RomneyCare architect: Of course it’s the same as ObamaCare

posted at 3:05 pm on November 17, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Well, Jonathan Gruber would know, wouldn’t he?  After all, he advised both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama on health-care reform.  In an interview yesterday with Capital New York, Gruber vented his frustration with Romney, claiming that he’s lying about the differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare:

He credited Mitt Romney for not totally disavowing the Massachusetts bill during his presidential campaign, but said Romney’s attempt to distinguish between Obama’s bill and his own is disingenuous.

“The problem is there is no way to say that,” Gruber said. “Because they’re the same [expletive] bill. He just can’t have his cake and eat it too. Basically, you know, it’s the same bill. He can try to draw distinctions and stuff, but he’s just lying. The only big difference is he didn’t have to pay for his. Because the federal government paid for it. Where at the federal level, we have to pay for it, so we have to raise taxes.”

Not that Gruber is much happier with Newt Gingrich, either.  He claims that Gingrich backed the same kind of system in the past, as did the Heritage Foundation, only to abandon it for political reasons:

Gruber said Republicans were actually less opposed to the mandate, which is going to be under scrutiny by the court, than they were to other provisions of the health care bill, given that the mandate was an essentially conservative idea that had currency with conservative intellectuals in the early 1990s. I asked about the difference between this plan and the kind that was espoused by former House speaker Newt Gingrich back then (and, briefly, in May of this year).

“Zero difference,” he said. “This is, to my mind, the most blatantly obvious case of politics trumping policy I’ve ever seen in my life. Because this is an idea, that four or five years ago, Republicans were touting. A guy from the Heritage Foundation spoke at the bill signing in Massachusetts about how good this bill was.”

What “politics” does Gruber see at play?  He thinks that ObamaCare (and RomneyCare, for that matter) might be the “most important social policy” since Medicare in the 1960s, and that its success would make Barack Obama the next FDR.   But that assumes that the model will succeed; if RomneyCare is the test case, then we can almost assuredly say that it won’t.  Insurance premiums have skyrocketed, and the Massachusetts program runs deep into the red.  Democratic governor Deval Patrick demanded that the state legislature address the program’s exploding costs just four weeks ago.

Gruber also tells Capital NY that ObamaCare represents the last, best hope for a free-market solution to the uninsured, but ObamaCare is anything but a free-market solution.  The best hope for a free-market solution would be to get insurance companies out of the way of routine care altogether.  The problem of escalating costs comes in large part from consumers being shielded from price signals.  Insurance should cover the possibility of large losses, not routine wellness and maintenance procedures.  Getting to a retail climate would stimulate competition, encourage new providers to emerge, and allow for more innovation and improvement, just as it has in the areas that insurers won’t cover — elective plastic surgery and Lasik treatments.  Insurers could then price catastrophic coverage much more reasonably to get the uninsured by choice covered, and safety-net programs for the poor could deal with the truly needy.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

MeatHeadinCA on November 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM

My point is, before anyone is elected or re-elected, this is going to be settled. How can Romney create Romneycare (as some argue is his secret plan once hes elected) for the entire nation if SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional? Thats my point with it being settled in June.

Kataklysmic on November 17, 2011 at 3:59 PM

What Romney has said about Global warming is that Scientists are saying its getting warmer because of human, he thinks their may be something to that, he doesnt know, hes not a scientist. But what he wont do, is spend billions of dollars or impose cap and trade on the basis of a theory. Ryan, who has talked with Romney, came away impressed with him and said hes on board with Ryans plan:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/exclusive-interview-paul-ryan-has-nothing-but-praise-for-romney-plan/2011/11/04/gIQAgUaSmM_blog.html

nswider on November 17, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Alright, time to wake up kiddo from nap. Romney on Cavuto now, fyi.

nswider on November 17, 2011 at 4:08 PM

You Romney people need to realize that your not providing some big newsflash to us Newtronians when you point out Newt has done rino things in the past. We know. Newt doesn’t have to outrun the grizzly bear, he only has to outrun Mitt.

Kataklysmic on November 17, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Very well put!

Vince on November 17, 2011 at 4:09 PM

Because elections are won by independents….like it or not.

If WE destroy our own ourselves, be it Romney, Cain, Perry or Gingrich before the election…the country will burn.

We are attacking the wrong people.

