Romney today: Romneycare is fundamentally conservative

posted at 3:35 pm on December 28, 2011 by Tina Korbe

By extension, does this mean the former Massachusetts governor thinks Obamacare is conservative, too? It seems like it. Mitt Romney today stood by Romneycare as completely and forcibly as he ever has. It seems he’s making the argument the individual mandate is conservative in a roundabout attempt to prove that he has been consistently conservative throughout his political career.

“I’m happy to stand by the things I believe,” Romney told Fox News. “I’m not going to change my positions by virtue of being in a presidential campaign. What we did was right for the people of Massachusetts. The plan is still favored there by 3:1 — and it is fundamentally a conservative principle because the people take personal responsibility rather than turning to the government for free care.”

Even at the state level, a mandate to purchase insurance doesn’t show much respect for personal responsibility. Rather than trust and allow individuals to recognize the worth of insurance as a protection against future emergency expenses and to purchase it voluntarily themselves (or to suffer the consequences if they don’t), advocates of the individual mandate succumb to cynicism about the individual’s ability to take care of himself. A mandate, in other words, proceeds from an elitist, bureaucratic assumption that government leaders know what individuals need even more than those individuals do. Here’s Erick Erickson’s take on the topic:

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.

From the beginning, Romney has not handled the Romneycare topic the way many conservatives wished he would. He could have swiftly disavowed it entirely as one of the failed experiments to come out of those noted “laboratories of democracy,” the states. But, instead, he attempted to make the case that Romneycare made sense on some level.

Are comments like Romney’s today compatible with a true commitment to repeal? It’s very hard to tell. Repeal has ever and will always depend on the House and Senate no less than the presidency. All that’s needed from the White House is a signature — a non-veto. I know Obama would veto. I hope no GOP president would — but, at this point, Newt Gingrich’s position on the individual mandate appears to be no better than Romney’s and other candidates with unquestionable repeal credentials seem to stand little chance of winning the nomination.

What is most aggravating about Romney’s comments today, though, is that they make it that much easier for the Democratic National Committee and the Obama campaign to eliminate this issue in the general if Romney is the nominee. Thanks to Romney and Gingrich and their repeated attempts to characterize the individual mandate as a conservative concept, one of Obama’s most vulnerable spots has received a thick coat of armor.


Related Posts:

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 5 6 7

Wonder what yellow belly romney thinks about the states mandating you buy a firearm.

wheelgun on December 28, 2011 at 8:49 PM

Romney’s only against people owning machine guns aka semi automatic weapons.

Dr. Tesla on December 28, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Wonder what yellow belly romney thinks about the states mandating you buy a firearm.

wheelgun on December 28, 2011 at 8:49 PM

THIS!!!!!

Just Sayin on December 28, 2011 at 8:51 PM

Dr. Tesla

” I’m just not seeing the collective IQ of Romney supporters.”

I am. The sum total is 42, the same number from which the meaning of life, the universe and everything can be determined. Odd, ain’t it?

O/T – I saw the other day where you said you live in Huntsville. My maternal relatives are all about 55 miles south of you in Cullman.

So long and thanks for all the fish!

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 8:55 PM

We need to waterboard Romney until he’s a conservative and get spit out the words without seeming like he’s faking it.

Dr. Tesla on December 28, 2011 at 8:57 PM

So the solution is to punish me, to restrict my choices, and to raise my premiums and my health care costs.
This is statism. Pure and simple. Force the people who are responsible to pay the bills of the lazy and worthless ones that Nitwit Mitt needs to vote for him.

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Are you from Mass or Texas?

You said that people don’t use emergency rooms to get their basic healthcare needs met. That is false. You complained that RomneyCare results in increased paperwork and so forth for doctors, and asserted that a disincentive was that credit reports would get zinged. I was responding to those those claims and now you’ve gone off on a tirade.

The original concept was to shift dollars that were being spent on emergency room care to insure the uninsured. He was told by Tommy Thompson that they had to legislate changes or they would lose $400 million a year in Medicaid dollars. It’s a lot more complex than you make it out to be, and you are ignoring what MassCare was pushing. If his plan had been enacted intact premiums would not be going up. My premiums have gone up too and I live in Georgia. Taxpayers cover the costs of the “lazy and worthless” every day…

Buy Danish on December 28, 2011 at 8:59 PM

Buy Danish

I’m retired and, according to the ex, also lazy and worthless.

Thank you for covering my costs.

So long and thanks for all the fish.

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 9:03 PM

Your commentary appears to be worthless. Can’t comment on the whether or not you are lazy, nor do I care. I have no idea why you are talking about fish except it’s possible you have been drinking moonshine or something.

Over and out folks…

Buy Danish on December 28, 2011 at 9:08 PM

Romney is only saying this as a rope-a-dope for the libs on the Supreme Court. They’ll vote against the mandate to discredit Romney. It would make him look like a total idiot if they voted it down.

leftnomore on December 28, 2011 at 9:13 PM

Buy Danish

Grrrrr! Jeez! And here I thanked you for covering my costs.

While I am retired, lazy and worthless, I don’t drink any adult beverages.

Google “Fish + Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy.”

Oh, and I would rather have my commentary, as you called it, be worthless than totally deranged and incoherent.

Romney/Paul 2012! Let’s do it!

Horace on December 28, 2011 at 9:14 PM

Cant wait to taste your tears on november 7th Ann.

Flapjackmaka on December 28, 2011 at 3:50 PM

I have been enjoying your tears and your proving the point that HotGas bloggers who post more than 50 posts a day are not too bright.

Thanks for the laughs.

Jailbreak on December 28, 2011 at 3:53 PM

Said the candle…… after seeing his own posts top 100+

KOOLAID2 on December 28, 2011 at 9:16 PM

5% of all healthcare users spend 49% of all healthcare dollars.

Effectively, by forcing other people to fund their healthcare like Romney did, you have to double every other person’s premiums.

