In an interview with ABC’s Jake Tapper, President Obama defended his support for national RomneyCare (buy health care or else) by noting the following:
“What I think is appropriate is that in the same way that everybody has to get auto insurance and if you don’t, you’re subject to some penalty, that in this situation, if you have the ability to buy insurance, it’s affordable and you choose not to do so, forcing you and me and everybody else to subsidize you, you know, there’s a thousand dollar hidden tax that families all across America are — are burdened by because of the fact that people don’t have health insurance, you know, there’s nothing wrong with a penalty.”
The ads write themselves. Here’s a USA Today article from 2005:
You have to buy car insurance if you own a car. You have to buy home insurance to get a mortgage. Why don’t you have to buy health insurance?
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney re-ignited that debate last month when he announced a plan to expand health coverage to all the state’s residents, with a caveat that those who don’t buy coverage could face a penalty.
“We can’t have as a nation 40 million people — or, in my state, half a million — saying, ‘I don’t have insurance, and if I get sick, I want someone else to pay,’ ” says Romney, a Republican who says he might run for president in 2008.
Yikes. Here’s NPR on Romney’s plan:
No other state has ever told its citizens they have to have health coverage, just as they must carry car insurance if they drive.
And then, there’s Ramesh Ponnuru’s thoughts, on National Review:
Gov. Romney defends that mandate in two ways: first by analogy to auto insurance, which all car owners are obligated to purchase, and second by arguing that people who lack insurance impose costs on everyone else, which is hardly libertarian.
But as Michael Tanner points out in a new paper on individual health-insurance mandates for the Cato Institute, the car-insurance mandate has not resulted in universal coverage. In the 47 states with that mandate, 14.5 percent of drivers remain uninsured. Nor have health-insurance mandates led to universal coverage.
If I know about all of this, so does HuckPAC, Freedom First PAC, and, well, uh, maybe not SarahPAC…
So, question: Does the fact that Romney Care — which Romney touted as a “fabulous” plan to be looked at by other states (“I like mandates!”) — mean that his 2012 chances are dashed?
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
November 10th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Any FPP with the headline “The End of the Line for Romney?” Is good for at least 400 comments.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I can’t believe some of you people who believe it to be ‘conservative’ to allow people who can afford to buy health insurance to freeload instead. That’s about as far from conservatism as anything I can think of.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
I don’t get the outrage. He signed the bill requiring a mandate, he’s always defended it and he is still defending it. I thought the problem with Mitt was that he isn’t authentic? FWIW, Mitt’s position is the same as a majority of Americans. He just doesn’t want the government running the health insurance industry. Also, I don’t see where Romney is advocating a Federal penalty. In 2005, he would have been arguing for his plan in Massachusetts.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:57 pm
It’s a dirty rotten shame that they must be compelled to buy it, but when people do not accept responsibility for themselves, sometimes government has to ‘encourage’ them. Sorry, but I believe in people being self supporting whenever possible. If government is to be involved at all in paying for health care, let it be for those who genuinely can not afford to buy their own.
November 10th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Uh oh.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
Alex,
To answer your question: no. But I think the guy will be stuck at 21%.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
1, I’m number 6!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
The problem with Obama’s plan is that afforability and equality of access are far down the list of priorities, while social justice, redistribution of wealth, and regulations are its top priorities. I like Mitt’s argument, that they haven’t studied this, and they haven’t even come to Mitt toask him what he would do. If they really like Romney’s plan so much, why haven’t they studied it?
November 10th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
“So, question: Does the fact that Romney Care — which Romney touted as a “fabulous” plan to be looked at by other states (”I like mandates!”) — mean that his 2012 chances are dashed?”
Short answer, no.
Longer answer, never say “never”.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Study RomneyCare? Uh oh…
Wait, I already said that.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
I’m against mandates, penalties, and prison terms when it comes to buying insurance. But I will say this, IF we require insurance companies to accept preexisting conditions, then mandates are absolutely necessary. Other, when premiums predictable skyrocket, more and more people will wait until they get sick and simply pick someone to pay the bills (who can’t deny them coverage). It would become a viscous cycle where spirally premiums push more people out of insurance, leaving only the very sick and the very old with “insurance.” Of course, at that point, it is no longer really insurance.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
sorry for the typos in #11. I think I still got the point across.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
does anyone know when the candidates start the thinking process on 2012 will they start speeding up there travel schedules after news years? also when does the convention bidding start for the 2012 city convention?
November 10th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
No mandates! I wish it were the end of the line for both M & M, but I fear we will be stuck with at least one of them.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
The issue of Romneycare is going to hurt the Governor in the 2012 primaries unless he can explain it in ways that make it look different than Obamacare. If I were advising Romney, the other thing I’d tell him is that whenever the issue is brought up by his opponents to have the Governor turn to them and say “what did you do about health care when you were in office?”
November 10th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
With the way our medical/health economy has developed, including big government involvement, I really don’t have a problem with requiring health insurance. I have to have auto insurance despite the fact that it is unlikely that I will ever cause an accident in my entire life. With health care, everyone (and especially families) need it–usually routinely. And I know a lot of families, young included, who WISH they had health insurance and would LOVE a system to help them buy a program for their family.
It seems to me that before Obama tried to force socialized medicine upon us, a lot of governors and states recognized the need and were thinking of ways to address the health care costs. The reaction to obama, however, has simply forced the pendulum WAY BACK where perople don’t even remember what the problems were. Once the “public option dies (IF it dies), people will eventually remember what all the fuss was about in the beginning–and the Mass. Plan won’t seem so bad.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Jonathon, that’s a very good point that perhaps leaves Mitt an “out”. At least he has tried something, which he admits was perfect. When nobody steps up to the plate to take a swing for 15 years, citizens will tolerate anyone going up to bat. Hence the Obama healthcare plan.
I may not agree with Mitt, but hey, at least he did something at the state level.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
Jonathan,
Pawlenty has taken some positive steps in MN. He is laying the groundwork for increased transparency in health care cost and qulity among providers. The only way that costs are going to be meaningfully cut will be if consumers actually know and care what things cost. Now Pawlenty’s reforms aren’t as sexy as creating new bureaucracies and spending billions on new entitlements or mandates, but they are far more necessary and positive.
We need more informed consumers, paying for more of their own expenses to get health care costs down. Otherwise, Party A and Party B just get together and decide how much of Party C’s money to spend.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Is MassCare hurting Romney now? I wouldn’t say too terribly much. He’s first, tied or second in all the polls at a time when Republicans are paying a lot of attention to healthcare, and when most people know about MassCare. If it were truly a dealbreaker, the polls would reflect it.
It’s measuring weakness against strengths. When you do that, Romney is looking a-okay.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Mitt Romney won’t get the nominee in 2012. He is done! Romney is not conservative. Romney is hurting the Republican Party. That why the conservatives left the Republican Party to join the Independent Party. If he does get the nominee in 2012, the Republican Party will lose big just like exactly what happened to Sen. John McCain last year in the 2008 Election.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:39 pm
It is unconstitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance. How do you defend the unconstitutionality of a mandate??
Which Senators, who do not want Obamacare, will take on Romneycare? Any one have a guess?
November 10th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
anonymous, what do you mean exactly by “get the nominee”? “Get” in what sense?
Get, as in, who will get the girl? Is Mitt hoping to marry the 2012 nominee?
Get, as in, do you get this? Is Mitt hoping to understand the 2012 nominee?
Your posts are truly vexing. Perhaps you could clarify.
Also, it helps to stick to a single message, as well. You’re always posting on a variety of topics. Please try to be more consistent!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Unfortunately, no.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:42 pm
If ObamaCare passes next year then I doubt that MassCare is gonna be much of an issue in 2012 for most people. If ObamaCare is defeated next year then MassCare is likely to be a problem for Romney.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
OJ if you don’t want M or M then get behind Pawlenty while there is still time to make a difference.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
“Pawlenty has taken some positive steps in MN”
….yet he attacks Romneycare while his state maintains an uninsured population 3x higher than MASS.
Look, Hospitals are forced to admit those who come to the door. Doctors are forced to treat the patient in front of them. WHY THEN is it so unreasonable that said patients should be forced to have at least some protection to pay, at least, a part of the bill?
—
“Nor have health-insurance mandates led to universal coverage.”
They’ve gotten 98% of the population insured. For the rest, a fine is imposed so that the state doesn’t get stuck with the bill when they turn up in the ER.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I don’t care if this is the best plan ever. It has mandates. It is unconstitutional. This is a poison pill for me if he ever supported it on a national level…..PERIOD!!!!!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!!
November 10th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
HaHaHa,
Alex, back to straight Kool Aid again. Fortunately, most of the country doesn’t drink that sweet tasting crap.You seem to think that if you have the responsibility to look at problems and try and fix them, all fixes are bad unless they are perfect. In the real world, not academia, things are not perfect. Romney knows this and so do the American people. Trying something is better than doing nothing. After all…..that is what Governing is all about. You certainly cannot believe there are not major problems with our health care in this county, do you? You’re bright. Do not be delusional. Long before Obama, our health care in the U.S was the world’s most expensive and the results in child mortality and life span, one of the poorest in the developed world. And, for the most part, Government and business is going bankrupt trying to pay for it. So fix it……and that’s what Mitt tried. Any other hot plans around from the other GOP candidates?????