DLEW on November 17, 2011 at 4:07 PM

Believe it or not, independents do vote for conservatives and I thought the indies weren’t very happy with the mandates.

Now back to that false choice.

MeatHeadinCA on November 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM

MeatHeadinCA on November 17, 2011 at 4:03 PM

On this issue, Im just under qualified to say anything equivocally. What Romney says on it makes sense to me, but Im not an economist and could be wrong. We’ll just have to see it play out.

nswider on November 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM

All this story tells me is Mittens has a long history of surrounding himself with idiots.

David in ATL on November 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM

My point is, before anyone is elected or re-elected, this is going to be settled. How can Romney create Romneycare (as some argue is his secret plan once hes elected) for the entire nation if SCOTUS rules it unconstitutional? Thats my point with it being settled in June.

If SCOTUS throw out Obamacare, maybe. Even then, I would watch out for activist justices (perhaps some of Romney’s old nominees?).

If SCOTUS doesn’t throw out Obamacare, then it’s definitely not settled.

MeatHeadinCA on November 17, 2011 at 4:12 PM

“If it hurts me politically, it’s a consequence of the truth,” Romney added. “I am not going to walk away from that. It’s right for states to come up with their own solutions. I doubt other people are going try and follow the one we put together. Maybe learn from our experience. Maybe come up with something better. But the wrong course is to have the federal government impose its will on the entire nation.”

He’s getting closer he’s just not there yet. Say it! It’s a failure. There are no ways to control the cost of running Masscare.

Vince on November 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Obama isn’t the problem.

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM

But the problem you want to solve can’t be solved near term. Allowing the administration a 2nd term is suicide.

DLEW on November 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM

On this issue, Im just under qualified to say anything equivocally. What Romney says on it makes sense to me, but Im not an economist and could be wrong. We’ll just have to see it play out.

nswider on November 17, 2011 at 4:10 PM

Then I challenge you to go out and start listening/reading what economists have to say. Read the lefties to the righties.

MeatHeadinCA on November 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM

What “politics” does Gruber see at play? He thinks that ObamaCare (and RomneyCare, for that matter) might be the “most important social policy” since Medicare in the 1960s, and that its success would make Barack Obama the next FDR.

Totally! Medicare is so successful now, little kids sing songs about LBJ all the time.

On what planet do these people live?

angryed on November 17, 2011 at 4:18 PM

But the problem you want to solve can’t be solved near term. Allowing the administration a 2nd term is suicide.

DLEW on November 17, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Obama or Obama-lite isn’t a difference worth worrying about.

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 4:19 PM

I agree with him that the mandate in O-Care is actually the thing that concerns me the least. I don’t mind having to buy insurance since I buy it already. What I mind is the govt dictating what my insuance will cover and what my doctor will be allowed to do. That’s the scary f****g part of Obamacare. And with all the focus on the mandate the rest of the 2800 pages are being ignored.

angryed on November 17, 2011 at 4:20 PM

You Romney people need to realize that your not providing some big newsflash to us Newtronians when you point out Newt has done rino things in the past. We know. Newt doesn’t have to outrun the grizzly bear, he only has to outrun Mitt.

Kataklysmic on November 17, 2011 at 3:59 PM

You anti-Romney ‘supposed conservative purists’ have to realize your tact to Gingrich now reveals your deep lack of a core on conservtive purity.

sheryl on November 17, 2011 at 4:20 PM

There are major differences between Romney Care and Obama Care.

1. ObamaCare was designed to destroy private insurance companies. RomneyCare only applied to 8% of the population and did nothing with regards to the rest.
2. ObamaCare outlawed tort reform. RomneyCare does not.
3. ObamaCare creates 1968 new government offices. Romney Care does not.
4. ObamaCare outlawed affordable catastrophic care policies. Romney Care does not.
5. ObamaCare was forced down our throats. RomneyCare was actually popular at the time it was passed.

