The GOP's ObamaCare Problem
Romney and Gingrich have both supported an individual health insurance mandate.
Once the presidential nomination process is settled—and Lord knows that day can't come fast enough—Republicans will get back to doing what they do best, getting on Barack Obama's case. Incredibly, though, they'll have to do it without one of their most potent arguments.
The Republican candidate, after all, can't effectively attack what he supports. Today both leading contenders for the nomination have defended the idea of government's forcing all consumers to buy something in the interest of the common good. An individual mandate is about health insurance today, but really no one has offered any good reason Washington couldn't force us to buy a government-sanctioned iPad or rubber ducky tomorrow.
Even Obama feigned disapproval of the idea during his campaign in 2008. Yet Newt Gingrich has supported some variation of a federal health insurance mandate going as far back as 1993. The blog Verum Serum recently uncovered a conference call from May 2009—as ObamaCare was nearing a simmer—wherein Newt says he believes that "everyone must have health insurance. Or if you are an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be free riders, failing to insure themselves and then show up at the emergency room with no means of payment."
Without the help of Newt's false choices, a recent poll by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation found that about 54 percent of respondents take the "pure libertarian" position and believe that an individual mandate should be unconstitutional. Politically speaking, Gingrich may continue to rhetorically challenge ObamaCare's mandate as "unconstitutional," but soon he's going to have to answer for his own long-standing support. Why did he change his mind? Even if he provides a compelling answer, it'll be too late. ("For 20 years, even conservative icon Newt Gingrich supported the basis of the president's health care plan. … I'm Barack Obama, and I approved this message.")
The same gotcha exists for Mitt Romney, of course, who has never backed away from his support for a mandate or his Massachusetts plan. The only thing more annoying than his decision to remain consistent on this single issue is the epic dissembling he employs to defend it. We get it; federalism. We get it; the folks in Massachusetts believe that RomneyCare is a great idea. Guess what? The folks in Massachusetts think that a lot of dumb ideas are fantastic.
I suppose Romney believes that voters should be impressed that as governor of Massachusetts, he didn't force West Virginians to use his top-down state-controlled health care system. Yes, federalism diffuses centralized power; it's a worthy process, a great idea, and it's got nothing to do with Romney's record. Put it this way: Just because I love the First Amendment doesn't mean I have to love the obscene things Joe Biden has done with it.
No doubt, the impending presidential debate will center on the state of the economy—and general election voters are far less ideologically motivated than primary voters. Yet grander themes can move people. Obama will continue to spin tales about a nation strangled by capitalistic excess and inequity. It is an arching theme that plays on the fears of many nervous Americans and is sure to animate grass-roots supporters in urban tent environments everywhere.
Republicans, in turn, have lost a genuine opportunity to point to the purest example of Obama's aversion to economic and individual freedom. It's the mandate that allows ObamaCare to assault religious freedom. It's the mandate, coupled with increasing regulatory burdens, that many people fear will limit consumer choice and competition.
The entire project falls apart without the mandate.
No doubt, Mitt or Newt will continue to promise to overturn the health care reform law—and, who knows, the winner may. Or perhaps the Supreme Court will save us all by deeming the mandate unconstitutional. But to think, after all the anger and frustration caused by ObamaCare—not to mention its persisting unpopularity—one of the strongest arguments against it has been dulled before the GOP presidential nominee could even make it.
David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Rick Santorum plans to read this verbatim at the next debate.
Except I believe that Santorum supported a mandate at one time as well.
He keeps claiming he and Paul are the only ones who didn't.
He apparently made positive comments about the idea twice to local PA newspapers when running for the Senate for the first time in 1994.
Obviously not nearly the same level as signing a program as governor (and defending it), or as being technically-not-a-lobbyist for groups in favor of it, but it would be used against him.
Hi idiot. A federal mandate is a completely different from a state mandate. Educate yourself before you go out in public and make an ass out of yourself again.
He claims a lot of stuff that ain't so. Fortunately, he's proud of most of his more distasteful positions and behaviors, but he's quick to pretend it ain't so if need be.
He also supported Medicare expansion under Bush (along with a bunch of other big government conservative stuff) and yet now claims to be a limited government conservative because after he left congress he has talked a good game.