November 10th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
What’s the problem? He’s right. It’s not reasonable for people to not provide for themselves and their families and then expect the society to take care of them. The only two sane approaches are “Let them die” or “Force them to ante”.
November 10th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
I’m sorry, but where the $#%#@ does it say that the state cannot force someone to do something? Every law is a mandate – whether it is to register for selective service, to pay taxes, or negative mandates – such as not drinking before 21, not driving before 16, not killing, raping, robbing, lying under oath, or any of the 1001 other things banned by law.
Virtually everything the government does IS a mandate to its citizens – and while you might have a valid claim that the Federal Government can’t mandate healthcare to individuals, good luck making that argument about the individual states (like Romneycare).
November 10th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
Do those of you who support Romneycare also support Pelosicare? If not, why the *#!@ not?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
By the way — to answer 31, there is a DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATE LAW AND FEDERAL LAW. Sheesh.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
….yet he attacks Romneycare while his state maintains an uninsured population 3x higher than MASS.
Hah!
And some of you had the gall to criticize me earlier for saying that the Republicans have accepted the premises of the Pelosi Democrats. What a joke!
November 10th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
I may not agree with Mitt, but hey, at least he did something at the state level.
“At least he did something!”
Wow, there’s an argument worthy of the product of a government school.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Ramesh’s logic is kind of funny. He is basically arguing against mandates by saing auto mandates haven’t gotten everyone insured, therefore health mandates will not be effective.
Am I to assume then if Health Mandates do get everyone insured (or with much greater numbers) that they are even more positive than a Drivers Insurance mandate?
Because if so, it looks like he just argued for health insurance mandates.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:07 pm
The idea that mandates are not consitutional lie in the notion that the government cannot force the public to purchase a good or service as a requisite for being an american citizen. That’s the argument I hear most often.
OF course, the government does force us to buy goods and services all the time, it’s called Fire Dept, Police Dept and Armed Forces. We also are forced to buy bridges, roads and dams.
I am not sure where mandates being uncostitutional has any basis in theory or reality. Esp. when we have a long history of forcing citizens to purchase things through tax dollars they may or may not think they need.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Alex,
What is your idea for solving the problem of people who receive, but who don’t pay for their own healthcare? How can you get people to stop using the ER for free care, and to be responsible for paying their own bills?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Anonymous,
I have been banning quite a few longtime commenters here who I feel were exhibiting a negative influence on the overall atmosphere of the conversation here, as well as creating unnecessary conflict in our community.
To be honest, I feel that your comments amount to nothing more than trolling really. So this is your first and last warning. Actually start contributing meaningful comments, or I am going to perma-ban you.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
OF course, the government does force us to buy goods and services all the time, it’s called Fire Dept, Police Dept and Armed Forces. We also are forced to buy bridges, roads and dams.
Have you checked the Constitution? I know, crazy.
There are things that you listed that are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWERS in the Constitution.
Good grief!
And don’t try and pull some commerce clause BS on me, because (1) It’s a BS liberal interpretation of the clause, and (2) You can’t even buy insurance across state lines, so it doesn’t even matter!!!
November 10th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
Also, Jason, paying into a tax pool to pay for certain things is NOT the same thing as an INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.
Aye.
Do you support Obama-PelosiCare, Jason?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Ugh, what a bore…
We need new posters on this site..
November 10th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Because you’re assuming your conclusion: that folks won’t pay their medical bills unless there’s an insurance company as an intermediary.
This assumption maligns those who make every effort to pay off their bills in a timely fashion and in full.
The “mandaters” are blind to the negative effects of their mandate on the savings rate, oblivious to the centrality of the price signal to establish supply and demand, and in total denial that the requirement for having insurance to operate a private vehicle on a public road differs fundamentally from the requirement for having insurance to breath air.
Why don’t you guys just dig up the Founders and burn them on the cross. Or join the Democratic Party. Or Al Qaida or something.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Conservatives, on a conservative site, arguing in all seriousness that it is “conservative” for the government to force someone to buy a product under the penalty of law makes me want to put my Steyr M40 in my mouth and pull the trigger.
This country is f*%king hopeless if this is what “conservatism” has deteriorated to.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
“By the way — to answer 31, there is a DIFFERENCE BETWEEN STATE LAW AND FEDERAL LAW. Sheesh.”
Ok. Well, thats an argument against what Obama is doing – but the title implies that this is about romneycare, which is a STATE program – one people are happy with.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Do you support Obama-PelosiCare, Jason?
Not sure, but I see little coming from the Conservative New Vengence A.K.A. Tea Party Stooges, which makes me think much of anything is coming out of this party that is constructive.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
“that folks won’t pay their medical bills unless there’s an insurance company as an intermediary.”
No – but how many excpet the very, very rich (prob. the 2% who still opt out) could offer the realistic expectation of paying, in full, for some kind of huge injury or illness without bankruptcy?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
“Conservatives, on a conservative site, arguing in all seriousness that it is “conservative” for the government to force someone to buy a product under the penalty of law makes me want to put my Steyr M40 in my mouth and pull the trigger.”
Very true, but I would like to point out to the board that they already paying for it anyway indirectly. I dislike it regardless.
The author of this post fails to distinguish between health care & health insurance. I would argue that everyone already has health care.
With respect to comments such as this:
“Do those of you who support Romneycare also support Pelosicare? If not, why the *#!@ not?”
C’mon.. please. This author has been around long enough to know the primary difference being government option. It is both disingenuous and inflammatory to suggest there is little difference between the two just because both plans are similar in one aspect.
OK, I’m leaving this thread now.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
When you get into Enumerated Powers, there is plenty of varying opinions on the interpretation. So bringing this up as an argument against a health mandate or really much of anything is kind of pointless. It infers that there is agreement on Enumerated Powers, which there isn’t.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:30 pm
A vanishingly small percentage. That’s my guess. And those who bilk their care providers should have their wages garnisheed, etc.
The argument that this is a huge, enormous, horrible national problem (the cost is in fact relatively small) that can only be solved by making the entire population into forced consumers of whatever health insurance companies are allowed to sell is ridiculous to the point of utterly brain-dead fatuousness.
This is firing nuclear missiles at the constitutional concepts of individual liberty from a government power for the sake of swatting a very few mosquitoes who deserve punitive sanctions placed on them for buying crap — however necessary — on someone else’s bitterly earned income.
Sheesh! It’s incredible that we’re now getting tear-jerker stories about our poor, poor government that apparently needs endless power to protect its pitiful, powerless little old self from the general public.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
“Conservatives, on a conservative site, arguing in all seriousness that it is “conservative” for the government to force someone to buy a product”
How is that anyworse than the number of people on here who advocate for gay marriage or abortion?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
“A vanishingly small percentage. That’s my guess. And those who bilk their care providers should have their wages garnisheed, etc.”
Is that any better for the economy than forcing people to buy coverage? You’re gonna make people go broke rather than require them to be protected?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Mandates hassle citizens while providing little benefit to the public.
The only group that benefits from mandates are the insurance companies.
I’d rather concern ourselves with healthcare costs since that’s the main problem effecting 85% of Americans.
Lack of coverage concerns only 15% of Americans and 40% of them are uninsured by choice.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I guess you’re unfamiliar with the hard-edged world of private enterprise. There is a small percentage of folks out there that bilk you, whether it’s a life-and-death matter or not. You either pursue those deadbeats to get what they owe you, or you decide it’s not worth the expense and effort to enforce their part of their contractual obligations
In the worst case, you eat those losses and try to write them off. You don’t require people to have “home repair insurance” or “vehicle repair insurance.”
“Forcing people to buy coverage” only encourages insurance companies to lobby for regulations that increasingly favor their health insurance markets. If people have to buy coverage, there’s no point for insurers to waste their efforts in designing products customers want. The main thing for InsCos is to appeal to those who have real decision-making power: politicians and bureaucrats.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Kudos to Alex for bringing up a subject that has had amazingly little discussion in this whole debate. The mandate is fundamental to what the Democrats are trying to do – at its core, their bill (and the policy the party as a whole has been moving towards for years) is basically a trade off of forcing a mandate for allowing preexisting conditions to be covered. To the extent that Romney is the only American governor to have implemented a system like this, he is absolutely one of the “godfathers” of this bill.
Everyone gets riled up about the public option but IMO it’s a red herring – I’m not even sure Obama supports a public option. The public option was a policy that John Edwards adopted in the campaign to get to differentiate himself on health care reform. Not wanting to be outdone, Hillary and Obama then adopted it. When Obama and his Democrat backers were planning their run, in other words, there was no public option in the cards.
Even if there is a public option, it’s gonna be restricted only to people in a certain income bracket who can’t get private insurance. So the public option is neither here nor there for the average person, but the mandate is a huge deal for everyone. And yet, Republicans haven’t really run with this issue. I can’t recall a single poll on it. Weird huh? I bet the idea of a mandate polls incredibly low.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
“The only group that benefits from mandates are the insurance companies.”
wrong.
