that mandatory health insurance is a flawed but necessary solution; especially when the alternative is universal HillaryCare.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:06 am
Econ, I agree that the inefficiencies in our healthcare system are mostly due to government regulation. Some level of regulation is definitely necessary, but through some simple reforms the market can become much more efficient. (When I say simple I mean that the ideas aren’t complex. Enacting these changes will be a huge task.)
If you want to take a look at the most comprehensive market based proposal, check out the AMA’s proposal. Here is a link to their site. They have a bunch of material with graphs and proposals you just have to click the different links from this page.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/7834.html
April 20th, 2007 at 12:07 am
Argo, agreed. The optimal choice is to let the individual decide and let the individual live with the consequences (much like savings for retirement vs. social security). I remember reading the same statistics. However, I think you nailed it on the head in saying that if we don’t come up with a mostly good solution, a wholly bad solution will be imposed on us. As it is, all the free-rider leeches who show up without insurance at emergency rooms are costing the rest of us quite a bit.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:11 am
I think Romney’s negatives may fade somewhat with more exposure. I’ve known him peripherally for some years and he is genuinely a caring, pleasant person. This whole thing about Mormonism is a bit silly. The fellow is 60 years old and he’s not an automaton by any means….he won’t be taking marching orders from anyone but yes, his faith will inform his decisions–stuff like this…one of the LDS articles of faith…”We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we may say that we follow the admonition of Paul We believe all things, we hope all things, we have endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or praiseworthy, we seek after these things”
Sounds pretty generic, yes? The fact is that in politics, everything to gain an edge on an opponent is up for grabs….we chide Guiliani for his three wives, George Bush plants suspicions about McCain, and yes, we’ll drum up crazy stories about Mitt Romney’s belief in Jesus Christ (which is very Christian) all to get a little 1-2% edge to knock out the opponent. In doing so, the general electorate becomes disgusted. One of the reasons Obama is doing well thus far is that he has not been throwing too much mud just yet.
If we spent even 1/4 of the energy, time, and effort to study proposals or develop new ideas to solve problems of healthcare, war, poverty, globalization as we did on personal aspects of these individuals, we’d do a lot better. Yes, there should be a bar that is to be reached to be in the White House- a decorum and personal conduct and integrity that all should have to meet. A bar that was not met by Clintoln. However, I would argue that all of our Republican candidates have met that minimum standard in 2008. We should now move past that to the meat of the issues.
Punditry is fun…but it’s time to go deeper into the issues.
April 20th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Argo,
“But, Congress cannot, by its own, make that decision. There’s only one commander in chief.’
You are dead wrong on this. There is only one commander in chief, but being CiC does not make the president a dictator, even on military matters.
Obviously the Congress can cut off funds, and that is the end of a war.
In fact, the founders gave the Congress this power precisely because the Congress (the representatives of the people) should have control over warmaking (rather than the executive). They were, if you forgot, engaged in a revolution against an exectutive power that ignored the will of the people.
Being commander in chief makes the president the absolute highest authority WITHIN the armed forces. It does not make him the sole and supreme authority over all war-related issues.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Tano,
Even if Congress were to cut off funding, the president can still reallocate other defense resources toward the Iraqi theatre, reduce the size of the force there, scale back operations, but by no means does the cutting off of funding necessarily imply an immediate cessation or drawdown of US military operations in Iraq.
Did you see me call the president a dictator? I did not. He does have sole war waging authority, however, as per our constitution. And, while it is the constitutional responsibility of Congress to declare war, they are not empowered with the ability to usurp the will of a president and declare an end to a war once the authorization has been granted. Using the power of the purse, cutting off funding is the only way to bleed a a president’s war effort dry.
Regardless of any financial pressure exerted by a Democratic-led Congress, ultimately, the president will be the sole individual responsible for deciding IF, or WHEN US troops leave Iraq.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:34 am
Usurp the will of a president?
Are you kidding? I guess I just did see you call the president a dictator!
You are wrong, both legally and practically.
Legally, the Congress could, in theory, pass a law forbidding any money of any kind being spent on a particular war. Of course, they would need to override a veto if the President disagreed, but if they could do that, then that war would be over. Period.
Practically, if they do not have the votes to override a veto, they could still hold back all manner of meny for other purposes. The result would be a paralysis of the government, something that a president would avoid. Obviously the Congress wouldnt do this unless they had the solid support of the people, but if they did, then the president would lose that political battle.
This is how it should be. The president’s “will” is not the issue in a democracy. It is the people’s will.
April 20th, 2007 at 2:35 am
“meny” = money
April 20th, 2007 at 2:50 am
The free rider problem is significant but moral hazard and the principle agent problem explain a lot of why the healthcare system is inefficient. In healthcare incentives are so unmatched I’m surprised we don’t spend more on what we have.
We really overpay for a system that should cost about 30-40% less. If we maintained our expenditure and reformed the system we’d probably have a healthcare system that Americans would brag about and take pride in.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:11 am
Tano,
Am I kidding? Damn, kid. You need to retake US Government 101. The United States is a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. We the People elect presidents every four years, and they are constrained by a maximum of two four year terms, or 10 years. Presidents, under Article II of the US Constitution, possess sole war waging ability once Congress has granted the authority.
You seem to begrudgingly acknowledge, but don’t want to readily admit what I am saying is factual and not opinion, when you say “This is how it SHOULD be.” That is YOUR misguided opinion, not the assertions made by the Founding Fathers who authored our constitution.
Perhaps you’re getting stuck on semantics, but it goes without saying, that inevitably, should Congress vote to cut off funding, and have a veto proof majority, that it would only be a matter of time before a president would be unable to continue to wage war as he sees fit.
Any law that would forbid already-budgeted defense funding from being spent on an authorized war, effectively tying the hands of a president, seeking to deny his ability to wage war would be unconstitutional and therefore, non-binding.
The recourse of the American people who are dissatisified with our existing constitution is to exert their will by gathering sufficient support to amend the constitution, stripping the executive branch of sole war waging authority, or to vote a president who abused his constitutional authority out of office. Since President Bush was reelected in 2004, disgruntled Americans must now wait until January 2009 for someone else to represent their interests in the Executive Branch.
April 20th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Things I have learned about Mitt Romney:
1. Romney was never really pro-choice. This became obvious to me
when I wathed a U-tube video showing a debate with him and Ted Kennedy.
When asked about abortion, he said we should not force our personal beliefs
on others, indicating that
he believed that abortion was wrong, but he would uphold Roe v Wade. As
governor of Mass, he vetoed a lot of pro-choice legislation. The liberals
seem to know this and are getting back by portraying him as pro-choice,
but a traitor to the cause for political expediency. But actually, they
were the ones who were deceived when they voted him in as governor. I can
see how they would resent that.
2. He is the most intelligent, most articulate, and best organized of all
of the candidates. He is also the most energized among the Republican candidates.
His personal life is unblemished. He can move an audience
with his speeches. As people get to know him, his poll numbers will rise and
the money will continue to flow.
3. He should not make a speech about his religion. He will not be able to
convince hard core anti-Mormons that they should vote for him. Intelligent
people can look at the Mormon church and decide for themselves
if this should have any bearing on their vote. He should just say
that he doesn’t need to apologize for his religion, and that persons
should make up their own minds about whether this should be an issue. He
is not a spokesman for the Mormon church- let the Mormon church speak for
itself.
4. Because of point number 2, he will get the Republican nomination.
After that, things will get really interesting as he takes on the Clintons.
It will be a monumental clash of two powerhouse organizations!