It's a bunch of horseshit. I especially like how he says he opposed TARP when he had no skin in the game. I have no doubt based on his record he would have voted for it in office. Of course Romney/Gingrich supported TARP despite not being in office so it is a mild and depressing improvement. Bachmann and Paul were the only two with an actual record of fighting spending (except that guy, can't remember his name, hmmm).
I already said this shit, bro.
I never supported a federal mandate, bra.
Bi or want to find people having the same sexual orientation?---datebi*cO'm--- is a safe and free site for you.
This highlights why I don't expect a Romney presidency to be significantly different than an Obama one; the guy will govern the Federal govt the way he ran Massachusetts - knuckling under to any faction in the government that might give him bad press. Since our Narcissist in Chief follows a similar governance philosophy, the outcomes will be essentially the same.
I see a Romney presidency being more like the Clinton presidency, except without the cigars. You know, because Romney doesn't smoke.
And neither do his interns. Hey-Oh!
If that's true, the key is Congress. When it goes completely Republican next year--which is very likely--it would help if the newbies contain at least a significant minority of fiscal reform types.
Even with the same philosophy Romney could be worse. If a D-dominated Congress gets their legislation signed by an R-president they can maintain "bipartisan" political cover.
Kind of like George Bush's last two years in office?
Anyone else think that Romney is basically a young Bob Dole?
Only in the sense that a stroke would probably improve his personality.
Bob Dole doesn't like that.
Anyone else think you have a simplistic mind?
knuckling under to any faction in the government that might give him bad press. Since our Narcissist in Chief follows a similar governance philosophy, the outcomes will be essentially the same.
Your Romney-hatred leads you to say some pretty silly things sometimes.
Obama sure as hell didn't knuckle under to the Tea Party, for instance.
The Tea Party is a faction of the U.S. government? Are you drunk?!?
the tea party managed to elect a good number of Congressmen who ran under its banner. Of course, many ran away from it after being elected, little thanks to the entrenched Repubs who talk about cuts yet refuse to act on them.
Congress is part of the government.
There is a Tea Party Caucus in Congress.
Romney's best argument would be to say that the theory behind the mandate seemed reasonable, but that in practice it hasn't worked (and Peter Suderman and others can point him to data suggesting that it hasn't actually reduced uncompensated care by any amount close to the amount of the subsidies), but he remains intent on defending the plan as a success.
Yeah, what happened to the repealing Obamacare rhetoric?
I knew it was bullshit from the start. It was never anti-Obamacare, just anti-Obama.
RRRAAAAAACIST!
Um, from who? It's as unpopular as ever. Even Romney has pledged to make repeal a priority.
""Even Romney has pledged to make repeal a priority.""
And replace it with what? I've heard talk about repeal, but they really mean repeal and replace. They want to replace it with something that's not Obama's and dem's creation.
Repeal is just a buzzword.
who says it has to be replaced with anything? Good grief. Doing away with bad law does not mean substituting slightly less bad law. Repubs had the first six years of Bush's terms to address health care. They elected not to, other than extending prescription coverage to seniors.
""They elected not to, other than extending prescription coverage to seniors.""
That's no chump change, one of the largest expansions of Medicare since it's creation, and it mandates that seniors have such a plan.
Everyone knows the status quo is not sustainable. So if it's repealed, something will have to take it's place.
STEVE NOT GO TO MASSACHUSETTS, EVERYBODY ALREADY BEEN RAPED THERE.
Go Ducks!
Elect-a-bility: This issue will be lethal to Romney in the general election. The independents of the country will not like this sort of do as I say, not as I do.
We will, however, like it when voting for Obama.
Right, because Obama does what he says? Or even what he says he does?
It's about choosing the best of bad choices. Romney just has to convince them that he is not as bad as Obama has been.
In 2008 I didn't vote because either way I was pissed and it might as well have been a coin flip. This time I will because the incumbent needs to be punished. If nothing else, it sets (as in solidifies) the precedent that you will be fired if you don't do a good job, regardless of who the replacement is.
it sets (as in solidifies) the precedent that you will be fired if you don't do a good job
Oooohh, I'm scaaaaared!
"We're terminating your employment, oh, and look, here's your replacement, Opie The Retard."
