Santorum campaign video recruits Massachusetts residents opposed to Romneycare

posted at 3:40 pm on March 26, 2012 by Tina Korbe

As the Supreme Court hears arguments about the constitutionality of the Obamacare individual mandate, Rick Santorum’s repeated emphasis that Mitt Romney is the Republican with the very least credibility to oppose Obama on health care might actually work to reinvigorate his campaign. For example, his repeat assertions became the basis for an obnoxious question from a notoriously obnoxious New York Times reporter. That obnoxious question in turn became the basis for a fundraising plea.

On a smaller scale, this little one-and-a-half-minute video drew snark from BuzzFeed’s Zeke Miller, who posted it under the headline, “Santorum’s Latest Attack on Romney: Massachusetts Residents Opposed to Obamacare.” He cheekily added the subhead, “His campaign found three.”

Had Miller not added that subhead, I wouldn’t have posted the video here. The three “real people” featured in the video don’t say much that is particularly newsworthy. They reiterate the unconstitutionality of Obamacare and the threat it poses to religious freedom. The third interviewee unabashedly declares his support for Rick Santorum. It’s the sort of web video a campaign posts in haste that might or might not pick up steam depending upon the appetite of the YouTube viewing public on any given day.

Miller’s subhead, though, suggests Massachusetts residents who disapprove of Romneycare are few and far between. But is that true? According to one mid-February poll, it is true that a vast majority — 62 percent — of Massachusetts residents have a favorable opinion of the law. Still, a third of Massachusetts residents disapprove of it. Unanimity on such a thing is virtually impossible — but 33 percent of Massachusetts residents amounts to more than just “three.” The plucky protagonists in Santorum’s video just happen to be the few the campaign caught on camera. Even the video provides more evidence than Miller gives it credit for, though: The three spokespeople are clearly at a gathering to oppose Obamacare/Romneycare — and they’re not the only three at the rally.

As long as we’re talking about what Massachusetts folk think of Romneycare, though, let’s consider a few other statistics from the same poll. A majority of Massachusetts residents — 54 percent — think Romneycare was a “major influence” on the national health care law, which is not as popular with the American public as Romneycare is with Massachusetts residents. Perhaps most importantly of all, nearly 70 percent of Bay Staters think Mitt Romney disagrees with the national overhaul because “he’s trying to win votes.”

This video and Rick Santorum’s relentless rhetoric about Obamacare/Romneycare and freedom are like stop signs on the campaign, urging voters to look in all directions before they barrel ahead with a Romney candidacy. It might be too late for Rick Santorum to win the majority of delegates before Tampa, but it’s not too late for him to stop Romney and he figures Obamacare/Romneycare is the way to do that.

Again, he might be right. At the end of a long primary, I can think of just a few reasons why Republicans have seemingly settled on Mitt Romney to take on a president whose greatest vulnerability, arguably, is the health care overhaul constructed atop the foundation Romney himself provided:

  1. Republicans are simply most familiar with Romney (i.e. he has the highest name recognition of the remaining candidates). He’s been running for president for more than four years now, after all. Plus, he boasts excellent campaign organization and flush coffers that enable him to broadcast his message to a wide audience.
  2. They don’t anticipate that Obamacare will be much of an issue in the general election even though it was an important issue in the 2010 election. They think the nation has Obamacare fatigue or they think the Supreme Court will rule the individual mandate to be unconstitutional and so take at least part of the issue off the table or they think it’s adequate that Romney has promised to work toward repeal. Whatever the reason, they think Obamacare has lost its potency as the prime example of the clash of progressive and free market forces in this country. They no longer see it as the president’s greatest vulnerability.
  3. They actually think Romney can do a better job attacking Obamacare with the albatross of Romneycare around his neck than the other candidates could do without such an albatross.

As Jim DeMint recently said of Romney, “there’s a lot to like there.” His plan to reform entitlements, for example, is a marked improvement from the nonexistent plan the president has offered. His tax reform ideas are refreshing when compared with the president’s grating class-envy rhetoric. His personal presentation, while often criticized as robotic, has an indefinable presidential air about it.

But, when it comes to Obamacare, Rick Santorum is right: Romney has very little credibility with which to reopen the discussion of the president’s abomination of a health care law. If he’s the nominee and if he never does more than say he never wanted Romneycare to go national (i.e. if he never outright disavows the law), the GOP will have to tiptoe around the issue and the president will continually cast Romney’s health care lot with his, hoping to depress voter turnout among those who hate Obamacare and energize voter turnout among those who love it.