The country as a whole benefits – or rather, all those who are no longer forced to subsidize the healthcare of others.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
This does illustrate how Romney buys into liberal arguments and addresses them in ways friendly to big government and big business.
He’s got no concern for the little guy who now has 20-30% of his income wasted on health insurance when he’d rather just carry catastrophic insurance and pay his own way.
I’d rather have a politician that values individual freedom and doesn’t create a Frankenstein mishmash of the liberal nanny state and big business cronyism.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
WSU,
What should happen to people who can’t afford insurance? Should they be fined, making their financial condition and ability to pay the ER even worse? Should we imprison them and REALLY make them parasites?
Or maybe just a good public caning? What would you suggest?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
“Lack of coverage concerns only 15% of Americans and 40% of them are uninsured by choice.”
Thats about 29 million people Doug. That’s no small number. I guess if we were talking about a cattle heard of 100 you would have a good point. 29 million human beings, half the population of US Evangelicals, it not something to toss off. I guess you are just divying out some old fashion Christian calousness?
“Mandates hassle citizens while providing little benefit to the public.”
That’s kind of the debate here.
November 10th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
“He’s got no concern for the little guy who now has 20-30% of his income wasted on health insurance when he’d rather just carry catastrophic insurance and pay his own way.”
You just said to forget about the 15% uninsured and focus on the 85% who are paying too much. How can you write this with a straight face?
November 10th, 2009 at 8:59 pm
#56 The country doesn’t benefit when a politician decides to act to enrich politically powerful insurance company monopolies instead of addressing the out-of-control costs of healthcare.
Romney has addressed healthcare by locking everyone in Massachusetts into a single type of insurance as mandated and regulated by the state. Sure you can get it from different companies but they all have to cover the same insane list of things.
No one has the option in Massachusetts of shopping for the coverage they want.
I think that shows the consumer ranks a lot lower than big business to Mr. Romney.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
Considering Romney didn’t even use MassCare as his model for his last run I don’t see how this is the end of the line for him.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
#59 I’ve been uninsured most of my life. I’ve had life threatening illnesses during that time and I’m still here due to Community Health Centers, and other government programs that are inexpensive and effective.
The idea that everyone needs insurance is antique.
Everyone needs healthcare. Healthcare can often be provided cheaply when insurance is cut out of the racket.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Jason,
If you make insurance more affordable by bringing down the cost of health care, you help 100% of people. Now, that’s not as much fun as a powerful government picking winners and losers, but I think it’s a good thing to help everyone. Trouble is, more government = higher cost.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
I don’t think the average voter really cares if people are mandated to get insurance…voter’s look at the fairness of it. If they see people who can afford Health Insurance and don’t buy it people realize they are going to pay for their care through higher premiums.
Where are the polls showing who would be bothered by a mandate? Just heard today that 75% of MA citizens like the plan…
November 10th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
#65 This isn’t a matter of what people can be tricked into. The minority that doesn’t want
ObamaRomney deciding what insurance they are required to buy should still have freedom to choose.They ought to be free to determine what coverage they want if any and live with the consequences.
It’s creepy how Romney supporters are such boosters of the nanny state taking away personal responsibility and replacing it with mandates.
All the Romney supporters who talk up Obama. I guess I see why now.
Give me liberty or give me death.
I guess Romney supporters have a much lower threshold to trade our liberty away.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Doug,
You know as well as I do that if Romney had been against mandates, and forcefully fought against the MA legislature on it, most all of these Rombots would be the most rabidly anti-Mandate people here.
Really, why does everyone (or nearly everyone) here who argues for mandates also support Romney?
November 10th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
“What should happen to people who can’t afford insurance?”
for that small group, there can be some kind of assistance.
For those who talk about the high cost – I’d like to think we can walk and chew gum at the same time.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
WSU,
“for that small group, there can be some kind of assistance.”
Okay. But health care expenses are paid for through premiums. Right now, we pay for anyone who can’t pay the bills through our premiums. Under your system, we pay for everyone who can’t pay their bills through our tax dollars that pay for their premiums.
What’s the difference?
As a follow up, what should happen to people who can afford health insurance but refuse to pay for it? And who should determine how much we can all afford?
November 10th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
“All the Romney supporters who talk up Obama. I guess I see why now.”
I haven’t seen anyone on this site talk up Obama except for the occasional liberal troll.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
#67: Because most of the Rombots are Mormon and support him primarily to increase acceptance of their religion, so they will defend whatever he says.
Someone had to say it.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
This obsession with insurance is ridiculous.
People need healthcare not insurance. Insurance is not the best healthcare option and it’s wrong to lock everyone into that antique model.
It’s depressing to see so many ‘conservatives’ champion such a liberal nanny state concept as mandating how individuals pay and provide for their healthcare.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Metro,
You are very brave.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
alright Doug, you don’t like insurance? lets hear your plan…
November 10th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Doug,
I do think that one of the biggest reasons health care costs so much is because so much of it is paid through insurance. It’s like paying bureaucrats to sort through, negotiate, and approve your grocery bill. I bet that would add a lot to the price of a gallon of milk. Toss in the fact that the grocery shopper has already “pre-paid” for all the groceries he can consume, and so he doesn’t care what a gallon of milk costs, or whether he really needs that much milk. Heck someone else is paying for it, right?
I think most all routine care and relatively minor stuff should be paid out of pocket, and insurance should be there for the really big stuff. That would require a transparent health care system with more informed consumers, though. It would require the sorts of reforms that PAWLENTY has been making in MN.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
#71, Wow. Uh oh, stepping away from the keyboard.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I favor freedom with personal responsibility.
For me that means a very high deductible insurance plan and an HSA.
It’s not my place to force everyone else to follow a particular model. Each person needs to decide their own plan.
Of course we already provide healthcare for the poor and elderly and we subsidize clinics with local patient control.
I’d prefer we deal with cost issues instead of wasting our time in an assault on liberty.
The problem is healthcare costs not a lack of insurance.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I agree that Pawlenty is doing the best on the healthcare issue. I seem to recall that I said so some months ago.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Just for the record, I said months ago that this health care battle had the potential to derail Romney.
I don’t like MassCare and I don’t like ObamaCare.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
So Adam, can we chalk you up to Pawlenty
November 10th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
Rasmussen Survey on Health Care Penalty for Uninsured
Inside the numbers:
NBC/Wall Street Journal Political Survey
November 10th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
If health care fails this year, it probably does hurt Romney a bit because Americans will have essentially rejected the Massachusetts model and will be looking for a candidate who can reform health care, but in a more incremental and less seismic manner. But I still see Romney as having a pretty good chance of winning the nomination due to his status as the guy who came in second last time, along with Huckabee, who could also win the nomination for that reason. I do think there’s a strong market right now for a national version of McDonnell or Christie, i.e., someone who no one doubts is a down-the-line conservative but who runs on a solutions-oriented platform, addressing the issues that most voters care about in a conservative manner. But the most likely candidates who could fill such a role don’t seem to be running. The closest thing to Bob McDonnell in the race for 2012 is probably Mitch Daniels, and John Huntsman is fairly analogous to Christie. Yet both seem to be staying out of the race, for different reasons.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Could be terribly wrong, but can’t help thinking the fact this huge health care push is taking place NOW makes it quite probably other issues will eclipse health care by the ‘12 primary season. If the predominant issue is how to make the country work fiscally and health care is no longer THE issue than I think Mittens will be tough to beat.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
Here’s another idea to reduce the cost of healthcare nobody is talking about:
The vast majority of births are very routine. They can be overseen by a midwife or some equivalent who doesn’t have 250k in medical school loans to pay off. They can be done in homes or offices or clinics that are not cesspools of infection (like hospitals- why the hell do we birth our children where everyone is sick anyway?). They rarely need hundred thousand dollar medical equipment around. I’m no expert on the issue, but having 5 kids of my own, and seeing the system in action, I can tell you there is a helluva lot of waste in birthing children. I think it could be done for a fraction of what we pay for it now.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
MWS, ever been to an NICU? They are usually pretty full. No thanks to the quackwife. My wife and first daughter would be dead if not for modern medicine.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
80,
I’d be fine with Pawlenty. I’d be fine with Romney – because I highly doubt Romney would try something like MassCare at the federal level.
But Romney’s health care plan has to be a net negative politically for him – at least now.
It might not matter. This bill is either going to pass or fail within the next few months. By 2011 at primary time, the debate may shift to something else.
Then again, if healthcare PASSES it may be worse for Romney – because the GOP will have a vested interest in pointing out all the flaws in Obamacare. Romney won’t be the best person to do this, given his at least somewhat similar plan in Mass.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Dan,
“I agree that Pawlenty is doing the best on the healthcare issue.”