Well, like it or not, that is how people vote in regards to an incumbent race:
http://www.realclearpolitics.c.....-full.html
I don't think real.clear.politics#com is very reliable source as it only spews right wing stuff, which is fine, but not a good source when making a point.
Well, they have OpEds from both sides, but it does tend to be more to the right. This article I thought was pretty middle of the road though since the point is that it doesn't matter who the GOP nominee is, it's just the economy, stupid (ref to book, not your intelligence). It seems pretty data driven and I am not sure that the conclusion particularly supports anyone, and is overall a cynical message, which is why I thought it would be appropriate for this forum 😉
Cheers then...
Another article about a problem, but no solution suggested.
Yeah, ain't it a bitch?
"" but no solution suggested."'
Generally speaking, the citizenry wants the best healthcare they can get and they want someone else to pay the cost.
There is no acceptable solution.
"There is no acceptable solution."
Oh...then there is no solution...so why mention it???
I wasn't aware that there was some rule stating that one is not allowed to point out a problem unless they have a solution that you personally would find to be acceptable.
Any asshole can find a problem....the trick is to find a solution!
'Problems are like assholes'... Is this what you're saying, bro?
no solution suggested.
First, let's kill all the lawyers.
Happy now?
Works for me.
So pretty much all of congress?
Works for me.
Okay, conservatives who supported a mandate in the 90's or earlier get a bit of a pass from me. The idea that there could be a Commerce Clause problem didn't gain traction until 1995, when United States v. Lopez was decided. Before then, no one in the political mainstream thought that the Commerce Clause had limits.
As for this statement: "everyone must have health insurance. Or if you are an absolute libertarian, we would allow you to post a bond, but we would not allow people to be free riders, failing to insure themselves and then show up at the emergency room with no means of payment", I have two responses:
(1) I have little problem with that statement if we add one sentence to it: "If you have no means of payment, the hospital does not have to treat you."
(2) Commerce Clause problems aside, I'm not necessarily completely opposed to a mandate for insurance that covers expensive emergency care. High-deductible policies that don't cover everything are cheap. However, I find requirements that everyone carry comprehensive health insurance to be far more problematic.
I really don't see the requirement the ERs treat people going away. It's kind of a tricky thing. I certainly agree in principle that hospitals should not be forced to treat people, but right now many (most?) hospitals get state money for exactly this reason. Also, if you need to make all necessary arrangements for payment before being treated, it sort of defeats the point of an emergency room, doesn't it?
Yes, that's one of my problems with Obamacare. People are getting treatment already. It's being paid for, one way or another. A new system that just makes that even more expensive is not going to improve the situation.
There is a difference between a federal mandate and a state mandate, you ignorant shit-eating, Limbaugh panty sniffer. Romney has never proposed a federal mandate. His state program is well within state police powers as recognized by 240 years of jurisprudence. If you don't know what you're fucking talking aboutn -- like the author of this piece of shit- then keep your mouth shut.
"""If you have no means of payment, the hospital does not have to treat you."""
That will never fly. Poor folks and elderly on Medicare with health problems vote.
""a mandate for insurance that covers expensive emergency care.""
Emergency care? That's not the biggest cost problem. People with severe cronic conditions is the largest part of the cost. So a mandate for emergency care would probably do little.
People with severe cronic conditions is the largest part of the cost.
Fair enough, but that's not how Obamacare (or any other government health insurance scheme) is sold. If the problem is that a number of people cannot afford the huge costs arising from chronic conditions, let's address that issue. But that's no reason to overhaul the payment scheme for every medical transaction from doctor visits for the sniffles to trauma surgery.
""but that's not how Obamacare (or any other government health insurance scheme) is sold.""
Not sure if that's true. The idea of the mandate is that everyone chips in to cover the cost for everyone. Of course I don't think that will control costs anymore than us paying taxes to support the military will control costs of the military. It doesn't.
""If the problem is that a number of people cannot afford the huge costs arising from chronic conditions, let's address that issue. ""
No one wants to address that issue. The choices are pay, or no service. No one really wants to face that and it's political suicide.