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 2

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Same price?

Cindy Munford on March 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM

steebo77 on March 26, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Thanks for proving my point.
Neither of those aricles you provided stated “Romney has suggested that all states should devise their own “Romneycare” for health coverage of all their citizens.”
Did you even bother to read them before you linked to them?

I found this line useful: Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary

And this one: “Republicans will join with the Democrats if the president abandons his government insurance plan, if he endeavors to craft a plan that does not burden the nation with greater debt, if he broadens his scope to reduce health costs for all Americans, and if he is willing to devote the rigorous effort, requisite time and bipartisan process that health care reform deserves.”

Yes healthcare still needs reforming and Mitt has the nerve to say so. Oh the scandal!.

Buttercup on March 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM

The exact same thing could be posted by someone regarding Obamacare.
sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 4:53 PM

No it can’t because it hasn’t been fully implemented yet. And if, God forbid, that happens the differences between Romney’s plan for the State of Massachusetts and Obama’s for the entire country will be readily and painfully apparent.

Buy Danish on March 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Good discussion going here.

I think one thing the non-MA commenters may not fully appreciate is that during his entire term Mitt faced hugely Democratic legislature that could easily override any of his vetoes.

He had no chance of repealing must-issue pre-existing insurance.

He had no chance of stopping a massive health overhaul from passing. He could either leave all the details to the Dems or he could negotiate for whatever terms he could get. He chose to engage and negotiate.

The individual mandate was originally a conservative idea (Heritage Foundation, IIRC) that attempted to address the free rider problem. It didn’t become heresy until later. I support overturning Obamacare on constitutional grounds, but that doesn’t make the free rider problem go away. The status quo in the other 49 states makes the cost of free riders more of an income redistribution scheme than Romneycare.

BTW, I’m an ABR guy (but even more of an ABS guy) and voted accordingly in the MA primary. I will still look forward to voting for Mitt over Barack. Conservatives just need to hold his feet to the fire. If they do so, I think they will be pleasantly surprised.

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

I don’t understand what point you’re making here. I don’t have to agree with what another state chooses to do with each law they pass. Voters can toss out their legislators and/or Governor if they think they’re getting stuck with “bad laws”.

Buy Danish on March 26, 2012 at 4:48 PM

That’s why I re-quoted what you had said earlier. You then urged that tea partiers and conservatives should be excited that Romney did something at the state level that he argues shouldn’t be done at the federal level, as though Romney is a 10th Amendment champion.

Any street cred that Romney might have gained in arguing for the 10th Amendment is nixed by the fact that his signature legislation trumps individual liberty in favor of state authority. So why exactly should tea partiers and conservatives be excited?

beatcanvas on March 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Cindy Munford on March 26, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I’m not sure what your question is. My premiums have gone up every year but they went up every year before romnycare also. Please claify your question

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Most Republicans support this because it’s very popular with the majority of Americans. Romney makes the distinction between people “who have had who have maintained continuous healthcare coverage”, and those who think it means they can just wait until they get sick.

Buy Danish on March 26, 2012 at 4:43 PM

Yes. I know what he means.

What I said about his position on the issue was not controversial. It was a simple statement of fact.

Just Sayin on March 26, 2012 at 5:14 PM

That’s why I re-quoted what you had said earlier. You then urged that tea partiers and conservatives should be excited that Romney did something at the state level that he argues shouldn’t be done at the federal level, as though Romney is a 10th Amendment champion.
beatcanvas on March 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Still not getting your point. He acted with overwhelming popular support of the citizens of Massachusetts according to the rights of the State of Massachusetts in accordance with both their State Constitution and with the 10th Amendment. Tea Partiers are proponents of States Rights. That doesn’t mean they have to agree individually or collectively with each law that each state passes.

Gotta run folks…

Buy Danish on March 26, 2012 at 5:26 PM

So why exactly should tea partiers and conservatives be excited?

beatcanvas on March 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Federalism? States rights?

Why shouldn’t Massachusetts be free to experiment with a liberal health care scheme that its citizens support?

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 5:34 PM

Sooooo, Tina, you have an issue with Romney because his health plan was implemented at a STATE level, but not with Santorum who has expressed himself more than willing to implement solutions for social issues at a FEDERAL level (which would make him like Obama, but just coming from the opposite side)…?! …

ptcamn on March 26, 2012 at 5:37 PM

I have family in Massachusetts.

