« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Is Newt Much Better on the Question of Mandates?

Spoiler: Not Really

By: Ben Howe (Diary)  |  January 30th, 2012 at 02:00 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Yesterday I wrote an article on why I view the inevitability of an Obama defeat at the hands of Romney to be less than inevitable.  Mostly I attributed this to weakness on a core issue: Obamacare.  From my view, Romney cannot adequately take on this topic so long as he insists on defending the principles put forth in Romneycare.

His state’s rights position plays ok with the base, but I believe it will be less than compelling to the general electorate when it comes time to decide what separates Obama & Romney on this issue.

In passing, I mentioned that Gingrich, who previously supported the mandate as well, has since determined that he was wrong and will take that to his debates with Obama should he win the nomination.  I based that on this exchange which took place in the South Carolina debate earlier this month:

For the video impaired, Santorum attacked Newt on his support of mandates and questioned his ability to truly stand up to Obama on this issue of healthcare reform, to which Newt responded:

“Of course you can. I’d say, you know, I was wrong and I figured it out.  You were wrong and you didn’t.”

Santorum quickly pointed out that after holding the position strongly for over 10 years, it may not fly in the debates.

When I witnessed this exchange, I decided that Newt had done an adequate enough job of acknowledging that he’d made a mistake and that overall, I was satisfied.

That was before I saw a video at Verum Serum.

NEWT GINGRICH CONFERENCE CALL ON THE WHITE HOUSE HEALTH REFORM INITIATIVE

The real foundation, the most important, uh, part of this is individual rights, responsibilities, and expectation of behavior.

Uh, we believe that there should be must-carry, that everyone should have health insurance, or if you’re absolute, uh, libertarian we would allow you to post a bond.  But we would not allow people to, uh, be free riders failing to ensure themselves and then showing up in the emergency room, uh, with no means of payment.   Uh, if you have, uh, must carry, then the insurance companies have told us that we can have must-issue and you will therefore have a system in which you don’t have to worry about cherry picking and maneuvering.  As we move beyond today’s press conference, this is kind of general model we’re going to be advocating…

Now as I said, I’m not surprised by the fact that he supported the mandate.  This was known before he ever announced his bid.  What I didn’t realize was that his support of it went well beyond mere theoretical and into the realm of advocacy.

This wasn’t a press conference discussing random possibilities.  This was a press conference specifically discussing the health care bill that was being debated at that moment which ultimately became the monstrosity known as Obamacare.

I can see a couple of responses from the Newt campaign.  One would be “Hey, this was May 2009.  By March 2010 when the bill passed, it was much different!”

They’d be right. It was much different by March.  It was better.  Back in May of ’09 the public option was still on the table and gov’t funded abortions were still lacking an executive order to prevent them (which of course it really doesn’t prevent but I digress).

Another would be, “Yes, he supported the mandate, but he didn’t write something incredibly similar into law like Romney did!”

Also true.  But in my mind, Gingrich may have done something equal if not worse, unless I’ve completely misunderstood what the word “advocate” means.

But enough of my theorizing, I reached out to his campaign and politely said “WHAT THE HELL???”

To their credit, they responded by pointing me in two directions.  One was to this video excerpt from Fox News Special Report with Bret Baier in which Newt & the panel were discussing one of the debate moments in November:

BRET BAIER: There was a moment in the debate where you had an exchange with Mitt Romney and you said that his Massachusetts healthcare plan was far more big government than he talks about.  Then he said ‘well we got the mandate idea from you.’ Then you said ‘well this is…you got it from Heritage and you.’  and you said ‘well yes.’  What is your stance on the mandate and … clear that up.

NEWT GINGRICH: Look, Heritage Foundation and most conservatives including me, during the period of the fight over Hillarycare, accepted the idea of a mandate.  And, gradually virtually everybody came to the conclusion that a mandate doesn’t work in part because it means more and more and more government definition of what are you mandating.  Which is exactly the point I was making the other night with Mitt.  Now, my answer to Mitt would be ‘ok, I may once have advocated, I concluded I was wrong.’  Why hasn’t he concluded he was wrong?

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: In concluding you were wrong, was it on the grounds that it’s bad policy? Or that it’s unconstitutional?

GINGRICH: Well I’m not a constitutional lawyer but I believe that it is unconstitutional for the Congress to require you to buy something (crosstalk).  Because the… then the Congress could require you to do anything.

KRAUTHAMMER: So you’re saying that in principle it was a terrible idea.  Even if as policy it might work.

GINGRICH: Yes.

BAIER: And that’s a change for you?

GINGRICH: That is a change.  There’s no question.  That’s a change for the Heritage Foundation. A lot of us…in ’93 as opposed to Hillarycare thought that was the less destructive alternative.  The longer we dealt with it the more we concluded it was hopeless.

This laying out of the facts just doesn’t seem to jive with how things turned out.  Clearly Speaker Gingrich supported mandates well beyond the time that Hillarycare was being debated, and furthermore, it wasn’t simply a “we can’t think of anything else” if you listen to what he said in the ’09 video.  This was a well thought out and reasoned position that he said he not only believed had to happen but would be advocating for as the bill that would eventually become Obamacare was being debated.

Note also the question Krauthammer asked. “In concluding you were wrong, was it on the grounds that it’s bad policy? Or that it’s unconstitutional?” This is the question I’ve been saying will be asked in the generals and for which neither Newt nor Romney has a good answer.

Their objections about constitutionality and process leave room for the idea that in theory, they still like the whole idea and want states to do it. All of them. This is not going to be a compelling argument against Obamacare: “Vote for me! I’m the guy that wants 50 separate versions of Obamacare instead of just one!”

Yet continually, this question is glazed over quickly by supporters of Romney (and now potentially Gingrich) who wish to act as though screaming “FEDERALISM!!!” at the top of their lungs will somehow trump the fact that they don’t seem too far off from Obama in practice, rather just different in process.

The campaign also sent me this bit in Newt’s defense from Legal Insurrection who claims that the ’09 support of mandates was not support of the mandates that exist in the final form of Obamacare.

The blog Verum Serum claims to have found an audio recording showing that Newt Gingrich supported Obama’s federal mandate, in a post titled Gingrich Called for ObamaCare Mandate in May 2009….

Breitbart TV picked up on that theme, asserting “this is the first example of Gingrich specifically endorsing President Barack Obama’s federally mandated version which many conservatives believe is unconstitutional and Gingrich has described as “clearly unconstitutional.”

This is wrong.  I have listened to the entire audio recording, and Newt does not endorse the Obamacare mandate, in part because the speech took place before even the earliest draft of Obamacare had been proposed.

The actual discussion in the recording is nothing new, listen for yourself, it shows Newt saying what he has said before about not allowing free riders at hospitals including either having insurance or showing that you have the ability to pay.  You can like it or not, but it’s not new or news, as Verum Serum acknowledges in its post.

The recording does not support the conclusion that Newt supported Obama’s federal mandate, which uses the police powers of the state to force people to buy insurance or face penalties.

At the time of Newt’s presentation, in May 2009, the earliest versions of Obamacare had not yet been released.  Newt specifically notes that the details of what would be proposed were unknown and (at 27:00) the process was still in the “wish list press conference stage.”

I think I covered this above.  I’ll grant you that everything was theoretical at the time and not in true bill form, but we certainly knew that the public option was on the table.  And LI may be right that the mandates were not under discussion, but isn’t that worse?

After all, in 2008, Barack Obama himself made it clear he was against mandates:

As LI noted, the ultimate form of Obamacare wasn’t under discussion in May of ’09. There were rumblings that something involving mandates might be coming, sure. Even Obama mentioned the concept as early as June 2009. But the specific mandate that Gingrich discussed was one which would allow you to choose not to participate by posting a bond or paying a fee? The only person as of May 2009 that I can find really talking about that specific type of mandate was … um… Gingrich! So I can only conclude that Obama was convinced that mandates were the right answer.  By who? I guess an advocate.  Know any Newt?  Oh that’s right.  You called yourself an advocate for the mandate, so I guess that answers that question.