Right on. He’s started the reforms that are the necessary groundwork to driving down the cost of health care, which is the real problem for businesses, families, taxpayers, and pretty much everybody. Romney admitted that his solution really didn’t do anything to bring down cost. So he bought the liberal premise of health care- that the main problem is the number of uninsured- and ignored the conservative premise of health care- it’s too damn expensive.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Adam, I agree that Romney would be extremely unlikely to try something like MassCare on the national level. Won’t matter though in the primaries. The red meat crowd will want blood from him for MassCare. Beck started it, but I suspect that Hannity and Limbaugh will also eviscerate Romney for it. So will Fox.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Because most of the Rombots are Mormon and support him primarily to increase acceptance of their religion, so they will defend whatever he says.
Someone had to say it.
Well, this Mormon for one isn’t necessarily thrilled at the idea of Romney being the country’s most prominent Mormon. I mean, I guess he is better representative than Mark Hacking…
November 10th, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Ah well, have a fun argument folks. Off to put the 6 month old baby to bed, the one who cost us $12k even with a good insurance plan.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Dan,
I completely agree that some births need massive intervention, and also that some midwives screw up. So do some doctors. That’s why delivery doctors pay literally hundreds of thousands of dollars a year (each) in malpractice premiums. Honestly, this is an issue I disagreed with my wife on (she wanted a midwife a long time ago) but gradually came around on after so many births.
I am not suggesting there is not a place for doctors, or NICUs, or any of that. I’m saying that the vast majority of births do not need the resources we pour into them. We don’t put a person with a broken wrist in intensive care do we? Why do we require so much medical care, attention, and cost for “normal” births?
November 10th, 2009 at 9:51 pm
88,
Probably so. That definitely cuts against Romney. Then again, Beck and Limbaugh weren’t keen on McCain either. So it’s hard to tell whether or not the Tea Party Insurgents will overpower the GOP Establishment.
November 10th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Dan,
“Off to put the 6 month old baby to bed, the one who cost us $12k even with a good insurance plan.”
I guarantee she was worth it. Good night, Dan.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
63, 64,
I am responding to the Dougs point, which clearly stated that we should forget about the smaller number and focus on the bigger number. Followed by an immediate comment complaining Romney forgets about the small guy. It was just too rich.
67. Sure. That’s probably the case. But I don’t necessarily have a problem with some mandates. I also don’t have a problem with talking about health care reform, which if it wasn’t for Obama=’s plan, you wouldn’t be offering up blod alternatives of focusing on costs (which I agree with.)
The biggest problem with the conservative movement is that their is a complete denial that we live in a collectivist society that requires some regulation.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
94.
blod= bold.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Dan you’d be surprised how common that is. So far this year my little Hadassah has cost us several thousand.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
71. Pathetic comment that went unchallenged.
73. Brave? why?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Martha,
“Brave? why?”
Because it was only a matter of time until you came across that comment.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Martha,
“Pathetic comment that went unchallenged.”
I wouldn’t call it pathetic. It doesn’t take a PhD in statistics to recognize that there is a high correlation between being Mormon and being a Romney supporter on this site. There is also a rather high correlation between being a Romney supporter and loving Big Brother Mandates when it comes to health insurance, which is rather uncharacteristic of Mormons, who tend to be a conservative.
And I wouldn’t say it went unchallenged. For instance, Dan spoke up and said he prefers Pawlenty’s reforms to Romney’s.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Doug,
Hadassah is a beautiful name. What is the origin and meaning?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
MWS,
True. There was also a high coorelation between being an evangelical in 2007 and letting people out of jail convictions because their pastor believed they were saved.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Jason,
Duncan Hunter let people out of jail????????
November 10th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Look, the central question here was whether Romneycare would hurt Mitt in 2012.
The answer is no.
The people of Massachusetts are happy with the plan. Its come in on budget and meeting projections for coverage. People in that state believe it has lowered costs, improved care, and expanded coverage. It was passed with bipartisan support.
Romney has never suggested implementation at a national level, nor has he claimed the plan is flawless. It was essentially an experiment that has worked pretty well.
Overall, there are few serious (and non-idological) attacks anone can launch against the plan.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Jason,
Or did you mean Ron Paul or Tom Tancredo?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
WSU,
If it really lowered cost, improved care, and expanded coverage, how could it be controversial at all. And why wouldn’t Romney want to bring lowered cost, improved care, and expanded coverage to the whole country?
Actually, Romney himself said recently that his plan either didn’t do anything or did very little (I forget which) to reduce cost. The interview was post here at Race.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
WSU,
That’s an awfully rosy picture you are painting. If the central question is whether or not Romneycare will hurt Mitt in 2012 – the answer is “Maybe” – at best.
Look at NY-23. Look at how the Palin Power Pride brigade is about to descend on FL to offer their two cents on the “Crubio” Contest.
These folks are mad as hell. And don’t think for a second they’ll forget that Romney instituted Universal Health Care before the Democrats did. It doesn’t matter what the Massholes think of it.
So there will certainly be a push against Mitt over the issue. I don’t know whether or not they’ll be able to buck the “next in line” tradition of the Establishment – but they sure will make a lot of noise.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Hadassah was Esther’s (see The Bible) Jewish name, isn’t it?
I like it!
November 10th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
98. Metro is not afraid of me.
99. Did you read his comment? He said Mormons who support Romney do so to increase acceptance of their faith.
Has any Mormon here or anywhere ever voiced or hinted at that desire? I haven’t seen it. I can only speak for myself, but it would have been better for Romney in 08, if his religion had not been an issue – if he had not been Mormon. Strictly politically, I wish he were not LDS. There’s no evidence for Metro’s assumption, and common sense suggests otherwise. Endless discussions about Mormonism filled with misinformation, misrepresentation, and flat out lies made my head hurt. Mormons probably wish more than anyone that religion had not been the topic for so much of the campaign. Mormons are not necessarily looking to gain acceptance. They are looking to gain converts, it’s different. We’ve never much cared what the world thinks of us, contrary to what some evangelical preachers like to teach.
As for your comment. I do not support Romney because he is my faith. As a conservative, there was no where else for me to go in ‘08. He had the best set of credentials, and the least drawbacks. I liked Rudy a whole lot, and I would have been very happy to vote for him. I wish he were POTUS today. But he was not exactly a true conservative. Even Fred was okay. But Romney was a better choice for real conservatives, and we know from the exit polls that Romney was the conservative choice in 08, and it was not just Mormons who thought so.
Do the math, before making accusations. Mormons are very conservative. Romney was the most conservative choice in 08. I don’t doubt that many Mormons wanted Romney to do well because he is LDS. There’s nothing wrong with that. But I, and I believe my fellow saints, take voting a whole lot more seriously than that. I’ve never heard ANY Mormon say anything about wanting ‘one of us” as some evangelicals do.
That’s why you see so much vitriol directed at Harry Reid.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
Martha,
So do you support health insurance mandates?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
The same people trashing Obamacare are the ones praising Romney.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Is MassCare hurting Romney right now? The polls show that it is clearly not – even though this is the biggest healthcare debate this country has ever seen. I doubt healthcare is going to be huge by 2012, anyway. Remember the war over immigration a couple of years ago? We ended up selecting the worst on that issue as our nominee.
Romney signed the bill and has defended the mandates, even though he was opposed to them, and thought it would be better for people to show they could pay for their own care if they did not want insurance. Yet, he felt the bill was good enough to sign, though flawed. He has repeatedly said it is not a federal model, and that states should reform their own healthcare.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Martha,
“Mormons are not necessarily looking to gain acceptance. They are looking to gain converts, it’s different. ”
Do you think that President Romney might have increased converts, even while reducing acceptance?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
109. I have defended them as far as believing they are one practical solution to improving accountability among free-loaders and reducing costs. I believe the car insurance mandate is applicable, though not a perfect analogy.
The reason I don’t have a huge gripe about them in Mass, is that the penalties are pretty small. I think there needs to be some mechanism to get people to pay for their own care, whether it is wage garnishment or penalties. We cannot keep asking taxpayers to foot the bill for free-loaders.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
The polling I’ve seen is rather mixed.
To the basic question, I think RomneyCare will hurt Mitt, but it’s hardly fatal, unless healthcare is the #1 issue of 2012. Why would we think we can predict the top issue this far out?
November 10th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
112. No, I don’t think Romney increased converts, and I do not think his being POTUS would, either. What I do think is that Romney is an excellent ambassador for my faith, as opposed to Reid. It pretty much ends there. I don’t have any expectations or hopes other than that.
November 10th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Martha,
“I’ve never heard ANY Mormon say anything about wanting ‘one of us” as some evangelicals do.”
And yet, between the two, Romney is the only one who won over 96% of his coreligionists.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Do the math, as I said. Mormons are the most conservative Americans. They vote for the most conservative choice when available.
What other choice did they have in 08? Of the top 3, tell me? If you recall, many Mormons liked other candidates early on. But when it came down to the last 3 men standing, what other options did conservative have?