I have a couple of staunch Fox News republican friends that have fallen ill, and lost jobs. They now complain that Medicaid doesn't do enough. They are still rabid anti-Obamacare, but yet they still want the government to pay for the best care they can get. When I point out their hypocracy of sending their bill to the taxpayer, they get offended and say "So what".
I cannot believe how simplistic and nonsensical this article is. There is no "Obamacare problem" because that mandate is by the federal government, while Romney's situation involved a STATE mandate.
And the difference between a federal mandate and a state mandate is pretty much the entire point of the Constitution.
States rights, the ultimate excuse for having no principles.
""States rights, the ultimate excuse for having no principles.""
Now that's why people give you shit.
States rights is way of leaving principles to the states and then allowing people the ability to vote with their feet.
It's not absent of principles.
In this instance it's a lame excuse for a politician who has amply demonstrated that he has no principles.
States should have jurisdiction over state issues. The country should have jurisdiction over national issues. There is no inherent net plus for freedom by defaulting to states--traditionally, states' rights advocacy is a reaction against the feds requiring that states not violently oppress certain people.
""In this instance it's a lame excuse for a politician who has amply demonstrated that he has no principles.""
If that's what you want to believe.
IMO, politicians don't have principles and the ones that do, the voters are not interested. States rights have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, your right. The best way to have freedom is for a gov't twice removed from your locality dictate the best stance on issues.
I am curious to know what your definition of a national issue is. Civil/Human rights by the sound of it. Last time I checked, there is a method by which citizens can find redress for unconstitutional laws in a state at the federal level that doesn't include top down mandates from the congress/executive cabal.
As an aside, I am not sure you know the difference between desegregation and forced integration.
All I'm saying is it's always racist rednecks in the South who get worked up over the federal government's iron fist of oppression--mostly when it tells them they're not allowed to violently oppress minorities. If you want to posit more state autonomy you can, just be aware that the track record of such an argument isn't exactly on the side of individual freedom.
On almost any issue I can think of outside of national security, the states have more flexibility to be oppressive than the federal government. But I do live in a Christian Taliban jurisdiction.
I doubt you could find the South with a map and GPS, but don't let ignorance get in the way or your moronic conclusions. You have brought the nuclear stupid today. Whites in the south have been around blacks their entire lives; somehow, we manage to co-exist just fine without the liberal faculty lounge types.
The feds have Constitutionally-granted jurisdiction over a small number of enumerated items. They have taken jurisdiction over many more.
Still a perfect record tony baloney.
Tony, you northern homos love "the fist", don't you?
Tony, in my highly educated professional opinion, you're an ignorant slut.
BS, federalism vs. states rights has been a core issue since the founding of this union of states. Though both sides exhibit this quality, I think that nobody owns the idea as well as liberals that what is good for one group of people is good for everybody, even if that one group is from the Bay Area. You are projecting.
Besides, even the argument that he was just doing what the majority of Massachusettsans wanted works for me since most people want obamacare repealed. I don't see a problem.
But if you want to talk about principles, why don't we talk about the only candidate that has any?
I want to talk about how libertarians propose to enact universal healthcare, because it would seem that having their own solution to the healthcare problem would be a prerequisite for trashing what's out there--It is obvious that hatred of Obamacare has everything to do with hatred of Obama. There was scarcely a peep over Bush's Medicare pharma giveaway, and it was far more expensive. The only problem for Romney here is that he enacted the Republican universal healthcare plan before he could know that it would be required of Republicans to consider it the ultimate evil once Obama passed it. States' rights is so painfully obviously the only excuse he could come up with.
I think there is overwhelming evidence the world over that healthcare is a national concern and is most efficiently dealt with on a national scale. That is not, it should go without saying, a position worthy of inviting hysteria, but one that every other advanced country has figured out already.
There nooooooooooo business like trooooooooooll business like noooooooooo business I knooooooooooow!
Look, I will be the first to admit there is a healthcare problem (as in bloated medical expenses), and I recognize that it is in power of a citizenry to come together through their gov't to solve problems or build infrastructure. That is not my issue. The issue is that it is way too pervasive and inclusive. I don't think many people will have a problem chipping in to make sure people aren't dying in the streets, but people do have a problem with their tax dollars paying for abortions, or organizations being forced to pay for insurance that cover abortions when they are ideologically opposed to this unnecessary, morally debatable procedure.