Now the Romney fans are piddling all over themselves with joy to catch Gingrich supporting policies that he attacks Romney for.  They think it’s just going to be curtains for his campaign that he’s on record supporting things while simultaneously trying to destroy Romney for it.

I wish I could smack them all on the head.  What the hell do you think will happen to Romney when he tries to do the same thing?

I’ve got a request in with Newt’s campaign for a more substantial response to this issue and if I get one, I’ll update this post with it.

If we’re going to have a good candidate, these issues which could mire them in the generals, must be flushed out and must be talked about.  I’ve already publicly acknowledged that my favorite candidate among the remaining 4 is Newt Gingrich.  I’ve even gone on record as saying that if we are going to lose, I’d rather lose with Newt because at least it will be an honest campaign and Newt will go down fighting harder than anyone else on that stage.

However, if he can’t provide a better and more substantive answer as to why this wouldn’t be a problem, then we are going to have trouble with a Newt nominee.

The answer here, for Newt & Romney, is to provide true analysis of the mistake.  A real answer as to what changed and what is going to be better.  We aren’t going to win if either of these two guys gets the nomination and gives the kind of half-assed answers they’ve been giving on this question.

Cross-Posted at BenHoweShow.com

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

    …as I specifically documented during recent months, while arguing aggressively with JSobieski and Wonkish1.

    My rationalization for accepting his having “seen the light” is c/w what was just discussed by Rush; he felt the existence of the word “individual” in the word-pair “individual mandate” was innately attractive to true-conservatives, a stance from which it took some time to become extricated.

    Now, however, because The Newt has adhered to Rick Perry, it is my view [hopefully expressed] that he has also integrated the Federalism inherent in the 10th Amendment and, thus, would abhor application of big-government solutions [even if "constitutional" within a state].

    This broo-ha-ha is [obviously] trumped by the larger questions related to Mitt’s campaigning approach [GOP-Establishment vs. TPM-Activists], so I’m only trying to validate this observation without perceiving it as determinative.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …was provided via provision of terse/extensive excerpts from two Newt-books [Winning the Future and Real Change].

      [Wonkish1 resisted these data, but ultimately grew silent; JSobieski took the baton and tried to resist the obvious [supplemented by additional videos], but ultimately has eschewed the topic.]

      [More recently, JSob ridiculed me on my [new] Diary, claiming I was eliding over these data because of a shifted-allegiance. I demurred, emphasizing that my point had been made and sustained; he has yet to acknowledge blogging-defeat, but he probably feels he has a reputation to defend.]

      So, yes, The Newt has been problematic in the pre-”Perry-Pledge” period; perhaps presently, pomposity/pandering won’t prevent proper promises.

      • JSobieski

        If your support of Newt is based on a distinction between Newt prior to January 19, 2012 and Newt post January 19, 2012—you are beyond naive.

        Candidates are who they are. Lying to yourself to pretend something to the contrary is a strange kind of cruel deceit.

        I should point out that I never defended a mandate. What I have argued is that Newt has always approached healthcare with a more market oriented approach, an approach which mitigates how a mandate should be weighed.

        I also point out that Newt’s “mandate” has always been open to the “other ways not to freeload” even if this caveat was not always expressly stated.

        My positions have been consistent and based on actual record (not futile hopes of January 19th conversions)

        Perry was always better than Newt, Newt was always better than Romney, and Romneycare was always Obamacare at its core.

        Your protestations of Newt being no better than Romney seems to be discarded for the moment. I hope it is based on more than a political statement made on January 19, 2012.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          JSob writes: “I never defended a mandate.” What you did, however, was to defend The Newt’s position, which was [definitively] an Individual Mandate [despite your protestations to the contrary].

          If I’d had my diary going, I’d have preserved it; if there is any doubt, perhaps we’ll have to scroll-back a few hundred topic-pages to find it.

          The battle was intense, as I recall, and it’s somewhat refreshing to note your conversion.

          • JSobieski

            Newt’s mandate was less troubling (but still objectionable) than a mandate grounded in a high regulatory environment (Romneycare/Obamacare).

            My priority has always been market-based healthcare, and market-based healthcare can coexist with a mandate if the mandate can be satified with an HSA/low premium policies that give people choices and foster competition.

            Differentiating between two options (kind of like Newt and Romney generally) does not necessarily constitute a glowing endorsement of either.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          JSob writes: “Your protestations of Newt being no better than Romney seems to be discarded for the moment. I hope it is based on more than a political statement made on January 19, 2012.”

          I didn’t write that Newt/Mitt were co-equal, although I did classify both as elitist/statist in their postures.

          Proof-positive would be my having related the contents of a ‘phone-chat with him [held Friday-a-few-weeks-ago] during which he agreed with my suggestion that the USA slap a quarantine on Iran ASAP.

          Also, I related the ‘phone-chat I held with John Gibson, during which he rebutted the thrust of my recollection of what Mitt said to me in response to my query about RomneyCare during his endorsement event [of Pat Toomey]. I told him that Mitt initially cited federalism [etc.] and then said the legislature threatened to override any veto of the bill by imposing a single-payor system; he trotted-out numerous quotes proving otherwise [corroborated extensively thereafter].

          So, no, I didn’t engage in ANY type of “political egalitarianism” as you suggest.

          • JSobieski

            If you had made it clear that Newt was preferable to Romney on healthcare, I never would argued with you in the first place.

            Newt is hardly ideal, on healthcare or anything else.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            ,,,my bad.

    • Death_of_the_Donkey

      “Now, however, because The Newt has *realized his only chance to win the Republican nomination is to become anti-Romney in all respects*, it is my view [hopefully expressed] that he has also *decided to pander to former Perry supporters* integrated the Federalism inherent in the 10th Amendment and, thus, would abhor application of big-government solutions *until such a time as he thinks it is necessary to articulate a big-government solution like a moon base* [even if "constitutional" within a state].

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        One can only hope that these *** insertions will never need to be made.

        THAT is why I articulated the gambit that he must provide a more comprehensive/revised world-view of how he perceives Federalism.

        Perhaps he’ll get input from Palin/Giuliani/Thompson/Cain/Perry in this regard [each providing a cogent piece from his/her individual past].

        BTW, anyone know what’s happening [endorsement-wise] with Michele? Huntsman?

    • score333

      I was working for Sen Connie Mack during this time. I remember the poles shifting dramatically in favor of Universal Healthcare. James Carville defeated the Penn. Gov. on this issue so well Clinton hired him.
      The Republicans were frantic and asked Heritage for a moderate opinion while the Clintons went totally for Socialized Medicine (HIllarycare) like Obama has. The Republicans Universally, at the time, took the Heritage moderate proposal to combat it. Romney in Mass. took the Hillarycare position rather than Heritage position which most Republicans including most of Republicans in Congress

      What defeated it was the Democrats and Romney going all the way to Socialized approach.
      Hope this helps.

      • Common_Cents

        Examining records and vetting of 10-20-30 yrs ago compared to where we are today, w/out the context at the time really distorts things and makes them look out of whack.

        Everyone at RS and everyone else should go back and look at their high school senior yearbook picture.
        100% would cringe and wonder how the heck their clothes and hairstyle was cool at the time, but it was.

  • poligu

    In an article we wrote last week, we show that Newt proposed a mandate with subsidies to the poor to buy insurance as late as May 15, 2011. http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/News/The_Case_Against_Newt_-_Health_Care/

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …was that the non-poor should not dump on the rest of the community and, thus, should be forced to post a bond.

      The problem, here, is that emergency care is mandated via EMTALA and Hill-Burton…and any such initial encounter would not usually translate into a gigantic bill.

      So the decision to go-naked would be a gamble that a citizen could indeed choose to take [particularly in youth], although the creation of quality Medical Savings Accounts could ameliorate that temptation.

      Meanwhile, any initial billing of the uninsured-with-resources could reasonably include the usual billing practices in the capitalist system.

