“First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.”

Basically given a choice between the statist solution and a market solution, Romney urges the statist solution.

Romney is incredibly selfish to run for President in a year when Obamacare repeal is so important, is a popular issue, and he is UNIQUELY unsuited to challenge Obama on the issue.

Rarely does a diary provoke such an emotional response from me, but this is absolutely nuts. My distrust of Romney has transformed to dislike.

Newt has always been interested in some ways to make healthcare more market oriented. Newt never said “screw incentives, go with mandates”.

Most people have insurance. Change the tax laws, deregulate insurance, and market forces will take care of the problem —-this is the conservative solution.

The Romney/Obama solution is government mandates, increased costs, and the eventual discrediting of capitalism in the eyes of hte public. Actually Romney isn’t smart enough to see that–but Obama is.

This bites—it absolutely bites.

Everything else in his political career is fungible.

The biggest statist monstrosity since FDR? Consistent support.

Why repeal something that “works just fine” for the sole reason that it impacts too many people?

Romney is Bob Dole without the war record and McCain without the personality.

Romney specifically choosing mandates/penalties over credits/incentives is PRECISELY what the left-right argument is about, and Romney urged Obama to go left!!!!!!!!

I wish the Romney campaign would call me one more time so I could absolutely unload on someone. Heck, I am going to call their campaign office.

Healthcare is a screwed up marketplace. Leftists propose mandates/penalties. Conservatives propose marketbased solutions of incentives/credits.

Romney’s quote affirmative urged Obama to adopt the statist solution over the conservative solution without providing any reason why. In fact, his quote suggests that either way could work.

I guess Romney has been lying when he said something that was working “just fine” at the state level was a bad idea at the federal level. Otherwise, Romney was urging Obama to adopt a bad idea.

Romney is officially below Ron Paul on my list.

We will never repeal Obamacare if we can’t do it in 2013. The country can survive 4 years of military withdraw form the world. We can’t survive a long slow fade into the abyss.

The “working just fine” at the state level, but “so horrible it must be repealed” at the federal level never made any sense.

Romney never believed it was bad at the federal level either. He affirmatively urged the statist solution over a market based solution.

I was not on the anyone but Romney bandwagon before, but I am definitely riding on it now.

Tax penalties OR tax credits

Romney’s choice: penalties
Romney urges Obama to adopt? penalties

Romney never urged incentives like tax credits even though he is the capitalist candidate.

The man is an absolute fraud, and proof that wall street ceased being capitalist.

Your attempt to spin this is also attrocious. Romney never advocated for savings accounts in Mass, or with Obama.

Is there no decent person with enough ambition to jump in at this point?

There are good reasons to conclude that repeal of Obamacare is the single most important issue in the campaign.

There are good reasons to conclude that Romney is less than useless on this issue–both as a candidate and as a future President.

We need to elect someone who can repeal Obamacare, not merely someone “who can win”

If the person who wins won’t repeal Obamacare, we need an alternative

Whether we take the blame or not, we will take the pain.

As a small business person who has small businesses as clients, I can tell you that Obamacare is a big big drag on the economy. If it is not repealed, we will become a European style state.

The economy and our politics will never be the same.

Look to Greece, the UK, et al and see the future.

and I don’t get amused at people on a sinking ship.

So should Romney make comments in favor of having a King, i am sure some Romney supporter will step forward and point out that the pro-monarchy position was once the conservative position.

That is the fundamental difference between Romney supporters and the people riled up by old but recently uncovered op-ed.

THis wasn’t an interview–this was something Romney purposely wrote to urge Obama to enact Obamacare. Obama basically did what Romney urged, and now Romney says it is a horrible idea at the federal level even though that is what Romney urged Obama to do at the federal level.

And to be mad about this is to seek “perfection”!?!?!?!

Could Romney send any more signals to call into question his position on Obamacare?

Maybe write an op-ed explaining how in 2009, Obamacare made a lot of sense because it was only the first decade of the 21st century, but now that we are in the second decade. it is an antiquated approach that must be repealed or updated for the times?

How to fix healthcare:
(1) Change TAX LAW so that individuals can buy insurance with PRE-TAX dollars just like employers do. This will in short order decouple employers from being involved in what should be a personal matter
(2) de-regulate so that very little is ?mandatory coverage??let people pick and choose

The incentive you speak about is Point #1.

(1) Special accelerated judicial proceedings for debt collection (some states have special proceedings for medical malpractice)

(2) Giving medical debts a special status in bankruptcy court

The more important aspects of what Newt has talked about is in the following:

(3) Change tax law so that individuals can buy insurance with pre-tax dollars just like employers do. THis will in short order decouple employers from being involved in what should be a personal matter
(4) de-regulate so that very little is ?mandatory coverage??let people pick and choose
(5) voucherize/premium support medicaid and medicare to further enhance market forces
(6) tort reform

Market reforms lower costs, lower costs incentivizes people to voluntarily get insurance. Medicaid and Medicare remain as a safety net.