It is also a slippery slope either toward gov't picking who lives or dies, which inevitably leads to the quantifying of human worth, which will be politically motivated, or toward trying cover everyone and everything, which is unsustainable. Really it will lead to the latter first, then the former (whoa, sorry about any dizziness induced by that last sentence).
What's out there pushes social agendas under the guise of helping people, like most liberal legislation, which almost always hurts the people they aim to help. Speaking of other countries, there are plenty of unsatisfied customers in other countries due to their inefficient healthcare system. Additionally, most of these countries are are more to the scale of states. Hey wait there are actually called states. Weird how states have sovereignty to enact policy at a more local level...
"The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."
-Thomas Sowell
From the perspective of "Tony" the "problem" with health care is that not everyone can get enough to be satisfied.
Except that that's not really a problem, least of all something that can be solved by government.
It's just life.
I think what gets a lot of people's backs up about universal healthcare is that it basically turns doctors into public servants. It says, if you work hard, develop a skill, gain expertise and market it, then everyone has a 'right' to that service and to magic metal (formally known as Rearden Metal). I am sure Tony will make the argument that a lot of advances in medicine come by virtue of tax dollars, so somehow if you go into that profession, the gov't can dictate what you do with that knowledge. I would say that it was paid for by the public, not the gov't (they don't have any of their own money [except the stuff they print I guess]), and the public has access to learn that information and use it to their benefit. Everyone is equally about to get and use that information. Doctors are the ones who have decided to do that and since other people don't want to become experts in that field, they people who have, just like everyone doesn't make their own shirts, or build their own houses.
*able to use that info...
*they -pay- people who have..
I think what gets a lot of people's backs up about universal healthcare is that it basically turns doctors into public servants.
The paranoid part of my mind foresees doctors not only becoming government employees, but being given the power to give a legal order in the name of curing preventable diseases.
Doctor tells you to change your diet, and upon checkup it is discovered that you didn't.
Uh oh. Now there are legal consequences for your disobeying the doctor's orders.
The only social concern I have is universal access to quality healthcare. Not just for bleeding heart reasons, but because it's proven to be the cheapest system--which makes sense, since it's just the insurance model applied to the largest pool of customers. There are many ways of doing it, some countries having doctors as public servants, some countries subsidizing access to private care. Whatever your fears, there are two simple facts that motivate my position: healthcare is cheaper in countries with such a system, and citizens are more satisfied with their system, compared to the US. Indeed the only reason we didn't get a universal system sooner is because of rightwing hysteria and the vast amount of profits to be made by private healthcare sector businesses, defended by lobbyists.
Government picking who lives and dies is a slippery slope, of the silly kind. There can't be a more morally abhorrent system of rationing than exists in a private system: you die if you can't pay. I doubt someone with money will ever be denied any care he wants to buy in this country.
Perhaps the sized of a country is relevant, but I'd have to see data that explains why. The basic point is that including everyone in the same pool saves money; I don't know why there would be a point at which a population is so large as to reverse that efficiency.
5/10 troll, warranted response.
Libertarians don't propose a "solution" to healthcare because they don't think any government is capable of "solving" it.
History has taught a lot of us that government inaction is quite often far better than government action.
Indeed. Check out this one about the department of education:
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis.asp
And I don't see how forcing states to enact a universal healthcare system equals getting them to stop oppressing people. Tony-logic I think...?
Anon-would you care to opine on the government's inaction with respect to Wall Street? That worked out well...And I agree with most of your libertarian premise, the trouble is, you take it too far, like extremists of any ideology. You should consider that there may be a delicate balance that can be struck, especially in situations like what recently happened on Wall Street (i.e., mortgage backed securities swaps, private equity, investment banks, etc...). So, even if the govt does help "the people" in some areas, it isn't always a bad thing. Of course, it goes without saying that Wall Street is still doing what it did before for the most part, so I guess even the govt hasn't helped much, which obviously speaks to special interest groups/lobbying taking over and controlling what "our" govt does or does not do.
Crony-Capitalism! Politicians fixed that game so they and wall street could would win.
And the problems we have seen in the financial district started with the mandate to 'help' people get credit. Financial institutions went with it because they bet that the gov't would step in if the bottom fell out, which they did when it did.