The Rock on November 17, 2011 at 4:22 PM

“and we can do it without letting government take over health care..”

which Obamacare does. Hes talking about market exchanges and using the free market. You keep taking these snippets out of context as “gotcha” quotes. The reality, the truth of what happened is a lot more complicated then these sound bites.

nswider on November 17, 2011 at 3:35 PM

The problem with Romney is that he is so elusive when making public statements, particularly in debates. It is anyone’s guess what he really thinks without wading through his website. He is not doing a convincing sales job on a retail level.

onlineanalyst on November 17, 2011 at 4:24 PM

Love it, Ann calling out the flacid ‘conservative purist’s like Ed, AP, RedState, etc who are now like lemmings moving to Newt….if we elect Newt Republicans will deserve to lose because will be losers for electing a definite losing candidate

Ann at her sharpest:

IF NOT ROMNEY, WHO? IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
November 16, 2011

So now, apparently, we have to go through the cycle of the media pushing Newt Gingrich. This is going to be fantastic.

In addition to having an affair in the middle of Clinton’s impeachment; apologizing to Jesse Jackson on behalf of J.C. Watts — one of two black Republicans then in Congress –- for having criticized “poverty pimps,” and then inviting Jackson to a State of the Union address; cutting a global warming commercial with Nancy Pelosi; supporting George Soros’ candidate Dede Scozzafava in a congressional special election; appearing in public with the Rev. Al Sharpton to promote nonspecific education reform; and calling Paul Ryan’s plan to save Social Security “right-wing social engineering,” we found out this week that Gingrich was a recipient of Freddie Mac political money.

(Even I will admit, however, that Newt was great when he was chairman of GOPAC back in the ’90s with Gay Gaines at the helm.)

Although Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the institutions most responsible for the nation’s current financial crisis — were almost entirely Democratic cash cows, they managed to dirty up enough Republicans to make it seem like bipartisan corruption.

Democrats sucked hundreds of millions of dollars out of these institutions: Franklin Raines, $90 million; Jamie Gorelick, $26.4 million; Jim Johnson, $20 million.

By contrast, Republicans came cheap. For the amazingly good price of only $300,000 apiece, Fannie and Freddie bought the good will of former Reps. Vin Weber, R-Minn., Susan Molinari, R-N.Y., and Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.* Former Sen. Alfonse D’Amato, R-N.Y., was even cheaper at $240,000.

[*Correction: After Gingrich admitted last week to receiving $300,000 from Freddie, we found out this week that it was actually closer to $1.6 million.]

So now conservatives shy away from denouncing these crooked organizations for fear of running into Vin Weber at a cocktail party.

Sorry, guys — on the plus side, you’re millionaires, but on the downside, you’ve earned the contempt of your fellow man.

The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.

Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.

That’s not so bad if you think the most important issues in this election are defeating Obama and repealing Obamacare.

There may be better ways to stop Obamacare than Romney, but, unfortunately, they’re not available right now. (And, by the way, where were you conservative purists when Republicans were nominating Waterboarding-Is-Torture-Jerry-Falwell-Is-an-Agent-of-Intolerance-My-Good-Friend-Teddy-Kennedy-Amnesty-for-Illegals John McCain-Feingold for president?)

Among Romney’s positives is the fact that he has a demonstrated ability to trick liberals into voting for him. He was elected governor of Massachusetts — one of the most liberal states in the union — by appealing to Democrats, independents and suburban women.

He came close to stopping the greatest calamity to befall this nation since Pearl Harbor by nearly beating Teddy Kennedy in a Senate race. (That is when he said a lot of the things about which he’s since “changed his mind.”) If he had won, we’d be carving his image on Mount Rushmore.

He is not part of the Washington establishment, so he won’t be caught taking money from Freddie Mac or cutting commercials with Nancy Pelosi.

Also, Romney will be the first Republican presidential nominee since Ronald Reagan who can talk. Liberals are going to have to dust off their playbook from 30 years ago to figure out how to run against a Republican who isn’t a tongue-tied marble-mouth.

As we’ve known for years, his negatives are: Romneycare and Mormonism.

We look forward with cheery anticipation to an explosion of news stories on some of the stranger aspects of Mormonism. The articles have already been written, but they’re not scheduled for release until the day Romney wraps up the nomination.

Inasmuch as the Democrats’ only argument for the big-eared beanpole who’s nearly wrecked the country is that you must be a racist if you oppose Obama, one assumes a lot of attention will be lavished on the Mormon Church’s historical position on blacks. Church founder Joseph Smith said blacks had the curse of Cain on them and banned blacks from the priesthood, a directive that was not revoked until 1978.

There’s no evidence that this was a policy fiercely pushed by Mitt Romney. To the contrary, when his father, George Romney, was governor of Michigan, he was the most pro-civil rights elected official in the entire country, far ahead of any Democrat.

