« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Will RomneyCare Cripple Romney?

By: AndrewHyman (Diary)  |  September 2nd, 2010 at 11:23 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

It may be a bit early to be thinking about the 2012 election. Election campaigns definitely need to be shorter, but that’s not yet the way it is, so here are a few thoughts specifically about RomneyCare and Romney….

The recent federal law requiring an “individual mandate” for people to go out and buy health insurance is enormously unpopular with conservatives. It seems to me that there are two arguments that Romney can make about the individual mandate in RomneyCare, and both arguments can be made at the same time.

First, it’s a federalism issue, and he never supported an individual mandate ordered by Congress, as far as I know.

Second, even before RomneyCare and ObamaCare, everyone in Massachusetts was effectively insured against catastrophic health costs, in the sense that hospital emergency rooms were barred by federal law from turning away people who lacked private insurance. So, some form of statewide individual mandate is appropriate to relieve taxpayers of that burden. The individual mandate in RomneyCare did that. But it also did more, and therein lies a potential problem for Romney.

He may be the GOP’s most electable guy, so from a pragmatic point of view I hope he can address this issue early on, and (if he can) get it out of the way.

By the way, this is my first blog post straight from my smart phone. The telecommunications revolution is truly amazing.

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • AndrewHyman

    Just thought I’d mention finding a report that Romney has advocated repeal of the federal individual mandate.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Blogger_Romney_wants_repeal_but_not_of_mandate.html?showall

    See the update at the end.

    • AndrewHyman

      Here’s a link to Rubio comparing RomneyCare to ObamaCare and emphasizing that they’re very different:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/198147/romney-backs-rubio-says-education-veto-was-last-straw/robert-costa

      • finaljeopardy

        n/t

  • mbecker908

    He is totally incompetent as an elected official. AND, the post just above aside, he’s been running around for a couple of years touting how great RC is.

    No. Only Sarah and Huckabee could possibly be worse. Maybe.

    Did I say NO!

    • JSobieski

      I don’t think Palin would be worse. Unfortunately, I see a Romney run resulting in Palin winning the nomination. If Romney runs, his weakness will attact Palin to run, and with the two of them in, there won’t be enough political oxygen for anyone else to get any traction.

      Mitt really needs to sit this one out. All he can do is hurt Republicans. We don’t need Romneycare Republicans confusing everybody.

    • aesthete

      only because the other two are both incompetent and ideologically predisposed to supporting government expansion. At least she is merely incompetent.

  • AceInTX

    You can bet your bottom dollar he’ll be vulnerable on it….Anyone with any brains will beat him to a bloody pulp on the issue

    • AceInTX

      Romney is an opportunist and a flip flopper who has never held a position that he won’t change as soon as it becomes troublesome for him.

      Every time someone uses the term “Electable” you can bet they are trying to put a shine on the turd for the squish they are pushing.

      Romney as a pliable as silly putty.

      • AndrewHyman

        If Romney gets the boot, maybe the GOP will get stuck with someone like Mitch “Forget-About-The-Culture-War” Daniels, or Sarah “Wish She Were Electable” Palin.

        • JSobieski

          Seriously, if one sentence public statemetn is a disqualifier, Romney passed that line YEARS ago.

          Romney backers are like O’Donnell backers, they have no idea how objective people perceive their candidates.

          • AndrewHyman

            Scott Johnson over at the Power Line blog recently mentioned that, “The Republican Party was founded in opposition to ‘those twin relics of barbarism — Polygamy, and Slavery’…serious concern with…’the social issues’ is deeply embedded in the principles and the history of the Republican Party.”

            There’s a long time between now and 2012, and I’ll be the first to change my opinion about Daniels if the “truce” comment starts to look like an aberration. But I feel very strongly about stopping the legal slaughter of unborn children (and by “unborn children” I mean “fetuses”), about putting judges on the bench who won’t dictatorially make up the law as they go along, and about trying to ensure that a child grows up with a mom and dad.

          • JSobieski

            You support Mitt Romney despite Romneycare being the state version of Obamacare and despite the fact that he wasn’t really pro-life when he ran for Senate in Massachussetts. Romney’s pro-life inclinations happened to kick in when he runs for the Presidential nomination. Why don’t the sentences uttered by Romney in his Senate race bother you? Does the fact that those sentences changed over time seem a bit opportunistic to you at all?