No one talks about the right way to go about this, and that is to encourage, but not force down people’s throats the use of catastrophic health care insurance along with personally chosen to make health savings accounts, also known as a bank account or other secure place where you take what you honestly earned and place it for future use.

The final nails in the coffin of government control over healthcare would be getting rid of employers being able to avoid taxes through health insurance premiums and making it easier for hospitals to collect money from those who do not pay for service voluntarily.

Uninsured people accounted for a paltry $34 billion in unpaid care out of $1,982 billion in total health care spending, or about 1.75%. To put that into perspective, double that amount of money is lost in medicare and medicaid due to fraud. Chances are that a very large part of medicare and medicaid medical care would ever be requested by someone paying for the care from their own money.

Mass did not ever need Romneycare to provide health care.

astonerii on December 28, 2011 at 9:17 PM

You said that people don’t use emergency rooms to get their basic healthcare needs met. That is false.

Buy Danish on December 28, 2011 at 8:59 PM

No, I didn’t. THIS is what I said.

The ONLY thing mandated by the Feds in that respect is EMERGENCY care, which is specifically defined in the law. You can’t use it for just any health care. Furthermore, the law explicitly states that people are civilly (and possibly criminally) liable for the cost of care they received, and that the provider is allowed to bill them, engage collections against them, and hammer their credit report.

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 6:48 PM

Next:

The original concept was to shift dollars that were being spent on emergency room care to insure the uninsured.

And, wonder of wonders, it failed miserably.

Which is no surprise, if you are at all familiar with the usage patterns for people on Medicaid and other government-paid insurance.

Nearly one-third (32 percent) of Medicaid enrollees used the ER at least once during a 12-month period in 2007.

Individuals with private health coverage were only about half as likely (17 percent) to visit an ER, and a similar proportion — one in five — of individuals without health coverage did so.

Medicaid enrollees were three times as likely (15 percent vs. 5 percent) as the privately insured, and twice as likely as the uninsured (15 percent vs. 7 percent), to have visited an ER twice in the previous year.

Amazingly, study after study shows that paying for irresponsible peoples’ health insurance does nothing to reduce their irresponsibility, but it does a tremendous job of increasing costs for everyone else.

Why do you and Mitt Romney support punishing and harming law-abiding citizens?

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 9:17 PM

You’re making fun of someone by guessing their income on the INTERNET. I doubt you pay taxes either. YoU’re husband Mitt pays them all.

Flapjackmaka on December 28, 2011 at 3:52 PM

Seriously, dude. Try a new one. I realize you are limited in creativity, but at least try.

Jailbreak on December 28, 2011 at 3:54 PM

Flap! You do know that you are arguing with JugEars drunk Uncle…don’t you?

KOOLAID2 on December 28, 2011 at 9:23 PM

“BOSTON (State House News Service) — Five years after redrawing the lines in the national health care debate, Beacon Hill is looking at new reforms, closely studying payment system plans to lower costs and examining a government controlled single-payer model.”

So we get rapidly increasing premiums, burdensome mandates, massive expansion of public programs, a shrinking base of private insurance coverage, increased rate of avoidable ER visits, increased wait times for appointments, no improvement in health care quality, an exploding state budget and…. a renewed push for single payer.

Way to go, Mitt!

Just Sayin on December 28, 2011 at 9:37 PM

Romney is not Conservative?!
I am shocked! Shocked I say!

Romney stated that he is a moderate and a progressive (You Tube 2002). I believe him.

IMHO Perry / West 2012.

tonotisto on December 28, 2011 at 9:40 PM

Which is no surprise, if you are at all familiar with the usage patterns for people on Medicaid and other government-paid insurance.

Nearly one-third (32 percent) of Medicaid enrollees used the ER at least once during a 12-month period in 2007.

Individuals with private health coverage were only about half as likely (17 percent) to visit an ER, and a similar proportion — one in five — of individuals without health coverage did so.

Medicaid enrollees were three times as likely (15 percent vs. 5 percent) as the privately insured, and twice as likely as the uninsured (15 percent vs. 7 percent), to have visited an ER twice in the previous year.

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 9:17 PM

NDT, thanks for posting this. Everyone seems to believe that the primary cost driver for ER visit is use by the uninsured, but that is not the case. This has been shown in study after study, and it is in fact acknowledged by providers, researchers, etc, but it never seeps into the public consciousness because it doesn’t fit the preferred narrative.

BTW, this explains why avoidable ER use increased significantly in Massachusetts following implementation of Romneycare.

Just Sayin on December 28, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Most of these so called “conservatives” like the idea that they can depend on the state to pay for their emergency care.

Gunlock Bill on December 28, 2011 at 4:28 PM

You may well be the stupidest person ever to post on HA. And that includes Ernesto.

angryed on December 28, 2011 at 4:34 PM

Hey! Thanks angryed I’ve been gunning for that spot! Now my feelings are hurt!

KOOLAID2 on December 28, 2011 at 9:44 PM

Well Mittens is sure showing his true color now. I guess he figures its down to him and Ron Paul and he can say just about anything without looking worse than RP. Thanks GOP elitists, I really wanted my choice to be between an empty suit and Obama the other empty suit.

Sultanofsham on December 28, 2011 at 9:50 PM

Man, you people are just hilarious. The individual mandate was first proposed by REAGAN and then the Heritage foundation. I know that those are strange names to all you 11th hour born-again conservatives, but it’s true. The law mandating everyone get health CARE is the liberal law. Mandating that everyone PAY for their health care is the conservative complement to that law. Let me get this straight, Erick Erickson, you want everyone to pay for illegal aliens health care in emergency rooms? HotAir really advocates taking taxes from everyone so it can be redistributed to the few sneaky people who refuse to buy insurance? Really? And how is it that HotAir isn’t considered RINO for that? Oh yeah, because HotAir hasn’t been around long enough to know what the word conservative means. C’mon guys, do your homework.