      [These points summarize the status of ancillary arguments that, if memory serves, were ambient during the give-and-take with Wonkish1 and JSobieski.]

      • falconrap

        The “mandate” wasn’t that everyone had to buy insurance. It was that everyone that showed up for care had to prove they had insurance or money in the bank to pay for the care. Otherwise they would be forced to buy a bond, similar to if someone bonds out of jail, promising to return for their court hearing. It was a way to get at least something out of all the free loaders on the system.

        Mandating people to buy Federal health insurance is a completely different animal and not something Newt supports.

  • earlgrey

    I read with grim understanding your post about Mitt yesterday, and say the verum serum headline today, but did not watch the video.

    A lot of pundits would have not followed up as you did today, because it seems they all have an axe to grind just as the politicos themselves do.

    Whoever the candidate we choose. It is best not to go in with blinders on.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …despite the “promise” that the bashing/excommunication process practiced by the MSM/LSM/ELM would not abate.

      The message is clear; The Newt must come clean AND must tether this confessional to other previously articulated think-tank “Solutions” predicated on involvement of Big Government.

      • dudette

        mournig dress for Perry. To me he was the best most natural choice and i hope he runs again.

  • JSobieski

    “While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)”

    Newt
    http://web.archive.org/web/20060822061158/http:/www.healthtransformation.net/News/E_newsletters/index.cfm?newsletterid=20

    Even when Newt was wrong about mandates, he was right about the true cause of healthcare problems in Massachusetts.

    The big problem with Obamacare is that it screws up states with relatively low coverage mandates, and forces the exchanges to require “sufficient coverage” on coverage that a lot of people would prefer to live without.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      There is neither a philosophical nor a practical distinction-with-a-difference whenever there is imposition of governmental-control.

      Government should NOT be in the business of MANDATING anything ["basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles"] and should STAY OUT of the private insurance market-place.

      State Government can regulate for fairness and fraud and full-disclosure and financial-frugality…but NOT for the contents.

      Both The Newt and JSob are deluding themselves ["Even when Newt was wrong about mandates, he was right about the true cause of healthcare problems in Massachusetts."], because the “true cause” of these problems was governmental/bureaucratic intrusion [and NOT the specific/varying content/implementation thereof].

      JSob INCORRECTLY writes: “The big problem with ObamaCare is that it screws up states with relatively low coverage mandates, and forces the exchanges to require ‘sufficient coverage’ on coverage that a lot of people would prefer to live without.”

      No, the “big problem with OC” is its level of self-importance, that it can interfere with the imagery projected constantly by Perry…that the states should freely compete ON ALL LEVELS.

      • In The Hook

        It’s not insignificant as you well know. And no, I’m not in favor of a mandate either.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …and have seen it in practice.

          I’d have to study the structures of how marginal-incomes might be supplemented in-extremis [fearing intrusion of income-redistribution] but, basically, I’d adhere to a strict model that would mandate empowerment of providers to charge the retail-price if they are treating the uninsured.

          REMEMBER, catastrophic-plans [with MSA's] aren’t exorbitant.

          • In The Hook

            That mandate that everyone is entitled to emergency care, regardless of his ability to pay. I have a feeling that isn’t going to go over well. I’m not disagreeing with you, but the lift there would be pretty heavy.

          • acat

            What the doctor seems to be prescribing is to charge the full fare regardless of ability to pay .. with the balance of the fare being picked up by the State.

            In short, if the government wishes to mandate care, they can damn well pay for it.

            Mew

          • JSobieski

            All conservative ideas to reform Medicare, Medicaid, and health care generally involve some type of HSA/low premium component.

            Obamacare makes that impossible.

            That is the primary problem with Obamacare. It makes future improvements impossible. In fact, Obamacare is specifically designed to make such approaches impossible.

            The key metric with anything healthcare related is:

            Will healthcare become more market-oriented or less market-oriented?

            Any attribute unrelated to that continuum is fixible. Buy you can’t have market-based reforms without a market, and we BARELY have a market pre-Obamacare.

            So even in places where there are healthcare markets functioning rather well (see Indiana), Obamacare squashes those markets.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            n/t

            BTW, the MSA was first proposed to RR in 1982 by George Ross Fisher, III, MD, PA-Hospital Endocrinologist [rtd.] and AMA-Delegate [for decades].

            He opened eyes to Cato…and Heritage…and man-handled semi-annual AMA House of Delegates meetings [incrementally, gently] accordingly.

            He called it the Health Savings Account, as per his book “The Hospital That Ate Chicago.”

          • JSobieski

            but he called them something different.

          • renl57

            …is screwed.

            A child who is a hemophiliac, or who has juvenile diabetes, won’t be able to obtain insurance after he becomes an adult. Except at premiums so high that he won’t be able to afford them on a working-class wage.

          • WA_Cowboy

            is not the rule.

            if we can develop a plan that works for the rank and file american (like an HSA, high deductible type would certainly do) THEN you can figure out how to define and deal with the exceptions.

      • lineholder

        Sorry, but this personal vendetta you have against JSobieski is getting annoying.

        You are both correct. You’ve stated the broadest of implications whereas JSobieski is referring more to the specifics.

        The majority of the general public doesn’t understand the specifics of how a socialized health care model works, and as such, presenting this information can be invaluable in winning more people to our side. Because the more they understand about the specifics, the more it becomes personal on an individual level…economically, socially, and as it pertains to their liberties and freedoms

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …it’s an update regarding how the debate had been framed.

          I am correct [thank you] but he isn’t [and I will necessarily explain].

          BOTH “broadest” and “specific” implications must be encompassed, both philosophically and practically; otherwise, one is puffing-smoke.

          You fall into the same trap that Rush debunked two hours ago; when you conclude “the more they understand about the specifics [of a socialistic model], the more it becomes personal on an individual level,” you are equating knowledge and agreement with that theory.

          NO, let’s educate and editorialize simultaneously. This would yield a modification of your admonition, making it read “the more they understand about the specifics, the more it becomes personal on an individual level SO THAT THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHY IT IS TOTALLY ANTI-AMERICAN TO ALLOW GOVERNMENT TO EXERT ANY CONTROL OVER THE HEALTHCARE INSURANCE MARKETPLACE.”

          I hope I don’t need to cite Article I, Section 8, but GOVERNMENT can NOT be permitted to FORCE people to do ANYTHING [even if the word "individual" is slyly injected within the rhetoric].

          Got it?

          • jakeofalltrades

          • lineholder

            !

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …because we must fully-engage in this arena-of-ideas.

          • lineholder

            You have repeatedly, and I do mean REPEATEDLY, chosen to engage in presenting arguments in the context of who is right and who is wrong, putting yourself and ONLY yourself into the context of being “who is right”.

            My life experiences have taught me that people with that kind of mentality are usually (1) condescending in their manner towards other people and (2) closed-minded to the point that they can not view an issue from someone else’s viewpoint.

            I’ve learned the hard way that trying to carry on a rational discussion with people who do have this kind of mindset is as futile as trying to catch raindrops in a sieve!!! I’ve also learned that I’m usually better off in the long-term to simply ignore what they say and go on about my business.

            So that is what I am doing.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …but please document accordingly.

      • JSobieski

        States have regulated what insurance plans must cover going back to before I was born.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          The states do regulate the structure/delivery of healthcare insurance; in PA, it’s accomplished both by the Insurance and Health Departments, with an appeals-mechanism extent [although probably rarely invoked] to ensure fairness.

          This delineation of responsibility is clear, but it should be viewed as definitional; for example, yes, there are mandates that mammography be covered in a specific fashion, but there should not be a mandate that I purchase mammography coverage [because I'm a boy, not a girl].

          • JSobieski

            Content control is content control.

            Examples of required insurance “content” in Texas.
            http://www.tdi.texas.gov/hmo/hmmanben.html

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            n/t

          • JSobieski

            and there is at least one governor whom you like despite the abomination.

