« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Now is Not the Time for “Obama-Lite”

This election, the most important of our generation, is about ideas and core concepts about the role that government should play in individuals’ lives.  The Liberal-Left has and will continue to expand the size and scope of the federal government, insisting that the government has the authority to dictate personal health decisions. There is very little that the modern liberal Democrat believes is off-limits for the government.

ObamaCare, one of the most expansive federal laws ever written, is offensive to most Americans because of what it signifies.  ObamaCare is not merely bad health care policy; it is a fundamental rejection of many of the founding principles of America.

The Democrats’ new health care law gives the federal government unprecedented authority to intervene in individuals’ lives.  It gives entirely new authorities and regulatory power to Washington bureaucrats.  It levies punitive fines on individuals and businesses that do not comply with the government’s heavy-handed regulations.  For many reasons, ObamaCare is wholly unacceptable public policy.

And yet, one of the contenders in the GOP race, Mitt Romney, is himself an advocate of many aspects of ObamaCare.   As governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney redesigned his state’s health care system with a sweeping overhaul commonly referred to as “Romneycare.”  Romneycare shares many of the key provisions of ObamaCare, including an individual mandate, an employer mandate, new taxes, and an increase in taxpayer-subsidized health care.  Not surprisingly, Romneycare’s big-government approach has yielded the nation’s highest health insurance premiums in Massachusetts, as well as some of the longest wait times to see a doctor.

As much as Mitt Romney would like to discuss superficial distinctions between his health care overhaul and the President’s, the reality is that the Obama Administration relied on Romney’s plan as a template and model for ObamaCare.  Even more confusing is that the Governor continues to defend this huge government intrusion as the right thing to do on the “state level.”  However, Gov. Romney’s health care overhaul, with all of its various new taxes, expansion of Medicaid, and intrusive mandates, reveals a great deal about his governing philosophy – and proves, this kind of government intrusion is wrong at any level.

This year’s election ought to be about the contrast between limited-government conservatives who want to provide true reform, and status quo politicians who favor “big-government” solutions and a tighter regulatory state.  Romney, the architect of many big-government policies in his own state, could appropriately be viewed as “Obama Lite” – a disappointing alternative to President Obama.

As one of the original designers of Health Savings Accounts in the early 1990’s, I have been a champion of the free market in health care.   I have always believed that the private sector, unlike the government, is uniquely capable of producing innovative medical solutions and lower costs through competition.  My proposals consistently prioritize the patient-physician relationship and favor giving individuals the power to make their own health care decisions.

I’m running in this election because I know what the stakes are.  I believe Americans, who overwhelmingly disapprove of ObamaCare, deserve an authentic alternative to Obama and the Democrats’ policies.  I stand for freedom, innovation, and consumer choice in order to improve the quality and decrease the cost of health care.  I do not want Americans to experience the record-high health care premiums and waiting times of Massachusetts.  Please stand with me so that we can repeal and replace Obamacare and instead embrace an American, patient-centered health care solution of choice and competition for families and businesses across our country.

Rick Santorum, a former representative and senator from Pennsylvania, is a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. 

 

COMMENTS

  • gonzo55

    The country’s economy was in bad shape when Dear Leader Obama rode an orgy of sycophantic idolatry to the White House. As was entirely predictable, he then immediately made things dramatically worse, spending his political capital on the foolish Obamacare program,,

    I am certain that the reason the economy still is not recovering is the onerous regulations and high taxes imposed by Obamacare. As our nation’s health spirals downward in a cycle of unemployment, undersupply of doctors, and poor quality of care mandated by Obamacare, one can’t help but feel like we are witnessing a modern day socialistic Holocaust of high taxes, excessive regulations, and poor health care.

    To nominate the ultimate author of Obamacare, Mitt Romney, would make our side as complicit in this debacle as the Belgians were in enabling Hitler. I’m still undecided between Speaker Gingrich and Senator Santorum, but I thank the senator for his thoughtful discussion of health care and stuff.

  • regent2009

    Obama-lite is cute. But it is time for the candidates, on national TV, to call this beast what it really is. SOCIALISM.

    The problem is that too many independents and other uninformed voters still see Obama as a good guy. So Obama-lie will not solicit any real reaction from them. But everyone knows exactly what socialism is,

    Myself, I went back and forth between Bachmann and Perry in this race. But if the Senator were to take this sort of bold action, I would consider joining the next Santorum wave.

  • znjs

    Still disappointed you declined to respond to any of the questions posted about your Iran diary, and on the off chance you do read the responses even if you didn’t respond to them.

