This isn’t a flash back. This is today. Mitt Romney is again declaring the foundation of Obamacare, the individual mandate, “conservative.”
To be sure, it is conservative that one takes responsibility for their own healthcare. But the conservative solution is not to force Americans to buy a product. Forcing Americans, through penalty of law, into purchasing or refraining from purchasing a product is not and will never be conservative.
What’s conservative? Well, if the person doesn’t want insurance, don’t let them get out of paying their medical bills through bankruptcy. But forcing them to buy insurance? Not only is it not conservative, we can see in Massachusetts that health care costs have continued to go up as has the cost of government.
So not only is Mitt Romney‘s plan not conservative, it does not even work.
By the way, for those who want to obfuscate on the federalism issue, yes, this is a federalist issue. It is perfectly legitimate for Massachusetts under its constitution to do this when it is not permissible for the federal government to do it under Article I, Section 8. But just because something is constitutional or not does not make it conservative. Constitutional and conservative are not exactly the same things.
Moe Lane
Dan McLaughlin
Dan Spencer
Jeff Emanuel
Neil Stevens
Good thing I wasn't drinking coffee
goodgovernance Wednesday, December 28th at 12:57PM EDT (link)Otherwise I would have spewed it all over my screen when I read this.
Responsibility to cover your health is conservative!
geotan Wednesday, December 28th at 10:32PM EDT (link)If I earn 75K per annum and get sick and don’t have health insurance, why shouldn’t I have paid into the private health system so that the costs can be more reasonalbe for everyone? If I drive a car the government mandates car insurance. It’s the responsible and conservative thing to do. We live in a modern world where health care is a much more important part of our lives than it was in the 1930s.
your theory has holes in it...
marktx Wednesday, December 28th at 10:45PM EDT (link)First of all, what the mandate in Massachusetts has done is RAISE the cost of insurance, not lower it. And on a national scale, there will be around 35 million new people in the system once ObamaCare is fully implemented. That will drive costs even higher than they are today.
The mandate was never a tool to drive down the cost of healthcare. Rather, the mandate was implemented to increase profits for the health insurance companies to offset their own costs in providing added government benefits on private policies.
Not exactly following your logic, geotan.
barry915barry (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 10:57PM EDT (link)I would suggest that in the example you use, you are not really “paying into the private health system so costs can be more reasonable for everyone”, so much as you would simply be choosing to purchase a product offered by a second party at a mutually agreeable price. This private health product is offered, generally, at a profit by the 2nd party. Your purchase price is affected by many variables. Your purchase may or may not impact the ability of said party to then offer its products to others so that it can be more reasonable (price) for everyone. It occurs to me that companies are in business to make a product. They price based up M&L costs, and other variable and fixed costs of doing business. That may or may not include the desire to expand the offerings to include products that are ” more reasonable for everyone”.
Your second argument is not apples to apples. Car insurance, where required by the state, is only mandatory IF you purchase a car,and IF you drive on the public right of way. How does that compare to a voluntary purchase of a private health product? How does that equal conservative? Please explain. Thanks, Barry.
No insurance
spolson Thursday, December 29th at 9:04AM EDT (link)I don’t know about your state but most do not require you to have Auto insurance only that you prove you have financial responsibility. You can post a bond instead.
If I drive a car the State government mandates auto insurance not the Federeal government.
ihateliberals Thursday, December 29th at 9:21AM EDT (link)Plus if I don’t drive a car i don’t have to buy insurance. being conservative means taking care of yourself not being forced to do it. Once you put force into the mix it is not longer a conservative position itis a socialistic position. If you can tell or see the difference then no wonder this country is in danger of destruction.
spoison is correct regarding a state insurance mandate
edintexas Thursday, December 29th at 10:31AM EDT (link)Some states may require the purchase of insurance, but I believe most only require proof of financial responsibility. That requirement can be met by purchasing insurance at least in an amount equal to the minimum required, or posting a bond sufficient to meet the state financial responsibility statute’s requirement.
What is wrong with this guy?
jonerik Wednesday, December 28th at 1:02PM EDT (link)Or, more to the point, what is wrong with us, Republican Primary voters, that we even entertain the thought of Romney as our standard-bearer?
I have been saying this all along.
suzieQ (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:59PM EDT (link)Romney did not get pushed into “frontrunner status” by some unseen magical force. Intrade is predicting 71% chance he will win the GOP nomination. This is the guy republican primary voters are choosing. The question is why?
– Meh – Romney. I guess we’re stuck with him.
He is the only one who has shown plausibility
wingnut43 Wednesday, December 28th at 3:29PM EDT (link)Mittens is the only one who has money and organization, looks and sounds Presidential (don’t underestimate this factor), and also has any plausibility of getting the votes of Independents. Gingrich bombed out of the starting gate, shares Romney’s position on healthcare, and is now trying to make up lost ground, Perry was a complete flop in the debates, Huntsman never caught fire, Santorum has an 18 point loss in 2006 on his record, Paul is a nut, and Bachmann completely flubbed up the debt limit fight which made her totally toxic to Independents. All other plausible seasoned pros (like Barbour) did not run. Mittens wins by default.
The only possible dark horse here is Huntsman.
We are being fooled by the pros
spolson Thursday, December 29th at 9:17AM EDT (link)The kings of deceit and trickery, otherwise known as the Democrats, have teamed with the press and told us over and over that Romney is the only viable candidate. He says very little. Straight from the Nazi play book, “if you repeat a lie over and over it becomes the truth”.
We need to press on with Rick Perry and admit he isn’t a great speaker and that is the opposite of most despots in history or in office now. We have only to look at our current mistake to realize that be a great speaker is not a great leader. Perry can go on his record.
Yes, the pros are taking us for a ride, but here is how we combat that...
heraklios Thursday, December 29th at 9:39AM EDT (link)Just don’t play ball. Just say, I WILL NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, VOTE FOR MITT ROMNEY, and stick to it. Either don’t vote for President or vote third party if there is osmeone you can live with. Let the GOP and the country takes its medicine and come back to fight again in 2014 and 2016. Maybe by then, the Establishment will realize it can’t take us for granted.
Here’s what else I would do:
Secure your own personal finances by hedging against the terrible inflation that will necessarily come our way in the next 5-10 years because of Obama’s policies.
Cut out all necessary spending. The Wall Street/D.C. Establishment depends on consumer spending to keep the spigot of revenue and government spending going.
Cut back to a minimalist lifestyle. Use your spare cash to buy reasonably priced land, precious medals, and other assets that will retain their value in an inflationary environent.
Cut out all consumer debt. If you can’t pay cash for stuff, don’t buy it. The Wall Street/D.C. plutocracy depends on our borrowing and spending beyond our means to keep their racket going.
Don’t help the oligarchy that controls our government in any way. Don’t participate in government programs in any way. Withdraw to your family, friends and church. Don’t join the military; instead let the sons and daughters of the Wall Street oligarchs serve since they are getting all the benefits from the present system. Since an elite group of D.C. and Wall Street politicians and financiers is reaping the benefits now of America, let their sons and daughters go to Afghanistan to be shot at rather than your’s or mine. Fair is fair. If the D.C./WallStreet Establishment wants to exclude ordinary people from participating in their government, then let’s respond by declining to participate in their system until they return our government to us.
That is what I have to say.
Vote Rick Perry, but if you can’t, vote for anyone but Mitt Romney.
This is a gift to conservatives
kindredsoul Wednesday, December 28th at 1:07PM EDT (link)Conservative, to me, means getting government off my back. It does not mean requiring me to buy something I may or may not want. If this is Romney’s idea of “conservative”, I think Newt, the Ricks and Michelle just got another opening. Merry Christmas, guys. Have at this. PLEASE.
Gift to Rick Perry
CarolT (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:23PM EDT (link)I told my brother how disappointed I was that Rick Perry announced with such great conservative support and now he’s considered a second tier candidate by the Fox media. I think Romney just helped Rick Perry with this clip.
Perry is dead on this issue too
Mensch Wednesday, December 28th at 1:35PM EDT (link)Since he forced 12 year old girls to get STD shots. Perry forced himself into the 2nd-3rd tier with his debate performances and his “you don’t have a heart” comments. He’s barely registering in NH and only rarely polls in double digits in Iowa.
I disagree
kindredsoul Wednesday, December 28th at 1:41PM EDT (link)At this point in the primary season, Rick Perry has learned from missteps and is a consistent conservative voice. Mitt Romney, who has been campaigning for President for years, has on the eve of the Iowa caucuses reminded me (and others commenting on this post) once again just why we’re so uncomfortable with him: he is not a conservative. Perry is getting better. You would think that Romney would be, too. I hope this gift proves to be the one that keeps on giving to Rick Perry and the other conservative candidates.
Too little, too late
Mensch Wednesday, December 28th at 1:56PM EDT (link)I agree he’s getting better, but it’s too late for that. Look at these NH numbers: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/nh/new_hampshire_republican_presidential_primary-1581.html
Even SC, which should be a strong state for him, he looks very weak. All the anti-Romney’s are going to Gingrich there: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/sc/south_carolina_republican_presidential_primary-1590.html
If Perry were to do well in Iowa his NH and SC numbers
davesinsanantonio (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 5:18AM EDT (link)would improve immediately.
If he does well in those two then Fla. improves immediately.
Etc.
Blah,blah,blah not the same old "forced 12 yr. old girls again.
romansdaughter Wednesday, December 28th at 1:48PM EDT (link)Good night how many posts and what not do you have to read ,,,there was an opt out and it never even was implemented. You should go join Michele Bachmann.
“I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn’t,than live my life as if there isn’t and die to find out there is.” Albert Camus
“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” Alexander Hamilton
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
” He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” Jim Elliot
Romansdaughter, please include that other States...
acat (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:57PM EDT (link)IIRC including California, Minnesota, and New Jersey, have mandated vaccinations for other “socially transmitted” diseases, and some have mandated Gardasil specifically .. with tougher-to-navigate opt-out than Texas has.
To this cat, there’s not much daylight between mandating vaccines for hepatitis B and HPV. While it’s true that hep-b is communicable in ways other than the way HPV is transmitted, it’s clearly a similar “spread through socially frowned upon activity” disease… so where’s the outcry?
Regarding HPV, the latest science shows that it causes cancers and other problems for males as well as females. Nastier than initially thought, needs to be wiped out, even if the idea of vaccinating little angels for an STD is distasteful.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Acat.. you were right about this horse months ago...
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:01PM EDT (link)It was kicked completely to glue…and it still get’s up.
I guess the memo never got out.
Just call me acatsandra.
acat (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:08PM EDT (link)(cheshire grin)
——
Caveat Suffragator
That's right Acat....that is what turned me off...
romansdaughter Wednesday, December 28th at 2:09PM EDT (link)among other things to Bachmann cause she voted for it in Minnesota. Yes, I was totally remiss in not mentioning other states. Well I am down here in a 3rd world country and I have been vaccinated for everything about…so to me vaccines are a must.
“I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn’t,than live my life as if there isn’t and die to find out there is.” Albert Camus
“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” Alexander Hamilton
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
” He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” Jim Elliot
BLAH, BLAH, BLAH is Right
quill67 (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:58PM EDT (link)This is what killed the Bachman campaign. When she went on attacking Perry over a law that WAS NEVER IMPLEMENTED. NOT A SINGLE SHOT WAS GIVEN. Bachman is very intelligent and forceful, but she gets on these attacks that make no sense. Like when she attacked Gingrich for being “pro choice” A man with a 98% pro-life record? Really? And the only vote they did not like was welfare reform (I’m sure Democrats put something in to try to stop it)?
Blah, blah, blah = ignoring the facts
Mensch Wednesday, December 28th at 2:03PM EDT (link)Just because the legislature kept him from implementing this doesn’t change Perry’s very unconservative position on the issue. Good night indeed.
@Mensch - do you WANT little girls to get preventable cancers?
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:09PM EDT (link)Because that’s about all I can read from your objection to the OPTIONAL vaccinations proposed by Gov. Perry.
And what of Perry's statements indicating he understands he fouled up, Mensch?
acat (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:10PM EDT (link)One of the things I want in a candidate is someone with a flexible enough mind to learn from errors.
Newt seems a little dazzled by his own brilliance; Romney seems determined to stick to his guns, Alamo-style; Santorum seems hidebound; Bachmann and Paul are off their rockers…
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Exactly
kindredsoul Wednesday, December 28th at 3:17PM EDT (link)Perry admitted his mistake on the Gardasil kerkuffle and walked back the heartless remark, too. By contrast, Romney is doubling down on the individual mandate. I appreciate his being consistent — at least on this issue. It clarifies the stakes.
Look, I’m not a single issue voter but Obamacare crystallizes so many of the things that are wrong with this President and his Administration. Many Americans (i.e., non-Republicans) agree. Do we really want a candidate who can’t take on the President effectively on this easy-to-understand issue because the candidate, ahem, did the same thing in Massachusetts? Why should we cede the argument by settling for a candidate who can’t stand up for individual liberty when it counts? Isn’t it much more effective when a candidate can say “see what I did in my state/county/city; it worked, and I’m going to do it for America, too.” Romney is reduced to — “I know I did that for my state; it sorta worked/sorta didn’t; but take me at my word that I won’t do it to the rest of America . . . except that I might because the individual mandate is ‘conservative.’”
Wha?
Opting Out is a Mandate
nomonk Thursday, December 29th at 6:00PM EDT (link)Any time ti government imposes on the free will of the people it is Mandated.
The Government of Texas could have offered to all young parents this option by saying “Here it is. It’s free if you want it but NO they say if you don’t opt out you will get it.
Really this is FREEDOM or Government MANIPULATION.
Nomon R. Kennedy, laird, CFCR, AR VET, RET
East Tennessee Conservatives for Action, Chairman
Stop With The Lies...Nobody Forced Anybody
carolynr Wednesday, December 28th at 2:12PM EDT (link)Can we for just this nomination season tell the truth. Mensch…the Gardasil vaccination was defeated by the State Congress. BESIDES…NOBODY CAN FORCE ANYBODY WITH AN OPT OUT. What is it about your Paulbots or Obama nuts cases that you cannot understand about opt-outs and mandates that cannot coexist.
If you are a Bachmann supporter…these poor little innocent girls needed to have the shot at that young age…because it does not work if they are sexually active. So…would Michelle…with all her 27 kids be willing to allow them to get cancer…just asking.
Facts Please
edintexas Thursday, December 29th at 10:43AM EDT (link)While Perry really ticked me off with the EO, not one single child was forced to get the shots. The Legislature eliminated the EO before it was applied. And Perry has admitted he was wrong, which Mittens has not. And now Mittens has doubled down on “this issue”.