            You dislike Daniels despite the fact that he has never been anything but pro-life, because he uttered a sentence about policy priorities.

            Daniels has a far stronger pro-life record (i.e. he has consistently uttered pro-life sentences) than Romney, but to you he is weaker because of the utterance of a single sentence. Romney in contrast has shown that he is willing to utter all sorts of sentences in the course his career that are hard to reconcile to other sentences that he also uttered. Do you remember the sentences that the fiscally conservative Romney uttered in Michigan in an attempt to win Michigan voters?

            If pro-life is your primary issue, Romney should be last on your list. Not saying Daniels should be first (he shouldn’t), but Romney has proven that he is willing to utter sentences to please his audience.

            The culture war is fought primarily in federal courts and state legislatures. No President can make the cultural wars his or top priority.

          • AndrewHyman

            I figure that Romney’s consistently said he’s wised up about it, and his previous position was a long time ago. I want to welcome and encourage people to wise up about it. I feel comfortable that he would appoint the kind of judges that Bush did. If Romney is lying, and he’d appoint a bunch of Harry Blackmuns, then he’s a very good liar and would be a very bad president.

            I don’t care if Daniels is pro-life if he’s committed to not doing anything about it as president, and if he can’t be counted on to appoint judges who won’t legislate.

            Basically, we ought to take both Romney and Daniels at their word.

          • JSobieski

            Romney, or should I say Romney v 3.0 would implement pro-life policies how? By passing Romneycare (i.e. an invitation for someone at some point to introduce government funded abortions)? By picking good judges. Thats about it.

            I trust Daniels on judges far more than Romney. Don’t remember Daniels saying he would appoint bad judges. I trust Daniels far more than Romney to appoint good judges.

            The best proxy for who would pick the best judges is who mentions the Constitution more? Or who support policies that are constitutionally questionable?

            Romney ran for President and I don’t think the word “Constitution” ever came out of his mouth. He did however propose a big bailout for the auto companies in pursing Michigan voters, but I guess we should imply by that Romney takes the Constitution seriously? After all, that was Romney v 2.0MichiganBeta. That’s all in the past. He’s really into limited government now, and he really really really means it. I mean, he was young in February 2008–that was more than 2 years ago!!!

            You ought to take both by the record, which includes actions as well as the sentences that come out of their mouth. I would rather spend the day with Romney, but I would rather have Daniels as President.

            Romney is the one person who make me jump onto the Palin bandwagon as fast as I can jumpt. I think Romney may aid Palin in the way that Huckabee ended up helping McCain.

            If you have ideas outside nominating judges who care about the Constitution to achieve pro-life goals at the Federal level through the executive branch, I for one would love to hear them.

          • aesthete

            in Indiana, and signed every piece of pro-life legislation put across his desk in IN.

            Romney signed into law a bill which subsidizes abortions with taxpayer funds (RomneyCare).

          • finaljeopardy

            If you’re going to run a boring wonk, he better have a spiffy Middle Manager in Chief hat to wear during debates. McConnell has done well in Indiana, but at a time when values are going to be important — nearly 70% of Americans feel the country is moving in the wrong direction — you can’t pick a fight with social conservatives. If it’s going to be a big tent, expand but keep the original members. People upset about public financing for abortion will agree with the fiscal conservatives on reducing government spending. Conservatives should make that case, instead of just telling the “bitter clingers” to pipe down. Real leaders build consensus. Indiana shouldn’t have gone blue in 2008, either. I’m just not sold on Romney or Daniels. I feel confident predicting they will lose.

          • aesthete

            are reading Mitch’s statement wrong. While inadvised, it was essentially a statement that we should avoid allowing social issues to divide a unified constituency dedicated to cutting government: a real problem, considering the number of social issue single issue groups out there. In context, it was more of a word of advice to party leaders to prioritize than a “bitter clinger” homily ala Obama. Given that Mitch is a “bitter clinger” in word and deed, both in office and out, it would be bizarre if his statement was meant to attack social conservatives.

    • aesthete

      that we have anyone in a lofty position among Republicans with brains.

      Looking at the field of declared candidates, I’d take someone with stones at this point. Brains are optional :)

      • AceInTX
        • aesthete

          The conservative movement isn’t bereft of brains, nor (despite occasional bromides against education by some populace) averse to seeking counsel. Stones we have a lot less of in political circles, especially among our executives.