            If I wrote a diary chasting Perry for content-based regulation, would you are with the diary?

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            …then will critique.

            Remember, although I’m not a Texan, he is known for minimal regulation.

            I might add that the reason Rush doesn’t endorse is that he doesn’t want to be culpable for everything another individual does.

            Thus, I’d want to hear his reaction to whatever specifics you present…although I’d try to surmise them initially.

      • JSobieski

        Why do you think insurance in Montana is so much cheaper than insurance in Mass?

        No offense, but for a doctor you are making arguments that are contrary to laws that have been in existence for decades.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          Insurance in Montana is cheaper because of RomneyCare’s mandates.

          What’s your point?

          [If you dare to tread on the point made earlier about the utility of offering the MSA, then remember that its effectiveness was proven decades ago in Indiana by "Golden Rule."]

          • JSobieski

            If you implemented a mandate that for example, required on the purchase of a change of medical status insurance (insurance against incurring a pre-existing activity) there would be no damage to the marketplace itself.

            In contrast, a mandate coupled with high “content” regulation causes a death spiral in the market which will lead to government option and eventually single payer.

            Thus, a rational person would identify the regulation as the key factor of destruction, NOT the mandate aspect.

            I pay medicare and medicaid taxes, but it isn’t a mandate because its taxes. The problem with focusing on the mandate to the exclusion of what is actually more important is that it would be easy enough for the government to just tax us, and then purchase insurance for us.

            That would not be improvement over OBamacare or Romneycare, but that is the outcome people are inviting by focusing the public debate so exclusively on the mandate.

            The long term goals of health care freedom require a market, and regulations NOT the mandate, are the primary danger to the market.

          • renl57

            The government taxes you and then provides you insurance when you retire.

            And that’s how any single-payer system works.

            But at least taxing you to provide you a government service is Constitutional, according to the doctrine of implied powers. It’s no different than you paying taxes to provide you the National Weather Service, the FBI, etc.

            Whereas mandating you to purchase a product from a private company is a stunning expansion of the Commerce Clause. It’s forcing you into commerce, not regulating how you conduct commerce.

          • JSobieski

            The liberal response to mandate is a government option funded with tax dollars.

            Medicare for all! Remember that battle cry?

            We are falling into a policy trap based on legal argument.

            If the only problem with Obamacare that people can articulate is the mandate, there are plenty of libs (and mindless independents) who will jump on the government option bandwagon.

      • JSobieski

        A health care policy MUST cover certain things even if the consumer doesn’t want it, and the insurance company would like to over coverage without it.

        If all content regulation is an abomination, why were you so silent re: Perry?

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …because, remember, I’m trying to function on a higher energy-level.

          My point is not whether the state might mandate, for example, that a two-step process occur between breast biopsy and mastectomy; my point is that I don’t want to be forced to buy mammography coverage in the first place [BTW, male breast cancer occurs with 1% frequency of female breast cancer].

          • JSobieski

            People in Texas, Mass, Montana and elsewhere are forced to buy certain coverages even if they don’t them if they want to have any insurance at all.

          • cbartlett

            and I’m not quite sure when and how all of that happened. We had health insurance when my 2nd child was born in the early 80′s, but no maternity benefits. (Texas) We had to take out a loan to have that kid and she wasn’t paid off for 2 years! But now – you cannot buy a health insurance policy without maternity benefits, even if you wanted to. The best we can do now is get one with a huge deductible (actually it’s a HSA policy) and Obamacare will destroy that priviledge soon. When did this happen? How did all of our choices go away? Is this supposedly “discrimination” or something? I guess it’s that elitist mentality of “we know what’s better for you”?

            We MUST repeal Obamacare. We cannot let Mitt just tinker with certain provisions.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      Mitt and Newt on ObamaCare repeal and reform policies to follow? If so, I feel compelled to switch my allegiance to Rick before Mitt wins Florida because I wouldn’t want to be endorsing an actual winner of a primary among these schlubs!

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …has constantly supported Big Government, as has been amply documented by Guzzardi @ the Liberty Blog.

        Remember how much he defended earmarking?

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          have been pretty constant supporters of Big Government. We are now splitting hairs between the non-tea partiers. You will need to get the micro-surgery machine…

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            ..I then fall-back into rejecting Santorum [for reasons aforementioned, including personality considerations known to PA-Voters*] and Mitt [recalling links to GOP Establishment, as manifest venally this past Thursday] and, thus, supporting The Newt [noting his having subsumed the Perry/Cain perspectives by implementing appropriate task-forces].

            * – Guzzardi notes that he lost votes between 2000 and 2006 in every country.

          • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

            I remain hopeful that The Newt will firm-up his commitment to limited government, monitored by the endorsers listed supra.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            smile

          • JSobieski

            never been one to really push on any fiscal issue in his years in DC.

            The reason why I nominally favor Newt is that Newt wakes up in the morning and tries to think about how to use market forces to reform government, how to make federal government more like Apple and less like the post office.

            Neither Romney nor Santorum have any history about throwing a monkey wrench into the wheels and cogs of government.

            That said, Romney has to be the worst person possible on the healthcare issue.

            The latest Ryan-Wyden plan tries to move Medicare towards a market solution. Romneycare and Obamacare try to move the market towards a Medicare solution. On that basis, Romney has to be the bottom.

            I think I would support Santorum or Romney if only because I have confidence that he would repeal Obamacare, and that is the one issue that can’t wait.

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            more later

  • quill67

    Here is the problem:

    People who do not buy health insurance (but could afford it) when they get sick, they stick the rest of us with their health bills.

    I have a simple solution to this problem:

    You do not have health insurance and you get sick, if you demand the government pay for your care, you will pay for much of your expenses (if not all of your expenses) by delaying how soon you can retire on Social Security, or how much benefits you will get.

    To avoid people being put into the above situation, if money is tight (maybe you lost your job or some other life change), I would allow people to use their Social Security account to pay for their health insurance. This way, anyone who wants health insurance will never be without health insurance–Unless they choose to be without health insurance. But then, you can expect that if you get government aid, that your retirement benefits will not be as nice.

    Aid could be given to the truely poor.

    This approach requires no mandate, no government description of what is health care, or what should be covered. It simply says that if you expect others to pay for your health care, it will first come out of your retirement funds.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …and it is consistent with points made earlier regarding MSA’s.

      The key, here, is to ensure that bloggers aren’t provided an “out” by adopting a schizoid approach to opining; if they have a “general” perspective, it must pass muster in “specific” instances.

    • renl57

      I can speak from personal experience on this. Chronic illness can just cost too much.

      My dialysis treatments cost $65,000 per year. That’s about 10 times more than the Social Security pension. Even if I used every penny of my Social Security, I still couldn’t cover that without private insurance or Medicare.

      There really is no alternative to the risk-pooling arrangement of insurance, whether it’s government insurance, private insurance, or some mix of the two. Catastrophic illness can be so frightfully expensive that an individual may not be able to afford it, even if he burns through his 401(k) plan and his Social Security plan. Some illnesses can cost literally millions of dollars to treat over the course of a lifetime.

      Remember also that if the illness is disabling, the patient will never be able to return to work and pay more Social Security payroll taxes or build up his 401(k) again. He will have destroyed his retirement pension.

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …so, after your first encounter with azotemia, you could then purchase coverage…to finance events that might transpire years later.

      • JSobieski

        which essentially transforms the concept of insurance into something altogether different from insurance, what if you could purchase an insurance policy before the existence of the pre-existing condition to cover the future risk of obtaining a pre-existing medical condition?

        In other words, what if everyone could insure against the risk of becoming uninsurable in the future?

        This is a way to use market forces to handle the issue of pre-existing conditions.

        This is a way to pool risk at the lowest possible cost for most people.

      • quill67

        to buy it. The reduction in Social Security payments would not be enough to pay for the cost of treatment but people would not want to face reduced payments should something like dialysis be needed so they would at least buy catastrophic insurance. But if they didn’t they would at least pay for some of their treatment rather than the rest of us paying it for it.