Sadly, the MSM constantly telling the folks on the couch that Mittens is the Republican “Won” is having the intended effect.
You are correct that Perry’s debate performance (except the last one) was an unforced error, and if debate is a primary Presidential task we should base our selection on debate performance. It isn’t and we shouldn’t.
Not so
spolson Thursday, December 29th at 9:20AM EDT (link)He didn’t force anyone to get shots, They could opt out at will. It is that way in almost every state. That is a non issue.
Willard doesn't even know what the word conservative means.
romansdaughter Wednesday, December 28th at 1:24PM EDT (link)Come on Rick Perry shut him down.
“I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn’t,than live my life as if there isn’t and die to find out there is.” Albert Camus
“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” Alexander Hamilton
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
” He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” Jim Elliot
Yep; And, here are some other things that are "conservative"
conservativecurmudgeon (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:26PM EDT (link)Shutting Down Coal Fired Power Plants is “conservative”: After all, we want to “conserve” the coal, right?
Adding New Cabinet-level Departments: This is obviously Conservative, because these Departments would hire individual bureaucrats, and we’re all for “individuals”, right?
Adding dozens of Executive Level “Czars”. After all, the first “Czars” preceded the Bolshevik communists, and, conservatives are against Communists, right?
Expanding the overall role of the Federal Government: This is conservative because the Founders invented the Federal Government, and, we’re all FOR the founders, right?
Actually, Mao was probably a limited government “conservative”, once you think about it. After all, he was a “Red”, and this, like John Boehner’s “one-third of one half of the Government”, “Red” is one-third of Red, White and Blue.
You jest
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 8:52PM EDT (link)but I have heard many of those arguments used by center-rightists in defense of Romney. The squishy center punditry truly is execrable.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
we are hosed
northernrockiesguy Wednesday, December 28th at 1:29PM EDT (link)Don’t know if I can hold my nose long enough to vote for this guy if he’s our candidate. Very depressing. Neither Prozac or Wild Turkey will bring me out of this funk.
I can't hold my nose to vote for Romney
dukeroyal Thursday, December 29th at 12:10AM EDT (link)Romney is simply Obama with an R behind his name. I will not vote for him under any circumstances.
What A Distortion of Reality
geotan Thursday, December 29th at 12:22AM EDT (link)Dukeroyal needs to do some more homework. Romney was a fiscal conservative in Massachuseutts which is a fact. However much you may disagree with this fact, Romney’s record is no where near what Obama has done as a liberal socialist. Also, this irrational segment that purports to not support Romney and therby give Obama 4 more years to finish ruining the country, is irrational, destructive and crazy to say the least! Romney’s vision of America is limited government, getting spending under control, strong defence and tax relief. How pray tell, is that not conservative? It’s one thing to support another candidate but to say you are not going to vote for him because he is exactly like Obama only serves to show your ignorance of the facts. You are confusing your legitimate distrust of some of his more social positions with the actual record of governance and the clearly articulated vision. You are essentially saying that Romney is a bold faced pathological liar! Take a closer look at Romney’s fiscal positions in Massachuseutts before your irrationality deepens further.
Instead of asking questions, geotan, how about you start answering them.
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 12:24AM EDT (link)Like, just for starters, why did Romney appoint so many pro-abort dems to the bench?
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Romney Judicial Picks Massachuseutts
geotan Thursday, December 29th at 12:56AM EDT (link)I’ll give you my take on Romney’s judicial picks for lower level and higher level courts if you first tell me what the process was to pick judges in Massachuseutts. By the way, I answered your other question regarding some of the taxes Romney lowered.
Yes, yes, we know, geotan. "Romney couldn't fix the process".
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 12:59AM EDT (link)Judges were presented, he had a choice of picking them or not, the board that did the picking was remarkably Dem-centric.
So what?
*Leave the damn seats empty until they send through a conservative!*
Know where I got that strategy? It’s the one the Dems on the Senate Judiciary Committee use.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Romney's "Dem-Centric Judicial Board"
geotan Thursday, December 29th at 11:10AM EDT (link)Yes, Acat, you answered your own question as to why Romney and the Democratic Board picked more Democrats than Republicans. Do you not agree that introducing the nominating process as a measure to eliminate activist judges was the best he could do under the circumstances? If not, tell me how he could have picked conservative judges without having them struck down by the Democratic board? What would Perry have done if he were Gov. of Massachuseutts? Not a thing differently.
Wrong, geotan. Sometimes doing nothing is the right answer.
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:18AM EDT (link)Romney’s failure was in not doing nothing.
The result was a weaker Massachusetts GOP, more entrenched Dems, and getting his own carcass run out of office.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Romney Judicial Picks
geotan Thursday, December 29th at 7:37PM EDT (link)If that’s your best argument then we will have to agree to disagree. Looks like Romney is positioned to finish strong in Iowa despite the Daisy Cutters being levelled at him for 5 years. Says a lot about the wisdom of people to see through the garbage.
geotan, I hope you enjoy Barry O's inaugeration next Jan
heraklios Thursday, December 29th at 8:55PM EDT (link)Because your man isn’t going anywhere. Daisy cutters? Romney’s gotten such a free pass from the media, he’s almost as teflon as Barry O. Of course, as soon as he has the nomination, all hell will break loose….
The only way BarryO will be inaugurated next Jan will be
Ann_W (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 10:03PM EDT (link)if short sighted, thick skulled folks like yourself stay home because they didn’t get their dream candidate.
“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” Ronald Reagan
What Articles Are You Reading?
geotan Thursday, December 29th at 11:38PM EDT (link)Romney has been bombarded for years by many different people all over the political spectrum. Every day there is an article on RCP criticizing Romney. This goes to show how biased you are that you can’t even see the obvious. Your gamble that Obama will win and a real conservative will save the day in 2016 is foolish becauase the country will be lost by then. I know that’s apocalyptic but I believe very likely.
I will....
jlsankot Thursday, December 29th at 8:08AM EDT (link)hold my nose and vote for Romney if he is the nominee.
There is absolutely no way we will ever survive another 4 years of obama.
How about if we work to get a majority in the Senate as well as the House. That could stop Romney from any liberal actions.
A Republican Senate and House
edintexas Thursday, December 29th at 10:53AM EDT (link)A Republican Congress didn’t stop No Child, or Medicare Part D either. In fact, it probably helped pass them as the Republicans lined up to support a President from their party.
If Mittens is the nominee, and by some fluke should win over the scorched earth campaign Dear Leader, George Soros, the Democrats and the far Left (multiple repetition there) put on, we might be faced with a similar situation where Republicans again line up to support Social Democrat policies simply because there is an ostensibly Republican President.
And if Dear Leader wins, and we have a Republican Congress, I expect he will give Congress the finger and issue Signing Statements left and … uhh … Left.
Don't Worry About President Romney
geotan Thursday, December 29th at 7:40PM EDT (link)As I have said, he is clearly positioned himself as a center right candidate with a clear conservative vision for the country. In addition, he recognizes the seriousness of the economy and the perilous condition it is in, which could go the way of Greece, and will respond accordingly.
As I said on weaselzippers, I am warming up to Romeny as President.
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 7:43PM EDT (link)Because he could pretend to be Reagan, and we could all pretend to be inspired.
jake- When I read the title to your comment
Scope (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 7:57PM EDT (link)on the recent comments thread, my first thought was Oh no, no Jake. Good thing I looked further to you actual comment, and didn’t take you out of context.
Thanks for giving me a chance, Scope!
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 8:01PM EDT (link)If I ever support a RINO, then the fever will have reached my brain, and I’ll have to be destroyed.
Except that he won't
windwaker24 Thursday, December 29th at 8:01PM EDT (link)If you noticed in these past couple of days, Romney has gotten very sure of himself that now he starting to spout off non-conservative ideas (Obamacare is conservative, VAT, etc.). If he becomes the nominee, he will spit on the base, knowing that they will probably vote for him anyway. If he is elected, Romney will completely ignore conservatives and probably work with Democrats. I don’t believe he will repeal Obamacare. Just last year on video he said that he would keep the “good parts” of the bill. The guy is a jerk of the highest order and is not to be trusted!
jlsankot, DON'T DO IT
heraklios Thursday, December 29th at 8:58PM EDT (link)That is what the Establishment is counting on. Good conservatives saying, “I have to hold my nose and vote Romney…we can’t take another 4 years of obama” Trust me, in 5 years the sun will still rise, the GOP Establishment will be in tatters, and a real conservative movement will finally have a chance. Don’t fall for their blackmail. Just say NO
Good Grief! This man might say anything!
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:31PM EDT (link)He’d have a better chance if someone, anyone.. would please duct tape his mouth shut.
I shall await with pleasure, the return fire.
Gift is right.
Is Massachussetts collecting a larger share of Federal money
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:35PM EDT (link)Due to their increased cost of health care?
And thusly being a burden to the rest of the States? I believe I read that somewhere… I am not sure how to verify it.
What about the 1 out of 3 who Oppose?
quill67 (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:38PM EDT (link)Romney says that three people support it for every one who opposes RomneyCare. Imagine your company made an “improvement” and a third of your customers hated the “improvement”. Would we call that a success?
Of course the difference is, that no company would be “proud” of such a record because they would lose customers to competitors. Now, Massachusetts is losing customers (people), people are moving out.
Obamacare is off the table for this election, it seems.
burke Wednesday, December 28th at 2:51PM EDT (link)It’s actually 1 out of 4 who oppose Romneycare. Is that good enough for a business to be proud of? Depends on what you are selling and the business environment. In the business of democracy, I reckon 75% is pretty good. But that’s Massachusetts for you: a liberal state. I doubt 75% of Americans approve of Obamacare.
Mitt knows, if nothing else, where the wind is blowing. It seems like the Republican candidate will almost certainly not run with opposing Obamacare as a leading issue. I can’t see any candidate but Bachmann truly hammering it as the party standard-bearer. Here’s why.
First of all, this election really is all about JOBS and the economy, not a legislative battle Republicans lost what will be two years ago when the general election campaign begins in earnest.
Second of all, what “repealing Obamacare” really means is not well understood by many people, who are still using the same insurance as they always have. The candidate would have to re-explain individual mandate and why it has to be repealed. Saying something has to be repealed is a higher standard than saying it shouldn’t be passed. It’s more difficult to fight against the status quo. Also, if candidate does not want to repeal the whole thing, the candidate would have to justify why some parts should stay and why other parts have to go. The press would certainly wait and listen for gotcha moments on that last point.
Third, it’s fundamentally negative issue, which might not resonate with voters, unless the candidate pairs it a positive vision for health care, which may well go over in a lukewarm or negative light (see the public’s reception of the Ryan plan, which was highly divided). Focusing too much on the badness of Obamacare might make the candidate seem too backward-looking. Also, given the Heritage Foundation’s former support of the proposal (and Romney’s staunch defense here, even if he is not the candidate), it highlights the supposedly “radical” nature of the Republican candidate, which might not play well with independents. It also invites thoughts of the Republican Congress, which is increasingly unpopular. A Republican candidate should be putting forward a positive, conservative vision for this country. Excessive Obamacare bashing could bog the candidate down in negativity, the past. Kerry did nothing but bash Bush’s policies, as far as I could tell, and that didn’t get him anywhere.
Fourth, whether the individual mandate sticks around is all dependent on contingencies not reasonably in the control of the candidate or even a future Republican president. The Supreme Court is going to deal with this issue next year. If the Court affirms it, the candidate will sound ready to wage war against legislation a conservative court found constitutional. Just because a law is constitutional doesn’t make it good policy — but how good is the public at knowing the difference? It would be MORE difficult to see a path through Congress for legislation to repeal; an opinion in favor of it would bolster its legitimacy as part of the status quo. And if the court strikes down the part of Obamacare which is at issue, well, then, there’s nothing to argue about, is there? It ceases to be a campaign issue at all, and would just be an outright blow to Obama (or maybe the SC – there will be a media war as to who gets blamed – a fight for independent hearts and votes). At any rate, there’s no need for the candidate to take a stand.
All this is NOT to say that Obamacare should not be repealed and replaced with better policies. However, I’ve tried to construct an argument as to why not hammering Obamacare is a credible general election strategy. I can see why a candidate would choose not to do that. I can’t see Newt or Huntsman aggressively campaigning against Obamacare. Perry might, but I’m not confident he would, either. However, Mitt is approaching Obamacare in a awkward way that is probably offensive to much of the base – he seems to be outright advocating FOR it. It strikes me as arrogant. Mitt, the primaries aren’t over!
Obamacare will STAY on the table
tailfins1959 Wednesday, December 28th at 3:04PM EDT (link)The public will get increasingly annoyed as Obamacare keeps acting like cement shoes on the economy. High unemployment will not be tolerated. Obamacare has to implode.
You have the right to quit Toxic People. (They’re contagious.) ~Dr. SunWolf
It won't be repealed
wingnut43 Wednesday, December 28th at 3:46PM EDT (link)unless the Supreme Court produces a miracle next June. And they are deciding 4 separate but related issues. Only one or two possible combinations of outcomes of the Court ‘s deliberations will effectively repeal the law, so the probability of that outcome is 1/16 or less.
If Mittens becomes President with a GOP House and a 50:50 or 51:49 Senate, there is zero chance a Reconciliation bill repealing ObamaCare will get 51 Senate votes, even if Mittens was willing to sign it – and he won’t sign it. If you repeal you have to answer the question – replace it with what? The Dems, the Media, and the lib Republicans in the Senate have enough clout to force this issue, and there is no answer. Only someone like Bachmann who would say that healthcare is a personal expense like food or clothing and should be paid out of pocket will be able to repeal, and the Media will galvanize the country against a straight-up repeal that takes away universal coverage.
How will SCOTUS uphold an individual mandate?
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:50PM EDT (link)They are going to ask the government what enumerated power this falls under, and the interstate commerce cases have been trending against the government lately.
wn43, I agree that outright repeal is implausible without SC action
burke Wednesday, December 28th at 5:47PM EDT (link)I also think there are ways that 40 members of the Senate can obstruct legislation, so it would be very difficult for a repeal act to get anywhere given Democrats, northeastern Republicans (the Maine senators, Brown if he’s still there), and independents. Also, new Republican senators taking over formerly blue states could easily play hard to get to impress their constituents.
I am also bearish on what the Supreme Court will do with Obamacare. There are many legal arguments as to why the individual mandate should be found constitutional. Respected conservative judges on the DC Circuit and the 6th Circuit have upheld it. The 6th Circuit argued that constitutionality for it follows from the reasoning in a recent Scalia concurrence, Gonzalez v. Raich (I actually haven’t read a summary of the DC opinion, it may have relied on this too, or used other reasoning, but Silberman is basically an institution). Jakeofalltrades, I’d recommend reading the Gonzalez opinion to get an idea of what an argument in favor of constitutionality would look like; it’s not that long and Justice Scalia has a very accessible writing style.