November 10th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Martha,
“The reason I don’t have a huge gripe about them in Mass, is that the penalties are pretty small. I think there needs to be some mechanism to get people to pay for their own care”
But the cost of health insurance is pretty large. When the penalties and the cost of the preferred behavior are not proportionate, the penalty is ineffective.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
116. Also, MWS.
Huckabee turned off a lot of religious voters because of his – well you know the drill. Let’s just say that many evangelicals could see right though his “Christian Leader” schtick. Hence, his trouble getting many religious right leaders to endorse him.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
118. Maybe so.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Martha,
“Do the math, as I said. Mormons are the most conservative Americans. They vote for the most conservative choice when available.”
And yet- at least judging by our sample here at Race- Mormons seem to prefer insurance mandates at a proportionately higher rate than non-Mormons. Among the population at large, liberals prefer insurance mandates at much higher rates than conservatives. Why is that?
November 10th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
121. See 113.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
Bob,
“To the basic question, I think RomneyCare will hurt Mitt, but it’s hardly fatal, unless healthcare is the #1 issue of 2012. Why would we think we can predict the top issue this far out?”
I agree.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Martha,
Is there anything about #113 that would be particularly appealing to Mormons? Because in general, liberals are more accepting of that line of reasoning than are conservatives. Yet we both know that Mormons are more conservative- on average- than the population at large. Why would Mormons naturally gravitate toward that line of reasoning when other conservatives don’t?
November 10th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
Martha,
If Romney won 96% of Mormons because of his conservatism, why didn’t he win 96% of conservatives?
November 10th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
A Democrat actually talks sense about healthcare:
“Freshman Sen. Mark Warner, Virginia Democrat, said Tuesday that President Obama has misplayed his attempt to reform U.S. heath care by focusing on insurance coverage instead of explaining that the current system is headed toward a financial meltdown.
“I wish the president would have started the debate by explaining to the American people that our current health care system is not financially sustainable, for even another decade,” Mr. Warner said. “Driving down health care costs should have been the focus of the debate.”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/10/warner-obama-misplayed-health-care-debate/print/
November 10th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
What’s the big deal? We already force people to pay for medical services, just some people not only pay for their families but others as well.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
#94 I didn’t say we should forget about the healthcare of the uninsured. I just don’t think it’s necessary to put everyone into the insurance system in order to have everyone receive good, quality, cost-effective healthcare.
#100
http://bible.cc/esther/2-7.htm
Hadassah means myrtle.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I’m not a fan of mandates.
With the Federal mandate in place that a hospital must treat whoever shows up at its door – and no Hospital wanting the bad publicity of turning people away that couldn’t afford to pay, it almost forces the hand.
I assure that it would be a game-changer if the accounting firm I work for was forced to do everyone’s tax return that walked through the door, regardless of their ability to pay. THAT Federal Mandate has essentially turned every Hospital into a Charitable one. And anyone who uses that Hospital (and pays their bill) is therefore turned into a charitable donor to the Hospital. BY MANDATE…
Take away that MANDATE and things would be different.
Having a MANDATE that everyone is required to purchase health insurance is simply taking the system a logical step further… logical if you like the system in place, that is. But if you don’t have power to change the system in place, it’s really the ONLY logical step.
Governor Romney had no power to force change and wasn’t likely to be able to persuade change at the Federal level. It was an ugly step, but a logical one.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
I wouldn’t pin the acceptance of mandates among Romney supporters on anything religious. It’s much simpler than that; when you REALLY support a candidate, he can do no wrong. And Romney supporters, especially online Romney supporters, REALLY support him. There’s also the difficulty that comes with having sort of defended something for so long that you’ve convinced yourself. I was a Romney supporter and a fan of Masscare at one point. In fact, Romney’s willingness to tackle health care reform, in a big way, was maybe the primary element that brought me around in the early going. And I was in the habit of defending the mandate for ages- not as a preferred option, but as a reasonable way of dealing with adverse selection and emergency room freebie care subsidized by us.
Those were real problems and they still are. That Romney, ultimately hit on the wrong solution- one corrosive to liberty and not especially effective regardless- is obvious when you’re outside of that bubble. But, I know from experience it’s not necessarily a Mormon bubble- it has room for all those who, heady at the prospect of Mitt’s obvious talents, can’t bring themselves to criticize him, even if it means helping him become a better candidate.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
A couple of thoughts. When Romney first announced the MA health plan, it made sense to me. Now, I’m much more libertarian in my views and if Romney has ever made a mistake it’s forgetting that even if the plan he signs is perfect in every way and acceptable to everyone, conservative and liberal, it still comes under the purview of Government and will be politicized by vote-hungry politicians. Hence, despite Romney’s care to “get it right”, the Democratic super-majority has since tweeked it to death and now it’s way over budget and covers abortion. The lesson to learn here is government should not meddle in such matters because politicians will certainly abuse the opportunity.
On the other hand, from a Tenth Amendment perspective, MA and any other state can do whatever its voters want as long as the basic tenets of the Constitution are not violated. It’s the federal government that doesn’t have such an enumerated power. In fact, if the different states want to try out different plans, based on the wishes of their voters, more power to them. Then the states can compete for citizens just as they already do by what taxes they impose. Note, for example, the recent flight of high net worth tax payers from CA and NY.
In fact, Romney has always said the MA plan is not for every state. If and when the time comes, I hope he realizes that the federal government should stay out of the health care business all together.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
#125 – Well, that kind of question is a non-sequitor – what I mean by that – it’s a null set.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Again, in defense of Mormons, while it’s easy to see how Huckabee could have a Republican nomination- it still is- it’s also easy to see why Romney would be, really, the obvious choice for conservatives who had reasons to think ill of Huckabee. The Huckster’s charm will allow him to bluff his way past most rank in file conservatives, but he simply does not have a conservative record. His Arkansas record was, in my honest opinion, the record of socially conservative Democrat. I’ve maintained that belief as my personal opinion of the man has increased. There’s just no getting around it. If you’re a Mormon, and one of the two viable candidates is trying to subtly demonize your religion (or you think he is), you’re not likely to forgive all that.
Also, I’d say look at the online conservative community. Mitt may not have won 96%, out in the real world, but he probably won 60% of the hyper-engaged.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
“MetroIndependent Says:
November 10th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
#67: Because most of the Rombots are Mormon and support him primarily to increase acceptance of their religion, so they will defend whatever he says.
Someone had to say it.”
Hmmm… You might, I say might be on to something. Interesting.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:38 pm
#133: The, dare I say it, cult-like following Romney has among Mormons pre-dated Huckabee’s rise. There was a point in 2007 where I tabulated all the Romney supporters who were regular commenters on this site and they were around 85% Mormon. I could find the link.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
First of all, Mitt Romney did fight AGAINST the mandates, and lost. He did, however believe that people should be able to show their ability to pay if no insurance.
Here is my thinking: I believe in people being responsible for their own bills, unless circumstances are such that they just can’t do it. So, I believe it should be perfectly permissable for one to not buy insurance as long as two other provisions are included, i.e., they will be responsible for paying their own doctor and hospital bills, and that medical bills will not be able to be discharged by bankruptcy. Now, that’s the conservative position. They can go without insurance if they choose to, as long as they know THEY are responsible for paying, not the nanny state.
Like I said, Mitt was not for the mandates…..that’s been shown for the last two years now, but when you are in the liberal state of MASS, you don’t get everything you want.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:45 pm
MWS
@112:
You really picked a fight here …..Why did you bring Religion into this? You really said some mean spirited things about Mormons. Were you anti Romney before you became anti-Mormon, or were you anti Mormon before you became anti Romney.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Metro,
There was also a point where (I’m pretty it was you) you “tabulated” the crazy extreme, cult-like generosity of Mormons, by citing Utah and Idaho donation data, and I summarily picked apart your argument by looking at the actual population data, home-state advantages, etc. Good times. Anyway, I won’t pretend that Romney doesn’t have a disproportionately Mormon, online fan-base. But, I reject the idea that they’ve reacted any differently than any extreme minority would when suddenly presented with “one of their own”.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:46 pm
Romney SIGNED RomneyCare into law and
hence, is responsible for it.
Next!
November 10th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
I haven’t been able to read quite all of the comments, but one of Kavon’s was pretty dead on. The one about wanting to shoot himself, or whatever he said because conservatism had devolved into this.
Let’s think about this. Suppose the government did force EVERYONE to have health insurance, and it included a public option. 20 years later the private health insurance companies are all selling car insurance now, because they can’t compete with the government. Then, out of nowhere some freak flu comes along and hits everyone in america…except that the cost to cure this epidemic is 1 million dollars per person. Everyone in america needs the cure. Who pays for it? The country has to borrow money from the chinese just to pay for it. Is this sounding familiar?
Look, it’s not about healthcare…it’s about FREEDOM AND LIBERTY. If I fail to get insurance, and i get sick but don’t want to pay for the help i need…THEN THEY CAN LET MY STUPID ASS DIE. THAT IS FREEDOM.
How many people think George Washington had health insurance? I bet if you put that into a poll the answer would scare the hell out of you. The rising cost in healthcare is because there are more things that can be fixed now. A doctor couldn’t take out the blockage in your heart 200 years ago. People just died. Now, we have to decide PERSONALLY whether we want to risk it the way they had to, or get health insurance.