No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare. We worry that Romneycare will make it harder for him to get elected.

But, again, Romney is the articulate Republican. He’s already explained how mandating health insurance in one particular wealthy, liberal Northeastern state is different from inflicting it on the entire country. Our Constitution establishes a federalist system that allows experimentation with different ideas in the individual states.

As governor, Romney didn’t have the ability to change federal laws requiring hospital emergency rooms to treat every illegal alien, drug dealer and vagrant who walked in the door, then sending the bill to taxpayers. (Although David Axelrod, Michelle Obama, Eric Whitaker and Valerie Jarrett did figure out a way to throw poor blacks out of the University of Chicago Medical Center..)

The Heritage Foundation, a leading conservative think tank, supported Romneycare at the time. The biggest warning sign should have been that Gingrich supported it, too.

Most important, Romney has said — forcefully and repeatedly — that his first day in office he will issue a 50-state waiver from Obamacare and will then seek a formal repeal.

Romney is not going to get to the White House and announce, “The first thing I’m going to do is implement that fantastic national health care plan signed by my pal, Barack!”

Unlike all other major legislation in the nation’s history, Obamacare was narrowly passed along partisan lines by an aberrationally large one-party majority in Congress. (Thanks, McCain supporters!) Not one single Republican in Congress voted for it, not even John McCain.

Obamacare is going to be repealed — provided only that a Republican wins the next presidential election.

If a Republican does not win, however, it will never be repealed. Recall that, in order to boast about the amazing revenue savings under Obamacare, Democrats had to configure the bill so that the taxes to pay for it start right away, but the goodies don’t kick in until 2014.

Once people are thrown off their insurance plans and are forced to depend on the government for “free” health care, Obamacare is here to stay. (And Newt Gingrich will be calling plans to tinker with it “right-wing social engineering.”)

Instead of sitting on our thumbs, wishing Ronald Reagan were around, or chasing the latest mechanical rabbit flashed by the media, conservatives ought to start rallying around Romney as the only Republican who has a shot at beating Obama. We’ll attack him when he’s president.

It’s fun to be a purist, but let’s put that on hold until Obama and his abominable health care plan are gone, please.

COPYRIGHT 2011 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut St., Kansas City, MO 64106; 816-581-7500

sheryl on November 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM

Mitt is not really denying the plans have similarities. He is making a states rights argument that Massachusetts implemented a plan of their preference and other states could do the same. He opposes a “one size fits all” approach dictated by the federal government.

echosyst on November 17, 2011 at 4:27 PM

You anti-Romney ‘supposed conservative purists’ have to realize your tact to Gingrich now reveals your deep lack of a core on conservtive purity.

sheryl on November 17, 2011 at 4:20 PM

You got me. Maybe I’d have a more legitimate reason to support Newt if he spoke French and looked like Matthew Fox’s dreamy older brother.

Kataklysmic on November 17, 2011 at 4:28 PM

Mitt tries to see how many angels he can fit on the head of a pin while trying to distinguish Romneycare from its indistinguishable Federal analog, Obamacare.

I am no great fan of Newt and I plan to vote for Ron Paul, but Newt is almost Jeffersonian compared to the chameleon, Mitt Romney, Ann Coulter’s admonitions notwithstanding.

It’s a pity about Ann – she used to have a beautiful mind.

molonlabe28 on November 17, 2011 at 4:33 PM

MeatHeadinCA on November 17, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Let’s play this out…

Folks on here in their attacks on Romney provide fodder for the MSM, and they present it as “look, even the right doesn’t want Romney..”… So the independent voter gets bombarded by this from both sides.

Now…guys like Newt, Cain and Perry have or have recently created a lot of baggage. What if they can’t recover.

You have left yourself and independents with no other options except the status quo.

In my mind, it’s not…. Romney or else! The problem is WE are eliminating all of our options. Against Obama…Romney is a greater option any day of the week.

DLEW on November 17, 2011 at 4:35 PM

Heritage, Gingrich and Romney were all wrong. Romney remains the only one to stand by the failure.