Crefonso on December 28, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Mandating that everyone PAY for their health care is the conservative complement to that law.

Crefonso on December 28, 2011 at 10:01 PM

But unfortunately for that attempt at lying, Romneycare doesn’t do that.

Instead, it gives free health insurance to those who weren’t paying before, subsidized by taxpayers.

Furthermore, in the process, you’re forcing me to now pay their entire health care bill for any fool thing they can come up with rather than just providing a safety net for use in emergencies.

Guess what? Before that, there WAS a mandate that everyone pay — in the law that allows hospitals and medical providers to sue to collect bills. You got rid of that in favor of “insurance”.

The people who weren’t paying before still aren’t paying; you’re just handing them checks and pretending that that gives them money to pay.

You are a liar. Worse, you’re a really BAD liar, just like your pathetic idiot Mittens.

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Wow…..just……..wow.

Talon on December 28, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Okay sparky, explain to the group where you got the right to stop someone from giving up their own rights.

We’ll wait.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:21 PM

He won’t kill it –

batterup on December 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Yes he will. He said as much.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Guess what? Before that, there WAS a mandate that everyone pay — in the law that allows hospitals and medical providers to sue to collect bills. You got rid of that in favor of “insurance”.

The people who weren’t paying before still aren’t paying; you’re just handing them checks and pretending that that gives them money to pay.

You are a liar. Worse, you’re a really BAD liar, just like your pathetic idiot Mittens.

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 10:11 PM

Did somebody already suggest NorthDallasThirty for President? Sign me up!

Just Sayin on December 28, 2011 at 10:23 PM

The point is, majority rules and constitutionality are two separate things.

Dr. Tesla on December 28, 2011 at 7:40 PM

The analogy that you are making is correct.

Slavery was constitutional from 1789-1865. Just because something is “constitutional” doesn’t mean that it is either good or acceptable. Also, even if Northern states rejected slavery, they still had to arrest and return escaped slaves to the South, just as other citizens in states without Romneycare are obliged to support Romneycare in MA through Federal taxation because it is economically unviable.

ebrown2 on December 28, 2011 at 10:23 PM

csdeven, you are missing the point of the analogy. It has nothing to do with the ablity to move away.

Intelligent people understand analogies. You don’t.

Dr. Tesla on December 28, 2011 at 7:48 PM

I’m waiting for you to make a valid comparison. You’re trying to compare involuntary enslavement to voluntary enslavement. You cannot because you don’t have the right to determine what rights another person retains or gives up.

MA is a representative democracy where the majority rules. The majority decided that MA can impose a mandate. If the minority doesn’t like it, they can move and still retain their right to not be forced to purchase health insurance.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:27 PM

But ok I’ll buy in to this fantasy similar to hopenchange that the Rs do take both, do you really think all of the Rs are going to fall in line? You think even the spineless ones from the blue states will? You can’t even get Snowe, Collins, the pig from AK, Scott Brown the weasel (if reelected), scumbag McCain or Mark Kirk to agree with the Rs on things now because conservative ideas are “extreme” what makes you think those people are going to change when they have the majority? You really don’t think some of them may go the Spector/Jeffords route if they don’t like things?

I hope you’re right and this great republican fantasy comes to life. Me? I just don’t see it because you are talking about unprincipled, gutless, scummy people that will do anything to anyone to keep their seat they only care for themselves and if there is money in it for them to keep Obamacare alive they will do it.

bbinfl on December 28, 2011 at 7:45 PM

You bad, bad man! Don’t you know that the only thing that matters is getting someone with an (R) after their name into office, with no consideration AT ALL of what they’ll do once they get there?

ebrown2 on December 28, 2011 at 10:29 PM

The analogy that you are making is correct.

Slavery was constitutional from 1789-1865. Just because something is “constitutional” doesn’t mean that it is either good or acceptable. Also, even if Northern states rejected slavery, they still had to arrest and return escaped slaves to the South, just as other citizens in states without Romneycare are obliged to support Romneycare in MA through Federal taxation because it is economically unviable.

ebrown2 on December 28, 2011 at 10:23 PM

Not in this instance. And you prove it with your references to arrest. No MA resident is arrested and forced back to MA if they move.

More proof of his total idiocy…..Slaves had no say in their enslavement. The people of MA gave up that right and could get it back if they so chose to.

So, it’s a disingenuous comparison of his part and he only makes it because he saw it made by someone else. He doesn’t understand that Masscare is completely constitutional and moral. Obamacare is unconstitutional and immoral.

THAT is why Romney will do his part to defund and then repeal it.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:34 PM

More proof of his total idiocy…..Slaves had no say in their enslavement. The people of MA gave up that right and could get it back if they so chose to.

So, it’s a disingenuous comparison of his part and he only makes it because he saw it made by someone else. He doesn’t understand that Masscare is completely constitutional and moral. Obamacare is unconstitutional and immoral.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:34 PM

I am being forced to purchase insurance against my will. Period. I did not choose to give up my right to make that economic decision for myself. That right was taken away from me by a mob that happened to be bigger than my mob. Now, you can argue that this is just fine because text of the Massachusetts state constitution does not prohibit it, and because I can always move to avoid it. But how can you possibly argue that it’s “moral?”

Is everything not expressly prohibited by a constitution therefore “moral?”

And if it is so, your argument that Obamacare is “immoral” must be based solely on questions about its constitutionality. And therefore, if SCOTUS finds the mandate to be constitutional, Obamacare must suddenly become “moral” in your view.

I find this astonishing. And disturbing.

Just Sayin on December 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM

Romney’s only against people owning machine guns aka semi automatic weapons.

Dr. Tesla on December 28, 2011 at 8:50 PM

‘semi automatic’ is not the same as ‘fully automatic’ aka ‘machine gun’.

Midas on December 28, 2011 at 11:00 PM

csdeven, you are missing the point of the analogy. It has nothing to do with the ablity to move away.