        Ideally, by allowing people in need to use their SS to pay for insurance, fewer people would ever need government provided care.

        Even under the system I described, someone could seek care from charitable organizations. But this would not be at the cost of the taxpayer.

      • falconrap

        the current system drives up the cost of medicine. As long as the endless trough is available, costs for treatments like these will continue to soar. Take away the Federal feed bag, and companies that want to get some return out of these treatments will charge less. It still won’t be cheap, but it will be much cheaper. Further, in a world without the Fed ponying up for everyone’s medical expenses, charities can become much more the place to go for needs like these.

        There are many ways to skin this cat. Getting rid of so many regulations, and allowing people to tailor their insurance plans, and pay out of pocket for normal medical expenses (like office visits) through HSA’s, can drive costs down tremendously. Combine this with reformed malpractice law, and thereby cheaper insurance for Doctors, as well as rules for more quickly removing bad Doctors from practice, and you can greatly drive down the costs of medical care. The system has a lot of wasted money built into it right now. Pulling the government out, one vine at a time, will get us on the right path.

  • izoneguy

    We don’t have NewtCare

    But we do have ObamaCare & RomneyCare

    • Ben Howe

      …but I’m no longer certain that I would categorize it as “big.” From my perspective, and using Newt’s own statements, he seemed to be pushing hard for the very version of Obamacare that passed in March.

      I can still support him, but I need him to come out harder against his previous statements and provide some rationalization for the switch. He was so thorough in his defense of the mandate, he must be equally thorough in his explanation for what changed his mind and what his new thought process is.

      • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

        …as elucidated supra.

        I like adherence to Perry, but his prior wild-statements [subpoena-ing judges to explain opinions, for example] mandate maintaining a healthy skepticism.

  • bzip

    What do you expect we are left with big gov’t progressives. Newt, Romney and Santorum are all big gov’t progressives and aren’t worth a plugged nickle.

    Newt: The guy who sat on the couch with Pelosi, had a love fest with Kerry over climate change, supports carbon cap mandates, supports GSE’s, colonies on the moon, etc.

    No, we could support and offer all our backing to the only guy who was for small gov’t, taking a wrecking ball to Wahington – oh no, Erick and the others had to throw Perry under the bus. Thanks Erick.

    Gingrich’s Alzheimer’s on carbon cap mandate
    http://youtu.be/NuPGlkpDqUw

    Newt Gingrich talks Climate Change in 2007
    http://youtu.be/IYv9yd3_3HA

    • romansdaughter

      But right now my loathing for Mittens is to such an extent that I am hoping Newt beats him in FL. I really don’t want to see Gov. Perry have to feel like he has to support Mittens after all Mittens did to him.

      • bzip

        Personally all the candidates are worthless, I will not defend or donate or volunteer to help any of them out – they all suck.

        I don’t look at Romney being the worse or the one that hit Perry the hardest. In fact you can blame conservative pundits (Michelle Malkin comes to mind), conservative commentators (Erick E. comes to mind), Hannity, Coulter, Rush, etc have done more damage to Perry than Romney could have ever done.

        I realize and accept that Perry must take the blame for some of his own actions but clearly the conservative pundits have done more damage then anyone could have guessed.

        For Erick to stand down from his CNN big microphone and NOT even try to set the record straight on the lies coming from Michelle Malkin, Bachmann, etc is disgusting. Just as it is disgusting to watch Malkin and the others lie and twist Perry’s record up side down.

        I have no respect for these people anymore. I have less respect for those who pushed Perry to run then high tailed it out and threw him under the bus just to get Newt across the finish line in SC,.

        It is enough to make me puke. But I don’t have this obsession with Not Romney like Erick has. Erick has such an obsession with not getting Romney the nomination that Erick might win the little battle but we will lose the big war in the end. Thanks Erick.

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …because, remember, we don’t want BHO packing the SCOTUS.

        • krish

          Putting Romney in the same class as Newt or Rick is preposterous! Compare the records not what he said / she said — lived in MA & got out there …live in Texas.
          Unfortunately, Perry got screwed because of Bush! another TX governor who could not put few sentences in English! As much as I like our governor, he should have been much more prepared!

          Romney has been wrong on so many other issues – already things are leaking out from none other than Norm Coleman that Obamacare will not be abolished – they will mend it. I would not be surprised about another TARP from Romney administration – since he is a crony capitalist like Bush!

          At least for the sake of extinct species called MA Conservatives, I cannot stand people equating the Newt/Santorum or any one else on our side to Romney!

  • romansdaughter

    It is good to see all aspects and to intelligently try to go forward. It just looks pretty bleak now.

  • bobguzzardi

    Newt Gingrich is the Avatar of the Tea Party Patriot principled grassroots challenge to the elitist snobs in the Republican party.

    When Newt Gingrich is your leader, your cause is in trouble.

    We are in trouble. The Titanic sank. So did the Bismark and so did the Costa Concordia when it went off course. The party and the country have gone off course.

    • acat

      Had “conservatives” been able to solidify behind a conservative candidate early – Pawlenty, Barbour, Perry, Huntsman* – this would have been avoidable.

      As it is, the only time I remember such an early solidification was 1980.

      As usual, “conservatives” were quite busy – here on Red State and elsewhere – running in circles, screaming, and shouting, and .. the result is we have the weather vane, the horndog, the nanny-statist**, and the quack to choose from.

      Mew

      * Giving Huntsman credit for his Utah record, not his stupid campaign

      ** Still not interested in arguing with J. Sobieski over this

      • jakeofalltrades

        “the result is we have the weather vane, the horndog, the nanny-statist**, and the quack to choose from.”

        There are other candidates to pick on besides Gingrich!

        ;) heh

        • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

          …because, in-between the lines, a message resonates.

  • aj_0000

    1. At this point, this kind of analysis is irrelevant. The nominee will either be Romney or Gingrich. The search for perfection is over. The only question is, who is the better candidate for conservatives? It is clearly Newt.

    2. There is a vital difference between the two. Romney continues to support and defend the substance of both Romneycare and Obamacare. His only distinction is the federalist argument, which itself is an evasion on his part. Newt, on the other hand, basically changed his position in response to the clearly expressed will of the voters. You can call that a lack of principle if you want, but the fact is, Newt gets the message: repeal Obamacare. Mitt doesn’t. Newt has listened to conservatives (although in this case it’s the overwhelming majority of the entire population) and changed his position accordingly. Mitt hasn’t.

    It’s no contest between the two. Newt is the better candidate. Perfection is not on the menu.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      remember, Mitt would issue a 50-state waiver; The Newt would repeal/replace.

  • submariner45

    Does anyone here even feel even a twinge of embarrassment or shame at promoting Newt Gingrich and disqualifying Mitt Romney because of health care mandates?

    This wasn’t exactly a secret, Newt has been on the record repeatedly endorsing RomneyCare, only he wanted to go further because he demanded a FEDERAL mandate for all 50 states.

    But, but… he’s the REAL conservative because he yells at moderators about his affairs and stuff!

    Here’s another one of Newt’s Greatest Hits to remind everyone of how he’s the REAL conservative in the race:

    View on YouTube

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …although Mitt would incessantly remind us thereof.

      For the good of the TEA Party Movement [and the FUTURE thereof], we need to support The Newt!

      BTW, Amy Kremer said as much when interviewed yesterday. She had said, a fortnight ago, that there would be an endorsement emerging from Myrtle Beach, but none emerged. NOW, it is clear that the support is for The Newt…and this must be nurtured.

    • bluerose75

      Take a moment off mount ignorance and google your tin suit’s negative quotes about Ronald Reagan and Bush throughout the 80s and 90s. While your at it google Mitt’s judicial appointments while Governor and while you are at check out all the fees he raised on Mass residents and while you are at check how is the man that will forever be linked to bringing Socialism to the US with his ROMNEYCARE. I do not see anything called NEWTCARE and I also not remember Newt endorsing a liberal Democrat (Paul Tsongas for President) over a sitting Republican Vice President…(Mitt “I NEVER VOTED AGAINST A REPUBLICAN WHEN ON THE BALLOT”) Oh boy he must have forgot that ringer!!