Daemonocracy on November 17, 2011 at 3:49 PM

Actually I researched this back in 2008 when Romney ran, and I remember reading that while Heritage liked many aspects of his plan, they were emphatically against a mandate.

kg598301 on November 17, 2011 at 4:36 PM

This is a dead issue. Romney is not trying to advocate Romneycare for the whole nation. I just saw him on Neil Cavuto saying that. He would leave the health care issue to the states. He’s not going back that way. He has refused to say it was a mistake and disavow that plan because he doesn’t think it would be honest. He has explained what his reasoning is was in MA, not to advocate it for the nation, but to show why did did what he did.

His answers to the other questions were straightforward and reasonable. He declined to jump on the Fire Steven Chu bandwagon, saying that if he was just following Obama’s policy, then we need to fire the whole administration, not just Chu.

flataffect on November 17, 2011 at 4:40 PM

Mitt is not really denying the plans have similarities. He is making a states rights argument that Massachusetts implemented a plan of their preference and other states could do the same. He opposes a “one size fits all” approach dictated by the federal government.

echosyst on November 17, 2011 at 4:27 PM

States’ Rights Socialism FTW! Woo!

Mittens didn’t even bother making the case for free-market healthcare, he just went along with the more popular Marxist-based approach. Wonderful, now I really, really, really don’t have any shred of trust left in Mr. I-wanna-be-popular Willard Mitt Romney. :-(

Punchenko on November 17, 2011 at 4:43 PM

sheryl on November 17, 2011 at 4:00 PM

The ever-cautious Romney never commits to a point of view with conviction. He leaves so much wiggle room and ambiguity in his statements.

Surely, Romney has familiarized himself with a number of the arguments against Kagan’s involvement in the SC decision on O-care. Yet instead of citing some of them, he hedges and says nothing or consequence to Cavuto.

onlineanalyst on November 17, 2011 at 4:47 PM

Romney: the white–and ultra rich–Obama.

He won’t win. His knowledge of issues is superficial, and he’s just not that tough.

It just occurred to me that the 2012 race–matching Obama against a GOP candidate–needs to be something like those old SNL skits that parodied a 60 Minutes segment (Point-Counterpoint). In the 60 Minutes segment, some liberal woman always started off, and then a conservative (the late James Kilpatrick) responded.

SNL’s takeoff had Jane Curtin playing the woman, followed by Dan Akroyd, who always led off his harrangue with, “Jane, you ignorant sl*t.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80nW6AOhTs

This is the election in which the GOP has to hit independents over the head by demonstrating clearly and forcefully that Obama and San Fran and Manhattan liberals are just absolute nitwits.

For that job, for all his faults, I think we need Newt. Nobody else does a better job of harnessing the English language to browbeat someone else in a professional manner.

In contrast, Romney will come across as a nervous-Nellie corporate executive who’s walking on eggshells in his attempt to fire an incompetent affirmative-axtion hire.

BuckeyeSam on November 17, 2011 at 4:48 PM

This is a dead issue. Romney is not trying to advocate Romneycare for the whole nation.

flataffect on November 17, 2011 at 4:40 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/flashback-mitt-romney-hoped-for-a-nation-with-a-mandate-approach/2011/03/03/AFPqVUqG_blog.html

Now, I happen to like what we did. I think it’s a good model for other states. Maybe not every state but most, and so what I’d do at the federal level is give every state the same kind of flexibility we got from the federal government as well as some carrots and sticks to actually get all their citizens insured. And I think a lot of states will choose what we did. I wouldn’t tell them they have to do our plan…

MR. RUSSERT: So if a state chose a mandate, it wouldn’t bother you?

MR. ROMNEY: I’d think it’s a terrific idea. I think you’re going to find when it’s all said and done, after all these states that are the laboratories of democracy, get their chance to try their own plans, but those who follow the path that we pursued will find it’s the best path, and we’ll end up with a nation that’s taken a mandate approach.

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 4:55 PM

MR. ROMNEY: I’d think it’s a terrific idea. I think you’re going to find when it’s all said and done, after all these states that are the laboratories of democracy, get their chance to try their own plans, but those who follow the path that we pursued will find it’s the best path, and we’ll end up with a nation that’s taken a mandate approach.

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Cherry picking is such fun isn’t it? Kind of like when Newt Gingrich…the newest not Romney heart throb..supported mandates…or when the Heritage Foundation supported mandates..etc.

The truth is Romney has always stated that he felt that the states had the right to make their own decisions on this..he did not say he thought it should be shoved down anyone’s throat.