Intelligent people understand analogies. You don’t.

Dr. Tesla on December 28, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Yep, notice how the following was totally ignored:

“even if Northern states rejected slavery, they still had to arrest and return escaped slaves to the South, just as other citizens in states without Romneycare are obliged to support Romneycare in MA through Federal taxation because it is economically unviable.”

ebrown2 on December 28, 2011 at 11:08 PM

No one talks about the right way to go about this, and that is to encourage, but not force down people’s throats the use of catastrophic health care insurance …
astonerii

I agree. Catastrophic insurance is an underused product.

BoxHead1 on December 28, 2011 at 11:11 PM

He won’t kill it –

batterup on December 28, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Yes he will. He said as much.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Well, that’s Romney for you, it depends on which way the wind is blowing. Here is what he said in April 2010:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0410/Blogger_Romney_wants_repeal_but_not_of_mandate.html?showall

snip…….

I was one of the first in line to the book signing, and when my turn came I asked Gov. Romney if I could ask him a question. After he told me that this was OK, I posed the following question to him:

“You have stated your intention to spearhead the effort to repeal the ‘worst aspects’ of Obamacare, does this include the repeal of the individual mandate and pre-existing exclusion?”

The Governor’s answer:

“No.”

Gov. Romney went on to explain that he does not wish to repeal these aspects because of the deleterious effect it would have on those with pre-existing conditions in obtaining health insurance.

Rapunzel on December 28, 2011 at 11:19 PM

You bad, bad man! Don’t you know that the only thing that matters is getting someone with an (R) after their name into office, with no consideration AT ALL of what they’ll do once they get there?
ebrown2 on December 28, 2011 at 10:29 PM

Yeah I know how dare I question the motives of the party when their choices in the past have left a lot to be desired and have screwed us before. Not to mention that the party itself is spineless.

bbinfl on December 28, 2011 at 11:25 PM

In Massachusetts:
* there are longer waits for treatment
* the cost of healthcare is higher
* waiting rooms are more crowded
* taxes are higher

We need a leader that is so TOUGH that he can stand up to:
* the media
* the Democrats
* the courts
* the special interests

We need a man of steel, and Romney is not it.
Romney is a man of mush, flip-flops, cave-ins.

Mark7788 on December 28, 2011 at 11:29 PM

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:22 PM

“He said as much”

Well that depends when & to whom he was talking to-

April just last year Romney said he wants “to eliminate some of the differences, repeal the bad, and keep the good” in ObamaCare. Early in the debates he stuttered & sputtered on the whole issue when it was brought up & frankly that is what got my attention… now he has had a conversion? What was the epiphany that caused that conversion?

Obamacare is one of the final puzzle pieces to our country turning into a real socialist Plutocracy and a political opportunist like Romney is just the right Republican to get it done. Once the Democrat run media make him a monster for killing people for possibly or actually defunding Obamacare he will cave and refund it to get re-elected.

Sigh at this point my money and support is going to turn the Senate. It’s our only hope.

batterup on December 28, 2011 at 11:31 PM

Rapunzel on December 28, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Clearly the blogger misunderstood. Romney has ALWAYS opposed the federal mandate. Unless you believe he would only tell the truth to one blogger.

As far as other aspects of Obamacare, like it or no, some of the issues dealt with in Obamacare will be part of new legislation Romney will support as a stick and carrot approach to repealing Obamacare in it’s entirety. Healthcare is broken and some legislation will be part of the solution. I do not like the pre-existing conditions aspect. It would be like forcing my new auto insurer to fix the damage done to my car months previous. But I also have compassion for folks. It’s a tough nut to crack and I don’t envy those who have to find a way to crack it. But I do know for a fact that Obama’s solution is immoral and unconstitutional.

What about a tax credit or other benefit given to non profit hospitals to treat those with pre existing conditions but only for that condition. Their regular insurance covers all other issues. Meh.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Rapunzel on December 28, 2011 at 11:19 PM

Yes – exactly.
I didn’t mean to step on your excellent post – I type too slowly.

batterup on December 28, 2011 at 11:35 PM

“even if Northern states rejected slavery, they still had to arrest and return escaped slaves to the South, just as other citizens in states without Romneycare are obliged to support Romneycare in MA through Federal taxation because it is economically unviable.”

ebrown2 on December 28, 2011 at 11:08 PM

All states were doing it anyway. Romney care simply reapportioned what they were given.

Don’t forget that we borrow 40 cents on the dollar. All federal programs suck up every bit of federal taxation. So not only does your state pay for Masscare, but MA pays for your medicare costs.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:37 PM

I am being forced to purchase insurance against my will. Period. I did not choose to give up my right to make that economic decision for myself.

Welcome to democracy!

That right was taken away from me by a mob that happened to be bigger than my mob. Now, you can argue that this is just fine because text of the Massachusetts state constitution does not prohibit it, and because I can always move to avoid it. But how can you possibly argue that it’s “moral?”

It is moral in the sense that our system is the most equitable system and to force the minority belief on the majority is immoral.

Is everything not expressly prohibited by a constitution therefore “moral?”

Of course not.

And if it is so, your argument that Obamacare is “immoral” must be based solely on questions about its constitutionality. And therefore, if SCOTUS finds the mandate to be constitutional, Obamacare must suddenly become “moral” in your view.

I find this astonishing. And disturbing.

Just Sayin on December 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM

The SCOTUS does get rulings wrong. Obamacare is immoral because absent political partisanship, the tenth is absolutely clear. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force us to purchase a commodity. The tenth states that all powers not expressly giving to the federal government are reserved to the states or the individual. The individual created the states and the states created the federal government. The individual gave certain powers to the states and also gave the states a vehicle to take other rights from us after due process. The people of MA gave the state the power to force them to purchase a commodity. If you are in the minority, then leave to a state where you are in the majority.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Healthcare is broken and some legislation will be part of the solution.
csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Legislation is what broke healthcare. More legislation won’t fix it. Government is not the solution.

batterup on December 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:34 PM

Oh I don’t think the blogger who reported this in Politico didn’t misunderstand anything, Romney is famous for taking all sides of every position.

