« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Retreating from the Individual Mandate

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  April 19th, 2010 at 06:30 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Conservative eyebrows have been raised over the past few weeks over Mitt Romney’s defense of the individual mandate in the health care legislation. He has on more than one occasion sought to claim the idea as his own.

Perhaps we can now be done with that.

Over the weekend a conservative blogger named Kavon Nikrad confronted Romney and asked if he supported repeal of the individual mandate. Nikrad says Romney told him bluntly, “No.”

Today, writing in the Washington Post, the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Moffit repudiates the individual mandate on behalf of the Heritage Foundation.

For the record, we think that the law’s federal mandate is unconstitutional. Our legal center, led by former attorney general Edwin Meese III, notes that Congress has no authority to force an American to buy any good or service merely as a requirement of being alive.

Yes, in the early 1990s, we, along with other prominent conservative economists, supported the idea of such a mandate. It seemed the only way to solve the “free-rider” problem, in which individuals can, under federal law, walk into any hospital emergency room nationwide and rack up big bills at taxpayer expense.

Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective.

This afternoon, Mitt Romney’s spokesman also tells the Politico that Governor Romney too does want full repeal, including repeal of the individual mandate.

Good all around.

Tags: ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • izoneguy

    I don’t know who his advisors are?

    But Mitt should have been out front one year ago.

    He needs to admit that his healthcare plan in Mass.
    was a disaster and that ObamaCare would be a disaster X 50.

    With 2.5 years until Nov 2012 – Mitt needs to have a
    revelation – even then I think it is too late for him.

  • NeoKong

    “Mitt Romney has been very clear in all his public statements that he is opposed to a national individual mandate. He believes those decisions should be left to the states.”

    Oh right….and when it was up to him he wanted a mandate.
    He has about as much credibility on this as Obama has when he talks about success in Iraq.
    Mitt would make a good cabinet member but he should not run again because if he gets nominated once again we will all have to hold our nose and vote for not Obama.

  • jederrick

    We need to keep focus here. I do not believe there is an overall problem with Mass having their healthcare plan. It may succeed or it may fail, but it is at the state level and as such is up to the citizens of the Commonwealth of Mass.

    The problem I have with the healthcare plan is that is huge overstep of the legal framework for the Federal Government. It is not authorized by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etcetera and as such should not be allowed to be enacted. Who can stand in the way? The states and the citizens of the states. I understand that the exact is or is not authorized will be debated in the courts.

    My position, and I believe this is consistent with our countries founders, would be that if a state or local government would wish to enact such legislation by popular vote and not infringe on the rights of individuals then so be it. I am personally challenged to understand how that could be done even at a local level without infringing on an individual’s rights, but the immediate issue is ensuring that the 10th amendment, states rights, and liberty are not infringed.

  • wtpct

    What Stimulus did to Charlie Crist Romneycare will do to Mitt. The days of hold your nose voting may be over. I don’t support the Tea Party becoming a third party but nothing could bring that about quicker than a Republican “hold your nose” candidate.

  • cabanon

    He’s a serial flip-flopper, first his position on abortion and now with obama/romneycare

  • throwback59

    he’d be our best shot in ’12, but how can I support him if he’s so squishy on such an important issue?

  • Flagstaff

    This was the last straw. No matter what he meant, it’s another error in his approach to campaigning, and if he meant to say what was reported, he’s simply wrong. If he didn’t mean it, why say it? He no longer has my support. I wish I knew who does.

  • carlsbadd

    Mitt seems to be coming on strong with his new book and taking all the talking points to whoever will listen and but his book.

    He blames the Mass health care mess on the legislation and that he could not veto the final bill , blah ,blah.

    I agree with wtpct above he is a “hold your nose” candidate.

    He has a place but not as President. I don’t trust him at all.

    His new found conservative positions are too little to late. He is another slickster we don’t need.

  • carlsbadd
  • carlsbadd
  • michiganwolverine

    Rubio really did not need Romney’s endorsement as Romney was late to the party on that. Then Rubio gets asked about Romneycare and has to defend it.

    Are we going to watch all the conservatives defend Romney for the next 2 1/2 years just because they think Romney’s money can help the republicans win?

    Or is there going to be a conservative who stands up to Romney and says good try, you were wrong, and I can do better. If you find that person, that’s who I want to vote for in 2012.

  • merryj1

    It would be nice if losing candidates (Romney, McCain, etc.) would refrain from becoming perpetual candidates.

    Romney’s endorsement of an individual mandate would prevent me from EVER voting for him (at best, I’d vote against his opponent, but if the opponent wasn’t intolerable, I’d sit on my hands) — even though there is a big difference between a state’s mandate and a similar federal law (I could and would relocate over a state line if my state passed such a law), the “mandate mindset” is very troubling in any government official.