Low and behold, the house-less poor not only are renting again, but now they have terrible credit or are completely underwater. Let's ask them if they feel helped.
All programs to 'help' are a ruse to fix the game. Read Atlas Shrugged. Rand lived through it in Russia, and reiterates it in a context we can understand. It is no different than what we see now.
I have read Atlas Shrugged, and it is a great suggestion, although laissez-faire capitalism works only to a point. That point is where the uber-rich let everyone else die because they weren't intelligent enough to be as successful as they are. I guess that would teach everyone a lesson, but not a helpful one. The problem with libertarian logic is this: if something fails once (or 100 times for that matter), it should never be used again. That's the message I get from most libertarians.
That point is where the uber-rich let everyone else die because they weren't intelligent enough to be as successful as they are.
The "uber rich" can't be uber rich without someone to purchase their product. Also, less people providing services for the uber rich means the uber rich have to diversify their labor, leaving less time to become uber rich.
Furthermore, no uber-rich person controls any food source enough to actually cause people to die. No amount of wealth concentrated in one person can starve me to death.
Your theory is flawed.
Your theory is flawed: the uber rich don't make money from selling products; rather, they make money from investments that do not necessarily depend on a product or service. The cost of capital will always pay interest, so someone will always want to use it (their accumulated wealth) and pay interest for its use. Pretty basic stuff here man.
"Furthermore, no uber-rich person controls any food source enough to actually cause people to die. No amount of wealth concentrated in one person can starve me to death."
You obviously haven't done your homework on the current status of the food industry. It is very concentrated and yes, only a handful of companies control your food supply. Sorry, but it's true. Not that they will ever want you to starve as I believe that would cannibalize their own revenue base.
"....if something fails once (or 100 times for that matter), it should never be used..."
Immediately, old footage of guys jumping off of cliffs and rooftops with 'wings' made of whalebone and cloth and plummeting to the ground popped in my head.
Yeah, once something proves to be a failure, I mostly dont recommend it.
"All programs to 'help' are a ruse to fix the game."
^This. Kudos Joe.
byw, it is Lo and behold.
btw, it's btw.
😉
You should consider that there may be a delicate balance that can be struck, especially in situations like what recently happened on Wall Street (i.e., mortgage backed securities swaps, private equity, investment banks, etc...).
Were the government constricted to its proper role, banks would not have been forced to hand money over to people that weren't ever going to be able to repay the loan.
Think of it like eBay, you aren't forced to sell to a buyer of ill repute, and you aren't forced to buy from a seller of ill repute. Everyone wins by getting stuff at a good price.
Ok, let's be clear: mortgage banks/brokerages were never "forced" into risky transactions. I believe they supported them full well and still do.
Example: private mortgage broker agrees to No income/no asset (no proof of these very important factors in lending) loan and then packages it with 1000's of others and then sells them to a private investor. How did the govt F that up?
the govt f'ed up a lot of things by holding its regulatory power over the heads of banks. Want to open a new branch or avoid an audit? Well, better approve this stack of mortgage loans; never mind that the recipients are risky, we have your back.
Please. Govt's fingerprints are all over bad loans just as many banks that were solvent tell the tale of the feds threatening them into taking TARP money.
but TARP was implemented AFTER the private market acted irresponsibly for years (2009)..so I don't get what you're saying because the banks had already willingly participated in my previous EXAMPLE for years before TARP.
Fannie and Freddie's very existence is a way the fed gov't undermines the free market and creates sticks and carrots to influence banks.
What you are saying is that if the gov't comes out and says, "Ok, this is what we want you to do, and if you don't do it, your competition will and they will have the edge. BUT! If you go along with it and things turn out bad, then it is your fault for doing it. It was your choice after all."
I recognize that it is all at the behest of lobbyists, but politicians don't have to listen to them. To blame lobbyists is the same as saying that politicians have not choice when people waive money at them, which is condoning bad behavior because you sympathize with it, which encourages that behavior.
I dare you to say that that is exactly what I described above and that banks can do the right thing by ignoring gov't ultimatums, because lobbyists can't give ultimatums. Also, it is not a politician's job to enrich himself, but it is a CEO's job to make their business successful. As a result (though maybe not the intention, see Adam Smith), people are employed and wealth is create. Politicians can only enrich themselves and distribute wealth, not create it.