Rapunzel on December 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Legislation is what broke healthcare. More legislation won’t fix it. Government is not the solution.

batterup on December 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Not true. For starters, new legislation that gets rid of old legislation is helpful. Additionally, there is such a thing as good legislation. Tort reform for one.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:56 PM

Frackin’ RINO — Romney disgusts me

Conservchik on December 28, 2011 at 11:57 PM

Oh I don’t think the blogger who reported this in Politico didn’t misunderstand anything, Romney is famous for taking all sides of every position.

Rapunzel on December 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM

So he took that side at a book signing that wasn’t televised? What was he doing, convincing a hand full of people? Come on. Get real. The blogger has a hard on for Romney and it came out in her silly article.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:58 PM

I am being forced to purchase insurance against my will. Period. I did not choose to give up my right to make that economic decision for myself.

Welcome to democracy!

That right was taken away from me by a mob that happened to be bigger than my mob. Now, you can argue that this is just fine because text of the Massachusetts state constitution does not prohibit it, and because I can always move to avoid it. But how can you possibly argue that it’s “moral?”

It is moral in the sense that our system is the most equitable system and to force the minority belief on the majority is immoral.

Is everything not expressly prohibited by a constitution therefore “moral?”

Finally:

Of course not.

And if it is so, your argument that Obamacare is “immoral” must be based solely on questions about its constitutionality. And therefore, if SCOTUS finds the mandate to be constitutional, Obamacare must suddenly become “moral” in your view.

I find this astonishing. And disturbing.

Just Sayin on December 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM

The SCOTUS does get rulings wrong. Obamacare is immoral because absent political partisanship, the tenth is absolutely clear. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force us to purchase a commodity. The tenth states that all powers not expressly giving to the federal government are reserved to the states or the individual. The individual created the states and the states created the federal government. The individual gave certain powers to the states and also gave the states a vehicle to take other rights from us after due process. The people of MA gave the state the power to force them to purchase a commodity. If you are in the minority, then leave to a state where you are in the majority.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 11:46 PM

Thanks for your response, CSD! I disagree with your assessment, but I think I understand where you’re coming from.

A couple of questions (not intended as snark):

It is moral in the sense that our system is the most equitable system and to force the minority belief on the majority is immoral.

Do you think that it is moral, or are you saying that it is not necessarily immoral, for the majority to impose its will on the minority if that will does not violate a written constitution?

Is everything not expressly prohibited by a constitution therefore “moral?”

Of course not.

What would be an example of something that was imposed by the majority against the will of the minority, that was not prohibited by the (state) constitution, that you would consider immoral? For example – and this is a frivolous example, I grant you – would it be “moral” for the majority population in a state to require that everyone must have a body mass index below a certain defined level, or pay a penalty? Why or why not?

Finally:

And if it is so, your argument that Obamacare is “immoral” must be based solely on questions about its constitutionality. And therefore, if SCOTUS finds the mandate to be constitutional, Obamacare must suddenly become “moral” in your view.

I find this astonishing. And disturbing.

Just Sayin on December 28, 2011 at 10:58 PM

The SCOTUS does get rulings wrong. Obamacare is immoral because absent political partisanship, the tenth is absolutely clear. The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to force us to purchase a commodity. The tenth states that all powers not expressly giving to the federal government are reserved to the states or the individual. The individual created the states and the states created the federal government. The individual gave certain powers to the states and also gave the states a vehicle to take other rights from us after due process. The people of MA gave the state the power to force them to purchase a commodity. If you are in the minority, then leave to a state where you are in the majority.

I mostly agree with everything you say here, except you seem to be saying that the only reason that Obamacare is immoral is because it seems to be in violation of the 10th Amendment. But if SCOTUS rules that the mandate is constitutional, then as far as our system of laws is concerned, even if SCOTUS is wrong, it is constitutional. That means that there is no violation of the 10th Amendment. So I don’t see how it can be considered immoral in that circumstances.

Don’t get me wrong: I absolutely believe that SCOTUS gets things wrong, and I also believe that every elected official who takes an oath to uphold the constitution has an affirmative obligation to do so, regardless of what boneheaded rulings SCOTUS can come up with. But that’s not the world we’re living in. *sigh*

I think that there are certain things that the majority should not be able to dictate to the minority, regardless of level of government, regardless of whether or not they are expressly prohibited. I get the sense that you would agree, but that we draw the lines at different places.

Fair enough.

Just Sayin on December 29, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Ooops!!! I somehow quoted my own post. It’s a mess. Sorry everyone!

Just Sayin on December 29, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Do you think that it is moral, or are you saying that it is not necessarily immoral, for the majority to impose its will on the minority if that will does not violate a written constitution?

Yes. And I don’t equate religious morality with it.

For example – and this is a frivolous example, I grant you – would it be “moral” for the majority population in a state to require that everyone must have a body mass index below a certain defined level, or pay a penalty? Why or why not?

Immoral unless said persons are costing the state money to take care of them. If my right to be fat violates no other persons rights, then it is immoral. But if I deem it my neighbors responsibility to take care of my health problems, then it is moral to fine me.

Fair enough.

Just Sayin on December 29, 2011 at 12:12 AM

Fair enough.

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 12:32 AM

Ooops!!! I somehow quoted my own post. It’s a mess. Sorry everyone!