THE ANSWER TO OUR HEALTHCARE CRISIS IS TO CUT SPENDING TO JUST THE ESSENTIALS(MILITARY, ROADS, EDUCATION…MAYBE EVEN SOCIAL SECURITY)…THEN CUT TAXES GIVING PEOPLE FREEDOM OVER THEIR MONEY, AND THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE WHAT THEY WANT TO PAY FOR. What kind of backwards assed world are we living in nowadays.
KAVON IS RIGHT, THIS IS A BOGUS ARGUMENT FOR CONSERVATIVES TO BE HAVING.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:51 pm
My brother used to really enjoy wearing his “Vote for Pedro” t-shirt after watching the movie Napoleon Dynamite. Unfortunately, he lived in California and was constantly approached by Mexican/Hispanic people who would enthusiastically ask who Pedro is and how they can vote for him. My brother stopped wearing the t-shirt because it wasn’t fun for him anymore.
Identity is part of politics. Being the same race as someone else is obviously helpful in getting their votes. Just look at 2008 results. Similarly, how many women were breathlessly following Hillary Clinton’s run for the Presidency in 2008? Sharing a religion is probably nearly as helpful in the identity affinity, depending on the religion and how tight-knit the co-religionists are.
Calling Romney’s identity affinity “cult-like” as though it were un-natural and needed to be stamped out before people start killing themselves (or others) is inflammatory and uncalled for, Metro.
Metro, don’t resort to insults when you post.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
What do you think about ‘no mandate, but people are forced to pay their own bills without bankrupcy discharge’? That’s the conservative position. How many would be for it? Under this situation, MOST people would choose to buy some level or another of insurance.
Furthermore, Mitt has said many times there should not be a federal health care plan, but rather has indicated that other states could use Masscare as a learning tool to develop their own, saying that each state would have their own particular structure of choice.
November 10th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Also, I think it was MWS who mentioned that Mitt won 96% of the Mormon vote. Actually, that was the percentage of the whole state, wasn’t it? 32% of the state is non-Mormon, so it’s pretty obvious that the non-LDS voted very heavily for him also, apparently over 90%. So, try the fact that Mitt saved the olympics from a catastrophic loss, and was one of the greatest winter olympics of all times as the rationale for voting for Mitt in the primary, along with the fact that he was the most conservative candidate.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:23 am
I could care less about the whole Mormon thing. If 85% of Mitt’s online supporters were Satanists, still so what?
What concerns me about a Mitt Romney candidacy isn’t his supporters.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:26 am
143 – If I recall, Mormons made up about 25% of the Nevada caucus and 95% of them went for Romney. So, it was 24% of his total from them. His grand total was 52%, no? So he got his remaining 27% from the non-Mormon vote, which was 75% of the total.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:26 am
“Also, I think it was MWS who mentioned that Mitt won 96% of the Mormon vote. Actually, that was the percentage of the whole state, wasn’t it? 32% of the state is non-Mormon…”
-So he got MORE than 96% of the Mormons? What? 99%? Oh my my my.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:28 am
I successfully got the Romney supporters on here to defend Pelosi and Obama.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:29 am
“Also, I think it was MWS who mentioned that Mitt won 96% of the Mormon vote. Actually, that was the percentage of the whole state, wasn’t it? 32% of the state is non-Mormon…”
-So he got 99+% of the Mormon vote.
My, my, my.
Shall we move on… Time to talk issues and unite this party. ALL religions welcome, folks.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Having read all of these comments on this most absurd of all posts, it is necessary for some hallucinatory reason to point out that MassCare was passed long before the LAST presidential run began, and didn’t keep Romney from almost winning the nomination. It wasn’t much of an issue then, and it won’t be next time either.
Alex asks what the difference is between MassCare and ObamaCare, and presumably does it with a straight face. Here’s a hint: MassCare is less than 2% of a state budget, and ObamaCare has been estimated at $1 TRILLION, $400 Billion for the first 10 years alone. And THAT’S a ridiculously LOW estimate!!
All of this has been hashed out ad infinitim, ad nauseum.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:33 am
Defeat ObamaCare, PelosiCare,
AND RomneyCare etc etc…
while we’re at it.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:37 am
#146 – fact is we don’t know, but we do know that he got at least 90% of the non-LDS in Utah.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:02 am
romney/thune
romney/rubio
thune/rubio
November 11th, 2009 at 1:56 am
I think Obama is very crafty(sneaky).
I think he purposefuly almost quoted Romney.
Obama, from the the beginning of his presidency, has
tried to stomp out his competition for 2012!
He probably knows Romney is his biggest competition.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:45 am
This post just proves that Knepper is a grade A hack.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:48 am
If MassCare hurts Mitt, then there really isn’t anything that can be done to change it. But, then again it could help Romney if ObamaCare comes to pass. There is a lot of difference.. A free market based health reform is always better than a Government single payer option, where taxes and medical rationing will be reality…That’s not happening with MassCare.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:49 am
Lol Kavon you have only now figured out that annonymous is a troll?!?!?!
Surely some smart IT literate person can trace the ip addresses as I’m sure that it’s probably mainly one very bored person using all these JA Prucey type characters.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:23 am
156 – No kidding! Kavon, did you just realize that anonymous is a troll? Hahahahaha.
ROMNEY WILL NOT GET THE NOMINEE! HE IS DONE!
November 11th, 2009 at 4:07 am
I stand opposed to the notion that being a Mormon automatically makes one a Rombot. Heck, the other son of a wealthy Mormon family, Jon Huntsman, was backing McCain with me, not Romney. Most members in tight groups tend to stick together – Evangelicals behave something like Mormons do in that regard, at least on the national level, but like me and a few others here I’m sure there’s plenty of exceptions to be made. For me honestly I consider myself an American and a moral person first and foremost and I naturally look for candidates who hold those values. I think most candidates, even the majority of Democrats, are good people that take the same values to heart that I do. Beyond that I look for candidates capable of real leadership in their offices. Religious affiliation for me is completely irrelevant.
The issue with a few Romney folks is that mandates are bad, except when Romney does them. For many Romney folks his word tends to be taken at higher value. Had McCain been pushing coverage mandates we’d never hear the end of it. Such criticism of candidates to Romney’s center (or more appropriately his real home), the “pragmatists”, always struck me last year as very hypocritical coming from Romney supporters of all people.
That being said I think Romney tried to make the best of a compromise. I guess compromises are good, but only when Romney does them. If McCain compromises that’s grounds for throwing him out of the Senate, no?
MassCare came through with its good and bad points, but shouldn’t be used as a national model owing to those glaring weaknesses and I think Romney understands that. He’ll step back from it and as long as he focuses on moving onwards, it won’t hurt him and will just make his opponents look like they lack ideas themselves if they push it.
November 11th, 2009 at 4:51 am
“Then again, if healthcare PASSES it may be worse for Romney – because the GOP will have a vested interest in pointing out all the flaws in Obamacare. Romney won’t be the best person to do this, given his at least somewhat similar plan in Mass.”
BINGO.
I may be the odd man out, but I do not blame Mormons for backing Mr. Romney and I do not necessarily think they backed him just on religion alone. Mr. Romney did seem to do well in certain states (a portion of those states had a high Mormon population,) but many non-Mormons in those same states also supported Mr. Romney so it might be a cultural and regional thing as well.
While I (a Catholic, not a Mormon) would like to see my coreligionists do well, there is no bloody way I would support a Leftist who happens to be Catholic.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:24 am
Alex has Romney ever claimed to be a libertarian? I’ve always thought of him as a Moderate leaning conserative.
November 11th, 2009 at 6:38 am
End EMTALA and we won’t need mandates.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:08 am
For the record, I’m not scandalized by the fact that 96% of Mormons voted for Romney. It’s a stunning number (like 94% of blacks approving of Obama’s job as President), but understandable I guess.
What I can’t stand is people pretending he got 96% primarily for some reason other than his religion. I just can’t stand the disingenuousness of saying that 96% of Mormons came to the conclusion that Romney is the best candidate, irrespective of religion. The notion does violence to common sense.
And no, I don’t think there is anything particular to Mormonism that would prompt them to be the only conservative group gung ho about mandates. That was kind of the point. The Mormons on this site defending mandates are doing so not because there is something in Mormon theology, history, or culture that would drive them to do so (despite their conservative leanings). They support, or at least defend them because Romney supported, or at least defended them. I think that’s pretty obvious, and I my questions in that regard were pretty rhetorical, but I guess some want to pretend that the reason was something else.
Matthew summed it up well in #130.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:20 am
The facts on Mass Healthcare will all come out and certain people are going to look quite foolish – http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/nov/10/glenn-beck/beck-claims-universal-health-care-driving-massachu/
November 11th, 2009 at 8:35 am
And for the record, I for one do not think that you are anti-Mormon. Like the rest of us, Mormons were wronged at some point in American history. However, there are a few Mormons that cry bigotry at the slightest hint that somebody is against their guy. You call them on it, MWS. It is a very delicate subject subject because one can take offense. However, when one cries wolf, people get tired and might fail to see the real bigotry when it does appear.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:41 am
Ohio,
Well said.