          But I do see and agree with your point, tilting at windmills being an unproductive venture.

  • charliebravoNH

    A poll taken in May by UNH has Romney 30 percentage points ahead of his potential Republican Challengers.

    http://www.unh.edu/survey-center/news/pdf/gsp2010_spring_primary51810.pdf

    There is no doubt the Romneycare issue will dog him but he has enough money and organization to get on the ballot in all 50 states. He can stay in the race as long as he wants because he won’t run out of money.

  • finaljeopardy

    Just what has Romney accomplished that indicates he’d be a good choice for President?

    Was it his failed campaign against Edward Kennedy, which he led until the debate, and then after “yes-butting” on every single issue, lost in a 20-point landslide?

    Was it his disowning of the Reagan presidency in that race?

    Was it his single political win–a victory in the 2002 governor’s race, barely, even though the GOP was having an excellent year overall, Republicans had won the last three elections, and the Democrats fielded a horrible candidate?

    Was it his one term as governor, in which he rubber-stamped the Democrat legislature’s laws? Was it his support of a MA state takeover of the health care system? Was it his passage of an “assault weapons” ban to replace the federal one that expired? Was it his support for taxpayer-funded abortions?

    Was it his failed attempt to spend his way to the GOP nomination in 2008?

    We keep hearing how “electable” he is, but there is scant evidence on that.

    • JSobieski

      nt

      • AndrewHyman

        I’m not trying to promote Romney, particularly. But other potential candidates aren’t looking as good to mecat this point. I’m leaning toward Romney, but may switch.

        I think Palin’s unelectable, if we take Daniels at his word he won’t stand up for some important principles even if he believes in them, Gingrich has a lot of baggage, Petraeus won’t run, Jeb Bush would be the third Bush in the WH, Christie’s big moment has been refusing to fire anyone for the 400- million-dollar education screwup followed immedately by firing his education secretary, et cetera, et cetera.

        Romney is rich as sin, which I suppose proves some management competence. He did well running the Salt Lake City Olympics. He ran a decent campaign in 2008 that might have prevailed but for Christ’s treachery in Florida. I don’t think there’s any question that Romney tried to stop the Massachusetts judiciary from dctating how the people of Massachusetts use the word “marriage.”

        So, yes, I’m leaning toward Romney at this point, but that may change.

        • finaljeopardy

          We’re still 9 weeks away from the midterms. But Romney supporters point to his polling, making the case for his inevitability, when really he is the only guy who can afford to start running this early. But his alleged popularity is, as far as I can tell, solely based on these polls and not his actual experience. Just as Palin is supposedly unelectable… she was nominated as VP, she won the race for governor, she has a solid track record for endorsements, showing she has good political instincts, certainly better than the NRSC, RNC or NRCC. She hasn’t announced, so it doesn’t matter what is said about her. But it sure is strange how Palin is “unelectable” but Romney is already the GOP nominee.

        • JSobieski

          I am not a huge Daniel’s fan, but am very much concerned that people are going to adopt a bad early choice (Romney) before waiting to see who actually runs.

          Romney is personally rich, but Indiana has far better fiscal policy—after all, it didn’t adopt Romneycare, the model for Obamacare.

          I can’t believe people on this site are excited about voting for the one guy who loses a health care debate with Obama. Surely, our desire for self-destruction is unmatched. The fact that Romney is winning over pro-life voters is almost enough to make me quit . . . just quite, move to the upper part of Michigan, and leave all of this politic stuff behind.

          Folks want to die on hill O’Donnell despite all of her personal imperfections (policy over candidate), but then want to support Romney, who embodies candidate over policy more than anyone else.

          I think I need to unplug for a while

          • chihank

            is like debating which NFL team is going to win the Super Bowl.

            All 2012 polls are like preseason fantasy football stats.

            Personally, I prefer a fresh face instead of the 2008 retreads.

            The 2008 retreads wil kill each other off. People lack confidence in Palin’s ability to govern. Newt has multiple marriages. Huckabee has a record of being too lenient on criminals. Romney has RomneyCare, plus many Evangelicals think its a sin to vote for Romney.

            I could see fresh faces like Thune, Pawlenty, Daniels, or Barbour overtaking and pushing aside the 2008 retreads.