They hate RomneyCare.

For them, ‘Romney’ is a curse word.

I imagine there are many, many, many more who hate Romney and his health care plan in Massachusetts.

shinty on March 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Seriously though, Why was RomneyCare NOT the bogeyman in 2008 as it is now? Or did we all know that it pertained only to MAss- and if you didn’t live there – who cared? A 10th amendment right for MAss ?

If there was outrage in 2008, over it when Romney was running against McCain, I didn’t hear about it.

Rick even endorsed Romney as the most conservative in 2008.

Can outrage be retroactive ?

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Why shouldn’t Massachusetts be free to experiment with a liberal health care scheme that its citizens support?

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 5:34 PM

So it’s completely Constitutional for the state to take money from one person and give it to another as long as the majority of the states citizens vote for it. Yes?

Awesome. Let’s all vote for the Buffet Rule, and for even greater progressive taxation, and more business regulations and fines – as long as it’s at the state level. Wouldn’t want to violate the Constitution, you know.

Tyranny by the majority – I’ve never seen the beauty of all that, but you paint such a compelling picture.

beatcanvas on March 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM

I have family in Massachusetts.

They hate RomneyCare.

shinty on March 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Why. are they part of the 8 percent forced to buy insurance.

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Rick even endorsed Romney as the most conservative in 2008.

Can outrage be retroactive ?

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 5:47 PM

Many of us were so much less informed than we are today. A couple of years of encroaching socialism and anti-capitalism will do that to a person.

beatcanvas on March 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM

So it’s completely Constitutional for the state to take money from one person and give it to another as long as the majority of the states citizens vote for it. Yes?

its not constitutional for the federal government but is for a state

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 5:51 PM

Tyranny by the majority – I’ve never seen the beauty of all that, but you paint such a compelling picture.

beatcanvas on March 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM

LOL- Do you pay a state income tax in the state that you live ??

I DON’T !!- Now do you want to talk about tyranny ?

Or you can move to CA and get as much pot as you need to make it feel better.

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Why. are they part of the 8 percent forced to buy insurance.

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Some people have principles. They don’t need to be a part of the group effected to see big government dictates as undesirable.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 5:53 PM

Tina,

Sorry but it seems a bit grade school to take a whole post to take someone to task for what was essentially hyperbole saying that there was only 3 people opposed to Romneycare. Obviously more than that. Frankly what surprised me was the numbers of Mass. Residents that approve of it. It just seems like desperation on your end is all I’m trying to say. Not that I am a fan of Romneycare by any stretch, but still c’mon.

Minnfidel on March 26, 2012 at 5:55 PM

So it’s completely Constitutional for the state to take money from one person and give it to another as long as the majority of the states citizens vote for it. Yes?

Awesome. Let’s all vote for the Buffet Rule, and for even greater progressive taxation, and more business regulations and fines – as long as it’s at the state level. Wouldn’t want to violate the Constitution, you know.

Tyranny by the majority – I’ve never seen the beauty of all that, but you paint such a compelling picture.

beatcanvas on March 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM

Yes, as a matter of law, it is completely constitutional.

The Massachusetts short term capital gains state tax rate is 12%. Bet that’s higher than your state.

I disagree with that policy, but 49 other states have the right to have 49 different other policies and they do. I have the option to change the law at the state level or move if it becomes onerous enough to me.

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 5:58 PM

Some people have principles. They don’t need to be a part of the group effected to see big government dictates as undesirable.

so then other than some nebulous principle thing you hate it

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Some people have principles. They don’t need to be a part of the group effected to see big government dictates as undesirable.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 5:53 PM

so then other than some nebulous principle thing you hate it

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 5:59 PM

Yeah. I hate socialism… even when its done by someone claiming to be a ‘severe conservative’.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM

As a pharmacist in mass. I have dealt with many people who have been forced to get insurance.

some accept it grudingly. Some really like it when they find out the price of the prscription drug without it.

some are subsidised-some are not.

but as i’ve said mass only had 8 percent of people affected.

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM

Yeah. I hate socialism… even when its done by someone claiming to be a ‘severe conservative’.

got any relatives on social security or medicare.

lol

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Yeah. I hate socialism… even when its done by someone claiming to be a ‘severe conservative’.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:02 PM

What the hell do you think paying a medicare payroll tax in every paycheck is all about ?