There are also legal arguments against the individual mandate, stemming from the intuition that the government can’t very well penalize someone for not doing anything (not buying health insurance in this case). It’s a argument that makes sense, but there’s a lot of precedent in practice and in law out there that would suggest that the government probably can. More troubling for me (because bad precedent can be overturned, after all) is that fact that creating a legal distinction between activity and non-activity seems pretty malleable and fuzzy, and also not particularly principled (why should the Constitution care less about taxing activity than non-activity? isn’t the main issue why the federal government is taxing people in the first place?). The Commerce Clause should be cabined more than it is under current law, but on sensical, clear grounds that lower courts can follow readily and that lawmakers can use as a reliable guide to what’s constitutional. That being said, there’s ground on which to find IM unconstitutional, and the Court is certianly better at drawing legal lines than I am. Someone more versed in the issues and more persuaded that the court will find the law unconstitutional will probably regale us all with a far better preview of the arguments closer to oral argument here on RS.
tailfins1959, hopefully Obamacare will be either overturned (despite my bearishness) by the Court, or replaced with something better before it has the chance to wreak too much havoc. We’re not done with healthcare policy legislation by a long shot (or at least I hope not!). I just don’t see opposition without a new plan as a political point-winner in the general because it’s out of the candidate’s hands at this point. He or she would need a Supreme Court opinion, or huge majorities in both houses to have a realistic ability to repeal.
With a week until Iowa, a belated Christmas gift from Willard
clowngirl (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:44PM EDT (link)He’s really getting overconfident and making stupid mistakes. Why is he previewing his General Election Campaign to disgust conservatives right before the Iowa Caucus?
And the way he and his campaign are insulting and trying to dismiss Newt as flailing ( when he still beats Willard in national polls) and treating his candidacy as a joke lowers expectations for Gingrich and effectively makes Iowa a must win for Romney (unless he comes in second to Ron Paul).
If Newt had won after Romney had treated him respectfully, it would be a blow – but one he could weather. If he wins now Romney will be humiliated.
The conventional wisdom doesn’t apply this year. If Paul and Romney take the top 2 spots and Gingrich and Perry finish 3rd and 4th (in other order) – things pretty much pretty much continue unchanged. We’ll still need a non-Romney/non-Paul nominee and both of them will still have a rationale for continuing.
But if Romney comes in third, with Newt in first or second place his bogus “inevitability” is all shot to pieces and he’ll be fighting to even hang on in New Hampshire.
Mittens is the type of person you can't stand even if you happen to agree with him (which I don't)
heraklios Wednesday, December 28th at 1:50PM EDT (link)He is smug, elitist, snobbish, greedy and totally unconcerned with how his actions affect other people.
Yeah, so?
wingnut43 Wednesday, December 28th at 3:51PM EDT (link)He is the only one with money and organization, and he looks and sounds Presidential. Lots of people don’t care about the substance. They just want to be on the winning side.
Well, that's it. I'm sold on Romney.
Bill S (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:59PM EDT (link)How could you not want to vote for the guy with that list of qualifications? Hell, we ought to elect Sam Waterston, then…he even played Abe Lincoln! Can’t get more presidential looking than that!
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
Wingnut, do you know how superficial you sound?
romansdaughter Wednesday, December 28th at 4:13PM EDT (link)If that;s all it takes then Obama fits your bill in a lot of people’s eyes.
“I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn’t,than live my life as if there isn’t and die to find out there is.” Albert Camus
“Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” Alexander Hamilton
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill
” He is no fool, who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.” Jim Elliot
Mittens is the type of person you can't stand even if you happen to agree with him (which I don't)
heraklios Wednesday, December 28th at 1:50PM EDT (link)He is smug, elitist, snobbish, greedy and totally unconcerned with how his actions affect other people.
You forgot sticky, greasy...clingy....
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:13PM EDT (link)So far as Charisma.. which I try my best to overlook..
I actually find him kinda repulsive. But I keep that out of it.
His politics suck. He isn’t committed to anything. He thinks he is in a popularity contest.
I hope his dog bit him after he recovered from that trip.
Constitutional and conservative are not the same thing
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 1:55PM EDT (link)Sometimes people forget that “conservative” and “libertarian” aren’t the same thing either.
It is an arguable point whether a state individual mandate is “never” a conservative position or not. My guess is that most self-described conservatives would agree it is bad policy. But there are some, myself included, who wouldn’t necessarily dismiss it out of hand.
If my state were to propose an individual mandate my approach would not be to immediately decry it as socialism, but instead, to say “it depends on the details.” If a state mandate is the best alternative, achieves the best outcome, and is done for the right reasons and in the right way I could see myself possibly supporting it. Again, it depends on the circumstances.
Point is that I think Erick is painting with too broad a brush here. If nothing else, I believe conservatism is a little broader than he does and if that means he wants to write me out of the conservative movement, so be it.
At the same time, as soon as I see people like Erick storming the ramparts to fight against mandatory state auto insurance requirements, or fighting to legalize drugs and prostitution, I’ll be more convinced that his outrage at Romney isn’t based more on politics than principle.
Bottom line, state or Federal government
center77 (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:08PM EDT (link)should never compel you to buy something. Now car insurence does make sense, I can choose not to drive, but the mandate is different, I cannot choose not to buy health insurance under Romney/Obama care.
My name is Timothy Bladel. I’m from Davenport, Iowa. I am a Undergraduate, Double Majoring in Journalism & Mass communication, with my other major being political science. I am conservative in nature, sometimes a tad bit libertarian; the Tenth Amendment is vital to changing this country for the better.
Mitt Romney 2012, but not without the truth of who he is.
www.timothy-bladel.com
“We the people” tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. We the people are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.” Ronald Reagan’s farewell address (January 11, 1989)
Health insurance is not so different from auto
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:27PM EDT (link)I’m on board with the “I choose not to drive” line, but the health care situation is not entirely different from your car example.
The way I see it, a state could plausibly argue, “if you ever plan (or even if you don’t plan) to use public health care services in this state, you have to pay in.” It’s a way to address the free-rider problem that arises from federal law requiring health care providers to treat ALL who come into hospitals needing care at taxpayers expense.
Some would argue we should get rid of the federal law. I agree, but then when I put my real-world hat on I have to recognize that law is probably never going away. So states are left with trying to find other remedies to the free-rider problem forced upon them by federal law.
Again, I’m not saying that an individual mandate is necessarily the only or the best option a state should take. I’m also not saying conservatives should recognize it as the best solution. But I am saying that some conservatives may find it to be an acceptable solution in some instances (which is why Heritage and many other conservatives supported it at one point in time). I’m also saying it is entirely different when a state requires it then when the federal government does it based on the simple fact that the former is constitutional and the latter is not.
Insurance does not equal health care.
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:32PM EDT (link)Those are entirely seperate of each other.
When I was in my 20′s and bulletproof…I couldn’t afford insurance on my pickup. Scarcely held it together at all. I never even thought about health insurance.
Guess what. When I went to see the Doctor… I paid in cash.
And I did pay.
But that is just me… apparently.
Self-pay is indeed the Conservative response to the Free Rider problem, but
YnotNOW (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 4:08PM EDT (link)cbs does have a point that the requirement to treat “all” is not going to go away. And just try to collect from most “self pay” patients (spoken by one who has tried). So the free rider problem will continue to plague us.
Not that an unconstitutional mandate is the correct response to the problem, but any “improvement” of the healthcare system has to acknowledge that the Government has already mucked it up in ways that the free market cannot correct.
YnotNOW
If not me, who? If not now, when?
That's why young people should be able to get cheap catastrophic coverage.
tomatin Wednesday, December 28th at 7:45PM EDT (link)If you crashed your little pickup truck back then, the rest of us would be paying for your care no doubt.
If you could not even afford car insurance, I doubt you could afford a six figure bill after a crash.
The solution to a tiny fraction of people not buying insurance
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:32PM EDT (link)Is to either:
1) Let them die
2) Let them ride free, charging extra for paying customers
3) Force the entire population – sometimes at gunpoint – to buy health insurance
Exactly what is so bad about option #2? It seems to be best, especially since medical providers are already disinclined to turn down people who can’t pay anyway.
A mandate involves a massive government expansion to handle what is really only a problem with a tiny fraction of the population.
The individual mandate goes WAY too far. If you’re going to infringe people’s freedom, it needs to be only as much freedom as is necessary. Placing requirements on the whole population to solve a problem only a few have is morally wrong.
Except that your option 2 becomes your option 3 when ...
acat (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:35PM EDT (link)government is the one taking up the collection.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
IMO, #2 means providers take up the collection
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:41PM EDT (link)Via price markup.
Although...
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:44PM EDT (link)Maybe another arrangement could be reached with the younger indigents. If they want the doc to work for them for free, well, one good turn deserves another, and there are a million bedpans in this country that need changing several times a day…
This is the "can't pay for your dinner so wash the dishes"
nathanalbright (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 9:04PM EDT (link)…sort of solution, and that is entirely acceptable as well.
Have you ever worked in a hospital?
civildebate Thursday, December 29th at 1:08AM EDT (link)A huge amount of people that come in for medical care (especially in the ER) are the type that you don’t want to hire to do anything.
And besides, that essentially makes a hospital into a debtor’s prison work camp.
No one in the healthcare market actually likes that idea… not doctors, not nurses, not hospitals, not the insurance companies, and certainly not the unions or the patients.
And yet, hospitals cannot refuse to treat...
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 1:18AM EDT (link)which is why I propose granting hospital emergency rooms some enhanced debt collection rights.
First, the right to take biometric data (fingerprints .. they’ve already got DNA) from those with no proof of ability to pay, so they can confirm identity. (no, the don’t have to look for open warrants, but .. if the cops want to watch over the admin clerk’s shoulder, no skin off my nose)
Second, to move E.R. debt to the front of the line in recovery, i.e. they get first crack at any IRS refunds, lottery payouts, wages, settlements, etc.
The Fed have put their thumb on the scales and forced E.R.s to treat anyone who makes it through the doors. The least the Fed can do is to give hospitals some extra ability to extract payment.
(and this does so without “mandating” anything)
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
The cheapest path to health care...
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:39PM EDT (link)Goes straight to your Doctor’s office.
The more people you have between you and your Doctor, all getting paid…the less Doctor you get for your dollar.
Insurance has already artifically inflated the cost of health care to the levels it is now, and the solution is?
Of course… MORE insurance.
As if your Insurance Agent could mend a broken leg.
All he can do is empty your wallet. That might take some weight off it…
McCain's best idea may have been ending employer-paid healthcare.
acat (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 4:03PM EDT (link)May also have been picking Palin, right now it’s a tough call.
The idea of increasing the personal deduction by 5k and requiring the employer contribution to health insurance to be treated as regular income would have – overnight – changed the landscape.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Yeah, but not in a good way.
civildebate Thursday, December 29th at 1:15AM EDT (link)For example, The employer sponsored insurance market accepts everyone regardless of preconditions, the private market does not. Likewise, the employer market often gets large group rates and the private market does not.
That's bull, civildebate.
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 1:23AM EDT (link)Sorry, not feeling very “civil”.
It’s a baldfaced lie to claim both that employer-sponsored accepts everyone or that the private market doesn’t – I’ve been on both sides of that desk.
I’ve had a corporate policy reject treatment for a pre-existing condition, and I’ve also purchased private insurance that ignored several pre-existing conditions.
You’re right that the employer market gets large pool rates, but .. why can’t other existing large organizations take over the role of aggregating people into “pools” ? There are very large churches out there, what if they offer health insurance for their members? What if my bowling league wants to offer healthcare? (I’d rather pay for that than the stupid trophy!)
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Still
civildebate Thursday, December 29th at 2:30AM EDT (link)I’ll concede the first point about the preconditions…. I’ve never seen such a thing but I can accept that it very well could exist.
As far as large organizations aggregating people into pools, it’s possible that churches and such could do it but there’s not reason to believe that they’d even be able to equal the performance of a large private employer and it still makes you beholden to your membership in that particular organization. What do you do if you move to an area with no suitable church (of the right denomination) or what do you do if you’re not church going?
I doubt bowling leagues have the same longevity that a large business would have. And do you really want people signing up for your bowling league just to get the insurance?
Tying health insurance to work was essentially an incentive to get people to work for large businesses. Now that people desire to be much more entrepreneurial it makes sense to separate health insurance from employment. But the problem is that people still want to be in a huge pool.
But really this whole discussion is pointless….
The only workable solution is to have a non-profit insurance or state-by-state single payer. Many states have already gone the non-profit route (i.e. virtually all medical care in Minnesota is non-profit including the Mayo Clinic). Like it or not, people *really* like healthcare benefits and will gladly pay whatever they’re currently paying per month for private insurance toward single payer insurance.
And once people get a taste of single payer insurance they never want to leave it or change it (witness the medicare debates that don’t touch anyone already on Medicare). Free market health care is a doomed concept in general… the VA, SCHIP, Medicare, Medicaid, and several states/counties going single payer are just a slow descend into national single payer.
The “we can’t afford it” argument only works while we’re fighting off a recession. Once the economy improves or at the height of the next bubble that argument won’t work anymore and we’ll take another step towards single payer. Remember, even the GOP expanded Medicare during the last bubble.
The economy will bust again, the debt will skyrocket but they still won’t repeal the healthcare stuff they enacted during the last bubble… it’ll be political suicide.
Imo the healthcare debate is a lost cause for conservatives.
Wow. Making the socialized medicine argument.
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 10:52AM EDT (link)That’s .. nuts.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
I agree, jake
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:50PM EDT (link)Option 2 may very well be a better solution than the problems that arise with a state mandate. But it also means we just give up on addressing the free-rider problem. Giving up on the free-riders may be okay with many people, but for those conservatives who think people should pay their fair share, I could see some arguing it is right for the state to try to recoup funds from those free-riders. He may not have articulated it carefully, but I believe that is the point Romney was trying to convey.
The only difference I have with you post is that in one sense the mandate doesn’t really apply to the entire population. It only, effectively, applies to the population that doesn’t have health insurance. For most of us who already have insurance, it doesn’t change a thing.
@cbs - with the poor you can have a free a rider or a corpse
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:08PM EDT (link)Neither medicine nor society will tolerate this.
It changes it for the twenty-something invincible crowd,
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:11PM EDT (link)for people between jobs, and a million other circumstances where you shouldn’t have to fill out 100 pages of government paperwork only to be fined for lacking insurance.