            But then again, 2012 is an eternity away.

          • chihank

            is like debating which NFL team is going to win the Super Bowl.

            All 2012 polls are like preseason fantasy football stats.

            Personally, I prefer a fresh face instead of the 2008 retreads.

            The 2008 retreads wil kill each other off. People lack confidence in Palin’s ability to govern. Newt has multiple marriages. Huckabee has a record of being too lenient on criminals. Romney has RomneyCare, plus many Evangelicals think its a sin to vote for Romney.

            I could see fresh faces like Thune, Pawlenty, Daniels, or Barbour overtaking and pushing aside the 2008 retreads.

            But then again, 2012 is an eternity away.

          • AndrewHyman

            JSobieski, I only meant for this to be a little chat, no big deal. Your comments are truly appreciated, and really it’s too soon to say how I’ll vote. We don’t even know who’s running yet! So please don’t be disgusted or give up. Everything everyone says in this thread is heard and considered. Cheers.

          • JSobieski

            Have a great one!

          • JSobieski

            Have a great one!

        • kestrel

          is the Left’s line. Every time someone uses the term “unelectable” they are trying to put a turd on the shine of the dynamite they are trying to defuse.

          • mbecker908

            “unqualified”? absolutely.

            She’s a white, female version of Obama.

          • chihank

            I forgot to mention Newt. On Fox, he’s been able to articulate the case against Obama’s policies. Yes, Newt is a retread, but he did manage the GOP takeover of the House in 1994.

            Currently, Newt is working with Steele and Bohener on a new Contract With America.

            Perhaps, 1994 retreads like Hale Barbour and Newt Gingrich are what we need?

          • mbecker908

            dropped into the deepest part of the ocean.

          • finaljeopardy

            “She?s a white, female version of Obama.”

            Obama has actually been successful accomplishing his radical left agenda. He would have steamrolled it all right through, if the healthcare bill debate hadn’t been sidetracked by all this talk of “death panels.” The problem with Obama is not his experience (he has Chicago machine politics down, which are little help outside the Beltway), but his ideology which is the wrong direction for this country.

            Palin would not have accomplished anything had she finished her term. The Democrats perceive her as a threat, otherwise they would not have deployed a team of lawyers to go to Alaska, dig through her trash and incite bloggers to file multiple frivolous ethics charges. She ran a good budget, she negotiated AGIA and took out entrenched corruption that had existed in Alaska since its founding. Her Lt. Gov. has followed her plans to the letter, and her being away allows her state to function, perversely.

            But let’s compare Palin’s business experience with Romney’s. Palin has negotiated new tax structures, lease deals and other issues that arise in the Alaska energy industry. It is also important to remember that the Alaska oil industry is the dominant force in the Alaskan economy. Imagine if she had been President during the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

            Romney has business experience from his time at Bain Capital. However, Romney’s greatest accomplishment from his time as Governor of MA is RomneyCare. RomneyCare is effectively government mandated health care, which the Wall Street Journal has claimed has caused a crisis in the Bay State. The Journal also portrays RomneyCare as a warning against nationalized health care. Being a Wall Street powerhouse and running a venture capital business is not the same as running a government. (As a NYC resident, I can assure you Bloomberg ain’t all that.) Romney often claims that the state legislature twisted his original health-care proposal and that this has led to the problems facing MA. It seems that Romney’s experience in dealing with a board of directors and shareholders at Bain Capital were little help to him in dealing with the group of politicians known as the Massachusetts legislature.

            But I know Palin’s resignation is a legitimate concern for voters, and I don’t know how her campaign will go, assuming she runs. That’s what the primaries are for, and the voters will hear everyone and make up their own minds. She’s not as bad as a lot of grumpy old white men would have you think, but we haven’t seen other candidates, either. There is a good chance the GOP won’t run their best until 2016. I haven’t seen many Republicans seriously challenging Obama; I do hear occasional suggestions of “repeal and replace” and some other half-ass suggestions; I cringe when I see the Young Guns ads before the midterms, and these other gimmicky pitches. The GOP seems pretty complacent.

          • kestrel

            Finaljeopardy makes the case well. The only thing I would change is to say that Obama’s handlers, more so than Obama himself, have been successful in implementing the Far Left agenda, but that would just be nitpicking.