There was scarcely a peep over Bush's Medicare pharma giveaway
http://reason.com/search?cx=00.....are+Part+D
Barely a peep? And that's just the results of searching this site.
Yeah, what happened to the repealing Obamacare rhetoric? I knew it was bullshit from the start. It was never anti-Obamacare, just anti-Obama.
Voters want it repealed?by about 65% to about 30%, at last polling. Politicians, except for a handful of uncivilized "right-libertarian" types, don't. So the only fraction of the anti-Obamacare 65% that's represented in the election is the also-totally-anti-Obama-anyway contingent, who don't need "repeal Obamacare" said to them.*
The GOP?the actual Party apparatus?would rather lose than win with that 65%, because those people are icky, and they need to know their place. It's the GOP's "liberaltarian" streak showing.
*Yeah, Ron Paul says it. But he says it while surrounded by Nazis, so everyone just looks at the Nazis. They're really distracting.
I guess it depends on how much faith you want to put in polling.
""Voters want it repealed?by about 65% to about 30%, at last polling. ""
Really, when I look at the choices for the coming election, I can't tell.
Newt did NOT "advocate" the individual mandate. He said that one needs to require people to have insurance, or have a large bond, OR not be treated.
This is true. If we have people gaming the system, getting insurance after they contract a major illness, then it is not insurance.
""OR not be treated.""
Strawman.
He knows that's not an option. At least one that will advance your political career.
The issue is that the people that opt for no insurance then get treated for headaches, common colds, etc. It is true that if someone shows up having an acute MI then he would be treated. Forty years ago, people didn't have an expectation that they would be treated regardless. Now the nanny state has convinced them they will.
Newt is correct and you are correct. People can sign up for the the fourth option "free insurance" on the taxpayer's dime. Newt would say that the "fourth option" isn't an option for long because it will bankrupt the system.
Consistency makes for a nice debating point, but the only thing the public really cares about will be a promise to kill Obamacare. If Romney has some other health care plan buried in his 56 points (only 46 more than God had by the way), then that could cause concern, but no one expects our pols to be consistent over time.
I could see Romney taking the stance that all states must have a mandated plan else no federal dollars for you.
Federal mandate by bribery.
I think it's more likey that Romney will tell you what you want to hear, then once elected will tweak Obamacare to make it more to his liking.
What is pretty much a fact is those that do good in elections do it by lying.
I could see Romney taking the stance that all states must have a mandated plan else no federal dollars for you.
Of course you can, you're invested in Romney = Obama so you can feel better about not voting.
How politically plausible would it be for a President Romney to do this? Not very.
""Of course you can, you're invested in Romney = Obama so you can feel better about not voting.""
I don't need to feel better about not voting. My candidate won't make it to the general election. I don't think holding your nose and pulling the lever helps anything.
""How politically plausible would it be for a President Romney to do this? Not very.""
LOL, do you know why the drinking age is 21 in all the states? Never under estimate the power of the feds to get their way.
Raising the drinking age to 21 affected a hell of a lot fewer people than insurance mandates would.
Rommey still has the federalism argument against Obamacare.
Obamacare is a violation of the 10th Amendment's provision that confines the federal government to enummerated powers.
Yes, but all too many Reasonoids ignore that fact in their drive to convince the world that Romney=Obama so it's OK for them not to vote because the outcome doesn't matter.
Sort of a Declaration of Irrelevance.
LOL! Are you seriously going to pretend a tattered, dried out, fig-leaf is a waterpoof great-coat, Tulpa?
I have to admit some degree of admiration towards you.
Snobby busy-bodies that like to tell people how to live and think like you tend to become progressives or Rockefeller Republicans. Instead you seem to have forged your own brand of paternalistic libertarianism which makes you stand out. Kudos!
I don't think Romney is great... I'm voting for Ron Paul when the PA primary arrives unless Mitt and Newt are still going at it.
But he's not as bad as Obama.
And there's nothing paternalistic about criticizing behavior and maladaptive thinking patterns.
AMEN!