It also harms innovation
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:13PM EDT (link)because if everyone is covered by mandatory health insurance, it would interfere with non-insurance coverage models such as cooperatives. The government needs to stay out of this and let the system develop organically.
If we had the worst medical system in the world, I’d concede intervention is needed. It is not.
The medical system isn't bad but the insurance system is...
civildebate Thursday, December 29th at 1:18AM EDT (link)It’s quite possibly the worst insurance system of any advanced country.
And part of that, civildebate, is because the "customer" isn't ...
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 1:33AM EDT (link)in most cases, the person receiving medical care!
The “customer” is the large corporation or the union or the government, buying a group policy for thousands or tens of thousands of people at a time.
It’s a relatively minor side effect that little mom-and-pop operations get screwed because nobody wants to service small pools.
It’s a much larger side effect that people treat health care as though it’s free, just because they don’t see the cost directly. Same complaint is true of Medicare, by the way.
This is why de-coupling insurance from employment is a good start. Get the focus on the right customers again.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
That's still ignoring the elephant in the room
civildebate Thursday, December 29th at 1:46AM EDT (link)Other countries insurance schemes hide the price from the patient too… yet they are still far cheaper. So relative to the rest of the advanced world that’s not the problem.
Small insurance polls, by definition of how insurance works, are just worse than large pools. The larger the pool, the more the risk is spread, the better.
Yes, civildebate, we know you want socialized medicine. It's interesting to note, though ...
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:01AM EDT (link)that in countries that have it – Canada, for example, or England – it hasn’t really worked all that well. (else, why have all the Canadians flooding south to use our for-profit system?)
In France, it’s not uncommon for medical hardware to be around for 50 years. Not just something like a stethoscope, an X-Ray machine! As the new X-Ray devices expose the patient to a heck of a lot less radiation than the 50 year old devices, I’d much rather be treated here!
It’s not a long-term viable system.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
The real problem is that everyone bought into the left's value system
civildebate Thursday, December 29th at 1:24PM EDT (link)with regards to health care. That’s the core issue.
Anyone can just walk into the hospitals and get treated regardless of their ability to pay. The market can not function well under those conditions and so now you must socialize the system. The same goes for universal coverage. If you believe in this lefty ideal then you need a lefty solution to create it.
Conservatives are just lying to themselves saying that their free market (righty) ideas will bring about lefty results, they won’t.
But to the points you made:
Define “hasn’t really worked all that well”? The three countries you mentioned have better outcomes than we do (Canada’s is only slightly better than us but England and especially France are way better) and do it at a much lower cost per capita.
Americans also head to Canada and other countries for medical treatment, it’s called medical tourism. For instance, Toronto is world renowned for their open heart surgery and the reimportation of prescription drugs discussion should shame every American.
In fact, one of the big stories of the NBA off-season was Kobe Bryant heading to Germany to get his knee and ankle worked on because they have an awesome procedure that we don’t have here yet.
But all of this is a red-herring because now we’ve moved from Health Insurance to Health Care Delivery.
But yes, insurance by definition is collectivist (the spreading of risk among a group). Free market for-profit health care insurance is bound to fail at providing universal coverage because universal coverage is not the most profitable business model.
So you can either have free market health care and all the pitfalls that come with that (and due to the virtually unlimited demand there will be many) or you can have some from of socialized coverage. The closer you get to universal coverage the more gov’t has to get involved, period.
There isn’t anywhere in the first world where that isn’t the case.
So if you’re a Ron Paul libertarian and believe that it’s okay if people die, go completely broke, or wait for charitable donations when they get sick then fine… but pretending that you can achieve the goals of the left (universal coverage and low out of pocket costs among others) with a non-lefty solution is just talk.
Go read what's meant by the phrase "tragedy of the commons", civildebate.
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 1:34PM EDT (link)Then tell me how the E.R. is not exactly a tragedy of the commons.
Further, tell me how socializing it makes any difference. Cite current examples from England or Canada or France.
You are right that the government has put its’ thumb on the E.R., forcing them to provide service to all.
One proposal to balance the scale is to grant the E.R. some additional abilities with regard to debt collection.
Authorize the E.R.to gather biometric data (i.e. fingerprints) for any patients without demonstrated ability to pay. The biometrics get used to determine the identity of the debtor, and to prevent the debtor from gaining certain employment without clearing the debt. If the hospital chooses to let the police look over their shoulder, that’s up to them. Most won’t.
Further, move the E.R. to the front of the line in issues of bankruptcy and garnishment of judgements, awards, lottery winnings, and income.
This involves no extra government, it uses the existing debt collection system – just a bit more aggressively – and .. if it means that some folk don’t visit the E.R. when they’re sick because they’re afraid of going into the system, c’est la vie.
Finally, and I believe this is already the case, all hospitals and doctors should be able to write off 100% of time and materials used in free clinics. This should be sufficient to care for the truly poor, and can be run on a no-questions-asked basis.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
You're right.
civildebate Thursday, December 29th at 2:58PM EDT (link)Buy why go through the process of giving them care then trying to track them down when you could just deny them in the beginning? That’s probably what the free market would do.
Socializing the system isn’t the answer, it’s the means to the answer. The answer is rationing. Your biometric solution is rationing by price. England/France/Canada/Medicare etc. ration by need.
The socialist solution often involves using a portion of the money in the system towards training an excess of doctors to reduce the need for rationing but I’m not sure how much this actually works. The only place where we know it works for sure is Cuba and obviously that’s a non-starter politically.
But let’s ignore that for a second and go back to your c’est la vie solution. How do you sell that to the public? Remember a huge portion of the people that will be denied care or tracked down by the debt collectors are actually voters. They surely won’t vote for such a system. Family members of those people likely won’t vote for it either. A lot of people who could pay but fear that they might not always be able to or that paying would significantly hurt their future prospects (lose their house, car, job, business etc.) will not vote for it either. And it will be comically easy to run human interest stories on the news every night to swing a lot of other voters too.
So how are you going to sell this to anyone that isn’t a libertarian?
I think you basically have to lie about the system and tell people that it does everything the socialist system would do (universal coverage, low out of pocket costs, preventative care etc.) because you know people like to hear that.
And that’s why I believe GOP candidates have such spotty records with regards to free market healthcare. It’s just not an easy sell or politically expedient.
Pt 2
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:18PM EDT (link)“I think you basically have to lie about [a free market] system and tell people that it does everything the socialist system would do (universal coverage, low out of pocket costs, preventative care etc.) because you know people like to hear that.”
Well, you’re right that you have to lie about universal coverage — though that’s also the case for any mixed market or government-dominated system, as well (read my other post below). I will concede that a perfectly free market system would probably not be ideal if one would prefer better outcomes for those without means. However, I do not see how one would need to “lie” to believe and attempt to convince others that a free market system would produce low out of pocket costs. (As to preventative care — who gives a rip?)
Also, the free market rations by limiting the buyers of a good to those with goods of greater perceived value to the vendor. This value is *reflected* by price in a free market. In a mixed market, the exact same thing happens — the only difference is that the price mechanism may not be the most efficient means, and that the violence employed may have transferred the ownership of certain resources, or made said ownership more ambiguous. Incentives and greed do not disappear when legal channels for the market are outlawed; they’re merely channeled into other (often less productive) uses.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
This is not the dumbest thing I've read about healthcare.
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:02PM EDT (link)It is, however, much less well thought-out than it should be.
First, we must define the loose term “universal coverage”. If you define “universal coverage” as every human within a polity having access to the exact same treatments and pharmaceuticals (or a baseline for same), then sorry, bub — no one can fulfill this promise. Government agents can shift costs and create legal impediments to allowing the market to set prices in a straightforward fashion, but there will never be symmetrical access to coverage due to real-world constraints like time, distance, etc, as well as whatever other measures can be used to account for not being able to use a straightforward pricing system. A theoretical right to an arbitrary collection of medical procedures means nothing if waiting lists, quotas and other impediments (from medical situation to distance from a hospital) prevent one from availing themselves of this purely hypothetical right. A valuable, scarce resource (doctors’ time; medical equipment, pharmaceuticals) will always be rationed: and given the profit motive and real-world constraints, it will never be rationed equally. There are some distributions which might please you more than others, but none are what one could reasonably call “universal coverage”, since none can guarantee the promise of equal access to certain scarce goods. You are exactly correct that the free market cannot attain universal coverage; you are wrong to assume that notions about (and acceptance of) collectivism, rather than real world constraints, are the problem.
Second, since you were not kind enough to provide data for your currently-unsubstantiated claim that Canada, England, and France have slightly or vastly superior health outcomes compared to the US, I have no desire to address the assertion. I will, however, note that it is sheerly idiotic to compare different populations without accounting for differences. Did you know that diet, ethnicity, social class, culture, profession, and income level are determinants in a person’s health outcomes? One would not from having read your post, where you apparently attribute the alleged superiority of health outcomes exclusively to “socialized medicine”, giving no credit (and apparently, no thought) to the effect of those, and other, variables.
This leads me to my last point: “socialized medicine” is a term which describes a cornucopia of policies whose only similarity is a political promise that every citizen will have some baseline of coverage — a promise which, as I described above, is meaningless. Hong Kong and Singapore certainly have a freer healthcare market than the US in almost every way, save the fact that they have political assurances in place which qualify them as having “socialized medicine”. France, Belgium, and many other countries are freer in many respects than the US, and certainly freer than places like the UK or Israel. When using the narrower definition of a system wherein the healthcare sector is mostly owned and managed by the government, then of the three examples that you provided, only one of them (England) qualifies as “socialized”. I will concede that conservatives are hardly innocent of using loaded and sloppy terms in the debate, but it is galling to have proponents of radical change not know what they’re actually stumping for.
In short, your entire argument rests on badly-defined and politicized terms. I would argue that recognizing the differences and subtleties in between all the flawed systems of the first world would allow you to participate in this discussion in a more substantial way.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
Problem - it won't be a small number
wingnut43 Wednesday, December 28th at 4:05PM EDT (link)The problem is that it won’t be a small number in option 2. It will be a huge minority, and at the current rate of medical inflation, it will soon become a majority.
One option is to make coverage for only truly catastrophic expenses available, but again given the huge and accelerating rate of medical inflation, it too will become unaffordable unless people are forced to buy it.
We already have Option #2
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 4:19PM EDT (link)People complain about it, but I think what we have now is better than Obamascare.
The system is working. Yes, it’s expensive – so are houses. Wanna “fix” that too? Buy everyone houses?
Another partial solution to health care
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 4:12PM EDT (link)Is to hold individules personally responsible.
Everything at least up to bankruptcy prior to any other means of funding.
You really think people would buy insurance if they got free healthcare
tomatin Wednesday, December 28th at 7:49PM EDT (link)maybe I’m missing something on #2
Option #4 - take modest stops to make people more accountable and to make insurance more of a marketplace
JSobieski (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:06PM EDT (link)Part 1: Make medical debts non-dischargeable in bankruptcy
Part 2: Provide hospitals with a special cost-effective collection process
Part 3: De-Regulate insurance market so that High deductible low premium insurance is a viable option in every state
Part 4: Allow truly minimal insurance coverage to be sold (i.e. just insure against future pre-existing conditions—allow young people to buy insurance against a change in medical status that would constitute a pre-existing condition after the fact
Part 5: Neutral tax treatment for individual insurance so that the market will migrate away from employer-based insurance
This option is superior to the previously listed 3 options. It would also dovetail well with transforming Medicare and Medicaid into definte contribution plans
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
5!
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:15PM EDT (link)with the only modification being the medical debt thing. It should be dischargeable after a period of time.
There’s already precious little entrepreneurial ability in this economy, and non-dischargeable debts cut it further.
JSob, I'm wondering if maybe the states have
lineholder (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:17PM EDT (link)had an opportunity handed to them that they aren’t necessarily aware of at the moment. You remember a few weeks back when it is was discovered that the legislation didn’t include a funding mechanism for the federal public health insurance exchange? But it does include a mechanism for the feds to provide funds to the state to set up their own exchange.
Then, about a week ago, Sebelius came out with the one of the “Secretary will determine” decisions that passes the responsibility down to the states to define “acceptable health insurance”. This was meant as a way to bypass the lack of federal funding and get to more states proactively involved in setting up their own exchange (because a lot of them haven’t been willing to touch it until SCOTUS makes a decision).
Normally, the states would go ga-ga over something like this (think earmark on sterioids). But what if states that wanted to keep it more along the lines of free-market enterprise and set up a cost-effective system within their state took this one on, at least enough so that they could put a system into place if need be, and approached it with as much creativity and ingenuity as they chose? (Remember O’Leary’s video?)
I think states could find out they have a lot more options than they think they have.
kowalski, it's not "acceptable health insurance", it's
lineholder (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:46PM EDT (link)“essential health benefits”. It’s noted in this article.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/23/sebelius_masterful_muddle_112506.html
and see this quote at the end
lineholder (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:51PM EDT (link)“The reality is that states can’t cure uncontrolled health costs. It’s a national problem that only the national government can solve. That’s why Sebelius’ approach is dubious. If spending continues unchecked, the IOM warned, there will inevitably be future cutbacks in health insurance coverage as government costs and private premiums become increasingly oppressive and intolerable.”
No, national gov’t can’t solve it. They’ll only make it worse.
So, even if states don’t actually implement a state exchange, they could partially plan for one, going as creative and innovative as possible, couldn’t they?
@tomatin - I didn't actually mean "free"
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:08PM EDT (link)I meant “without paying”. They still owe fair value for the visit, it’s just unrealistic that they’ll ever pay. That is why the other customers pay more – to cover them, since they won’t be able to pay their debt.
This is how true professionals work anyway. I know rural doctors who take payment on barter for some patients. I know lawyers with 30-year payment plans
Auto Insurance Has a Significant Difference...
Wubbies World (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:34PM EDT (link)The government can’t force you to buy a car and consequently, the government can’t force you to get a drivers license either. However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the individual mandate they will get the authority to force you too if they so choose.
Think about it.
Join The Red State Strike Force
><> If It’s Worth Doing, It’s Worth Doing Right The First Time.
Heritage & The Mandate
carolynr Wednesday, December 28th at 2:48PM EDT (link)Having lived with the prescription drug coverage of GWB and three years of Obama…do we really live in some kind of la la land?
Think about this…we have perfect examples of government run healthcare in Canada and Europe. Canada seems to have pulled out of their recession because they left behind the cap and trade bs…but they still have to wait a very long time for treatments. Europe has gone bankrupt. Yet…here we are following along in the same pattern expecting a different result.
Secondly…WE ALREADY HAVE A MANDATE. Do you realize that every person that walks into an emergency room has to be treated. So….the government would be suing the state for human rights abuses if we did not give people what they wanted…when they wanted it.