    Granted, I’m sure you get more then enough advice from armchair “political strategists”, most of which is terrible, but honestly even though I disagreed with your ideas on Iran I recommended it because I thought your thoughts should be heard. I won’t be doing the same on this diary – we need more then another attack on Romney. Most posters here do more then a good enough job on that already. What we need is solutions. Let’s face it – Obamacare didn’t happen in a vacuum. Health care in this country was broken well before Obama came into office – and he was elected touting a far more leftist approach then he eventually passed! The question has to be asked – repeal and then what? It’s create that you pushed HSA’s in the past – I’m a happy owner of such an account. That gives you credibility. Now what else do you have – and please say more then “free market solutions”. That phrase could mean just about anything with how much it’s been thrown around. And pushing your solution will automatically make us think about the solution Mitt came up with while he was govt – you don’t need to even attack for us to make that connection.

  • http://908StraightSt.wordpress.com/ mbecker908

    is the perfect time to leave the race and go back to PA and get a real job. Oh, and you can endorse Newt on the way out the door.

  • elizaliza

    This ObamaCare is bad, real bad. Just last week my neighbor said ObamaCare saved his life, because it gave him some access to some treatment or whatever. It’s gut wrenching and heartbreaking. And get this, just ’cause of that, he’s gonna betray us and switch his vote! Lifelong Republican at that! I seriously don’t know what this country is coming to, But there’s also good news, someone i went to college with emigrated to Canada, he called himself a health care refugee, cos in his state they sort of blocked ObamaCare. His wive’s Canadian, and they told him his kids would suffer some sort of illness which the Canadians foolishly cover. Good riddance! Let them all go to these commie nations, like Switzerland, and Sweden

    I feel very strongly that I should not pay to save my neighbors life! We’re Americans, we don’t save each others life by paying the government! We save each others lives on the battlefield, even if we use government funded guns to do so. In every other matter, we save OUR SELVES.

    “The Democrats

  • nocontest

    and how do you explain Mr. Santorum how it is wrong to have an abortion after being raped and yet still be for the death penalty knowing a small percentage are innocent. At what age can we kill Mr Santorum?

  • izoneguy

    Winning Iowa Gets You What These Days?

    Santorum seems to be repeating the experience of Mike Huckabee, who also couldn

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Senator Santorum was right to bring up Obamacare in the debate and point out that it is THE issue, right after jobs and economy that is number one. it was sad that he had to do it in a pivot on another question. Bad debate questions from the liberal moderators.

    It is indeed important to know how and what we will do after Obamacare is repealed. Thanks for giving an answer to that question and for a great answer to the Schaivo question.

  • lizzie

    the calendar year.

    since then, having been downsized out of my career in 2001 at age 49 due to the pervasive ageism in the USA which NOT ONE CANDIDATE EVER talks about, (possibly because politics seems to be perfect job security for the elderly)
    I have found the quest for patient-centered health care to be unknown.

    just try asking what a procedure will cost. Only dentists will answer.

    just try shopping for a competent endocrinologist.

    PPACA was a disaster, but only Newt Gingrich seems to actually be offering some solutions to the totally dysfunctional way that medicine is PRACTICED in the USA. altho the whole system is rigged to push legal drugs from Big Pharma.

    Now I discover I am in the 3% who have private longterm care insurance, even though I am in the bottom 40% on income. I had a portable LTC plan that I started when I was 40. Now my premium is more than $900 per year, and as I descend closer to poverty, I question why I should be so responsible when 97% of adult Americans are relying on scamming Medicaid for their LTC.

    I would be much healthier in France, Germany, or Finland where they have real health care with cost effective outcomes. and it is NOT socialized.
    Britain has socialized National Health where the doctors are state employees..

  • JSobieski

    HSA’s can hold the money indefinitely.

  • lizzie

    I am even more of a disillusioned dem since Rick Perry did the courageous tactical retreat.

    I do not want to live in America if it is Romney, Paul, or Santorum v Obama.

    The health care system, and economy, is so broken, only Perry’s endorsement of Gingrich keeps my glimmer of hope alive.

    Sorry, Mr. Santorum.

    I am willing to put aside my ardent pro-choice position to again vote GOP, but not with a candidate who was part of Bush43′s irresponsible fiscal policies, let alone well, . You should take care of your family and stop trying to impose your belief system on everyone else..

  • sandiegovoter

    Why don’t you show a little courtesy to our guest? Please.

  • Dave_A

    The only worse choice than Newt is Ron Paul.

  • quill67

    Everybody talks about bringing down the cost of healthcare. One of the biggest costs of healthcare is the paperwork.

    Health Savings Accounts allow people to get health care without paperwork (except receipt). No insurance papers to file, no primary care physician to see, and no pre-approvals needed.

    Our goal should be that 90% of medical transactions require no insurance form (government or private) to be completed. Instead of nurses working full time on filing out insurance forms–they could see patients. This would drive down costs and increase the quality of care.