November 11th, 2009 at 8:52 am
HuckRub, you are about as useful to the conversation as anonymous.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Nothing like a false hood!
Okay, lets see if the simple mind can get this.
Everyone has health insurance, regardless if they buy it or not. By law, no one can be denied care at
a hospital, therefore, they have a type of insurance.
So, if they already have a type of insurance, the only question is who pays for it.
So, those who argue against the Requirement to have health insurance are Socialist, because
they want the State (Federal Government) to pay for the uninsured.
So, Alex, if you are there, you are a socalist by definition as far as health care goes
because you believe the federal government must pay for emergency care for the unisured.
You can’t have it both ways.
So those who agree with Alex on this post are all socialist, period.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:05 am
This is probably my third time posting this link but I think it is something that people should read.
It disputes the common notion that healthcare costs are extremely affected by the uninsured and their usage of emergency rooms for non emergency reasons. In fact it shows that people on medicare/medicaid or those who have private insurance use the emergency rooms, for non emergency reasons, nearly as much as the uninsured do.
http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/04/ask_the_editors_why_does_health_care_cost_so_much.php
Mandates are a red herring devised to keep the debate on a common ground. Nobody likes the idea of having to pay for other people and, in reality, the instances aren’t as severe as many would have you to believe.
Now I am not saying that the insurance companies are not using this to raise the cost of premiums…they probably are…and maybe that should be addressed? Anyone who has had insurance for anything knows that the insurance companies are not just going to lower your premiums because the government put mandates into place.
Mandating health insurance, IMO, will not necessarily bring the costs of healthcare down it will just strip away another one of our liberties…another way the government will take away a decision that we should have the right to make!!!
A mandate is just a backdoor way of getting the public option in a future revised bill. Every conservative should be fighting this!!!
AND you cannot compare a health insurance mandate with auto insurance for the one simple reason that no American is forced to own a car.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:12 am
That is a falsehood.
If you don’t know the difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare, that is really, really sad!
The big issue to me is the PUBLIC OPTION, which I am 100% against. This is a nation of mandates, and
it always has been. Taxes, in their very nature are a Mandate. Car Insurance is a Mandate.
Driving on the Right side of the Road is a mandate. Paying Property is a Mandate. Without
mandates, the Nation can not exists.
The Post Office is a Mandate, The Federal Reserve is a Mandate. Mandates have always existed as
long as there have been governments.
Where I draw the line is when the Government (particular the Federal Government), start intruding
into Free Enterprise.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:13 am
“A mandate is just a backdoor way of getting the public option in a future revised bill. Every conservative should be fighting this!!!
AND you cannot compare a health insurance mandate with auto insurance for the one simple reason that no American is forced to own a car.”
Wow, you get it Jersey. Why is it that many people ignore such wisdom?
November 11th, 2009 at 9:13 am
155 – how could RomneyCare help Romney if ObamaCare comes to pass? I read the rest of your comment but I still do not understand how you would think that way? It’s about perception!!! If Obamacare passes and Romney is our nominee against Obama then the healthcare bill is off the table for discussion in the general…no ifs ands or buts about it!!! All Obama will say in every debate, that brings up the discussion, or in every campaign commercial is that Obamacare is rooted in Masscare. End of story. Then Romney can spout out Salt Lake Olympics…
November 11th, 2009 at 9:15 am
“Driving on the Right side of the Road is a mandate.” True, but it is only a mandate if you drive a car.. I do not think they throw many Americans in jail for walking on the wrong side of the road.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:15 am
Thanks Ohio…who said that moderates and conservatives cannot get along?
November 11th, 2009 at 9:26 am
Folks, check out these comments:
#129 by Ogrepete
#131 by Deango
#136 by ConservativeRepublican
Those three smart posts show that the idea of finishing off Romney by slamming MassCare is no slam-dunk.
Mitt definitely has plausible deniability on this.
And some of the Rombots now defending mandates as some ingenious mechanism (and claiming that it is somehow conservative — NUTS!) should recognize the argument that Romney didn’t actually want them.
November 11th, 2009 at 9:36 am
Yes, and two guys going bowling together is a man-date. Presumably, one without which the nation cannot exist…
November 11th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Folks, check out these comments:
“#129 by Ogrepete
#131 by Deango
#136 by ConservativeRepublican
Those three smart posts show that the idea of finishing off Romney by slamming MassCare is no slam-dunk.
Mitt definitely has plausible deniability on this.”
Yes, I did see these comments and to one degree or another, Mr. Romney partially made such arguements among others to Mr. Hannity. Frankly, at the time I was impressed and Mr. Romney moved into second place temporarily as my choice of the Big 4. Events since then have put him into 4th place.
Mr. Romney might yet be our nominee, despite health care, but I look at it this way. Mr. Romney gave an explanation of why he did what he did on health care. One explanation is OK, but he has also gave some explanations on a few more important issues. When a Romneyite politely suggested that Palinites were complainers, I replied that Romneyites were explainers. It kind of gets old after a while. Yes, sometimes I have to explain to my boss why I do the things I do, but eventually, if I have to start expaining too much, my employment situation become shakey. Similarly, Mr. Romney’s position as leader of our party is slowly becoming shakey and he has now been demoted to second place as Mr. Huckabee is the new front-runner. Can Mr. Romney regain his footing and retake the front-runner position? Yes, but as he has to explain health care and other issues, Republican voters will grow tired of endless explanations.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Thunder,
“Everyone has health insurance, regardless if they buy it or not. By law, no one can be denied care at
a hospital, therefore, they have a type of insurance.
So, if they already have a type of insurance, the only question is who pays for it.
So, those who argue against the Requirement to have health insurance are Socialist, because
they want the State (Federal Government) to pay for the uninsured.”
And under RomneyCare, who pays for the premiums for the people who can’t afford it?
What’s the difference?
November 11th, 2009 at 10:25 am
#175
LOL!!!!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:32 am
174. Yes, I think it’s been said time and again, that Romney did not want the mandates. He just wanted people to prove they can pay their healthcare bills if they choose not to buy insurance. He signed the bill even though it was not perfect.
I actually haven’t seen a Romney supporter do anything other than defend the mandate as a reasonable solution. I don’t see any of them really gung ho for mandates! And certainly comparing MassCare to ObamaCare is unfair because the difference is huge. The public option if passed, is going to be the death of healthcare, not mandates to buy health insurance.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:44 am
And Dan L., your candidate has serious flaws (RomneyCare, flip-flopping on numerous issues, plastic persona, out of touchness and liberal leanings) that can be overcome.
But, I doubt it. Time will tell.
November 11th, 2009 at 10:48 am
179 “I actually haven’t seen a Romney supporter do anything other than defend the mandate as a reasonable solution.”
Houston, we have a problem… No lift off! ; )
November 11th, 2009 at 10:52 am
RomneyCare is a NON starter. Defend it at your candidate’s demise, Martha.
In other words, KEEP IT UP!!!
November 11th, 2009 at 10:55 am
And, don’t forget ROMNEY and TARP…
Republicans and Independents won’t. ; )
November 11th, 2009 at 11:03 am
…so in sum, let’s say IT’S ONLY JUST BEGUN for MITT ROMNEY. ROMNEY/MCDONNELL 2012!!!
November 11th, 2009 at 11:05 am
“And, don’t forget ROMNEY and TARP…” yeah if it were only MA care, only TARP or only NY-23, one could almost easily ignore it, but there is a pattern developmenting and it would nice if things change course and the pattern stops.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Mandates are a non-issue, and a disingenuous malapropism. FACT: If you live in one of the 49 states without MassCare, you have a MANDATE to pay for every freeloader’s healthcare. If you live in Massachusetts, you don’t.
FACT: Mitt put an end to this mandate. You don’t have to be a master epistemologist to see through the lies of Romney’s enemies.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Greg, #16 Great comment
November 11th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Honest question….Is it uncontitutional the require everyone to have car insurance? What are the opinions?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:29 am
Craig #29 Excellent
http://www.usconstitution.net/franklin.html
November 11th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Dave,
#186. So you’re saying mandates are good, and Romney got rid of them?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:31 am
It wasn’t the end of the line in 2008 so… it wont be in 2012.
If it was the end of the line why is he the subject of conversation at this blog at all?
November 11th, 2009 at 11:35 am
“Is it uncontitutional the require everyone to have car insurance? What are the opinions?” Walk, take the bus or train.
November 11th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Ohio #192 – you did not read that write. The question was – “what are the OPINIONS.” I think you read “What are the OPTIONS.”
November 11th, 2009 at 11:58 am
I really don’t like being forced to purchase auto insurance. In today’s world, you’d be crazy not to have insurance IF you have any assets you want to keep. One single auto accident and you could lose everything you own if you do not have auto insurance.
If you have no assets, then there is absolutely no incentive to purchase auto insurance. So this is why we see things like insurance coverage on autos requiring coverage like “Underinsured/Uninsured” coverage. So everyone who obeys the law is forced to pony up to pay for those who won’t pony up (or don’t pony up enough) and obey the law.