We arguing about a subject that has already been addressed and put into place. Now…Obamacare…someone might want to look into all those pages…and what freedoms we have lost to the Federal government….This is a TAX program…IT IS NOT HEALTH insurance…we already have that…for every Tom, Dick and Harry…and the Illegals…and the Poor…and any other category you can thing of.
Auto Insurance is not a condition of Citizenship.
johnconradarens (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:57PM EDT (link)Unless Obamacare is repealed, purchasing Health Insurance WOULD be a condition of citizenship.
I can choose to drive, and thus, I might be compelled to purchase auto insurance, just as I am compelled to stop at red lights, drive on the right side of the road, and obey the speed limit. However, if I choose instead to walk, or ride the subway, or use my Starship Transporter, none of those things apply to me. And I am not COMPELLED to purchase auto insurance.
In the tyrannical straight-jacket of Obamacare, I MUST purchase health insurance as a condition of my citizenship. Period. This is a foundational alteration of the relationship between the State and Citizen, one that alters it more to State/Subject.
That Mitt Romney doesn’t fundamentally understand it (and that vast swaths of his supporters don’t either) point to a lack of seriousness vis-a-vis the Constitution with Mr Romney, and with our traditions and institutions.
Solid point Johnconradarens.
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:12PM EDT (link)Solid.
Uhh, no Johnconradarens
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:33PM EDT (link)Romney and his supporters do understand. That’s why they oppose Obamacare. In this discussion we’re not talking about repealing or not repealing Obamacare. We’re talking about state mandates.
The point Romney often makes, and one I agree with, is that a federal mandate is significantly different than a state mandate. The former does precisely what you say. The latter, not so much. In reality, local governments compel us on a number of things. We may not like those things, but they are both substantively and constitutionally different than federal mandates.
No, you don't understand, actually.
johnconradarens (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 4:10PM EDT (link)The differences between state and federal mandates –in real-world, concrete terms as an assault on personal liberty– is a distinction without a difference. Yes, there are legalistic differences, which are:
The state, as a part of a federal union, cannot compel as a matter citizenship. Heck, Arizona is having trouble making that argument with something as foundational as actual residency. But, in a federal system, as citizens, we can simply pick up and move to another member of the federal union. There is no such option with federal (i.e., national) mandates.
But, that’s not the nub of the Romney matter: Federalism cannot be turned on its head in order to perform the mental gymnastics required to say that compelling the individual toward purchasing a product is somehow “conservative”, let alone constitutional or even rational and in the American tradition.
That Romney continues to justify his big-government “solution” with the federalism argument is thin gruel, indeed. It loudly underscores his lack of trust in the people, our traditions, and the historical underpinnings of the relationship between the citizen (who, under our constitution, grants the power to govern him TO the government — not the other way around)
Romney’s bleating on this issue is only digging a hole that, under no circumstances, is conservatively filled with federalism, 10th Amendment or other “states rights” argumentation. It is big government statism, through and through.
You're right, I don't understand what you're saying
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 5:12PM EDT (link)largely because you’re not making much sense.
There are three distinct arguments here. The first is whether a federal mandate is constitutional. The second is whether a state mandate is constitutional. The third is whether a mandate could ever be a conservative idea.
I believe you and I agree a federal mandate is clearly not constitutional.
I can’t tell whether you believe a state mandate is unconstitutional. I believe it clearly is.
However, my point in this thread has been focused on the third category: that an argument could be made that some form of a state mandate may be a legitimate conservative proposal and possibly “even rational.”
I’m honestly not quite sure what you’re saying with you’re federalism riff. Romney’s health care plan clearly was a state-solution. He recognizes it cannot and should not be attempted at the federal level. So what is it you’re trying to say?
sorry - typo
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 5:14PM EDT (link)I believe a state mandate is clearly constitutional.
But that doesn't make it conservative....
nathanalbright (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 9:08PM EDT (link)…did you not read the article?
nathanalbright, you didn't read what cbs said
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 9:21PM EDT (link)Conservatism includes the notion of personal responsibility and paying debts.
He has a point, but enforcing through big government is paleoconservative.
I did read what he said, and it's still not conservative...
nathanalbright (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 6:32AM EDT (link)…not that there are many options presented in this “false dilemma” that are genuinely conservative. Forcing someone to do something is not conservative, it is authoritarian. There are certainly grounds that can be made for supporting it, but they are inevitably the grounds for a larger, more intrusive government, which precisely the last thing any of us should want.
That said, the best way to innoculate against a big government is to develop a strong sense of personal responsibility. I personally believe that individuals should be responsible for paying their own way, if they can do so, whether it is through self-pay or through some kind of cooperative that allows small businesses and individuals to take advantage of the law of large numbers, or whatever other clever solutions that people can develop. To mandate that people buy a product is not conservative in any universe, however, and is certainly not paleoconservative as you so vapidly suggest.
so
cbs (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 6:53PM EDT (link)do you oppose state mandates for auto insurance?
I don't have car insurance because I don't have a car. Ergo...
nathanalbright (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:37AM EDT (link)….there is no state mandate to have car insurance. Try again.
Romney is something else man, and I cannot understand why the establishment
center77 (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:05PM EDT (link)wants him so bad to be the nominee. He is a joke, I almost feel they want to lose.
My name is Timothy Bladel. I’m from Davenport, Iowa. I am a Undergraduate, Double Majoring in Journalism & Mass communication, with my other major being political science. I am conservative in nature, sometimes a tad bit libertarian; the Tenth Amendment is vital to changing this country for the better.
Mitt Romney 2012, but not without the truth of who he is.
www.timothy-bladel.com
“We the people” tell the government what to do, it doesn’t tell us. We the people are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast.” Ronald Reagan’s farewell address (January 11, 1989)
Mittens is hooked up. He has a machine.
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:20PM EDT (link)It has been in place since the dark ages, and many powerful people are heavily invested in it.
It is a hard nut to crack, they are organized, methodical and entrenched. They have been down for the long haul from the outset.
You aren’t fighting Mitt… it is his army.
Were it Mitt,, on his own… not even the remotest chance.
You witness the way he falls apart in direct confrontation… well…
That is when he is on his own. The debates were priceless in demonstrating the mettle of the Man.
There ain’t none.
Yes...But Here Is The Rub
carolynr Wednesday, December 28th at 2:39PM EDT (link)Obama has already set up OWS against the rich…and Romney is rich and associated with rich. There are lots of people out of work…that are not members of OWS but sympathize. Then we have Obama’s union buddies that will be against Romney.
People…why is this man even a consideration. What has he accomplished? Please tell me. Oh…Staples.
Obama plays both sides off the middle.
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:44PM EDT (link)He is rich too.
And he is probably making a serious killing under the table.
Billions? Millions certainly…
And, with his little mafia… he really doesn’t need money anyway…
I mean personally. He’s set.
Problem is lack of alternatives
wingnut43 Wednesday, December 28th at 4:10PM EDT (link)No other heavy hitters were willing to run. Only Mittens. So the Establishment Machine is all his.
Btw, I was a Barbour supporter until he threw in the towel early on.
I don't happen to like the establishment machine...
nathanalbright (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 9:10PM EDT (link)…and I think we can do better. So there.
It's simply. Romney is the safest pick for them
tomatin Wednesday, December 28th at 7:35PM EDT (link)Romney can be easily controlled and the establishment is not truly conservative anyway.
Tomatin, there is a point there I realized earlier..
snowshooze (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:40PM EDT (link)I think that even if we did wind up with Willard, we might be able to lead him around by the nose. With a good Congress, we could survive it.
But Boehner, McConnel… I don’t think they have the spine to pick up the ball even if they had absolute control.
I've thought of that scenario too
tomatin Thursday, December 29th at 3:31AM EDT (link)But do we really want a president that weak. While GWB was strong on national defense after tax cuts on domestic issues congress really spent like drunken sailors. I think they need leadership. Romney would not even be a strong CIC like GWB was. I just don’t trust Romney’s character at all.
Just Got Back From The Big D
carolynr Wednesday, December 28th at 2:24PM EDT (link)OK…this is what I noticed from the last time that I visited. There is a population explosion in that state. Also…there are all kinds of new businesses going up…and they are not low paying either. Lots of tech companies. Looks like Texas took half of California with them…unfortunately the voting populace probably came with them….land of fruits and nuts…take that how you want.
I have a question…Why is Perry pandering to Iowa. He is not for ethanol subsidies … so why bother. He promised those people he would devote lots of time to their state because he got in late. So…he stays in Iowa. They don’t care how he feels about abortion…the guy is pro-life…that’s the end of it. He’s not Santorum…who will probably get a boost because of his abortion stance…however…America is interested in jobs.
Why hasn’t Perry gone after Willard with one sharp knife..JOBS…which means revenues…which means lower taxes, which means jobs. He can contrast this so well with MA who was 47th out of 50th in jobs. The taxes in MA are out of site (btw…this is what is coming our way).
What happened to the TPM? Really…they gave it all up…all for what? Romney is no more Conservative than Obama. The only difference is…Romney is not a Marxist…close..but not there entirely. Someone compared him to Daddy Bush on Drudge today. WOW…never thought about it that way…but here we come…globalization…a thousand points of light and all that BS that went along with it. Romney no more knows how to say “NO”
to new taxes than Daddy Bush did.
JOBS should be the focus. I am pro-life…but the readers aren’t getting this…they don’t care about that…they care about ethanol. They have given endorsements to Santorum to cover their behinds with the evangelical stance…that’s it.
Who is the head of the TPM is Iowa…I would love to know.
Perry is in Iowa
texashistorian (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:30AM EDT (link)because it matters in the big picture. I disagree that it is pandering to Iowans simply to try and get some delegates there. He knows what he is up against with the Mitt campaign, and even a handful of Iowa delegates might make a difference down the road. Beyond that, there is a lot of media coverage there, and as you’ve noticed, Perry, for all that the big media outlets (including Fox) don’t care for him, is getting largely favorable stories. Why? Because he is good at what he is doing there. We can’t on one hand complain that the media is shafting Perry with a false narrative (they were) but then insist that he does nothing to turn it around (which he is). So, Iowa is important, and I expect Perry to work this hard and diligently in all the states where it is practical and beneficial.
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.
- Paul Johnson
Erick's statement is inaccurate
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 2:55PM EDT (link)“Forcing Americans, through penalty of law, into purchasing or refraining from purchasing a product is not and will never be conservative.”
That’s not accurate. What Erick has described here is the libertarian position. It is not, necessarily the conservative position.
Conservatives generally support laws that prevent individuals from purchasing illegal drugs. Conservatives generally support laws that prevent individuals from purchasing sex. Conservatives generally support laws that prevent engaging in gambling or pornography. Conservatives generally support laws that prevent individuals from purchasing baby-termination services. Likewise, conservatives generally don’t object to laws that require the purchasing of certain forms of insurance such as auto insurance.
Libertarians generally oppose all the above.
I also think we should so easily dismiss the federalist arguments about the individual mandate. While I have some strong libertarian leanings, I generally follow the conservative line above.
At the federal level in particular I’m going to support ferociously libertarian policies. At the state level I’m conservative. At the local level I’m more communitarian. I’m much more comfortable with a government I actually have the ability to influence.
There is no federal auto insurance purchase requirement
kindredsoul Wednesday, December 28th at 3:26PM EDT (link)With all due respect, if we don’t take on the argument that the Commerce Clause allows Congress to tell individuals what they must purchase, it will mark the greatest expansion of federal power since the New Deal . . . only worse. If we don’t stand up for the core Consitutional principle that the federal government is one of limited power now, with Obamacare, there will be no limit on what Congress will be able to direct individuals to purchase, do and/or value. Without individual choice, there is no freedom, no capitalism, no America. If you don’t think Congress will avail itself of such power, kindly think again. Power — especially the unlimited kind — is so much fun.
kindredsoul
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:40PM EDT (link)I agree with you. I 100% support the repeal of Obamacare. I’m hopeful the Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional, as I believe it clearly falls outside the scope of the Commerce Clause.
What I’m arguing here is about state and local mandates and to point out that contrary to what Erick said above, conservatives do, at times, support limitations on people’s freedom (some times at the federal level, some times at the local level).
There is a lot of crossover between conservatives and libertarians, but they are not the same.
I am not hopeful on the Supreme Court.
wingnut43 Wednesday, December 28th at 4:16PM EDT (link)They could find it unconstitutional and all the medical provisions non-severable, but I would bet against this outcome. Most likely they will rule the individual mandate and the coercion of the States in Medicare are both constitutional, the mandate is not a tax, the healthcare provisions are non-severable, and that the latter is a moot point since all provisions are constitutional.
The Supreme Court enforces severability clauses
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 4:43PM EDT (link)And the absence of a sever-ability clause means the whole thing gets thrown out. This is black letter law. SCOTUS will be making radical changes if they sever.
Supreme Court cannot sever without a severability clause
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 4:52PM EDT (link)The whole court will be united in agreement that that would be “legislating from the bench”. You can’t throw out part of a law unless Congress allows it, because Congress did not pass a partial law – they passed a whole law. If they did not include a severability clause, severing would mean:
1. Repealing the entire law (as SCOTUS has the power to do)
2. Enacting the partial law (SCOTUS has no such power)
ObamaCare will rise and fall as a whole (except the parts they passed separately).
Great insight
thosjefferson Wednesday, December 28th at 3:47PM EDT (link)Erick wasn’t thinking clearly when he suggested conservatives don’t support laws that “force” Americans to refrain from purchasing products, and you’ve provided some excellent examples.
For that matter, Erick’s argument about the mandate is consistent with those who refuse to pay taxes because they don’t believe in national defense (what we call Ron Paul supporters). At least Romney is clearly upholding state sovereignty and wants to limit the federal government.
Actually, it is accurate
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:57PM EDT (link)Forcing Americans to buy anything would be a complete break from the past. That is not conservative.
Erick also said
cbs (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 5:17PM EDT (link)that preventing Americans “from purchasing a product is not and will never be conservative.”
Do you agree that is accurate as well? What about the examples I’ve given above?
Riddle me this, cbs. Why did the federal government sell war bonds?
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:53PM EDT (link)Why didn’t they just recognize they had the power to mandate that every citizen purchase some?
Preventing the sale of a product that causes harm is distinctly different from requiring the sale of a product that does not directly provide good, especially as the sale is not authorized under any reading of the constitution or the 10th amendment.
Erick is right on this, cbs is in error.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
They knew well, that everyone who could afford to do so..
snowshooze (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:04AM EDT (link)Would come-a-running,.
And there is a core group of us that will do it again.
I’m in it.
My Family has invested a few of it’s finest.
Money is nothing.
But we are still willing to carry the load for the rest.
Because we think we are the best able.