The government already gives hospitals money to degray the free rider ER problem. It is less than 5% of the cost of the existing system. Making the system more expensive to avoid a relatively small portion of the overall cost is stupid.

and instead chose to emphasize that the questions are mine.

Substance is more important than source.

Romney guy provides a link.
Newt guy provides the language.

Newt’s “support” for a mandate was always part of larger system reforms.

Romney never said “It is unjust to require an individual to buy into a broken and dysfunctional system.? Newt has, does, and he also predicted that Romneycare would result in skyrocketing costs if not accompanied with de-regulation.

Romney folks ignore all that and make comments about sig lines, or how people crack them up.

I make it less expensive to collect if there is gamesmanship going on (ie they have money and just don’t want to pay). Ultimately, you can’t get blood from a stone. Someone with no money doesn’t pay—that is the breaks. Try collecting a judgment against someone with no assets and a minimum wage job. Can’t be done.

My focus is on a market based solution. People will buy insurance voluntarily if they can buy what they want at a reasonable price.

(1) What they want
(2) reasonable price

With a market based approach, free riding will be less of a problem.

Point. Set. Match.

(1) A tax penalty imposed if you don’t buy insurance
(2) A tax credit given to those who do buy insurance

One of the reasons why I consider the “mandate” issue to be a distraction is that Obama could just change the tax tables to raise the taxes owed by the amount of the penalty, and then credit back the money to those who have insurance.

The mandate is not the primary problem with Obamacare or Romneycare.

The problem is that we are going further and further from a functioning market—government option and single payor will be the inevitable stopping point.

What you don’t understand is what makes the mandate bad.

High regulation + mandates = disaster
Medium regulation + mandates = bad
Low regulation + mandates = pragmatic bargain that CATO institute would accept

I know that you seem incapable of getting beyond the word mandate, so let me put it in even simpler terms.

Obama mandates that you give him $20k
Romney mandates that you give him $10k
Newt mandates that you give him $100

They all support mandates.

Romney’s mandate is much close to Obama’s than Newt’s.

I say this knowing that you are just going to see the word “mandate” and otherwise turn off your thinking, but for others who may be reading

NOT ALL MANDATES ARE EQUALLY BAD

is like equating a 10% flat tax with a 90% progressive income tax.

Since you are so found of Google, try this one:

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/21/heritage-and-the-individual-ma

“Another key difference was that the health insurance plan Hillary would require the employer to buy would be a broad generous plan covering everything. But the health insurance plan Heritage would require the worker to buy would be a cheap bare bones basic plan.”

The Heritage/Newt mandate as seen in the citation above and in the Newt newsletter show that the conservative version of the mandate is for BARE BONES basic plans.

In contrast, the Romney/Obama mandates are for comprehensive Cadillac plans in which coverage is ranked Gold, Silver, or Bronze, and you can’t go bellow bronze.

News flash: Ronald Reagan supported income taxes. So did Carter.

WOULD ANY SANE INDIVIDUAL SAY REAGAN AND CARTER WERE EQUIVALANT ON TAXES?

Reagan was no better than Carter–he supported income taxes too!!!

You could read a lengthy article my Milton Friedman in which he acknowledges that taxes are necessary to fund the government, and then say in a conversation about Robert Reich that “Friendman supports taxes too”

Hours later–you back down the scope of your intentions to a “title” of the diary.

I didn’t realize people argued about “titles”

What an absolut waste of time.

Google this.

Read this.

Bottom Line: “New supports some version of a mandate, Reagan supports some version of income taxes”

How bloody useful!

Who is ignoring that Newt supported a Mandate.

A bare bones mandate is an entirely different thing than the Obama/Romney mandate.

Just as Reagan taxes are different than Carter taxes.

Nobody denies that Newt used the word “mandate”.

Otherwise, admit that you are making straw man arguments.

I am going to make up rough numbers for the point of simplicity:

Obamare with mandate
$3k penalty if you don’t have insurance
Taxes owed if you have insurance = $10k
Taxes owed if you don’t have insurance = $13k

Obamacare with credit
No penalty
Everyone’s income taxes is raised by $3k
Credit of $3k given for those with insurance
So a person with insurance still pays $10
and a person without insurance still pays $13

Bottom line: You can modify the tax tables to make the numbers exactly the same.

Simply take the existing tax rates and either add the penalty, or just adjust the rate tables accordingly.

Kind of like saying mulitplying isn’t addition, but 2 + 2 +2 is just another way of doing 3 X 2

and Romneycare is something Romney is “proud” of because he thinks “it is working just fine”.

I am not trying to convince you to vote Newt. I am trying to stop this high-level argument silliness of Newt supports a “mandate” so there is no difference between the two.

What I call the “Reagan supported income taxes too” argument.

The “mandate” is really just a tax increase in that failure to comply with the mandate results in a tax increase.

The only reason why Obama didn’t structure it in the alternative way that I describe above is because he didn’t want to call it a tax increase. However, I have never seen a good analysis of why the alternative way of characterizing the exact same thing would be unconstitutional.