His plan was a state plan, it was widely supported at the time by conservatives such as Jim DeMint and it was also supported by a large majority in the state it effected. Romney vetoed 8 different parts of that bill, but his vetoes were over ridden by a Democratic legislature. He did not raise taxes either.

But hey, you guys are good at using Democratic talking points to attack the Republican candidate most likely to win against Obama. I am sure Barack appreciates your help and support.

Terrye on November 17, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Cherry picking is such fun isn’t it?

Terrye on November 17, 2011 at 5:03 PM

Yeah it is.

During a speech in Baltimore on Feb. 2, 2007, Romney outlined his ambitions for the Massachusetts plan. ‘I’m proud of what we’ve done,’ he said. ‘If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.’”

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Romney is no conservative. Period. He is a statist in word and in deed. But not in word since his presidential ambitions started to rev. Let’s be real here: Under a Romney administration, nothing important would change. NOTHING. At best, we’d go back to Bush 43-level spending. If that’s okay with you, then by all means vote for Romney. But I’m not real plussed by the guy that signed Medicare Part D and McCain-Feingold into law, either. I’d like something better than we had under Bush, and arguably we NEED something better than we had under Bush in order to heal the damage that’s been done to our country. Mitt Romney isn’t it. His campaign slogan should be:

Romney/[insert VP candidate here] ’12!
Because we said so!

gryphon202 on November 17, 2011 at 5:10 PM

Insurance premiums have skyrocketed, and the Massachusetts program runs deep into the red.

Which is why Romney is blowing smoke thinking he’ll get the Republican nomination. If the party elders put him on the ticket, they can watch a replay of 2008.

GarandFan on November 17, 2011 at 5:11 PM

During a speech in Baltimore on Feb. 2, 2007, Romney outlined his ambitions for the Massachusetts plan. ‘I’m proud of what we’ve done,’ he said. ‘If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.’”

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Massachusetts succeeded all right. In implementing what in every possible metric has been an utter disaster for health care professionals, insurers, and citizens from all walks of life. If it’s a model for the nation, we should all be crapping ourself in anticipation of the worst of the effects that will happen in 2014 when the piper’s payment comes due.

gryphon202 on November 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM

I don’t care if they keep 99% of ObozoCare, as long as they get rid of the mandate.

I acquired 80% disability through my military service, which requires the VA to cover 100% of all of my medical costs for the remainder of my life. So having served my country, and requiring medical care due to injuries because of it, the federal government is going to in turn force me to buy health insurance I don’t need. Thereby eliminating the government’s responsibility to their veteran’s? Then rationing my health care for chronic injuries?

stacman on November 17, 2011 at 5:15 PM

I don’t care if they keep 99% of ObozoCare, as long as they get rid of the mandate.

I acquired 80% disability through my military service, which requires the VA to cover 100% of all of my medical costs for the remainder of my life. So having served my country, and requiring medical care due to injuries because of it, the federal government is going to in turn force me to buy health insurance I don’t need. Thereby eliminating the government’s responsibility to their veteran’s? Then rationing my health care for chronic injuries?

stacman on November 17, 2011 at 5:15 PM

The mandate is 99% of Obamacare. Without that single keystone, the castle crumbles.

gryphon202 on November 17, 2011 at 5:16 PM

Massachusetts succeeded all right. In implementing what in every possible metric has been an utter disaster for health care professionals, insurers, and citizens from all walks of life. If it’s a model for the nation, we should all be crapping ourself in anticipation of the worst of the effects that will happen in 2014 when the piper’s payment comes due.

gryphon202 on November 17, 2011 at 5:12 PM

And Mitt Romney seems pleased as punch about that.

Romney: I’ll Take Credit for Obamacare

“I keep on scratching my head,” Mr. Obama said at a fund-raising reception in Boston. “I say, ‘Boy, this Massachusetts thing, who designed that?’ ”

In response, Mr. Romney is reminding audiences that Mr. Obama has cast the Republicans as the “party of no,” devoid of ideas. “And yet,” Mr. Romney said in Bedford, “he’s saying that I was the guy that came up with the idea for what he did. He can’t have it both ways.”

He added, “If ever again somewhere down the road I would be debating him, I would be happy to take credit for his accomplishment.”

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 5:20 PM

And Mitt Romney seems pleased as punch about that.