      So save us the Newt garbage…and by the way where was your tin suit when Newt orchestrated the first GOP takeover of the House in over 40 years? Probably sitting with some liberal playing the clown!

    • scottishjew

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4iTtNGjFY4

  • aj_0000

    Today on Redstate: “Romney is inevitable. There’s not much difference between him and Gingrich.”

    It’s odd, considering that Romney is as un-”red state” as you can get, and is not winning any “red state” contests.

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      …as far as it goes.

      Mitt is un-RS, but he is hardly inevitable.

  • Ender

    with mandates, aside from potential constitutionality, there are no better comprehensive solutions to the freeloaders. Forcing people to pay after the fact is still very difficult for providers. I think Newt also believes that mandates are a good idea, and his latest conversion is disingenuous pandering to the conservatives. So in my mind support for mandates is not a negative for either candidate.

    At least Romney is a bit more honest about supporting them..

    • http://www.doctor-bob.biz rsklaroff

      LOOK HARDER.

      • Ender

        I’ll put on my glasses now :)

  • brand

    When Newt was giving this chat, it was very early in Obamacare, and it was really early in Obama’s presidency – still in the “Republicans have been wiped out, and the Dems may be in power for a decade” time of thought. The Tea Party was just getting going, after a few tax rallies.

    Having said that, it’s only logical. If you’re going to give insurance to every last person, which is what was being talked about, you HAVE to have a mandate (or a bond) or else people will NOT carry insurance, and every time they break a leg or catch pneumonia, they’ll sign up for insurance, since the Health Insurers would not be able to restrict on pre-existing conditions, and then they’d walk on over to the hospital. Or limp, in the broken-leg case. Hobble, maybe.

    So, to prevent our would be insurance non-carrier, you force them to by virtue of a mandate. There’s no other way (as yet, that I’ve heard) to force the people with pre-existing conditions to buy insurance when they don’t need it.

    • brand

      Sorry, not early in Obamacare – rather early in the development of Obamacare.

      Either way, however, mandates still aren’t the way to go. It’d have been cheaper just to give all the uninsured Medicare and been done with it.

  • romeg

    of NO CONCERN to Taxpayers. It should be a matter between the Caregiver and the patient. If a patient presents with a need for care and is unable to pay then the provider/caregiver should be able to either work out a payment plan or take legal action to collect on the bad debt just as in any other situation where a person demands or requires services but shows no ability or willingness to pay a legally enforceable debt.

    This whole idea that The Government should pick up the tab grows out of the idea that anyone accused of a crime is entitled to legal counsel, at the taxpayers expense, if (s)he is unable to pay for that counsel. But we are talking about two entirely different things here.

    The Government cannot compel you to get sick or injured, unless you are in the Armed Forces. But it sure as hell can compel you to defend yourself in a court of law.

    If, however, you are sued in Civil court, there is no provision for a taxpayer funded lawyer to take your case. I believe that his is even true if it is the Government that is suing you civilly.

    We need to find a way to get Government OUT of the health care business and see if we can’t, somehow, reduce the demand for those services. But if we are going to allow government to compel caregivers to provide their services then we are going to have to find a way to compel the recipients of that care to pay for it, either in advance (insurance) or at the time of deliver of the services. But an open ended Cradle to Grave (I mean that quite literally) system wherein no one has to take personal responsibility is going to destroy what is left of the finest health care system in the history of mankind.

    • JSobieski

      So government has made itself a factor in the equation.

      • bonnman

        Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act it was passed back in the 1980s but there are also numerous state laws that mandate the same thing. But EMTALA actually only applies to those hospitals that accept Government money, like Medicare/Medicaid so its tricky but no hospital is actually forced to take Government money.

        • JSobieski

          theoretically true, but as a practical matter you are describing a “legal fiction”.

          • bonnman

            States would just lose the federal funds and while that might be difficult for them, theyd have to either reduce care or raise taxes but that is still their choice, its just a tough one. Hospitals too can decide not to accept Medicaid and be free from EMTALA restrictions, its just difficult because they would have a smaller customer base. While not a hospital, Walgreens in Washington no longer takes Medicaid prescription patients, the state simply wasn’t paying them back, so they stopped.

            States and hospitals aren’t forced, its just the financial incentives are too great.

          • snowshooze

            And under current conditions, an office visit appointmet is backed up 45 days now.

          • bonnman

            if they want. The question would be are more doctors in MA refusing now after Romneycare then the national average.

          • JSobieski

            The key word being “STATES”.

            One of the arguments in the lawsuit against Obamacare is that the federal medicaid monies are so substantial, and the threat of withdrawing them so severe, that Obamacare is unconstitutional on that basis.

          • bonnman

            But I don’t see how not funding a program is unconstitutional. Past case law decided by the SCOTUS has upheld monetary incentives for States that achieve policy goals and conversely deny monetary incentives for failure. See New York v. United States on radioactive waste management.

          • JSobieski

            Obamacare arguably regulates the states as states…. or theyface billion dollar shortfalls

          • bonnman

            but SCOTUS has ruled on a few occasions that congress can attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds. That isn’t a violation of a state’s sovereignty (10th). Again, New York v. United States, SCOTUS struck down the feds forcing states to pass legislation (taking liability of the toxic waste) but upheld the federal funding incentives as encouragement.

          • JSobieski

            see also Obamacare cases based on Medicaid coercion

          • snowshooze

            Because so many have been pushed onto Medicaid, Doctors can only accept a certain percentage. They are now all full up.
            So Massachusetts just shoved as many off on the rest of the States as they could. It almost sounds like a BAIN capitol scheme.

          • bonnman

            Massachusetts doctors to the National average for refusing Medicare/Medicaid customers. If you know of one I’d be interested to see it.

          • snowshooze

            But when you read it… you will see they have some serious money problems… well maybe not so bad as we are here to carry Masachusetts water for them.
            http://www.patriotledger.com/news/x1658266845/Deal-with-U-S-would-increase-Massachusetts-Medicaid-funding-by-5-7-billion

  • bonnman

    For the primary it seems to have become a sort of litmus test but outside of core conservatives and republicans it hardly seems to be a concern for people. Granted most of it will kick in in 2014 and THEN people might be upset but then it’ll be too late but currently people don’t seem to care that much, people want to see action on the economy.

    • snowshooze

      There will be far more important things to talk about.
      Besides that, it would be distasteful for Mitt.

      • bonnman

        Its just not as potent as an issue as it was a year or so ago. The mandate isn’t very popular but overall the public’s perceptions have changed and even the mandate is malleable in public opinion. Take a look at this Kaiser poll.

        http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/upload/8265-C.pdf

        • snowshooze

          And when I had Kaiser, it was the worst health care I ever saw. You could die waiting to see someone, after you got through 3 screening lines.

          • bonnman

            nt

          • snowshooze

            nt.

          • bonnman

            with maligning the poll than discussing its actual contents, its an ad hominem argument.

          • bonnman

            with maligning the poll than you are discussing its contents. its an ad hominem argument.

  • bluerose75

    Maybe not for you but for millions other it is. Rush agrees as well that Obamacare will be a BIG ISSUE!! Why? One it is unconstitutional forcing people to buy health insurance just because they breathe and secondly the number of companies and small businesses that have held off hiring or adding personnel because of the additional costs associated with it. Are you serious? Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! and I am a small business owner and I can tell you from my experience to some of my friends that also own small businesses healthcare coverage for employees is INDEED IMPORTANT!!

    This is a big issue and when companies start dropping employees healthcare because of the costs and people are thrown into the federal system….oh they will care!

  • celador2

    I have feared for some time that conservatives of the self identified constitutional conservatives are in a trap. Going to court to overturn Obamacare is based on the over reach of the ‘Commerce clause’ to mandate or force a resident to buy a private sector product. In this case an insurance policy.