    Maybe being a doctor would be enjoyeable again. Fewer people want to be doctors because much of the joy of being a doctor has been removed. People become doctors to help people—not fill out paperwork. People become doctors to enjoy a good quality of life—not be told how much they can earn.

  • aj_0000

    I respect what you’ve done as a legislator, and as a candidate. But at this point the only thing you can do in this race is hand the nomination to Romney by splitting votes with Newt. The Republican Party establishment is now trying to use you for just that purpose. They are encouraging you to stay in on the idea that Gingrich will implode and you’ll still have a path to the nomination. That’s impossible. Even if such an “implosion” happens, by that time it will be too late and Romney will already be on his way. The only way he can be stopped is for there to be one conservative candidate opposing him. It has to be Newt. It’s too late for it to be anything else.

    You have a run a respectable campaign. Please do not let your ultimate role in this election be handing the nomination to Mitt Romney. Gov. Perry understood the big picture of what’s happening, and he did the right thing. Please follow his lead, and retain the respect and admiration of conservatives.

  • deVere

    Your insurance company sets the pre-negotiated price, and also keeps track of how much you have spent toward your annual deductible.

  • elizaliza

    because they’re master hackers, along with the Chinese. doing everything electronic is a recipe for disaster. Just like electronic voting

    I wonder, what would happen if patients die cos of a computer glitch? if thousands get the wrong medication, cos someone copy-pasted wrong? It has happened before.

  • deVere

    He would be wise to stay out of “winner take all” states, run only in the rest, and smile at everyone.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Yeah, Santorum does that.

  • aj_0000

    The race is a dead heat between Romney and Gingrich. Santorum primarily pulls votes from Gingrich. If Santorum stays in, he greatly increases the chance that Romney will win. Anyone who says otherwise is trying to hand the nomination to Romney.

  • In The Hook

    And at least the guy is a decent human being and consistent in his social issue stances.

  • bonnman

    while we’re in the middle of a debt crisis

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Big spender. War in Iran. Union support. Most polarizing candidate since Pat Buchanan. The guy is a walking disaster. He’d make Goldwater look like he lost a close race.

  • WillWong

    And why would a pro-life guy endorse a 100% pro-choice Arlen Specter over a pro-life Pat Toomey, may I ask?

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    and endorse Newt, guess what: it won’t help Newt. In fact, it will hurt him.

    Take a look at the crosstabs at page 10 on the latest PPP poll, which has Romney at an 8 point lead: http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_FL_128.pdf

    Among likely Santorum voters, 27% picked Newt as their second choice, while 43% picked Romney. If Santorum drops out, Romney GAINS votes in Florida.

  • JSobieski

    that are not inherently the same.

    (1) HSA monies
    (2) Applicaiton of HSA spending against the deductible

    I can use my HSA debit card card without any insurance paperwork, but if I want that transaction to count towards my deductible, then I need to comply with the insurance company requirements (aka paperwork).

    I typically operate on the assumption that I will never hit my deductible (if I do, it means I have bigger problems than arguing about the incremental impact of a smaller transaction counting against that deductible),

  • quill67

    But that is because most people are still operating on the old insurance type system. Once barriers to buying insurance across state borders is eliminated, this will be a non-issue.

  • deVere

    After tonight’s debate performance he is a plausible nominee.

  • elizaliza

    the republican plan of buying and selling insurance across state borders, which is why those same Republicans are against it now, which seems to me a good thing.

  • snowshooze

    Pretty sad, what I was able to watch. Santorum was kicking Mitt… I thought that was Newt’s job.

  • Common_Cents

    Perry stepped up and saw the big picture and graciously stepped back. Santorum should do the same.

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

    But then again, could some of them also have been wowed tonight as Mitt finally defended his business career? I just think that after tonight, Santorum looks irrelevant.

  • elizaliza

    it’s okay. at least newt has some ideas, and he won’t give my money to these poor slobs who make less than 100 grand per year. I earn 30 times more than Joe Sixpackl cos i work 30 times as hard! I know this cos I put in 30 times more hours than Joe Sixpack.

    a lunar colony will be a huge boost to our economy, right now, the russians and the chinese are the only ones capable of manned space flight, can you believe that? Obama killed the Space Shuttle too!

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

    We have had degrees of socialism for a century and most Americans are economically ignorant. Bur all have lived under the policies of Obama. Our best argument is to ask voters if they like Obamaism and want 4 more years of it or a lighter version of same.

  • sandiegovoter

    2008 was the beginning of a cycle that will continue for some time.

    Iowa has turned into the evangelical-endorsement caucus.

    Huckabee and Senator Santorum (God bless you, Senator) have proven that Iowa no longer matters.

    It’s place at the beginning of the election-year primaries/caucuses should be re-examined.