We’ll pick up the slack.
I know. It is crazy.
We do it anyway.
I just can't figure if people are stupid or ignorant.
Tbone (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:05AM EDT (link)How some can’t see the difference between car and health insurance is baffling.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
The scary part, Tbone, is that these idiots have drivers' licenses (and law degrees) ...
acat (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 10:00AM EDT (link)(shudder)
——
Caveat Suffragator
Once again a conservative describes
aesthete (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:28PM EDT (link)the reasons why I feel the need to qualify my conservatism with the prefix, “libertarian”.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
aesthete.. I like some of the Libertarian views.
snowshooze (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:07AM EDT (link)But I can’t choke down the whole ticket.
Legalize pot. Or Heroine.
Isolate the country entirely.
And then, it get’s really wild.
That's because, snowy, those aren't libertarian, they're Libertarian.
acat (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:24AM EDT (link)It’s important to separate the philosophy (small ell) from the party (large L).
I’m a strong-border-defense guy, but I do see the point in interacting with the world around us. I don’t want the World’s Policeman role, but .. in the age of the internet, to go back to pre-WWII isolationism would require becoming North Korea.
There was some really good discussion of the foreign policy differences between Ron Paul (Libertarian) and other libertarians over in this thread from before you got here.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
acat... I never figured the posibility you were a guy.
snowshooze (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:43AM EDT (link)‘Cause yer too cute in the picture, I guess.
But really, your veiws have that unanticipated depth.
Hard to put my finger right on it.. like yin and yang, water and oil.
Anyway, if that is the case, I will retract my request for a date, and just call it a lunch.
Enough. Doesn’t even matter.
I looked over that thread. Your point is lost in signal to noise ratio.
Spell it out for me.. amongst the dense troglodites.
Snowy, do y'all have alley tomcats in Alaska?
acat (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 1:04AM EDT (link)That’d be me, lucky to have lived and a bit wiser for the tale. (tail?)
I don’t think I saw where you asked for a date, and .. no offense, but you’re not my type, and for your own protection – my SO would object. Violently.
The point I took is that there’s a good bit of space between reducing our often fumbled and ill-conceived attempts to influence third world dictators and turning our backs on the world. We can’t effectively do so anyway, without becoming North Korea.
That’s one of the reasons I wouldn’t spit on Ron Paul if he were on fire – there’s plenty of reasons for libertarians to want strong borders and some form of a strong overseas presence .. but his complete embrace of the anti-war (lefty) message makes it almost impossible to discuss exactly what our role should be.
For instance, I want to stand up two new divisions – one USMC, one Army (with an emphasis on military police type training) – for purposes of enforcement on our southern border. I don’t see how Mexico can avoid tipping into a multi-sided active civil war, and I do NOT want it spilling across the border.
When we start seeing refugees, I want the armed services providing security both from and for them. (you just know there’ll be haters…) When we start seeing incursions (you just know there’ll be raids) I want them to be met by Marines.
This clashes rather badly with what Ron Paul seems to think we should do – throw open the border – but aligns reasonably well with Rick Perry’s “boots on the ground” proposal.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Interestingly...snowshooze doesn't seem to much carry a gender association either.
snowshooze (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 1:53AM EDT (link)And no… i never requested a date.
I’ve had some interesting respondents…
But that isn’t what we are interested in here. And I am beyond the rest.
However, and in any case.. and even at this moment…
I would find a lunch most interesting.
Ah.. but I am a berzillion miles away.
I shall be in Wisconsin in the second week of January though.
Bumping this post I'm responding to, by acat, because it makes a very important point:
trickamsterdam Saturday, December 31st at 5:25PM EDT (link)Libertarians are thought of as a joke because of people like Dr. Paul. The truth is many are old school conservatives along the lines of a Calvin Coolidge.
I respect a lot of things about Paul. But to me the heroin legalization/decriminalization thing is the bell cow issue of why he’ll never be taken seriously.
It’s not that you can’t argue issues like that, and be taken seriously by conservatives. It’s that this is SO not that time…Obama wants to talk about anything but the economy. And our candidate is going to give him the escape hatch to talk about heroin legalization for months? Regardless of how you feel on the issue, it’s terrible politics.
So many libertarians seem to not care if they’re ever elected. They see an election as a debating society, not as a means to acquire power.
You saw it w/ Rand Paul (the son) too, when he went on The Rachel Maddow Show and started to talk about the 1964 civil rights bill. It’s like…OK, maybe you have a point, but what does this have to do w/ you and the situation America is in in 2010? Thank God he survived and got elected.
They (libertarians) view a campaign as a college lecture. Well, not all of them, but too many of them do…
And too many of them also view politics as a religion. It’s not. Or to put it another way, as far as Paul’s Iran policy:
If you’re a Muslim
And you can’t eat Pork
that’s just the Rule…
If you’re a non-interventionist who
doesn’t think allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons
is an exception
well
you’re just a fool.
Note: Paul does many great things for the libertarian cause. But, God, he also wounds it too.
Perry, if he would have run a competent campaign, would have been a terrific bridge between libertarians and Santorum-like neo-cons. But, unfortunately, he’s failing now, and is likely to continue doing so….
OK, so Mitt's not a conservative, EE? So what?
trickamsterdam Wednesday, December 28th at 2:56PM EDT (link)I’m serious. It’s so beyond this at this point. I doubt virtually anyone on this site thinks he’s actually more conservative than anyone he’s running against (except maybe Paul, which is a completely different thing). And I doubt the vast majority of Rs around the country think it.
Even those in the media that say he’s more conservative (e.g., Ann Coulter, J. Rubin) really only mean that they think he’s more electable and presidential than any of the others.
Speaking of which: the VA primary fiasco was a turning point for me, and I suspect, others. Another thread by EE praised Perry and Huntsman. They had “records we could be proud of”. Really?
Perry forgets which Dept he’s going to liquidate and then forgets to get enough signatures too? It’s not just debating anymore. It’s real world.
Huntsman’s even worse. VA is actually a great state for Huntsman. Plenty of liberal Republicans and Dems can cross over (open primary). He’s independently wealthy, so he doesn’t have the Santorum/Bachmann excuse. Yet he doesn’t even TRY to submit the names? He may be running the worst campaign I’ve ever seen, and that’s not even hyperbole.
And Newt? Pearl Harbor? Oh, nevermind.
Here’s a hint to all the anti-Romney people. Stop trying to make the argument that he’s not a conservative. Everyone who’s not being completely fake already knows and admits that.
Make the argument that one of these other clowns (who many in Iowa now even openly prefer Paul over) is as competent and as electable as Romney.
Or many of us who are just as conservative as you are also going to do something which can be defined as CONSERVATIVE in times of great danger…
WE ARE GOING TO MAKE THE SAFE CHOICE!
MITT McDOLE! THE SAFE CHOICE!
Bill S (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:16PM EDT (link)Been there, done that.
It don’t work.
“It’s such a fine line between stupid, and clever.” – David St. Hubbins
...and as Dr Phil would say,.....
Wubbies World (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:25PM EDT (link)… “How is that working out for ya?”
Join The Red State Strike Force
><> If It’s Worth Doing, It’s Worth Doing Right The First Time.
hought that was the muffin.
snowshooze (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:09AM EDT (link)What said that.
What is the point of trying to submit names ?
elayman Wednesday, December 28th at 3:54PM EDT (link)For a candidate without an organization in the state and underground poll-wise, Huntsman would have had to begin an operation in VA virtually upon announcing in July, if not before. The idea is to concentrate resources in a venue where you can win, then use the momentum gained from that good showing to garner more attention and a larger donor base.
A self-financed campaign ? And Billionaire Daddy Issues would have been right up the alley of a petulant conservative Republican base. No moaning or hand wringing please.
Huntsman’s even worse. VA is actually a great state for Huntsman. Plenty of liberal Republicans and Dems can cross over (open primary). He’s independently wealthy, so he doesn’t have the Santorum/Bachmann excuse. Yet he doesn’t even TRY to submit the names? He may be running the worst campaign I’ve ever seen, and that’s not even hyperbole.
Romney has had less experience than Perry and
tomatin Wednesday, December 28th at 7:27PM EDT (link)Newt is a zillion times more competent than Romney on national security alone. Not to mention Newt has proven he can push a conservative agenda through congress.
Romney only true expertise is pushing a moderate progressive agenda in MA, running for president for six years and buying companies and bankrupting them.
He is totally unqualified to be the standard bearer for a conservative party, let alone be president.
So you're a liberal?
Ann_W (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:34PM EDT (link)Because that’s a liberal lie.
He did not buy companies to bankrupt them. He tried to turn them around. He succeeded spectacularly with some companies and failed with some. He is much much much more qualified to be president than the current resident, and also than Newt, who leaves much to be desired in the leadership department.
“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” Ronald Reagan
Ann, are you another of our resident Romney trolls
heraklios Wednesday, December 28th at 8:49PM EDT (link)Why do you post on a conservative website then??
I'm very conservative.
Ann_W (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:43AM EDT (link)You guys just want to make this into Perry State. It was much more open to Romney in ’08.
Romney wasn’t my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice; however watching you guys say factually incorrect things because you hate Romney so much makes me want to respond. When that becomes against Rickperry State rules then I guess I will get kicked off. Until then, I will call out incorrect things like what you just posted.
“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” Ronald Reagan
Ann
texashistorian (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:59AM EDT (link)I am not going to question your conservativism. In fact, there are reasons I can see (though to which I don’t subscribe) for deciding for Romney. At the same time, however, RS was more open to Romney in 08 because of what the field was like. Romney was the more conservative leaning candidate then, particularly after the media sabotaged Fred Thompson and he fizzled. Look at who Romney had to run against: Huckabee (nanny stater), McCain (Conservative Democrat at best), Giulani (NE Rockefeller style Repub). I grant that he would then and would be now, infinitely better than Obama, but among the current field, he is the left leaner in the bunch (leaving Nor Luap out, because he is all over the ideological map).
What most of don’t want at this point, precisely because Obama got elected, is a milquetoast, moderate Northeast candidate who has no record of delivering actual change. I am not disparaging his Massachusetts record- having lived in New England I know what the political landscape is like (see Brown, Scott) but a go along and get along President is not what we need. We need someone who will push, prod, and bully Boehner, McConnell, and the other GOP chickens who can’t quite manage to forcefully stand for what is right for the USA. I just don’t feel, and many here do not, feel that Romney is capable or even willing to do that.
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.
- Paul Johnson
Ur right, many reasons to worry about Romney...
Ann_W (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 12:58PM EDT (link)He could end up to be a wuss. However, in my evaluation of the race there’s just as much chance (I think more) that Gingrich will be a disaster. The people here are in denial that Perry has a chance, but I will vote for him if he does by the time my state rolls around.
What roils me up and causes me to comment is people recycling liberal talking points, and the STUPID comment that keeps getting repeated that Romney is as bad as Obama. People saying that may get some weak minded conservatives to stay home for the general. When you look at Romney’s record, it is nowhere near Obama’s and, in fact, there are some pieces of his record that would give hope that he could be an effective leader working with the R congress to get important things done.
I just disagree that Gingrich is the better of the two bad choices, but instead of having a conversation I keep getting called a troll, not a conservative, etc. Thanks for engaging. Conversation is a good thing.
“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” Ronald Reagan
I agree
texashistorian (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 1:54PM EDT (link)Conversation is good. I don’t like Romney as a candidate, but he is not a Marxist or a liberal, at least not in the New Left Democrat sense. Romney is a Republican, not a conservative as my recent diary suggests (shameless plug), but there is no call to get silly with the name calling. I don’t bother with Townhall anymore, because of the stupidity of the posters. Every candidate but your guy is a RINO, idiot, liberal, moron, etc. etc. Stupid.
Where you and I might disagree is who is worse, Newt or Romney from a conservative perspective. I am thinking Newt, but not persuaded. If I had to settle on a non-Perry candidate, it would be Huntsman, then probably Bachmann. Then I start to get a tad queasy. Not John McCain queasy, mind you but just not as comfortable as I’d like to be.
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.
- Paul Johnson
Unless we live in one of the early states, our choices will probably be narrowed anyway.
Ann_W (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 10:00PM EDT (link)I read your diary and I do like your thoughtful tone. It’s just looking more and more as if Romney will win and I hope conservatives don’t commit political suicide if that happens.
What a great job. I’d love to be a history professor. I bet you do a good job.
“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” Ronald Reagan
Heh. Last primary, Ann_W, I had a choice of McCain and two or three who had already dropped out.
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 10:06PM EDT (link)I did not vote McCain, even though there was no way for him to lose.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
I'm with you there. I didn't either.
Ann_W (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:08PM EDT (link)Even though we’re late in the process (CT). I’m enough of a political nerd that it gave me some satisfaction.
“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” Ronald Reagan
It's strange
texashistorian (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:20PM EDT (link)but even living in a state that ought to count in a massive way towards selecting our nominee, it hasn’t in the past. I too am worried that by the time the Texas primary rolls around the die will be case. Last time around, I popped the chad for Huckabee (cringe) when there was he, Romney, and McCain, for all intents and purposes, but it felt academic at that point. I agree with ya it was fun in a geeky way.
Ann, I do love my job- it’s one way I can stick it back to the liberal intelligentsia on a daily basis, and it’s not that perilous of an undertaking. If I were in say CA or MA, I might be out work by now
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.
- Paul Johnson
Ann, Romney's name is synonymous with "serial political loser"
sunshinek67 (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:56PM EDT (link)along with “jobs killer”. The “inevitable electable” is a myth created by his $$ and the media that has been bought and paid for.
The guy has been running for six years.
tomatin Thursday, December 29th at 3:41AM EDT (link)The only reason he does better in national polls now versus Obama is name recognition. Middle American is just not tuned into the election like most people think on blogs.
Middle America won't tune in until Labor Day 2012.
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 1:44PM EDT (link)And that’s at the earliest. Many won’t tune in until Halloween 2012.
Polling head to head before the conventions, before the national campaigns really get rolling. is pretty meaningless. I can go back and find where several others were “beating Obama”. So what?
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Romney is a liberal lie
tomatin Thursday, December 29th at 3:38AM EDT (link)No doubt the left and right has attacked Romney’s time at Bain Capital for different reasons. Romney was not an true entrepreneur that grew a business from a great product, service or even innovative business model. He was a raider and now would be the worse time to nominate a raider because even if they are necessary to capitalism they are not the job creators they are the scavengers.
As you noted people who repair broken companies are very necessary to capitalism.
Ann_W (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:48AM EDT (link)Some of the companies were turned around in a very spectacular way. You people are getting yourselves all worked up. He has way more qualifications for leadership than Newt “let’s make the children in New York City take the district’s janitorial jobs” Gingrich. At least he knows what issues are federal issues and what aren’t.