    While in the appeals courts one judge Roger Vinson said the entire Act was unconstitutional as all of PPACA could not be severed from the mandate to purchase a insurance policy. However, most federal appeals decisions were in support of that mandate and ACA but not all. In other words ‘severability’ is also an issue not only the mandate.

    What if US Supreme court decides the mandate to purchace an insurance policy is not constitutional but the rest of ACA stands? Then the fine mailed by IRS in April of 2015 for 700 dollars will be legal and all who chose not to buy a policy will not have that fine. The rest of the meddlin’ and take over of ACA remains.

    Yesterday I read a report from Townhall that Obama lawyers are indeed making that severe the mandate case but let the rest stand. They are, turning in paper work to let stand all of ACA even if the high court tosses the mandate or severes it from the rest of ACA.’

    A victory for liberty it will be for the court to limit the scope of Commerce clause on the mandate. But if the Supreme court lets the rest stand we will have a legal healthcare take over at federal level. The entire PPACA must be tossed, not only the mandate.

    Herein lies the trap. We went from REPEAL OBAMACARE to court and may fall for allowing the court to have final say.
    There is another remedy, the original one is still possible,

    Even if high court decides ACA is legal or that parts can be severed OBAMACARE should be repealed because it is bad law and is a federal takeover of individual, state and freemarket authorities..

    .

  • blark

    Are you suggeting that in a general election extreme conservatives will favor Obama’s healthcare position over Mitt Romney’s? That is just crazy analysis! If that is not what you are suggesting, are you saying that extreme conservatives are not going to get excited to support a candidate that wants to repeal Obama care, in favor of continuing Obama care? Again, only the crazies out there would take that course. And, you seem to miss completely that there is a very significant amount of the population who, while they do not feel that the country can afford Obama care, still recognize that something needs to be done about healthcare affordability and access. Those people will be drawn to a candidate who has actually worked in a bi-partisan way on matters of healthcare access and affordibility and who will encourage states to resolve that issue for their citizens. What is the extreme conservatives plan for healthcare? Hands off, leave it alone? Too bad, so sad for the millions who cannot afford it and who do not have access (and whose coverage cannot be denied and ends up costing those who can afford insurance more in the end)?

  • ptamom

    I am deeply concerned about what I believe to be the misrepresentation of Romney as a conservative and as a moderate Republican in the current presidential race.

    The stark difference between Romney’s views now and his record as Governor of Massachusetts should give us pause.

    As a PTA mom from Maryland and a Republican volunteer in our county, I have followed Massachusetts politics via email news from www.MassResistance.org since the 2003 court redefinition of marriage in Massachusetts. Living in a “blue” state with 2 children in public schools, I have been concerned about the impact of the redefinition of marriage on public schools.

    In their comprehensive report of Romney?s record entitled, “The Mitt Romney Deception”, the grass roots pro-family group Mass Resistance states “Indeed, this report will demonstrate that Romney was probably the most pro-abortion and pro-gay rights Republican official in the nation for the last decade.” The evidence is carefully documented by newspaper accounts with all sources listed at the end of their report.

    Romney’s record as Governor in Masschusetts from 2003-2007 and his actions while a presidential candidate have not shown a committment to good government and have shown a willingness to exert undue influence on the media in my opinion. We are so in need of good leadership to take on the politically motivated decisions that harm so many Americans and benefit only a few. I do not feel that Romney’s record as Governor indicates a willingness to govern in that way.

    I am also concerned about Romney?s choice of judges and the state of the Republican Party in Massachusetts after his tenure as Governor.

    For more information, please refer to the details under the subheadings below.

    Thank you for your consideration of this material.

    **************************************************************

    www.MassResistance.org/romney

    ***************** the subheadings below are copied from The Mitt Romney Deception Report The 26-page comprehensive report describing how Gov. Romney ran for office and governed as a liberal, despite his claims to the contrary. This covers a wide range of topics and is an essential read.

    Romney supports abortion in general, and believes in sustaining Roe v. Wade.

    Romney campaigned for Governor of Massachusetts as a pro-choice candidate, and was endorsed by a pro-abortion political group

    Romney is willing to support some embryonic stem cell research

    Romney Approves of Abortion Pill and Supports the Legalization of RU-486

    Romney signs “Right to Privacy” Proclamation celebrating birth control availability

    Gov. Romney has a long history of promoting and furthering the homosexual agenda, and working closely with leading gay activists

    Romney twice sought and received the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republican Club

    Romney’s campaign distributed pro-gay rights campaign literature during Boston’s “Gay Pride” events

    Romney supports homosexual “anti-discrimination” laws

    Romney advocates homosexual couples’ adoption rights be recognized by the government

    Romney supports homosexual domestic partnerships

    Romney supported and promoted legalizing homosexual civil unions

    Romney Opposes the Boy Scouts’ Ban on Homosexual Scoutmasters

    Romney barred Boy Scouts from public participation in 2002 Olympics

    Romney appointed prominent homosexuals to key positions in his administration

    Romney appointed prominent homosexual activists and Democrats as judges

    “Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans, has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents — including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found. Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.”
    - Boston Globe 7/25/2005, “Romney jurist picks not tilted to GOP; Independents, Democrats get call”

    Romney Rewards one of the State’s Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge

    Romney announces he won’t fill judicial vacancies before term ends

    Romney’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth used huge taxpayer funding to promote homosexuality in the public schools

    Romney’s Commission organized public gay “Youth Pride Day” parades and “transgender proms” which promote unhealthy and risky behavior

    Romney issues a proclamation celebrating gay “Youth Pride Day”

    Romney’s Department of Education promotes the homosexual agenda

    Romney’s Department of Public Health (DPH) cooperates with the homosexual activist movement

    Romney opposed federal legislation that would stop public schools from promoting homosexuality

    Romney’s Dept. of Social Services honors homosexual “married” couple as adoptive “Parents of the Year”

    Romney refused to endorse the original 2002 Mass. constitutional amendment absolutely defining marriage as one man and one women

    Romney unnecessarily (and unconstitutionally) implemented homosexual marriages in Massachusetts

    Romney had marriage licenses changed to allow same-sex marriages

    Romney administration ordered Justices of Peace to perform homosexual “marriages” when asked – or be fired!

    Romney administration’s training of Town Clerks (on how to issue same-sex marriage licenses) states that marriage statutes were not changed

    Romney signs bill eliminating Sexual Transmitted Disease (STD) testing requirement for marriage

    When requested of him, Romney personally issues special one-day certificates to allow otherwise unqualified people to perform homosexual “marriages”

    Was Romney’s public opposition to homosexual “marriage” based on expediency, not principle?

    Romney favors “Assault” Weapons Ban

    Romney Favors Waiting Periods

    Romney supports minimum wage laws

    Romney Balances Budget with $500 Million in New Fees

    Romney imposes “socialized” health care on Massachusetts

    Romney’s dismal record as the Republican leader in Massachusetts

    Romney pledged to build the Massachusetts Republican Party, but in fact he did almost nothing. During his tenure there were two elections for the entire Legislature (2004 and 2006). In each election the Republicans lost seats. Republicans now hold the fewest seats in the Legislature since the Civil War.
    During the four years of Romney’s tenure, the number of registered Republicans in Massachusetts fell by 31,000. During that same period, the Massachusetts Democratic Party gained 30,000. “…… That means Republicans now make up 12.5 percent of the state’s voters, … according to the data released by the Secretary of State’s office. When the state elected Romney, a Republican, in 2002, the GOP made up 13.4 percent of the electorate. ”
    - Boston Globe, 11/2/2006, “GOP ranks dropped by 31,000 since state elected Romney”
    In the 2006 elections, most offices were not even challenged by Republican candidates. In the November general election for the six statewide Massachusetts constitutional offices there were more Green-Rainbow Party candidates on the ballot than Republicans!
    The party’s slide has been so precipitous that Republicans yesterday did not contest 130 of 200 legislative seats, fielded a challenger in only three of 10 congressional districts, and put up fewer candidates for statewide office (three) than the Green-Rainbow Party (four).
    - Boston Globe, 11/8/2006, “For Republicans in Mass., a feeling of out and down”

    **************************************************************************

    Comments from the head of the Massachusetts Republican Party, James Rappaport, who was Chairman while Romney was Governor.