Do you really think that’s free enterprise Health Care or sumpin ?

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 6:05 PM

Still not getting your point. He acted with overwhelming popular support of the citizens of Massachusetts according to the rights of the State of Massachusetts in accordance with both their State Constitution and with the 10th Amendment. Tea Partiers are proponents of States Rights. That doesn’t mean they have to agree individually or collectively with each law that each state passes.

Gotta run folks…

Buy Danish on March 26, 2012 at 5:26 PM

Well said. I would not be in favor of state mandated either, but it IS a states rights issue as you say. I believe that many opposed to Romney know it as well but conveniently overlook it.

Minnfidel on March 26, 2012 at 6:08 PM

got any relatives on social security or medicare.

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:03 PM

What the hell do you think paying a medicare payroll tax in every paycheck is all about ?

Do you really think that’s free enterprise Health Care or sumpin ?

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 6:05 PM

I don’t agree with those either. People should be left alone and the nanny state may be swell to you guys but it cannot be afforded.

The money isn’t there and all your shrieking isn’t going change that. See Greece for details.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I don’t agree with those either. People should be left alone and the nanny state may be swell to you guys but it cannot be afforded.

when you turn 65 we’ll see how you feel.

lol

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:13 PM

I found this line useful: Massachusetts also proved that you don’t need government insurance. Our citizens purchase private, free-market medical insurance. There is no “public option.” With more than 1,300 health insurance companies, a federal government insurance company isn’t necessary

Buttercup on March 26, 2012 at 4:59 PM

ABRtards hardest hit.

Gunlock Bill on March 26, 2012 at 6:14 PM

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:09 PM

.
I wish my wife was a little more…….. well – I wish for a lot of things. But you learn as you get older, wishin things away usually doesn’t work- so you play the cards that were dealt the best way you can. Its called the reality.

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 6:14 PM

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:03 PM

So nice to have an intelligent thread without incessant flame wars on Hot Air, like the old days. Thanks for your contributions.

Its a shame there isn’t a way to pass contact information on Hot Air, since we are obviously both part of the embattled conservative minority locally in Massachusetts.

Best regards

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Rick even endorsed Romney as the most conservative in 2008.

Can outrage be retroactive ?

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 5:47 PM

TRick wasn’t running back then. He will say ANYTHING to win.

I can’t wait to hear his latest gaffe. But with his slip into irrelevancy, it may not be news worthy.

Gunlock Bill on March 26, 2012 at 6:20 PM

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 6:16 PM

Ditto

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:21 PM

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Its called the reality.

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 6:14 PM

The events in Greece are actually happening today. Thats strikes me as fairly close to reality. Balanced against the airy promises of the Obama’s and the Romney’s of the world, I choose reality.

This real enough for ya?

Social Security’s actuaries make such a calculation on page 64. It says that Social Security’s unfunded liability in perpetuity is $17.5 trillion

Social Security’s problems are trivial compared to Medicare’s. Its trustees also issued a report this week. On page 69 we see that just part A of that program, which pays for hospital care, has an unfunded liability of $36.4 trillion in perpetuity.

But this is just the beginning of Medicare’s problems, because it also has two other programs: part B, which covers doctor’s visits, and part D, which pays for prescription drugs.

The unfunded portion of Medicare part B is already covered by general revenues under current law. The present value of that is $37 trillion

The unfunded portion of Medicare part D, which was rammed into law by George W. Bush and a Republican Congress in 2003, is also covered by general revenues under current law and has a present value of $15.5 trillion

Thus federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by these programs under current law over and above the payroll tax.

To put it another way, the total unfunded indebtedness of Social Security and Medicare comes to $106.4 trillion. That is how much larger the nation’s capital stock would have to be today, all of it owned by the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, to generate enough income to pay all the benefits that have been promised over and above future payroll taxes. But the nation’s total private net worth is only $51.5 trillion.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:22 PM

surprisinly enough in some areas you are correct. the budget deficit has to be brought under control.

Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan which if implemented will eventually balance the budget.

Greeces problem is that they far exceed the freebies we give.

over 40 percent don’t work and get government subsidies.

Having some form of coverage for elderly and income for them is not a bad thing.