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 5:20 PM

But don’t you dare call him an anti-constitutional statist./

gryphon202 on November 17, 2011 at 5:21 PM

But don’t you dare call him an anti-constitutional statist./

gryphon202 on November 17, 2011 at 5:21 PM

Of course not. I am just cherry picking.

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 5:29 PM

Folks on here in their attacks on Romney provide fodder for the MSM, and they present it as “look, even the right doesn’t want Romney..”… So the independent voter gets bombarded by this from both sides.

Then by all means, don’t attack other candidates.

Now…guys like Newt, Cain and Perry have or have recently created a lot of baggage. What if they can’t recover.

Oh, now there you go…

You have left yourself and independents with no other options except the status quo.

I thought Mitt was the status quo…

In my mind, it’s not…. Romney or else! The problem is WE are eliminating all of our options. Against Obama…Romney is a greater option any day of the week.

DLEW on November 17, 2011 at 4:35 PM

My goodness you sound like a crazy liberal. Practice what you preach and move on.

MeatHeadinCA on November 17, 2011 at 5:31 PM

Another attack on Romney posted uncritically…what else is new.

Chudi on November 17, 2011 at 5:41 PM

I would rathergo down fighting for principles then cave to get elected. Mark this down. Romney, if elected, will NOT make repealing obamacare a priority. He will take a poll first!

ConservativePartyNow on November 17, 2011 at 3:50 PM

..and his saying that, upon his inauguration, he will grant waivers to all fifty states and he went further than that by saying he will repeal it by reconciliation Here is an excerpt from Forbes (emphasis added):

The Romney team responded to my piece by saying that the absence of a Day One repeal bill was due to the possibility that a full repeal couldn’t get through Congress. The Romney advisor I spoke to said that Romney was open to using the reconciliation process to repeal the law, but that “specific hypotheticals [around how to repeal the law] are hard to discuss.” (For those who don’t know, the reconciliation process allows certain types of deficit-reducing provisions to pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of the usual filibuster-proof 60.)

Well, scratch that hypothetical off your list. Last night at the debate, Romney said that on “Day Two,” he would send a repeal bill to Congress designed to pass the Senate via reconciliation:

On day one, granting a waiver for—to all 50 states doesn’t stop in its tracks entirely Obamacare. That’s why I also say we have to repeal Obamacare, and I will do that on day two with a reconciliation bill, because, as you know, it was passed by reconciliation, 51 votes. We can get rid of it with 51 votes. We have to get rid of Obamacare and return to the states the responsibility.

To be technically accurate, the bulk of Obamacare was not passed through reconciliation. That was Democrats’ original intent; but once Scott Brown won the special Senate election to replace Ted Kennedy, the Senate bill that passed with 60 Democratic votes in December 2009 was passed whole-hog by the House in March 2010—a highly unusual procedure—and then a few loose ends were altered via the reconciliation process.

But what’s new is that Romney has committed to using the reconciliation process: something he hadn’t promised previously. As I discussed in this article back in January, reconciliation is the only realistic process for repealing Obamacare, because it is highly unlikely that Republicans will control 60 Senate seats in 2013.

Romney clearly wants to make sure that Republicans have no doubts about his determination to repeal the law. And as I wrote in National Review earlier today, it appears to be working.

..read the article. There are warts to be sure and he may not succeed, but for someone who is looking at more than one way to do away with Obama care (waivers to the states, reconciliation) it sure does not look like a person who wants to turn around and implement it once he gets his hands on the levers of power.

I am no Mitt Romney fan and I am not saying one should NOT be anti-Romney now. The primaries are where principles are forged into platforms. But, after the primaries have run their course, to stay out of the fight, take your ball and go home, pout, and wait for the conservative Nirvana while this country gets flushed down the crapper by an unfettered Obama is lunacy and you should realize that.

The War Planner on November 17, 2011 at 5:52 PM

I repeat: Mitt is not Barack. He’s not a RINO or a liberal. He’s an analyst with a reflexive instinct to study a problem and find ways to cut spending and increase efficiency. He’s a federalist who believes that the states have their own domains that shouldn’t be appropriated by the Feds. He uses terms carefully. Today he distinguished between loopholes and tax deductions and credits used to encourage business.

flataffect on November 17, 2011 at 7:59 PM

ROMNEY IS OBAMA!!!