“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” Ronald Reagan
Dentists are necessary too but nobody likes to go to them
tomatin Thursday, December 29th at 1:41PM EDT (link)It’s a matter of what voters will think about Romney’s past. People don’t like or respect people like Romney. There is such a thing as a necessary evil.
Also an unnecessary evil - like going to a curse-America church for 20 years.
David123 (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 10:19PM EDT (link)Romney’s not perfect, but at least he didn’t go to a curse-America church and pal around with terrorists.
David123
Well, no one on the thread really took the challenge:
trickamsterdam Thursday, December 29th at 2:29AM EDT (link)To describe “why any of the other clowns were more electable or competent than Romney”.
Talking about failed moderates, doesn’t do it. That would be like saying the conservative would be more likely to win or lose, based on whether Goldwater or Reagan did.
Or to put it another way…if it really ISN’T about resume, or being “serious”, or being “electable”…if it’s all about “conservatism.”: Then maybe Rep Bachmann should be the one?
Oh, no? Why? Oh…I see…the resume, yeah, and not as serious…and not as electable as Perry. OK, I get it now.
One who maybe actually tried to address something specific about what I was talking about: The guy who defended Huntsman…
Dig this, man…It (and I’m not an expert) only costs somewhere between 50-100 grand to get those signatures. Oh, God…even beyond being able to get the votes…he’s already loaned himself seven figures and more…how much bad publicity from not being on that ballot? That’s not worth a little more? Or a little less somewhere else?
YES…Worst. Campaign. I’ve. Probably. Ever. Seen…HUNTSMAN. 2012.
I'll take a shot
texashistorian (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:44AM EDT (link)by saying that you are asking two entirely different questions that are not necessarily tied together. First of all, how do you define electable? No one here, and I mean know one, knows exactly what it will mean in November of 2012. To know that, you’d have to predict the future and all the myriad events that will happen that changes the dynamics of the campaigns, Obama, the national mood etc. Electability is a poor argument to make for a candidate and always has been. After all, every single GOP candidate remaining has won at least one election, so that makes all of them “electable” given the right voting day climate.
As for competency, again, define it please. Are we talking debate skills? Are we talking campaign organization? Legislative ability? Executive experience? Private sector experience? Military service? Disaster response? Budget management? Again, all of the GOP candidates still remaining were at least competent enough in some area to have won elections in the past. you’ll have to do better than toss out a vague terms like “competent” and “electable.”
I guess I didn’t answer your question did I? That is because I frankly don’t see what it is you are asking. If you want resumes on the candidates, have a read through the many posts here. Some are quite detailed and good. But then you are a Romney man, and while I can respect that, and disagree with you about him at the same time, calling the other candidates “clowns” doesn’t really help your argument.
And by the way, if Romney is so safe, why is it that the man cannot crack 25% in the polls, even after 6 years of campaigning. Does that look “safe” to you?
The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in innumerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.
- Paul Johnson
Thank you, texashistorian, for your response:
trickamsterdam Thursday, December 29th at 11:44PM EDT (link)No sarcasm.. I appreciate anyone who could actually put some thought and effort into arguing w/ someone they don’t even know and are likely to never meet on the internet.
To your post:
“ELECTABLE” = Being able to win the Republican nomination for President, and then have a good chance in the general election.
“COMPETENT” = Being able to convince people you can do those things.
If you don’t feel that the VA primary fiasco changed your opinion on Perry, Huntsman, Bachmann, as far as these things, then OK.
But to be honest; I don’t sense that even you,feel that anyone, but Romney, will win the nomination. So that’s what I’m talking about.
Why Romney “can’t crack 25% ” (in an R primary) is that he’s not a conservative. And I’m not a “Romney man”. Unless you want to be called that too when you eventually vote for him over Pres Obama?
What will that mean for “conservatism”? Can’t say w/ authority, but I know it won’t mean what a second Obama term will mean…oh how I love those unimaginative dudes who say “there’s no difference!”. Those schmucks must sleep so well. I’m jealous.
But I don’t think that’s you. You almost sound like a rouge college professor in Austin or something.
If so, then carry on, and my sympathies. You must feel like one of those Japanese who didn’t surrender until the fifties.
Is Huntsman on the VA Ballot?
snowshooze (Diary) Saturday, December 31st at 10:51PM EDT (link)It would appear he has a chance to be on there after Perry get’s done tidying things up a bit. Huntsman could be so gracious as to kiss Perry’s butt.
Eloquently stated, 'shooze! Couldn't have said it better myself ... LOL. nt
pttx333 (Diary) Saturday, December 31st at 10:53PM EDT (link)m
Come on, Erick
thosjefferson Wednesday, December 28th at 3:26PM EDT (link)Two problems, Erick.
One: “To be sure, it is conservative that one takes responsibility for their own healthcare. But the conservative solution is not to force Americans to buy a product.” Who are we “forcing” here? Surely any true conservative wouldn’t be so foolish as to not have medical insurance, as you explain in your first sentence. Therefore, the only people who are “forced” to buy insurance are the non-conservative liberals who expect the government to take care of them.. What’s wrong with that?
Two: “What’s conservative? Well, if the person doesn’t want insurance, don’t let them get out of paying their medical bills through bankruptcy.” What are you suggesting here? Debtor’s prisons? Or maybe you think they should sell their organs to pay for their medical care?
What true conservative would discourage people from taking care of their own health care?
A healthy 18 year old should not be forced to buy health insurance
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:58PM EDT (link)Any government that would do so is corrupt.
It's the kind or insurance you are forcing them to buy too
tomatin Wednesday, December 28th at 7:30PM EDT (link)A 20 year old doesn’t need anything more than catastrophic coverage. It’s insane to force them to by comprehensive coverage they would not buy themselves even if they are conservative.
Incentivizing coverage like setting a fee for getting retroactive coverage or like EE said forcing people to pay their medical bills would be much better.
You're what's wrong with this country.
aesthete (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:23AM EDT (link)And I don’t mean that ironically.
Forcing people to do what you want them to do because they don’t have your political, social or other beliefs through the force of arms, is exactly the wrong way to organize society. Not caring about how you wronged those people, and justifying it as the moral position, is exactly the sort of selfish motivation and warped moral compass which perpetuates the welfare state, to say nothing of the other ills in this country.
“It is a popular delusion that the government wastes vast amounts of money through inefficiency and sloth. Enormous effort and elaborate planning are required to waste this much money.”
-P.J. O’Rourke
Fox News...
Samsara (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 3:54PM EDT (link)Rodger Ailes decides…we report.
No, Samsara, you are not allowed to change the subject.
acat (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:27AM EDT (link)The problem is not with Fox News, the problem is with Willard Romney’s inability to say “Yeah, I screwed up”.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Perry's chance to be the nominee
cajunchosid770 Wednesday, December 28th at 5:00PM EDT (link)IMHO I think for Perry to be the nominee we need him to win Iowa. This is the first choice.
But here is my other scenario:
Let Ron Paul win Iowa,
Mitt with NH,
then it comes to SC. If Perry beats Newt in Iowa and comes in 3rd, behind Paul or Romney this sets up the stage for Perry to be the conservative alternative to Mitt. But Mitt needs to lose Iowa otherwise he will have Iowa and NH as I don’t see him losing NH. If Mitt wins Iowa and NH he will be the nominee.
So let the vote for Iowa be Paul, Mitt and then Rick Perry.
Whoever comes in 3rd in Iowa will be the non Mitt candidate people will rally around. We need that to be Rick Perry. If Perry comes in 3rd and Newt 4th, then Newts guys will flock to Perry and Perry can skip NH and fight it out in SC and go for the win there.
So I think it is not a bad thing if Ron Paul wins IOWA. Let him win it if it cannot be Rick Perry
I'll say it Romney is a liar
tomatin Wednesday, December 28th at 7:19PM EDT (link)When says he will end Obamacare on day one like he promised and not only can’t he, Romney will never end Obamacare.
We put way too much focus only on the mandate. Other big problems with Obamacare go much deeper like government enforced minimum coverage when young people for example only need catastrophic coverage, limits on what insurers can make even if they are more efficient than other companies and limited competition across state lines.
Romney facts, how can any Republican, Tea Party or Conservative…..
1stRichard (Diary) Wednesday, December 28th at 8:00PM EDT (link)Romney told us Romneycare was for the few that did not have healthcare yet this was illegal under our State Constitution “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men.” Romney told us he lowered taxes yet everyone here around at that time knows government fees increased hideously, a blatant falsehood. Romney to heckler, “Corporations are people, my friend” Those of us that have been fighting this leftist propaganda in the Tea Party know the corporations are people propaganda stems from the partial overruling of the McCain Feingold Act, and Romney was clueless as are his handlers. I could go on with a few hundred more pages, there is no way Romney should be considered yet here we are. Why is there so many that do not get the facts correct I would like to know. Romney will be pummeled so hard on this by the left he is not a viable candidate.
Six of Romney; half dozen of Obama?
geoph Wednesday, December 28th at 8:07PM EDT (link)But at least Obama doesn’t pretend to be one of us.
We all better step it up a notch or two before we are stuck supporting that idiot Mitt here at RS!
Six of Romney; half dozen of Obama?
geoph Wednesday, December 28th at 8:14PM EDT (link)But at least Obama doesn’t pretend to be one of us.
We all better step it up a notch or two before we are stuck supporting that (insert “respectful” explative here) Mitt here at RS!
How can the GOP leadership and rank and file try to explain this one?
I mean really, Nelson just dropped out of defending his seat for supporting, then not supporting, ObamaCare. If a Dem Senator can’t defend and win with that position, WHY is a Republican – who has never wavered in his support for the ObamaCare model- running to be our candidate for President?
Six of Romney; half dozen of Obama?
geoph Wednesday, December 28th at 8:15PM EDT (link)But at least Obama doesn’t pretend to be one of us.
We all better step it up a notch or two before we are stuck supporting that (insert “respectful” Bleep here) Mitt here at RS!
How can the GOP leadership and rank and file try to explain this one?
I mean really, Nelson just dropped out of defending his seat for supporting, then not supporting, ObamaCare. If a Dem Senator can’t defend and win with that position, WHY is a Republican – who has never wavered in his support for the ObamaCare model- running to be our candidate for President?
Six of Romney; half dozen of Obama?
geoph Wednesday, December 28th at 8:16PM EDT (link)But at least Obama doesn’t pretend to be one of us.
We all better step it up a notch or two before we are stuck supporting that (insert colorful adjective here) Mitt here at RS!
How can the GOP leadership and rank and file try to explain this one?
I mean really, Nelson just dropped out of defending his seat for supporting, then not supporting, ObamaCare. If a Dem Senator can’t defend and win with that position, WHY is a Republican – who has never wavered in his support for the ObamaCare model- running to be our candidate for President?
because the health insurance lobby supports the mandate, that's why...
marktx Thursday, December 29th at 12:24AM EDT (link)Romney knows who pulls the strings on K street…and it’s not conservative limited government republican voters. Rather, it’s the lobbyists for the health insurance industry, who mostly support the individual mandate.
Whereas in conservative Nebraska, the voters do have a choice in the matter. And in that state, they hate ObamaCare…and Nelson knows this.
Furthermore, Romney has made the political calculation that he is better off defending RomneyCare than being perceived as a flip flopper on the issue. His reasoning is that if he can get past the primaries, his support of RomneyCare might actually benefit him among independents and democrats in the general.
Conservatives better wise up real soon….if not, socialized medicine will be here to stay whether Obama or Romney wins in November.
Repeal and replace? Starve the Beast?
geoph Thursday, December 29th at 7:57AM EDT (link)Over the past year, Speaker Nowhner has done absolutely nothing to halt the funding and the implementation of ObamaCare. Many State’s, even those like my own Michigan who have filed against the law, have begun to construct the beurocracy and the framework to comply with it’s implementation. Federal and State dollars have been spent and budgeted for this program, the only portion remaining off the books, are the very real tax increases scheduled to kick in.
After only one short year, the roots have firmly established themselves. If actual strides to disassemble and defund OBoehnerCare are not rapidly initiated, I agree that no matter what the SCOTUS (and vacating the entire law is highly unlikely) or 113th Congress or new President may do, this monster has already become entrenched in some form. Another year of CR funding and beurocracy growth only keeps it viable in it’s present form.
Repeal and replace? Starve the Beast? Apparently the Speaker was referencing conservatism in the GOP.
We're Toast
skep41 Thursday, December 29th at 12:17AM EDT (link)G'bye (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 12:22AM EDT (link).
RS contributing editor and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Still, not every day you see someone...
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 12:27AM EDT (link)use “gormless” as an insult anymore.
Something … piquant about it.
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Gormless is a good insult I read in Harry Potter...
nathanalbright (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 12:44AM EDT (link)….but it’s extremely rare to see it used, I agree. Very English :B.
Harry Potter - occult - ugh!
tailfins1959 Thursday, December 29th at 10:47AM EDT (link)It’s one thing to be tolerant; it’s another to leave an opening for the occult to enter your life. Here is a musical response:
You have the right to quit Toxic People. (They’re contagious.) ~Dr. SunWolf
*Raises eyebrows*....
nathanalbright (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 10:52AM EDT (link)I was pointing to acat where the deleted poster may have gotten the word gormless from, given that I didn’t get to see the original message because it got zapped so fast.
Still a nice opportuntity to share Ira and Lonnie
tailfins1959 Thursday, December 29th at 10:57AM EDT (link)While I hate many things about the modern South, I think they once actually practiced the virtues they now only shout on the street corner.
That time is captured by the Louvin Brothers.
You have the right to quit Toxic People. (They’re contagious.) ~Dr. SunWolf
I meant Ira and Charlie - Oops!
tailfins1959 Thursday, December 29th at 10:58AM EDT (link)NT
You have the right to quit Toxic People. (They’re contagious.) ~Dr. SunWolf
Fair enough :B....
nathanalbright (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:02AM EDT (link)You have to give them credit for that, though I find the modern south far less repellant than the antebellum south of slavery and corrupt plantation elites.
Oh, gee whiz, thanks, guys, for finding the modern South "less repellant"
lineholder (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:50PM EDT (link):Sigh:
One thing has now been proven…by protecting and preserving right-to-work laws in the our states, the South has been smarter than the North has been in maintaining the kind of environment that generates jobs.
To all those Northerners moving to the South for this reason, since I know it’s doubtful you’ll take the time to say “thank you”…you’re welcome.