AND, romneycare requires people to buy their own insurance-based on what you said about greece then you should agree with this

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:30 PM

Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum is fond of attacking his opponents for their previous support of government mandates for health care reform. But the former Pennsylvania Senator’s past is also riddled with prior support for the government incursions despised by conservatives today.

In 1992 as a member of the House of Representatives representing the Pittsburgh area, Santorum proposed “medisave accounts,” a plan that would require individuals who set up their own accounts independent of their employers purchase high deductible insurance coverage.

In 1994 during the Republican primary for Senate, according to two reports from April and May in the Morning Call, Santorum himself was in favor of the individual mandate as a alternative to the Clinton takeover of health care.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/rick-santorum-previously-supported-employer-indiv

ryandan on March 26, 2012 at 6:30 PM

But, when it comes to Obamacare, Rick Santorum is right: Romney has very little credibility with which to reopen the discussion of the president’s abomination of a health care law.

Why would Tina Korbe say something so stupid? Do Democrats put such limitations on themselves? Why would she hamstring Romney that way? A Democrat would be audacious and say what ever they want, and their supporters would cheer them on. But, people like Tina Korbe wag their fingers and whine “No, No, No” like the Church Lady to GOP candidates. No wonder we have such a hard time beating the left. We have one of those “fear of success” complexes.

jan3 on March 26, 2012 at 6:32 PM

Writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer in the winter of 2008, the Pennsylvania Republican said that the government should “mandate” that “all cars sold in the United States, starting with the 2010 model year, be ‘flex-fuel vehicles.’” Santorum knew that the idea would be controversial, and prefaced it by telling his “hard-core conservative friends” to “hold on to your hats.” But, he added, forcing cars to run on a blend of ethanol and gas, or a “coal-derived methanol/gas mixture,” would save oil and cost less than increasing fuel economy standards.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/26/rick-santorum-gas-prices_n_1380524.html?ref=elections-2012

This is the real mega govt Rick Santorum that wants govt in your lives.

Not this distorted talk about freedom.

Santorum benefits from looking like a consservative when in reality he is a ultra big govt politician.

ryandan on March 26, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Here is Rick Santorum at the RNC convention in 2008 saying how it is good the GOP is no longer the party of small govt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ

There is a reason why Santorum lost by a record margin in a swing state.

ryandan on March 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM

Romney has endorsed the Ryan plan which if implemented will eventually balance the budget.

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:30 PM

No it won’t.

It claims to do that in the year 2040 if everything goes right and its assumptions aren’t terribly realistic.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:37 PM

If Massachusetts is not free to try liberal/libertarian Romneycare, then Texas, Wyoming etc. aren’t free to their own more conservative solutions either.

That is not acceptable.

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 6:40 PM

It claims to do that in the year 2040 if everything goes right and its assumptions aren’t terribly realistic.

obviously your a PHd economist

l

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Here is Rick Santorum at the RNC convention in 2008 saying how it is good the GOP is no longer the party of small govt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-WezrKqUBQ

There is a reason why Santorum lost by a record margin in a swing state.

ryandan on March 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM

And he now parades around calling himself a real conservative? I knew he was a punk, but this proves he’s a fraud as well. He’s acting. He spent a few weeks listening to Rush and Beck, then hit the campaign trail with a game plan.

jan3 on March 26, 2012 at 6:45 PM

But, when it comes to Obamacare, Rick Santorum is right: Romney has very little credibility with which to reopen the discussion of the president’s abomination of a health care law.

Why would Tina Korbe say something so stupid? Do Democrats put such limitations on themselves? Why would she hamstring Romney that way? A Democrat would be audacious and say what ever they want, and their supporters would cheer them on. But, people like Tina Korbe wag their fingers and whine “No, No, No” like the Church Lady to GOP candidates. No wonder we have such a hard time beating the left. We have one of those “fear of success” complexes.

jan3 on March 26, 2012 at 6:32 PM

She’s just not looking to November. Romney is THE PERFECT candidate to go against Obie/ObieCare !!
You have to know how a liberal fights. Can they ACCUSE/SMEAR Mittens of pushing Granny over the cliff? Noooo –Can they accuse him of being MEAN WHITE GUY who hates for poor and minorities by denying them HC ? Nooo — They can’t fight him on the grounds that they need to smear fight the ObieCare fight(all pre SCOTUS ruling mind you)
ROMNEY takes the HC fight to the Fed/state level. Do states mandate that some pay personal INCOME TAX ? Do some states NOT HAVE a state income tax ? (yes)The 10th amendment is more valid- and more injurious to a central socialized Govt takeover- as Ocommie wants. Thats the ultimate fight.
ROMNEY FORCES democrites to figure out how to make a Federal case out of it- pun intended – WITHOUT all the alinsky demonizing smearing of the rich white hating po folk Tea Party “nazi” mem that they have worked so hard on. Look at how they will have to fight- not with their tactics.