    In the case of ObamaCare, the Congressional reliance on the Commerce Clause for Constitutionality is, at best, puzzling: The Commerce Clause allows Congress to legislate/regulate interstate commerce, but one of the high-profile “problems” with health insurance cost is that citizens of one state cannot purchase insurance from another state. If there is no “interstate commerce” allowed in health insurance purchasing, how on earth can the Commerce Clause be invoked?

  • acat

    Pre-grappin’-cisely.

    While I don’t begrudge Mitt the right to grow and change his mind as he does so, I would much rather have a candidate who is already a mature conservative individual.

    Such a mature conservative recognizes that abortion is murder because it denies the right of a person (unborn) to his or her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Yes, it may inconvenience the mother, but unwed mothers have been around since the dawn of the species, and there are a variety of strategies to handle it that don’t involve aborting.

    Such a mature conservative recognizes that the government has no right to mandate that a person purchase something simply because they are alive, for this is a violation of liberty, and that government cannot be the single-payer for health care because that forces doctors into government serfdom.

    Mitt blew both of these, as well as losing the nomination to McCain. If Mitt couldn’t beat John “It’s my turn” McCain …

    Mew

  • donnybrooke

    Good! Now start shoveling…

    I was not for Romney before I was not for Romney.
    If this is the best we can do, then we really are lost.

  • red_baron

    You, a decidedly non-fan of Mitt’s, are preaching to the choir here.

    And you are being rather dishonest at the same time.

    “Conservative eyebrows have been raised over the past few weeks over Mitt Romney?s defense of the individual mandate in the health care legislation. He has on more than one occasion sought to claim the idea as his own.”

    Quotes are wonderful things. Sources are too. Quotes taken in context are too. Romney has NOT defended the individual mandate in the federal legislation. But feel free to put words in his mouth. He has been perfectly clear supporting the repeal of Obamacare and in support of the lawsuit filed by the various states.

    “Perhaps we can now be done with that.”

    I think my previous paragraph applies here.

    “Over the weekend a conservative blogger named Kavon Nikrad confronted Romney and asked if he supported repeal of the individual mandate. Nikrad says Romney told him bluntly, ‘No.’”

    Once again quotes are useful. As are links to the original blog and not Politico. Unless it is common practice to use the interpretation of the interpretation of someone else’s words. If you had linked to the original piece you would see the updates from Nikrad regarding this story.

    “This afternoon, Mitt Romney?s spokesman also tells the Politico that Governor Romney too does want full repeal, including repeal of the individual mandate.”

    While technically correct, this is a willful and obvious misinterpretation of Fehrnstrom’s statement projecting a flip flop, throughout your write up, which isn’t there.

    “Good all around.”

    Well not quite.

  • creditman

    He may be “lookin good” according to BO but he’s a flake.

    He led Mass. to get screwed up in a “healthcare for everyone” program. Now they have a mess. Believe it or not, the governor DuVal will be evaluating health procedures. Your poor folks in Mass. I feel for you. I hope you are all in the correct political party.

    The time for Mitt has passed. He may have been the right person several cycles ago, however not now.

  • partyof1

    I wouldn’t vote for Romney in any election after the Romneycare debacle. Say what you want about states having the right blah blah.. I don’t care if he disavows the individual mandate. Don’t listen to what he SAID, look at what he DID.

    Good all around?

    Romney is not a conservative.

  • rfpzzzzz

    To be fair, I don’t think Romney ever supported the individual mandate in the Federal program. Romneycare had a state mandate and from what I have heard him say , he thought the states should have the freedom to come up with their own plans.
    If the population of a particular state wants to try certain ideas, I believe the 10th amendment allows that .

    I do not know enough about MASS and what led up to their legislation but if their citizens wanted to try it , I am not sure that is anybody’s elses business (other than over the Fed money they might have taken to do it).

    With that said, I have not heard him be very clear on what happened in MASS other than to say it worked while it does not appear to have.
    From a 10th amendment standpoint , it seems to have worked as intended. MASS was a loser that no other state wants to try and if Obama was sane he would not take a state failed project and extend it to 49 other states.

  • Jim

    He may split hairs and try to distinguish between state and federal level on this issue, but it is statements like this that reveals his true view of the role of government in our lives.

    As far as I am concerned…

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    It wasn’t until a minute later that I realized I was listening to a commercial on Erick’s show, of which I had just clicked on. And it fit!

    Now I’ll listen to the real thing.

  • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

    I always think of Barney Frank.

  • http://www.suvstrategery.blogspot.com SoFiMil

    Is the entire reality show like that? That’s so bad, it’s funny good.

    Romneycare. Can you say flip-flop?

  • lynnwalker

    I wouldn’t rely too much on Romney’s position on individual mandates today . . . he will probably change it tomorrow.

  • aesthete

    I’m glad to see that the Heritage Foundation has repudiated its original support for the individual mandate, and has manned-up and said “we were wrong”.

    Would that Mitt would learn from their example and say that he was wrong on RomneyCare.