Just Sayin on December 29, 2011 at 12:27 AM

Preview is our friend. Unfortunately, we don’t always use it. :-)

csdeven on December 29, 2011 at 12:33 AM

Preview is our friend. Unfortunately, we don’t always use it. :-)

:-)

Just Sayin on December 29, 2011 at 12:36 AM

Here’s the thing. The HONEST truth. Up until the passage of Obamacare, the idea of an individual mandate WAS the republican/conservative position. Sorry, but it pretty well is the unburiable truth. It was only during the health care fight that all of a sudden our great republicans were suddenly the defenders of Medicare when it was finally being trimmed and also chose to take advantage of the pretty well known fact that THEIR mandate idea was never very popular in the first place and strategically flip-flopped to gave electoral and polling advantages off their own idea. It WAS the republican alternative to avoid a government run system.

And the shortcoming of this particular blog post is the “blinders on” approach to the personal responsibility argument. You can place all you hopes in the honest of all Americans if you like, but the fact is, LAW states all people must be treated at an emergency room with there being no requirement that you have insurance. Millions of people don’t, and many, honestly couldn’t afford it(hence subsidies in the mandate policies over the years). But they still get treated. Which drives of the cost of care to RESPONSIBLE individuals who have dome what they were supposed to, because we all know, extra loss and cost is passed onto the consumer, not the profits.

So the choice seems to be accept high costs and continuously rising costs to all consumers, require an individual mandate so people without insurance are being forced to be responsible for the social safety net our treatment with no questions asked policy costs, or run a campaign to repeal the law that allows all people to be treated at an er.

Yeah, try that politically. I’m just tired of this dishonestly positioning from pretty well everybody, myself included probably, on the health care topic.

Oh and the constantly repeated mantra during the health care debate about “allow insunce purchases across state lines”? Yeah, great choice, if you want it garuanteed that the supreme court will uphold the federal governments right to regulate INTERSTATE COMMERCE.

Propaganda, positioning, messaging wars, rhetoric, bull***t news outlets, on ALL sides, and AM advertising salesmen on our side think for too many people. And nothing realistic can be done because of it.

Genuine on December 29, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Okay sparky, explain to the group where you got the right to stop someone from giving up their own rights.

We’ll wait.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:21 PM

The point was that anyone would WANT to give up their rights. Got that?

But it IS your right to do so.

Just keep your MITTS off of MY rights AND my money.

Talon on December 29, 2011 at 6:58 AM

MITT is a George Bush velvet glove Progressive.

NO MITT
NO MITT
NO MITT

Mitt is just Obama with bigger hair and more money.

NO
NO
NO!!!!!!

PappyD61 on December 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM

MITT is a George Bush velvet glove Progressive.

NO MITT
NO MITT
NO MITT

Mitt is just Obama with bigger hair and more money.

NO
NO
NO!!!!!!

PappyD61 on December 29, 2011 at 9:12 AM

Yep, if Mitt is elected, he will take it as a mandate to -reject- the Tea Party and its small government philosophy. Romney is a Rockefeller Republican, always has been, always will be. There’s no way that he’ll get rid of the mandate or O-care in general if there is the -least- polling opposition to it.

ebrown2 on December 29, 2011 at 9:23 AM

This really looks like we are making the same mistake AGAIN – we are letting the media choose our leaders for us. If we pick Mitt – or “Democrat Lite” – why wouldn’t people just go for the real thing? A nomination of Romney will be seen by him as a mandate by the people rejecting the principles of the “Small Government” Tea Party. Everything was for nuthin’ and the victory of conservatism in 2010 negated.

famous amos on December 29, 2011 at 10:02 AM

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 9:17 PM

You can’t use it for just any health care. Furthermore, the law explicitly states that people are civilly (and possibly criminally) liable for the cost of care they received, and that the provider is allowed to bill them, engage collections against them, and hammer their credit report.
northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 6:48 PM

This is what you said. I responded that they do use it for “just any health care”, which is a fact.

Individuals with private health coverage were only about half as likely (17 percent) to visit an ER, and a similar proportion — one in five — of individuals without health coverage did so.

Correct. Which is why Romney tried to switch people into private insurance.

Why do you and Mitt Romney support punishing and harming law-abiding citizens?

Please stop with the juvenile Lefty-inspired comments (like, “Why do conservatives hate the poor” blah blah blah). I do not live in Massachusetts so I have nothing to do with the state’s programs. I am merely noting that many of the problems you cite already existed prior to RomneyCare (paperwork, use of Emergency rooms, and so forth). States have the constitutional right to devise programs, the federal government does not. I am not arguing that it has succeeded or failed (that is up to the people of Mass to decide), but it is inarguable that the program which exists today is not what Romney wanted for the state. If the state wants to make it workable they need to get rid of the mandates they impose on insurers and allow consumers to purchase high deductible/catastrophic coverage. Whether they will do that or not is up to them.

Buy Danish on December 29, 2011 at 10:23 AM

On KSFO radio this morning, substitute host Mark Davis made a prescient point–“Mitt Romney is a more polished Arnold Schwarzenegger”. This is absolutely the most accurate portrayal of Mittens that I have heard to date.

And Arnold replaced an Obama-like Gray Davis on recall in California. And he proceeded to make things far, far, far worse than Davis ever could have. There’s your preview of a Romney Presidency.

NOMOBO on December 29, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Okay sparky, explain to the group where you got the right to stop someone from giving up their own rights.

We’ll wait.

csdeven on December 28, 2011 at 10:21 PM

This is one of the most moronic statements I’ve seen at HotAir in a long time, (with exception to every one of Jailbreak’s comments).

So, by your logic csdeven, if 51% agree to give up their rights, then the other 49% who oppose lose their rights?

You are insane. And a pinko.

portlandon on December 29, 2011 at 11:09 AM

This is what you said. I responded that they do use it for “just any health care”, which is a fact.

And, as I pointed out, the law in question specifically defines what is and isn’t an emergency — and thus what has to be cared for.

Correct. Which is why Romney tried to switch people into private insurance.

Incorrect. Had Romney wanted to stop emergency room abuse, he could have simply used the same method as private insurers — which is a stiff co-pay for non-emergency use of an emergency room and garnishment of state payments for deadbeats.