In the auto insurance situation there is also a perception that illegal aliens are a big part of the problem. People who are here illegally trying to make some money and then leave have very little incentive to figure out, let alone obey, all the laws.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Sorry Ogrepete, I will an opinion instead of an option. Not being a lawyer, I would just say that I certainly do not mind being forced to pay collision insurance. While I buy insurance to insure my own car (on my own) it can be argued that it should not be manditory. However, I would not go quite so far as to call such a thing unconstutional.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
MWS,
I’m saying that mandates come in all shapes, sizes, and colors—and that what constitutes one is demonstrably in the eye of the beholder. What Mitt did in MassCare was highly nuanced, but to one with a jeweler’s eye for political truth, it was a thing of genuine beauty.
When Mitt gets the nomination, he can use the distinction between MassCare and ObamaCare to his advantage in the General.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Ooops… Just saw my typo in #193 “write” should be “right.”
LOL
November 11th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
It is unconstitutional for the federal government to force you to buy anything! Again, I repeat, you cannot compare an auto insurance mandate and a health insurance mandate. One basic difference is that auto insurance is based on the physical harm that can happen to other people because of your mistake and vice versa. Health insurance is based solely for the individual. With auto insurance nobody is forcing you to own a car. So there is a choice.
A health insurance mandate is a red herring…especially in this debate. It was solely designed to be able to enact a public option at a later date. Once millions of people prove they cannot pay for neither the insurance or the mandate penalties, then there will be an amendment to the healthcare reform law that institutes a public option.
I find it amazing that these politicians continue to call this a healthcare reform bill when it really is just a health insurance reform bill.
November 11th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
I found this site that has personal stories of people in Mass. and how they feel about RomneyCare and the mandates.
http://www.masshealthlawtruth.org/mass_health_mandate_personal_stories.htm
November 11th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I think the premise is right for the most part, however there are exceptions such as contagious diseases? There are other minor possiblities such as the main bread winner dying because he didn’t take care of a tumor leaving his dependents for the state to take care of.
There are very few things in this life that are 100% insular.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
If Romney flips on mandates, all his supporters will say:
“Romney never supported mandates, he always governed as anti-mandates”
I expect Romney to flip on mandates or lose the primary. Mandates are an unpopular concept among conservatives.
November 11th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Doug,
You can’t be serious. Mandates are only an issue on this site. The Primary is part of the REAL world. (c.f., #186 and #196).
November 11th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
The Huckabee -Rubio postings above show a continuing fondness for losing that is historically reminiscent of the 1850 Whigs. Do you REALLY, honest-to-God think you can be elected President with such a totally completely right leaning, white guy centered, all Southern ticket ? Honestly now, lets get away from fairy tales for a little bit.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:16 pm
I know I am in the minority but I do not think Romney would be an ideal candidate because of his inability to play well in the Deep South with evangelicals and not because of Romneycare.
If I could be assured that evangelicals would embrace Romney if he got the nomination and be enthusiastic in GOTV efforts and more importantly come out to vote for him instead of staying home I would back him if Palin or Huckabee did not get the nomination.
Having said that I see no evidence that Romney will be able to pull it off (due to religious bigotry and his lack of reception among hardcore conservatives) and frankly our side cannot afford any breaches in the Deep South to beat Obama in 2012 in a close election.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:39 pm
“If I could be assured that evangelicals would embrace Romney if he got the nomination and be enthusiastic in GOTV efforts and more importantly come out to vote for him instead of staying home I would back him if Palin or Huckabee did not get the nomination.” I do not understand either your wording or your logic. For the sake of arguement, I can see not voting for Mr. Romney in the primary because he is unelectable in the general. However, if he managed to beat Mr. Huckabee and Mrs. Palin, why would you not back Mr. Romney in the general against Mr. Obama? Even I would hold my nose and vote for Mr. Romney in the general.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Comparing Obamacare to Romneycare is not only ‘unfair’ as said by Martha, but just plain idiotic. For someone who used to be a thinker Alex, this was a really poor post.
And you got no Romney supporters to support the hated Democratic bill….there is no Obamacare at this point.
November 11th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
#204 Bob says, “If I could be assured that evangelicals would embrace Romney if he got the nomination and be enthusiastic in GOTV efforts and more importantly come out to vote for him instead of staying home I would back him if Palin or Huckabee did not get the nomination.”
That’s mighty big of you Bob!
November 11th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
“And you got no Romney supporters to support the hated Democratic bill….there is no Obamacare at this point.
” Haha, yeah I do not know what camp Mr. Cao belongs to. More to the point, of course Romneycare is nowhere near as bad as ObamaCare, but there is a perception now out there that should be cause for concern. The Union thugs who came to our town hall meeting used MA talking points when interviewed. Does this mean that MAcare is the same as ObamaCame? No, but there is some more explaining to do. Frankly, the best thing for Mr. Romney is for this health care bill to be defeated (in the Senate) so that the issue is off the table before 2011.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
I don’t think it hurts Romney either way – if it’s on the table or not come 2012.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
204. Romney’s ‘evangelical’ problem is not as big as you think. Romney, Huck and McCain split the evangelical vote pretty evenly, with Huck just slightly edging out Romney.
November 11th, 2009 at 3:59 pm
“I don’t think it hurts Romney either way – if it’s on the table or not come 2012.” Well whatever you say.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Mandates are unconstitutional on the federal level, but are on the state level per the 10th Amendment.
November 11th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
And he just told Cavuto on FOX that he dislikes Mitt!!!
November 11th, 2009 at 6:01 pm
211. OJ, MassCare is not hurting Romney now – at the most heated argument over healthcare ever. He’s still in the top 2-3. If it’s not making a dent right now, it probably never will.
November 11th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
[...] guess they hadn’t heard it was “The End of the Line for Romney”. by Mark B. Lowe @ 7:16 pm. Filed under Mitt Romney [Comments (0)] [Trackback [...]
November 12th, 2009 at 10:34 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8aRJkKy984
Here’s what Beck has to say about RomneyCare.
November 12th, 2009 at 10:58 am
216. Beck is wrong – it’s not breaking the budget. It’s 3% of the budget.
Does he ever let a guest talk?
November 12th, 2009 at 11:55 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vl1aHe45qo
“More wait-time for less coverage” -Joseph Finder 3:30
November 12th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
You insinuate too much with this post.
The Mass plan was a plan for that particular state. Romney said that imposing that solution on the entire country would be a mistake. Instead, each state should come up with a plan that work for that state. We can all watch and see what each state comes up with, and learn from it. Instead, Obamacare is a nationwide plan, with no room for error. Obama is steering a much bigger ship.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:27 pm
http://www.foxnews.com/video/index.html?playerId=videolandingpage&streamingFormat=FLASH&referralObject=7127375&referralPlaylistId=949437d0db05ed5f5b9954dc049d70b0c12f2749
More Beck and guest who believe that RomneyCare is too expensive and causes rationing and longer wait-times.
Since Beck is a fellow Mormon, we can’t chalk this up to religious bigotry against Bishop Romney.
November 12th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Your not going to satisfy the PALINITES and HUCKSTERS with ANYTHING Romney does. In MOST CASES, it is merely a case of SOUR GRAPES (Why didn’t my candidate think of it first?). I LIVE IN MASSACHUSETTS. UNDER Romney, MY TAXES and HEALTH CARE PREMIUMS WENT DOWN all with NO PUBLIC OPTION. I’m 110% behind FORCING PEOPLE to buy health care insurance, IF they can afford it. Another option would be, is to have these people sign a waver stating that, ‘We refuse emergency treatment at any medical facility unless we pay with CASH/CHECK/CREDIT? If these individuals ARE WILLING to sign a waver like this, Then fine, Don’t purchase insurance and go ahead an play Russian Roulette with your life. At least I and other TAX PAYERS won’t have to subsidize your BAD JUDGMENT. As for THIS being a Conservative issue, People who know me have described me as being to the right of ATTILA THE HUN!
ROMNEY / DeMINT in 2012!
November 12th, 2009 at 1:07 pm
What BECK FAILS to mention, is that RomneyCare has CHANGED under DEMOCRATIC Gov Patrick. Many of the Goodies that the Democratic controlled state legislature (like including illegals, etc) WERE VETOED UNDER MITT and MADE LAW under Patrick (NOT ROMNEY)! Patrick also began playing games with the FUNDING SOURCES (FEEs, Liscenses, ETC) funneling funds to other projects. AGAIN, Beck and OTHERS CONVENIENTLY fail to bring any of this up!
November 14th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
The penalties are hardly equivalent. $100 to $300 for Romney’s, vs $250,000 plus 5 years in jail for the Democrat plan.
Also, if Obama is concerned about this $1,000 hidden health care tax on everyone, why is he using that to create a $5,400 not so hidden health care tax on everyone?
Makes no sense!
Romney is our best bet for 2012, without a doubt. Watch his speech to the AFA last night! Outstanding!
http://bit.ly/1vx1RX
November 14th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Correction: Young American Foundation (YAF) not AFA!
http://bit.ly/1vx1RX