    ?…James Rappaport, former head of the Massachusetts Republican Party held a press conference recently to announce his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. ….. Rappaport, who served when Romney was governor, said Romney ?has a strong record of showmanship as opposed to actual performance.? On his relationship with the State Legislature, ?His word is no good ? Mitt Romney would say one thing in a meeting and literally go out of the meeting to the press and tell the opposite story. There was no desire in the legislature to be accommodating to him because they couldn?t trust him?. Romney will be clear today on what he believes today, and he?ll be clear tomorrow on what he believes tomorrow, but they may be different things.?

    http://www.townhall.com/columnists/SandyRios/2007/12/10/mitt_romney_may_have_had_no_choice,_but_i_do

    **************************************************************************

    Conservative media has a conflict of interest with Romney.

    I believe that some conservative media, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levine, Rich Lowry, Hugh Hewitt, and others perpetuated a false idea during the 2008 campaign, i.e. the idea that Romney is conservative. Their scrutiny of Huckabee and McCain’s conservative credentials during the 2008 campaign was often emotional and full of highly charged, derogatory terms, while they were more silent about holes in Romney’s conservative credentials.

    On Nov 16, 2006, Clear Channel Communications agreed to be acquired by Bain Capital and Thomas Lee Partners for nearly $19 billion. Bain Capital is the private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney in 1984; that he left in 1999 to head the 2002 Olympics; that he sold his majority interest in, in 2001 to run for Governor of Massachusetts; where he is still a silent partner. The sale was completed in Dec 2007 after 1 year of pending negotiations of the leveraged buyout agreement. Clear Channel owns more than 1,100 full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations, twelve radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and more than 30 television stations in the United States.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600537.html

    Premiere Radio Networks, which is the largest syndication company in the United States, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Clear Channel and is home to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, FOX NEWS Radio and many other talk radio shows. Premiere Radio Networks is transitioning to a new CEO Charlie Rahilly from Kraig Kitchin. Sean Hannity recently signed a large multi-market contract with Clear Channel.

    The early Bain Capital team included Romney’s campaign advisor, Robert F. White. According to CNN/Money magazine’s Dec 10, 2007 article entitled “Millionaires-in-chief”, some 43% of Romney’s portfolio is currently invested in Bain Capital. On the Bain Capital website it says “Our principals are the largest single investor in each of Bain Capital’s funds,..”
    (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/6.html )

    **************************************************************************

    Other informative reports:

    Report on the true pro-life views of Gov. Romney – Written in reaction to the controversy over Romney’s various pro-life stands.

    How Mitt Romney brought “gay marriage” to Massachusetts – Complete report with comprehensive legal analysis. The Supreme Judicial Court made a ruling and ordered the Legislature to act. The Legislature did nothing, so Romney stepped in and ordered same-sex “marriages” to begin — essentially violating his oath of office.

    A new book, “Mitt Romney’s Deception — His Stealth Promotion of “Gay Rights” and “Gay Marriage”in Massachusetts” Contrary to Governor Romney’s claim that he defended marriage, the Constitution, traditional values, and religious freedom, he actually undermined them.

  • circlegranch

    http://newsnetwork.com/activism/pb/default.aspx

    Martin Gould at Newsmax reports today that at least 23 offshore accounts have now been discovered that Mitt did not report on his financial disclosure required as a candidate. He has a trustee running his books and its all ‘blind’ to Mitt. Meanwhile, while his money helps prop up foreign banks, thousands of American bank workers have lost their jobs due to closings. Repealing Dodd-Frank is great, but is disingenuous coming from a person that won’t bring his money home and help support our banks and keep banking jobs here .

    • ptamom

      Conservative media has a conflict of interest with Romney.

      I believe that some conservative media, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levine, Rich Lowry, Hugh Hewitt, and others perpetuated a false idea during the 2008 campaign, i.e. the idea that Romney is conservative. Their scrutiny of Huckabee and McCain’s conservative credentials during the 2008 campaign was often emotional and full of highly charged, derogatory terms, while they were more silent about holes in Romney’s conservative credentials.

      On Nov 16, 2006, Clear Channel Communications agreed to be acquired by Bain Capital and Thomas Lee Partners for nearly $19 billion. Bain Capital is the private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney in 1984; that he left in 1999 to head the 2002 Olympics; that he sold his majority interest in, in 2001 to run for Governor of Massachusetts; where he is still a silent partner. The sale was completed in Dec 2007 after 1 year of pending negotiations of the leveraged buyout agreement. Clear Channel owns more than 1,100 full-power AM, FM, and shortwave radio stations, twelve radio channels on XM Satellite Radio, and more than 30 television stations in the United States.

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600537.html

      Premiere Radio Networks, which is the largest syndication company in the United States, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Clear Channel and is home to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, FOX NEWS Radio and many other talk radio shows. Premiere Radio Networks is transitioning to a new CEO Charlie Rahilly from Kraig Kitchin. Sean Hannity recently signed a large multi-market contract with Clear Channel.

      The early Bain Capital team included Romney’s campaign advisor, Robert F. White. According to CNN/Money magazine’s Dec 10, 2007 article entitled “Millionaires-in-chief”, some 43% of Romney’s portfolio is currently invested in Bain Capital. On the Bain Capital website it says “Our principals are the largest single investor in each of Bain Capital’s funds,..”
      (http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/6.html )

      • circlegranch

        www.newsmax.com

        and the posts above from ptamom. This is the last chance we have to give Romney the full vetting he should have. He is running as the fiscal champion that promises to cut, cap and balance. His record tells an entirely different story.

  • Juggernaut

    just as millions have been buying insurance since its inception. Romney is a statist who thinks a state solution isn’t a nationalization of healthcare. Problem is, Romney wants control at the top just like Obama which flows money and power to the people who want Romney elected. After rates go up, he’ll blame someone else or simply claim price increases have slowed…….Obama has done the same and you people should really start comparing what Obama and Romney have in common because the list is growing!!

    With the TP and sites like we can influence what congress does but if Romney is elected and the Tea Party loses effectiveness then so does RS because that’s the moderate plan…to ignore those who disagree with the new status quo.

    Those of you who think the establishment wants Romney have yet to do the math. Only a minority of elected congressmen have endorsed Romney and only 2 known leaders are among them………John Thune and Connie Mack, the rest are rookies or have little influence. So what media fools say establishment this and that, so friggin what! Anyone think John McCain has a lot of weight after losing 2008? Establishment is a control word designed to evoke fear and or power and it means nothing when you do the math!

  • gwbramhall

    There is so much more wrong with ObamaCare than the much discussed mandates. The program is a budget buster as well as another laundy list
    of mandates that will hurt if not kill a host of small and large businesses.
    Over regulation is the devil that is keeping unemployment rates high
    and this new law is going to be an economic catastrophe once it comes
    into full force. We need to make this point clear to all Americans that
    they have to stop looking to the government to cure all their ailments.
    The government has proven over and over again that it is too large and
    to inefficient to deal with this and practically every other issue. We will never
    get our economy back on track, the deficit and national debt down, and
    all our people back to work until this country accepts this reality again.

    • cbartlett

      person – the head of Health and Human Services! Obamacare is full of references to the HHS director making policy decisions and setting up agencies. And this person is certainly not elected by the people – we have to take whoever the White House says we do? What if Obama wins in November and decides to move Eric Holder in as the head of HHS (because he’s doing such a bang up great job as Atty Gen!!)? How would you feel about him making life and death decisions for you? It MUST be repealed. Regardless of who ends up in the White House, we need to make sure we get enough conservatives in both houses of Congress to get the repeal passed – and a veto proof pass just in case…..