Instead, he took the typical statist route of continuing to subsidize the irresponsible by demanding more and more from the responsible.

Please stop with the juvenile Lefty-inspired comments (like, “Why do conservatives hate the poor” blah blah blah).

Versus what, the whining of Romney and his Romneybots that if you don’t support deadbeats getting free health insurance at your expense, that you want people to die in the street?

I am not arguing that it has succeeded or failed (that is up to the people of Mass to decide), but it is inarguable that the program which exists today is not what Romney wanted for the state.

Bull. Romney brags about it. This whole post was talking about how he’s going around blabbering that Romneycare was the “conservative solution”.

northdallasthirty on December 29, 2011 at 11:25 AM

So the choice seems to be accept high costs and continuously rising costs to all consumers, require an individual mandate so people without insurance are being forced to be responsible for the social safety net our treatment with no questions asked policy costs, or run a campaign to repeal the law that allows all people to be treated at an er.

Genuine on December 29, 2011 at 12:49 AM

Ah, but you see, Genuine, that’s a typical disingenous Romneybot response.

You and your Romney are blabbering and blathering about how individual mandates “force people to be responsible”.

Then you hand them welfare checks to pay for their health insurance premiums out of our tax dollars.

You’re not saving money. Under the previous system, we only paid when a) a person had a medical emergency and b) they didn’t pay their bill. We weren’t required to pay for every single little thing, and the hospitals and medical providers were free to go after and charge the people who actually incurred the costs.

Now, we pay whether they go to the hospital or not, since we’re being forced to pay tax dollars to cover their premium. We still pay when they go to the hospital. And now, since you’ve gut-shot any provision that requires them to pay their own bills, they can walk away, sticking the provider and the insurance company with the costs, which then get passed on to us.

Most of all, you are not making them responsible. You’re still paying their bills for them with taxpayer dollars — only now, you’re paying ALL their bills with taxpayer dollars, not just the ones where it’s a geniune medical emergency AND they absolutely can’t pay.

This is simple math. It is why catastrophic-care plans that only cover emergencies are far cheaper than traditional full-coverage health insurance. It is immediately apparent to anyone who has ever had anything to do with the insurance business.

Which is why it’s clearly beyond rich spoiled brat Romney.

northdallasthirty on December 29, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Which is no surprise, if you are at all familiar with the usage patterns for people on Medicaid and other government-paid insurance.

Nearly one-third (32 percent) of Medicaid enrollees used the ER at least once during a 12-month period in 2007.

Individuals with private health coverage were only about half as likely (17 percent) to visit an ER, and a similar proportion — one in five — of individuals without health coverage did so.
Medicaid enrollees were three times as likely (15 percent vs. 5 percent) as the privately insured, and twice as likely as the uninsured (15 percent vs. 7 percent), to have visited an ER twice in the previous year.

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 9:17 PM

NDT,
Just like any liberal bot you are misusing statistics. It is far more likely that Medicaid and government insured used emergency rooms more often due to lack of education (ok, being lazy and stupid) Give a poor stupid person something for free and they want more and more of it. It takes some planning and forethought to seek out a primary care physician prior to your needing his services. Government provided healthcare encourages no planning and forethought. Private insurance companies and being uninsured require the utmost in planning and forethought to get the best deal. The government, by giving stupid lazy people private health insurance will not magically make them smart and driven.
And, actually, I am a doctor and I see this every day.

Ergo, Mittens is, by definition, no better in philosophy of government than Obama.

NOMOBO on December 29, 2011 at 12:15 PM

northdallasthirty on December 29, 2011 at 11:25 AM

And, as I pointed out, the law in question specifically defines what is and isn’t an emergency — and thus what has to be cared for.

And

Incorrect. Had Romney wanted to stop emergency room abuse, he could have simply used the same method as private insurers — which is a stiff co-pay for non-emergency use of an emergency room and garnishment of state payments for deadbeats.

Really? If it’s to easy peasy, explain this via Wiki:

More than half of all emergency room care in the U.S. now goes uncompensated[citation needed]. Hospitals write off such care as charity or bad debt for tax purposes. Increasing financial pressures on hospitals in the period since EMTALA’s passage have caused consolidations and closures, so the number of emergency rooms is decreasing despite increasing demand for emergency care.[9] There is also debate about the extent to which EMTALA has led to cost-shifting and higher rates for insured or paying hospital patients, thereby contributing to the high overall rate of medical inflation in the U.S.

and

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.[14] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.[15] For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.[15]

In other words, taxpayers shoulder the burden.

Versus what, the whining of Romney and his Romneybots that if you don’t support deadbeats getting free health insurance at your expense, that you want people to die in the street?

GFY with your straw men! I don’t know a single person who has made this argument, least of all me.

Bull. Romney brags about it. This whole post was talking about how he’s going around blabbering that Romneycare was the “conservative solution”.

I am not Mitt Romney, so please don’t put words in my mouth. I have responded to other commenters and stated historical facts (most of which Romney has talked about at one time or another despite your assertions to the contrary). You can’t take one clip from one interview and pretend this is the be all and end all of anything a candidate has to say about an issue.

Buy Danish on December 29, 2011 at 12:35 PM

It is far more likely that Medicaid and government insured used emergency rooms more often due to lack of education (ok, being lazy and stupid)

Actually, it’s probably more due to the fact that, in most cases, co-pays are required for primary care physicians, and not for emergency rooms.

Private insurers reduce use by the use of co-pays and access restrictions. Go to the emergency room unnecessarily under private insurance, and you will be paying the bulk of the cost. Do it under Medicare or Medicaid, and you won’t pay a dime.

Romney is like Barack Obama — a moron who doesn’t use intelligence, common sense, or experience from the real world to make decisions, and instead depends on polls and what will get him votes.