I was born in Western Pennsylvania...
nathanalbright (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:53AM EDT (link)…and I grew up in rural Central Florida. As a fairly proud Yankee I was subjected to pretty merciless teasing for my Pittsburgh accent, had to deal with crazy racist anti-intellectual neo-Confederates for neighbors (which led to a lot of conflicts), and for my troubles get insulted by liberal Californians as an inbred banjo playing redneck because I grew up in the South. That and my career has shown me that right to work isn’t all it’s cracked up to be or all that personally beneficial. So forgive me if I’m a big cynical about the South. When it actually starts paying off for me I’ll provide plenty of gratitude.
er, a bit cynical that is...
nathanalbright (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:54AM EDT (link)kowalski.
nathanalbright, all sarcasm aside,
lineholder (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 7:44AM EDT (link)I’m sorry that you had those experiences, but given the situation our nation is facing right now, right-to-work may be our best hope for restoring an environment where growth and development in the private sector can take place.
I’ve lived in the South most of my life, and the area where I live has been over-whelmed by transplants from the North during the past 12 – 18 months. They come here for jobs, yet they bring their old mentality with them….seeing the South as being “archaic”, believing Unions are “progressive”, seeing themselves as being superior, etc., etc.
I’m more than a bit worried about it. If I took that out on you and was too harsh, then I apologize for it.
I can see why you would be a bit harsh...
nathanalbright (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 8:18PM EDT (link)….and I did see what you said as quite harsh. If there were more good paying, decent, and respectable jobs a lot of this tension would be lessened. We don’t always do a good job at recognizing our real adversaries, and too much hostility toward those who come from other places (like the North) doesn’t help Conservatism as a whole. I happen not to be extremely fond of unions (I find them useless–my dad was a secretary for his local bus driver’s union when he was alive but I never saw the union do very much good, and the public service unions I have seen are far worse than useless, especially in the education business).
I imagine that you would be a bit worried by such phenomena. The best you can hope for is that time and experience will allow them to change their minds, as they see that jobs are where they are because of less burdensome regulations and anti-business policies. Otherwise tensions are going to increase pretty dramatically.
Thank you for responding to it this way, nathanalbright
lineholder (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 8:32PM EDT (link)It was already tense. I live in NC. This state went 50/50 for Obama in 2008, then shifted back to the right in 2010, but with all the transplants in the last 1-11/2 years, and the DNC Convention in Charlotte, and some shenanigans being pulled by Unions associated with the DNC Convetion…it’s being stretched a bit right now.
We’ll just have to see how it goes.
It's possible those shenanigans might backfire...
nathanalbright (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 8:45PM EDT (link)….but it’s certain to make for a very troublesome situation, that’s for sure.
NAlbright: I hate the South as much as you!
tailfins1959 Monday, January 2nd at 1:04PM EDT (link)I too lived in the South most of my life but raised in a border state. Bostonians are MUCH more flexible. I found myself a target to be invited to some gay pride events. Once I attended to prove not being “narrow minded”, there was no negative attitude in Boston. I’m not sure how I like being held up as an example of their “commitment to diversity”.
What I despise about the modern South is an attitude of “We take care of our own and only our own”. I particularly dislike Southern cops. They seem to rather enjoy harassing the homeless. Modern Southerners are the stingiest, pettiest people I have ever met. They prefer to break something rather than give it away. It’s interesting to buy a cordless phone at a garage sale and be told after the purchase that the battery is “right here”, but sold separately. The more fundamentalist churches in the South have these characteristics down to an art.
Regardless of region, I really despise people that have a tiny bit of authority and enjoy lording it over others.
You have the right to quit Toxic People. (They’re contagious.) ~Dr. SunWolf
Well this explains why your posts are such a useless
Tbone (Diary) Monday, January 2nd at 1:40PM EDT (link)waste of pixels.
Sounds like you have no core moral values. Why aren’t you a Democrat?
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
Because I think and observe!
tailfins1959 Monday, January 2nd at 6:01PM EDT (link)Anybody with a basic understanding of economics knows the Democrats are spending money they don’t have. It’s not necessary to be governed by the characters in Deliverance to escape (or ex-cape for those in Dixie) the economic illiterates running the gubmint now.
You have the right to quit Toxic People. (They’re contagious.) ~Dr. SunWolf
If I was the Perry campaign, I would be blaring this Romney "individual mandates are conservative" blurb in an ad non-stop in Iowa
RealQuiet (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 12:31AM EDT (link)Romney was getting quite a bit of the pro-business vote into his camp but they might stop dead in their tracks if they see this. Also, fiscal conservatives will get second thoughts as well.
Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised....
nathanalbright (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 12:46AM EDT (link)…if Perry’s fantastic ad team is working on that ad right now, especially for NH.
Obamacare was designed by Romney and he openly admits being an Obama consultant on it.
ihateliberals Thursday, December 29th at 9:29AM EDT (link)The insurance companies are ecstatic about Obamacare because they see 35 million new customers. I wonder what they are going to do when everyone decides tht regular insurance is too expensive and opt for the government system. Within five to tenyears the insurance companies wil be bankrupt and they don’t get it. The way to lower insurance cost is to up the competition not to force the purchase.
Romney is the lyingest Mormon I have ever met and I have met a lot of Mormons since I am one. If anyone thinks that Romney intends to repeal Obamacare then I have a bridge i would like to sell to them and it sits on Ocean front property in Arizona. Romney designed Obamacare why should he repeal his own baby? so many people make the mistake that Romney is a conservative. He comes from Mass. and there has never been a conservative in any of the New England states. He only talks conservative when running for President no other time.
He does not say he was a consultant.
Ann_W (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 1:03PM EDT (link)He has said repeatedly, “I wish he would have called me, so I could have told him what worked and what didn’t work.”
“The more the plans fail, the more the planners plan.” Ronald Reagan
You're right, Ann_W. Obama only had two of Romney's key Romneycare architects on the Obamacare team.
acat (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 1:11PM EDT (link)He didn’t have the front man, Willard.
I’m sure that would have made all the difference.
/sarc
Mew
——
Caveat Suffragator
Healthcare is a complex problem, and a mandate is one conservative solution
btowner Thursday, December 29th at 10:29AM EDT (link)I continue to be surprised for the level of criticism about Romney on this site. Even if a state mandate is a bad thing (I don’t think it is), Romney has pledged to repeal Obamacare and to leave health care policy to the states. What are you afraid he is going to do?
As for the mandate, simply claiming that we won’t allow people to declare bankruptcy for medical bills is ridiculous and would not fix the situation. The problem is much more pervasive than that. We have an implicit mandate today because hospitals are required to provide urgent care for individuals who cannot pay (including illegal aliens), which raises the price of care (and, in turn, the price of health insurance) for everyone. As long as that requirement is in place, the best conservative solution I have heard is to implement a government mandate to purchase health insurance from the PRIVATE market.
The only other alternative is to remove the requirement to provide care from hospitals. You can imagine how well this will go over the first time someone who cannot afford health insurance dies outside the hospital doors or in the lobby. If we’re being realistic and honest with ourselves, we will concede that our human decency will never allow this practice. Because we allow the government to mandate care for those who cannot afford it, we should also mandate health insurance (at the STATE level) for all individuals with means-based subsidies so that all individuals who CAN pay into the system WILL pay into the system and costs will stay down.
Illegal immigrants will still be a burden on the health care system, but that problem will be diminished if the country implements an e-verify system as Romney and others have proposed.
There are other alternatives
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:20AM EDT (link)nt
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
I would love to hear other viable alternatives
btowner Thursday, December 29th at 1:51PM EDT (link)Seriously, I would be open to any options for improving the health care situation. I think Obama had his heart in the right place on this issue but came up with a horrible solution. What frustrates me, though, is hearing only criticism of Obamacare with little discussion of alternative solutions to a real problem. Many seem more interested in criticizing Romney, who implemented an idea originating from conservative think tanks (the Heritage Foundation), while ignoring all of the states doing NOTHING to address the health care situation. Why is complete inaction better than action supported by conservative ideas and groups?
Mitt’s health care solution was flawed in many ways (thanks mostly to the state legislature overriding his veto power on various aspects of the bill), but I admire his willingness to try a conservative solution and to be able to implement it in a predominantly democratic state. Given that he has promised not to do so at a federal level and will repeal Obamacare (which I expect will be deemed unconsitutional by the supreme court anyway), I don’t understand why Redstate has singled Romney out as such a poor candidate. I think he would make a great president.
There have been numerous options discussed on this site alone
JSobieski (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 4:11PM EDT (link)Deregulated insurance options to make obtaining insurance more desirable (going as basic as “change of medical condition insurance”—i.e. insurance that only allows you to purchase future insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions)
Neutral tax treatment to de-couple insurance from employment.
Special collection rights so that hospitals can cost effectivey collect monies owed.
Special status of medical bills in bankruptcy
Post a bond.
Bottom Line: If we make the market more efficient and reform medicare and medicaid, there will be sufficient money to deal with free riders
Did you know that China has been losing manufacturing jobs since 1995? For the specific data, see Table 1 in the following link: http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2005/07/art2full.pdf
Maybe this is why he called it Conservative?
thinkprogress Thursday, December 29th at 10:34AM EDT (link)Or maybe he said it was “conservative” because he was referring to the fact that Insurance companies currently pay out less than 45% of Premiums to actually pay for Health care and that Obamacare would force them to pay out over 80%. Too bad for the Conservative CEO that his annual pay might drop to $20 Million from $25 Million.
Or maybe it was “Conservative” because it forces those same Insurance Company to actually cover their Customers and Not Deny Claims, Pay Doctors or Cancel your insurance because of Preexisting conditions?
Maybe it is “Conservative” because it’s forcing Insurance Lobbyists to spend Hundreds of Millions of Dollars to BRIBE and CORRUPT Congress and the Supreme Court to Repeal Obamacare?
Or Maybe he said it is “Conservative” because 72% of Americans Actually Want Health Care Reform? (See Polls)
G'bye (nt)
Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 10:37AM EDT (link)….
RS contributing editor and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules
Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.
“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder
Think Progress.....
tnguy Thursday, December 29th at 10:48AM EDT (link)Even the tiniest amount of research would tell you how foolish that analysis is.
Many insurance companies only have a profit margin of only 5 or 10%. If you think you can suddenly double what they’re paying in benefits, you’d basically bankrupt the private insurance system. Which, of course, is one of Obama’s goals.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.”
What was in this space, lol
heraklios Thursday, December 29th at 11:05AM EDT (link).
psssssst, heraklios.
gekster (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:09AM EDT (link)put your mouse pointer at any corner, click and hold, then wash over to the opposite corner.
ps: don’t tell anyone.
They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.
We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway
I’ve gone from
“Hope and Change” to
“Hopeless and Changeless”
Thanks for the tip, gekster. nt
westcoastpatriette (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 11:55AM EDT (link)\\
Praise ye the Lord. Sing unto the Lord a new song, and his praise in the congregation of saints. Let Israel rejoice in him that made him: Let the children of Zion be joyful in their King. Let them praise His name in the dance: let them sing praises unto Him with the timbrel and harp. Psalm 149:1-3
What was in this space, lol
heraklios Thursday, December 29th at 11:05AM EDT (link).
Gingrich talked about the individual mandate before Romney did.
joshdunn Thursday, December 29th at 11:27AM EDT (link)Gingrich and Romney are both on the record as supporting an individual mandate for healthcare.
I don’t see how Erick can despise Romney for supporting the individual mandate and, at the same time, praise Gingrich for being an upstanding, consistent conservative.
We will not choose a perfect candidate this year. Every single candidate has flaws. One candidate, Mitt Romney, has polls that show that he can beat Obama. Gingrich has several polls which show that Obama would kick his butt in states that should be easy wins for the GOP.
This is one of the many reasons why no Republican senator wants to endorse Newt Gingrich. This is probably why Herman Cain has not endorsed him. Newt would be a weak candidate against Obama while Romney would be a relatively strong candidate.
Intellectually Dishonest, Erick
blarman Thursday, December 29th at 12:29PM EDT (link)I’m really shocked at the levels you will go to to dis on Romney. I don’t support the Massachusetts healthcare law, but Romney very clearly states that the conservative principle he is talking about is allowing the people to decide their healthcare rather than the government. Is government-run healthcare a boondoggle and disaster? Unequivocably YES. But you don’t need to lie and try to paint Romney’s support of the people choosing their own way to be equivalent to supporting Obamacare. That’s intellectually dishonest, especially when he has come out multiple times advocating the repeal of Obamacare. The main difference – the one that Romney is trying to point out but that you want to conveniently ignore because it doesn’t suit your agenda – is that Obamacare is a FEDERAL program where “Romneycare” was a STATE program. It’s stupid, it’s a bad idea, it raises taxes without really providing benefits, etc. The principal of government running healthcare is a bad idea. But if the PEOPLE vote for it in their own state, they have upheld a CONSERVATIVE principle of self-determination – even if it is to walk off a cliff.
Intellectuals use paragraphs.
jakeofalltrades (Diary) Thursday, December 29th at 8:06PM EDT (link)n/consideration
go to www.headlinepolitics.com to vote your choice to win the IA caucus
circlegranch Thursday, December 29th at 12:42PM EDT (link).
Okay here we go.
daniel22 Thursday, December 29th at 8:02PM EDT (link)I hope someone gets it. As much fuss as was put up about Obama being out of touch, smug, condescending,etc. concerning remarks he made and his actions here is the same. Romney as we all know is a RINO period! He can’t defend his Mass. fiasco so he won’t. In fact he has the attitude that if he admits that Romneycare iwas a mistake it will weaken his campaign.
You know there is something else that really bothers me. that is the way the GOP ( Grand Old Progressives) good ole boys have come to Romney. You see to a man they have given their blessing and have piled onto any of his challengers in one form or another. I don’t know about you but I do not like to be told who to vote for let alone hold my nose when I vote.
Anyway back to the subject of Romney. This is just the outside showing of an inside character flaw. He actually believes it is his destiny to win the presidency. He believes that somehow he deserves it and that this voting just slows down the inevitable. Sort of like our current “fourth best president”.
The way I look at it is should he win the nomination the choice will be Obama or Obama light (no pun intended).
The only reason Romney is where he is
sunshinek67 (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:04AM EDT (link)is based on his money. Again I say, Mitt Romney’s name synonymous with serial political loser, debunking this whole “electable” myth. His name also reminds folks that he is a jobs killing one-term Governor of a tiny state that left office with 35% approval rating; one signature piece of legislation that has drained the Massachusetts Treasury and has provided the basis for Obamacare. Coreless, wavering and unelectable.
Now, tell me again where he is the most viable GOP candidate to face Barack Obama?
Willard: If the People took Personal Responsibility all the way to the end of the trail...
snowshooze (Diary) Friday, December 30th at 12:13AM EDT (link)We wouldn’t have any use for a Government.