My personal prediction of the court cases are that the SCt will uphold the validity of the Obamacare precisely because the payment mechanism could be characterized as a tax increase with an offsetting credit for those with insurance.

None of this analysis excuses in any way Romney’s multi-face approach to Obamacare. So far, Romney hasn’t articulated a single reason to repeal Obamacare except the state level good, federal level bad rationale that is contradicted by his USA Today op-ed.

“Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages ?free riders? to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. ”

Keep in mind, this isn’t some interview question that one can understanably get tripped up on. This was an op-ed in which Romney when faced with urging tax penalties at the national level OR tax credits at the national level, chooses tax penalties at the national level.

Something he has since denied repeatedly in the campaign.

Just as there are progressive incomes taxes under Reagan and progressive income taxes under Carter. Some might argue that even though both administrations involved progressive income taxes, Reagan’s tax policy was better than Carters. Others might argue that since both supported “progressive income taxes” that there was no real difference between the two?

Romney has repeatedly tried to use Heritage as political cover, but the Heritage mandate was never anything like the Romneycare or Obamacare mandate.

http://spectator.org/archives/2011/12/21/heritage-and-the-individual-ma

Another key difference was that the health insurance plan Hillary would require the employer to buy would be a broad generous plan covering everything. But the health insurance plan Heritage would require the worker to buy would be a cheap bare bones basic plan.

It is precisely this issue that Newt criticized Romneycare on in Newt’s newsletter that was otherwise complimentary to Romney and Romneycare:

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

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

Newt was willing to embrace an individual mandate in the context of moving healthcare into a more market-based direction.

Romney was willing to embrace the individual mandate WITHOUT moving healthcare into a more market-based direction.

Newt’s record aint great, but it is materially better than Romney’s.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2848995/posts

and the language in the statute itself will matter.

This will come down to Justice Kennedy.

My prediction is that he will uphold the statute because Obamacare can simply be characterized as a tax increase with a tax credit for those buy insurance.

It is a close call, and the prediction is based on Kennedy being a fairly political justice.

you want the conditions to be so chaotic that the game is essentially random (hurricane, earthquake, tornado, nightime without lights, playing on ice, etc).

Some might say (I am one of them) that our situation is so dire that any attempt at mixing things up is worth a shot.

I don’t ignore the negative impact of chaos, I merely think people underestimate how bad of a candidate Romney will be in a general election.

Or likely unity of a Romney, Santorum, or Newt nomination?

As I have repeatedly pointed out-a progressive income tax is bad.

But a 70% top marginal rate is far worse than a 28% marginal rate.

Politics is about directional movement.

If someone is incapable of differentiating between bad and worse options, they frankly shouldn’t be voting.

Bad and worse is all we have.

in a quote that you repeated numerous times before acknowledging the substance of my point (which was based on what Newt actually said).

Now you play freudian psychologist over a typo by a SUPPORTER. not a candidate mind you, but just a plain old citizen.

Who is playing word smith games, and who is focused on substance?

I look forward to you renouncing Reagan for his support of the progressive income tax.

Except for the issue of public acceptance, why is something good for Mass but bad for the country.

We go around the world preaching (but not practicing) capitalism, urging other countries to join the prosperous west.

If something is good for people, why not share it? Unless it really isn’t good? Or maybe he doesn’t want to share?

Romney is twisted like a pretzel on this.

The entire point of elevating governors is so that they bring with them “stuff that works”.

http://www.redstate.com/dan_perrin/2011/12/29/how-the-new-obamacare-medical-loss-ratio-regs-will-kill-bronze-plans-and-hsas/

The composition of the coverage requirements can themselves be changed (although some might argue that the intent was to ratchet up, not ratchet down, coverage requirements).

If we can’t repeal Obamacare, one way to help it come crashing down is to expand HSAs and do some things to de-couple insurance from employment.

There are things that even D’s in the Senate would go along with that would do some good.

I wrote about some “trojan horse” ideas for Congress to pursue in 2011, but they would still be good ideas in 2013.

http://www.redstate.com/jsobieski/2010/11/04/a-trojan-horse-for-killing-obamacare-in-2011/

which means that complaining about anti-Romney media is LAUGHABLE in comparison to the treatment others on the right get.

Rick Santorum (who is not my first pick) has to fight his way during interviews just to even talk about a bread and butter issue.

RIck start’s out with the equivalent of a 3rd down and 20 while Romney starts out with the equivalent of a 1st down and 10.

If Romney can’t handle this softer treatment, he will be absolutely helpless and hopeless in the general election . . . just like McCain.

Romney is treated as the opposition, but Newt and Santorum are treated as aliens/freaks/jokes by the MSM.

Talk to democrats (whether in the media or not) and they will tell you that Romney is the only “reasonable Republican” in the race at this point.

The MSM is more against Newt and Rick than they are Romney.

I disagree that the MSM is anti-Romney.

In terms of the other stuff, I don’t care about who the MSM thinks is weak, strong, or indifferent. Those guys are wrong about most stuff, and they also lie.

Tax law is why we have employers deciding what kind of contraception coverage we can have.