The stupidity comes in from the fact that Romney, like Obama, only listens to those who have made themselves dependent on government.

northdallasthirty on December 29, 2011 at 12:47 PM

northdallasthirty on December 29, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Private insurers reduce use by the use of co-pays and access restrictions. Go to the emergency room unnecessarily under private insurance, and you will be paying the bulk of the cost. Do it under Medicare or Medicaid, and you won’t pay a dime.

Fine. I don’t disagree that everyone should have to pay some sort of co-pay (even with government subsidized insurance). I don’t have access restrictions because I chose a higher deductible/higher copay plan in exchange for the freedom to choose my doctors at will. But people who work for a living are not going to be going to the doctor for frivolous reasons even with lower copays- it’s too much of a hassle to find the time to do it,.

Romney is like Barack Obama — a moron who doesn’t use intelligence, common sense, or experience from the real world to make decisions, and instead depends on polls and what will get him votes. The stupidity comes in from the fact that Romney, like Obama, only listens to those who have made themselves dependent on government.

You lose all credibility when you make preposterous statements like that. Say what you will about Romney, to call him a “moron”, is, well, moronic. Moreover, the fact is he has been very much engaged in “the real world” and his decision making (and evident leadership skills) at Boston Consulting, Bain Consulting, Bain Capital, the Olympics (or even as a missionary or college student) were not based on polls or votes or listening to those who “have made themselves dependent on government”.

Obama is a lifelong academic/Marxist community activist/government-funded entity whose could not be more different from Romney both in experience and goals for this country’s future.

Buy Danish on December 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Really? If it’s to easy peasy, explain this via Wiki:

According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, 55% of U.S. emergency care now goes uncompensated.[14] When medical bills go unpaid, health care providers must either shift the costs onto those who can pay or go uncompensated. In the first decade of EMTALA, such cost-shifting amounted to a hidden tax levied by providers.For example, it has been estimated that this cost shifting amounted to $455 per individual or $1,186 per family in California each year.

With pleasure.

Inadvertently, you have stumbled onto the problem. Romney’s “solution” for each family having to pay $1,186 per year to cover the uninsured was to give the uninsured free health insurance instead.

But what does free health insurance cost in California?

By 2010, those premiums jumped to $13,819 in California, on par with the national average. Premiums for families nationwide rose an average of 50 percent during that same time period to $13,871.

That shows the idiocy of Romney’s policy prescriptions. His “solution” for taxpayers having to cover $1,186 per year in additional costs was to hand out free coverage that required taxpayers to pay $13,819 per year in additional costs so that the uninsured would have “free.

This is what you’re fundamentally not getting. Emergency-only care, which is paid only when it is used for an emergency, is cheaper than full-fledged health insurance, which is paid regardless of whether it is used or not.

Insurance companies are profitable because they take in more in premiums than they pay out in claims. The fundamental point of insurance underwriting is that the intake of premiums should always exceed the cost of claims. Moronic Romney’s brilliant plan was to shift the state onto a system where taxpayers were paying the premiums, rather than paying the claims — which by business model, guarantees a higher cost.

I apparently can’t stop saying this enough. Fundamental, basic, common-sense conservativism would involve putting the taxpayers on the hook to pay expenses only when they happen — because the underwriting odds are excellent that those costs will always be less than the premiums you would charge to cover them.

Romney opted otherwise. Which makes him an idiot.

northdallasthirty on December 29, 2011 at 1:54 PM

Moreover, the fact is he has been very much engaged in “the real world” and his decision making (and evident leadership skills) at Boston Consulting, Bain Consulting, Bain Capital, the Olympics (or even as a missionary or college student) were not based on polls or votes or listening to those who “have made themselves dependent on government”.

Buy Danish on December 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM

But when put in the position to apply such knowledge as Governor of Massachusetts, what did he do?

1) Stupid taxes on businesses

2) Wasteful, ignorant government spending

3) Welfare handouts to deadbeats

Why? Because his point was polls, votes, and listening to those who have made themselves dependent on government. He didn’t care about responsible, working people; his record as Massachusetts Governor was wholly one of a left-wing liberal liar like Obama.

This is wholly consistent with his record as a serial flip-flopper and video after video that has come up of him directly contradicting the positions he claims to hold today.

northdallasthirty on December 29, 2011 at 1:59 PM

NDT,
Sorry, my post was supposed to be directed at Buy Danish. His inane attempts at defending Romney’s inane statements and policies makes him, well, inane.

NOMOBO on December 29, 2011 at 2:22 PM

What the governor doesn’t understand is that although personal responsibility is a conservative principal, government imposed personal responsibility is not.

WhyNot on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

Sorry, my post was supposed to be directed at Buy Danish. His inane attempts at defending Romney’s inane statements and policies makes him, well, inane.

NOMOBO on December 29, 2011 at 2:22 PM

No problem, NOMOBO. I guessed as much, which was why you only got the mild correction and not the nuclear drop. :)

northdallasthirty on December 29, 2011 at 3:51 PM

You said that people don’t use emergency rooms to get their basic healthcare needs met. That is false.

Buy Danish on December 28, 2011 at 8:59 PM

No, I didn’t. THIS is what I said.

The ONLY thing mandated by the Feds in that respect is EMERGENCY care, which is specifically defined in the law. You can’t use it for just any health care. Furthermore, the law explicitly states that people are civilly (and possibly criminally) liable for the cost of care they received, and that the provider is allowed to bill them, engage collections against them, and hammer their credit report.

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 6:48 PM

northdallasthirty on December 28, 2011 at 9:17 PM

Those are standard Romney talking points. I guess it’s the only way to try to spin Romneycare as conservative, so every Romneycare defender pretends its true.

I know I’ve made the exact point multiple times.

Of course, the Mittdogs love this claim because it lets them say, “It was Reagan’s fault.”

No matter how many times they try to claim Romney’s conservative, they still try to blame Reagan. Why, it’s almost like Romney is still trying to distance himself from Reagan.

There Goes The Neighborhood on December 30, 2011 at 1:31 AM

Comment pages: 1 5 6 7