Who let the stupid children in here who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. The difference between Romneycare and Obamacare is like the difference between Twisted Sister and Hootie and the Blowfish. Not even in the same vein, bro. So all you moronic mormon haters, eat a BIG DICK!
""violation of the 10th Amendment's provision that confines the federal government to enummerated powers.""
That just hilarious. Government has been so far beyond enummerated powers for decades and SCOTUS upholds them all the time.
IMO, I do agree with your statement but SCOTUS doesn't care.
An excerpt from Mitt's appearance on Soledad O'Brien this morning:
ABC's headline about the interview?
Romney: Campaign 'Not Concerned About the Very Poor'
...and ABC "News" will be right there with them.
And now the LA Times has the headline Romney clarifies remarks about poor, says focus is on middle class. So he's clarifying remarks that were perfectly clear to begin with and deliberately misunderstood by the idiot talking head, but of course the new headline reinforces the idea that he really did say something terrible and is now furiously backpedaling.
Ron Paul's Nazi problem:
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....sts?page=5
How dare Ron Paul write a generic thank you letter to a constituent for sending him a clipping out of a magazine!
BTW, Edward, when you found out that John Edwards was too sick to stand trial, did you cry, cheer, or engage in self-cutting?
I'm trying to settle a bet - so be honest.
In the article, Ron Paul thanks a constituent, Amos R. Bruce, for sending him a copy of The American Mercury magazine
Which is untrue, he was sent a copy of an article on monetary policy that was printed in that magazine. Which might make you wonder about whoever sent it, but does not make Paul a racist.
It's not like Ron Paul's dad or grandfather was found guilty of trading with Nasi Germany. 😉
Sometimes you just have to wonder. Wow.
http://www.puter-privacy.tk
movement. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....89316.html
http://news.yahoo.com/sugar-re.....05186.html
Sugar and other sweeteners are, in fact, so toxic to the human body that they should be regulated as strictly as alcohol by governments worldwide, according to a commentary in the current issue of the journal Nature by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF).
How 'bout a Constitutional amendment prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or transportation of sugar within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof?
Giving candy to kids should constitute aggravated child abuse; doing the same within 300 feet of a school should draw a 15 to 45 federal prison term.
do people still read harsanyi after this:
http://reason.com/archives/201.....l-delusion
"journalists" - can't live with 'em, can't easily hunt 'em: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo.....01976.html
Mirabell has got her very own recipe for her perfect figure. The only thing she eats is soup. It works just fine for her.
Her diet is only thing that she is sparing about. With everything else she goes all out for maximum pleasure. She adores being in what she sees as a man's world. And what kind of a world would that be without gorgeous women? For her it means fast cars and sports of all kinds.
Mirabell studies Economics in Slovakia. It's a very practical subject for this 22 year old with a mature outlook. Her dream is that one day she will have her own fashion business. She is preparing for that by gathering ideas while she travels. India is her special favourite. It's an inspiration to her.
Take this economist's word for it. The upturn has begun.
We all know that there is a difference between a state and federal indiv. mandate. Romney has never supported the latter so stop with the fucking bullshit, asshat.
where do they find these writers? Is the bar really that god damned fucking low?
David Harsanyi: "Hey, I know, I'll write an article about some bullshit I heard Rick Santorum say in a debate and Reason will pay me for it"
That is the proper title for this piece of literary santorum (definition one).
***David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze***
HA HA HAHHAH AH HA AH AH
Reason Magazine is pimping the Glenn Beck Website now?
I think we need to get behind Newt or Santorum because RuPaul cannot win and ROmney is the Anti-christ.
Listen to GLEN BECK (it may save you and your family from rioting, looting, bad weather delays)
Libertarianism is more karma than dogma...
You're killing me with this crap, Reason.
This message brought to you by Rick Santorum for President.
What makes it impossible for a Politician to say; "Hey, I liked this idea, but the People don't. Obama may be willing to defy the will of the citizens, but I am not."?
To be fair, if you guys hadn't blocked the public option, there wouldn't have needed to be a mandate.
ed the idea of government's forcing all consumers to buy something in the interest of the common good. An individual mandate is about health insurance today, but really no one has offered a
idual mandate should be unconstitutional. Politically sp
efended the idea of government's forcing all consumers to buy som
Newt says he believes that "everyone must have health ins