Without the charisma, the soaring rhetoric, and without a vision.

PappyD61 on November 17, 2011 at 8:18 PM

Someone should ask the WASILLA QUITTER if RomneyCare has DEATH PANELS.

PappyD61 on November 17, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Ann at her sharpest:

sheryl

So, basically, Ann has moved her support from one northeast liberal governor to another northeast liberal governor. How conservative of her. More like Ann at her dullest.

“No one is worried Romney will double-cross us on repealing Obamacare.”

Yeah…on the contrary, Ann, plenty of people are worried he will do just that. And rightfully so. The Supreme Court upholding Obamacare(and it will) will be just the excuse he needs to change his mind about repealing it. And he will.

xblade on November 17, 2011 at 8:41 PM

In an interview yesterday with Capital New York, Gruber vented his frustration with Romney, claiming that he’s lying about the differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare:

No…Gruber is lying. There are alot of differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.

In fact, Obama could not have used RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare.

Conservative Samizdat on November 18, 2011 at 2:03 AM

This moron can’t see any difference in the roles of the State vs. the Fed government. He needs to just STFU!

shanimal on November 18, 2011 at 7:03 AM

nswider on November 17, 2011 at 3:41 PM

shanimal on November 18, 2011 at 7:03 AM

The “Fascism and Communism are great when they’re done on the STATE level, ’cause it’s, like, federalism and stuff, which is totally conservative” crap has got to go.

All you Romneybots who keep flogging that dead horse, stay the hell out of NC. We’re busy trying to undo Democratic, state-level socialism here and we don’t need your view of federalism here.

mankai on November 18, 2011 at 8:35 AM

sheryl on November 17, 2011 at 4:26 PM

You do realize that most people don’t bother reading long comments like that, right? Just leave a link.

csdeven on November 18, 2011 at 9:25 AM

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 4:55 PM

Thanks for giving us the context of Romney’s opinion about the mandate. I thought it was ambiguous as to his feelings on the 10th. I was glad to see the quote that he certainly did feel the states had the right and the feds do not. It is clear his mention of the “nation” was a reference that all states would do it and that was the context of the “nation”.

There is the proof Hot Air! Romney does not, nor ever has believed in a healthcare plan administered by the federal government.

Thanks for clearing it up.

csdeven on November 18, 2011 at 9:32 AM

‘If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.’”

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 5:08 PM

Yep! “Nation” is in reference to the states collectively and not a federally administered program.

Nice catch dude!

csdeven on November 18, 2011 at 9:34 AM

He added, “If ever again somewhere down the road I would be debating him, I would be happy to take credit for his accomplishment.”

sharrukin on November 17, 2011 at 5:20 PM

Another nice catch! Romney was goofing on Obama because he knows Obama will never take credit for Obamacare because the majority of Americans want it repealed.

csdeven on November 18, 2011 at 9:37 AM

No…Gruber is lying. There are alot of differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare.

In fact, Obama could not have used RomneyCare as a template for ObamaCare.

Conservative Samizdat on November 18, 2011 at 2:03 AM

That is exactly correct!

csdeven on November 18, 2011 at 9:39 AM

This moron can’t see any difference in the roles of the State vs. the Fed government. He needs to just STFU!

shanimal on November 18, 2011 at 7:03 AM

Clearly, you don’t know the difference between federal and state government.

Conservative Samizdat on November 18, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Clearly, you don’t know the difference between federal and state government.

Conservative Samizdat on November 18, 2011 at 10:43 AM

But if the individual mandate is so great at the state level, why not use it on a national scale? You can’t have it both ways.

ddrintn on November 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM

But if the individual mandate is so great at the state level, why not use it on a national scale? You can’t have it both ways.

ddrintn on November 18, 2011 at 3:34 PM

There are a lot of things states can do that the state government can do that the federal government cannot.

That’s a basic concept of the Constitution. So basic its taught on the first day of Constitution 101.

If you can’t grasp that, you’re stupid.

Conservative Samizdat on November 19, 2011 at 12:08 AM

Romney is obama white.

ColdWarrior57 on November 19, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Romney is obama white.

ColdWarrior57 on November 19, 2011 at 3:10 AM

Got facts to back up that B.S.?

Conservative Samizdat on November 19, 2011 at 10:36 AM

Comment pages: 1 2