    States like Ohio and Florida (which are needed in the general election) should get priority over Iowa.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    nt

  • sandiegovoter

    Anyway. I appreciate Senator Santorum stopping by to say hello. He is responsible for making sure that the voice of social conservatives does not get ignored during the Republican primaries. He has pulled the dialog to the right.

  • Tbone

    You are unqualified for the position. Please get out of the race. You will not win it, thankfully.

  • znjs

    I’m legitimately asking – I’ve heard this sentiment before that Santorum would endorse Gingrich but I’ve never seen any evidence to support the claim. I’d think he’s support whoever he thinks would have a better chance of winning the general election and would give him some cabinet position, which I would guess would put him as more likely to get behind Romney (or stay in as a stalking horse for him – not that I’m saying that’s what I think is happening).

  • lapert

    What Perry saw was that he was no longer relevant in the race polling in low single digits so he did the only thing he thought that could keep him relevant going forward. No one ‘graciously’ exits and endorses the competition when doing so matters at all – at least I can’t think of a single time it happened.

    Santorum will eventually drop out and likely endorse Mitt since he will at the time be walking away with the nomination and it will be the only way for him to stay relevant, some time after that Newt will do the same thing.

    The myth that all these candidates are fighting for the same voters against Romney may make for fine blogs but it lousy political tactics.

  • http://lukos.com Ed54

    Is there evidence that Santorum’s supporters would go to Newt?

    I saw one poll in SC that suggested that 2/3 of Santorum voters favored Gingrich as their second choice, while 1/3 favored Romney. But that was in SC, which was very tough terrain for Romney. I suspect in Florida it would be closer to an even split, and thus a wash.

    Besides, the polls are consistently showing Romney leading Gingrich by 8, and that was BEFORE the Thurs debate. I’d guess he is leading by 10+ now. Santorum is polling at 12% support. If 2/3 of his voters (8%) went to Gingrich and 1/3 (4%) went Romney, that would still not be enough to put Gingrich over the top. So why would Santorum, as his last act in the race, endorse a guy whose own demise is imminent?

    No, Santorum’s strategy is to wait for Gingrich to implode and then present himself as the sole alternative.

  • acat

    letting the squishy moderates win while the mighty (in political stupidity at least…) social conservatives were too busy arguing over who to follow.

    As I predicted, based on every GOP race where there’s not an incumbent President or veep, the social conservatives have set themselves up to be defeated in detail.

    (shakes head, walks away)

  • acat

    I propose allowing States with 7 or fewer electoral votes, a closed primary, and a strong State GOP party to enter a lottery for the first, second, and third slots.

    Mew

  • texastaxpayer

    It sucks and I prefer my bad news early versus dragging it out for months.

  • acat

    in balancing the field in favor of underfunded long-shots.

    If all States voted for the GOP nominee on the same day, the field would tip seriously toward the well-funded who can run a nationwide campaign from day one…

    Mew

  • texastaxpayer

    But this drawn out process is turning me into a bitter alcoholic. My wife is going to start moving out every election year and refusing to return until I stop screaming at the television. Just sayin its not healthy…… ;)

  • lapert

    In the most recent PPP poll, the 2nd choice of Santorum supporters was 41% Gingrich, 33% Romney, 19% Paul.

    That would amount to a 2% swing to Gingrich, nowhere near enough to matter.

  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    Your attempt to share with us a liberal’s charicature of a conservative is pathetic. Your personal slanders are vile …

    “Santorum married an abortionist

  • Dave_A

    The religious answer to your question is simple: According to the Bible, God ordered the death penalty be applied to certain crimes, therefore the use of capital punishment as part of an official judicial process cannot be a sin, because God would never order man to sin. To contrast, abortion in the overwhelming majority (eg, to the point of statistical irrelevancy) of cases is the taking of a human life for the personal convenience of another – which is a sin. No one is saying we should force a woman to raise a child conceived by rape – we’re just saying she shouldn’t be allowed to kill it.

    The non-religious answer, is that the death penalty exists for the same reason we put down dangerous animals – there are some convicts who are absolutely not reformable – no action we can take will ever render them safe to release into society. At the point where an individual proves by his actions that he cannot be reformed, he should be put down. Currently, this ‘point’ is the commission of aggravated murder, treason, and various other abjectly heinous crimes. Personally, I’d extend it to 3-time repeat felons as well (after 3 felony convictions (and presumably countless lesser offenses, given how hard it is for felony charges to stick through to conviction), you have demonstrated an abject inability to live within the law). This is a logical use of government power, not medically-delivered death for personal convenience.

    Finally, in BOTH the religious and the non-religious perspective, Americans DO NOT believe in punishing one person for the independent acts of another – the evil committed by a rapist does not justify the killing of a child simply because said child came to be as a result of said rape.