            As to the essence of their persons, Palin is the antithesis of the irritable, buck-passing Obama.

          • acat

            And by saying she’s running in 2012, that’s what you’re saying.

            She has way too little executive experience, and what she has proves she doesn’t have the cajones needed to really deal with the D.C. crap.

            I get that she’s a good bomb-thrower, best of this generation, maybe. I understand she kicked the Alaska old boy network some, and that’s good also. Those do not qualify her for POTUS. Head of RNC, maybe, although I think Erick’d do better – maybe a cabinet post that’d let her throw bombs from a better elevation, but not POTUS.

            Stack her up next to Christie, Jindal, Pawlenty, Daniels, or Perry and tell me you *really* think she’s the most qualified governor.

            Mew

          • mbecker908

            You left my dead white cat off your list.

          • kestrel

            “Unelectable” and the two of you will be on your way to Washington in January.

          • finaljeopardy

            Maybe he could run successfully for the presidency, though he sounds like he is committed to staying in NJ and seeing it out. But his endorsement of Mike Castle (I’m fine with it, but fire-breathing conservatives seem indignant), his statements on amnesty and the GZM — I think he’s moderate, to say the least. We also have not seen the results of the impressive work he has undertaken. States are the test labs for the nation, and if he is successful in NJ, he makes a good case for the conservative cause. I would prefer to see him carry that out.

            Jindal — good luck with that.

            Pawlenty — two words. Al Franken. Okay, three. Senator Al Franken.

            Daniels — I discussed him upthread.

            Perry — I’ll let someone from TX comment.

          • acat
          • kestrel

            I think you underestimate Mrs. Palin, not only in experience, but in intelligence and courage. I am among many who are just exercising common sense in waiting to hear from all candidates, but who will have no problem voting for Palin in the general election if she makes it there. Judging by the lack of enthusiasm for other potential candidates, she is right to be preparing.

            My point was that since Ace’s statement about the term “Electable” rings true, should we interpret “Unelectable” by the same logic?

            I predict that after Nov. 2, the tag “Unelectable” will be the coveted, new ticket to victory for “otherwise” credible Republicans at all levels. Palin will be able to soar to victory in 2012 by saying, “I was ‘unelectable’ before it was cool.”

            Maybe other Republicans should start scrambling to become “unelectable” while some risk still adheres to the label…

  • cactusjack

    brilliant and articulate, and has thought things out so well, even the libs and their innate sense of superiority, run for cover when he speaks or appears. And then reality sets in on certain occasions, like when Hillary was running for Pres in 2008, and – lo and behold – there’s Newt saying adoring things about her in the national press and sidling up to her for a possible cabinet job – guess he thought she was going to win. Yeah, it’s kind of sad but have to remember it whenever we hear the Newt siren song.

    • snowshooze

      nt

    • mbecker908

      He has no clue about winning a political battle down and dirty and he couldn’t lead a tweaker to a pound of meth.

      I doubt I’d vote for either (Mitt or Newt) in the general.

      • Doc Holliday

        I would surely vote for them if they were our candidate. I don’t think Newt has any chance at all, and I hope it is not Romney. However, our field is severely lacking. In fact, even at the Congressional level I don’t see that many actual leaders.

        It seems the conservative resurgence truly is from the ground up. But at some point we do need a leader or two, at least someone that can articulate our message.

        • mbecker908

          hell, I voted for McCain (for Pres)…

          • Doc Holliday
          • ywhyvon1

            How’s that happen??

      • snowshooze

        Rather than vote for either.

        • acat
    • acat

      and whose time inside the beltway seems to have melted whatever brain cells he had left.

      I’m sure he’d still be fun to hang with but .. POTUS candidate? Really? If we can’t do better than ol’ Newt, conservatives are in *real* trouble.

      Mew

      • finaljeopardy

        The Republicans he brought into the majority are the reason we lost in 2006.

  • ywhyvon1

    who just might make a half way decent president. This is scary we can’t come up with one.

    • aesthete

      to be President would see themselves as fit to lead the free world. That’s the frightening part of the cult of the Presidency that’s sprung up: the grueling campaign pace and tenor, and the hubris required to think oneself a shoo-in to “lead” 300 million people all but guarantees that none but the most awful narcissists will run for the office.

      • ywhyvon1

        Tie him/her to the saddle if we have too.