FlaMurph on March 26, 2012 at 6:50 PM

obviously your a PHd economist

l

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:41 PM

Ryan would reduce spending for the rest of the federal government from 12.5 percent of GDP in 2011 to 3.75 percent by 2050. CBO estimates spending for these programs has never been lower than 8 percent at any time since World War II. Defense spending is 4.6 percent of GDP today and CBO notes it has never fallen below 3 percent during that period.

This implies Ryan and the GOP would either have to support unprecedented cuts in the Pentagon budget or leave almost no money for everything else the federal government does—highways, air traffic control, national parks, food safety, farm subsidies, and the like.

Sorry but this is totally unrealistic and the 2040 date means that the budget is totally meaningless. It will never happen.

I don’t need a Phd to see the obvious.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:52 PM

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 6:52 PM

bringing the budget under control is the point. i don’t necessarily think 2040 is correct-but getting headed in the right direction is the way to go.

again what does this have to do with romneycare in mass.

we want to stop obamacare which forces states to do something

do you have health insurance. do members of your family

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:58 PM

again what does this have to do with romneycare in mass.

we want to stop obamacare which forces states to do something

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Is has to do with stopping an ever encroaching government making promises as a means to buy votes. Those promised can never be kept and they will bankrupt the nation. Real harm is being done and real people are being conditioned to rely on government cheese by voting for a living. There will come a time when the piper has to be paid and when that time comes there are going to be a lot of very angry people (see Greece for details) upset at having been lied to. Angry desperate people tend to make poor decisions. Guys like Obama and Romney have been instrumental in making that nanny state government a reality. More government isn’t the answer.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 7:06 PM

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 7:06 PM

I finally get it Ron Paul !

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 7:10 PM

I finally get it Ron Paul !

gerrym51 on March 26, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Do you really?

I despise Ron Paul as a fake, anti-American, and a poser who makes claims to economic restraint knowing he will never be called on to make those choices. He is however at least more consistent than Paul Ryan who talks the fiscal talk, but his voting patterns show something very different.

sharrukin on March 26, 2012 at 7:15 PM

That’s why I re-quoted what you had said earlier. You then urged that tea partiers and conservatives should be excited that Romney did something at the state level that he argues shouldn’t be done at the federal level, as though Romney is a 10th Amendment champion.

Any street cred that Romney might have gained in arguing for the 10th Amendment is nixed by the fact that his signature legislation trumps individual liberty in favor of state authority. So why exactly should tea partiers and conservatives be excited?

beatcanvas on March 26, 2012 at 5:00 PM

Especially since Romney called for the individual mandate to be a part of Obamacare back in 2009:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/mitt-romneys-advice-for-obamacare-look-at-romney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2M9gGwW2gCs

ebrown2 on March 26, 2012 at 7:52 PM

Especially since Romney called for the individual mandate to be a part of Obamacare back in 2009:

ebrown2 on March 26, 2012 at 7:52 PM

The individual mandate stinks, but what about compared to the status quo in the other 49 states where you are being forced to a greater extent to subsidize free riders (assuming you pay taxes and/or health insurance premiums). I don’t blame Romney for giving it a shot.

What is your alternative to the free rider problem if Obamacare is miraculously repealed tomorrow? The free rider problem is not going away. Either we’re doing this through a welfare model or a personal responsibility model. I would prefer the personal responsibility model.

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 8:17 PM

no one in MA voted romneycare in- it was constructed and passed in the legislature. no citizen voted for it. there is currently a drive to repeal it.

the unemployed, small businesses, and the marginally middle class all suffer under romneycare. just because you around which the whole world spins has not been adversely effected does not mean other have been so fortunate. the matter is somewhat skewered by the fact that MA already had a very high rate of insured people- most of whom get their health insurance from their employer. all such a person would have noticed is their rates going up.

there has been no cost savings with romneycare- not from any quarter. there is no savings from solving any free riding problem, no savings from stemming er use, no savings from pooling costs. nothing but a billion dollar over run. for a marginal amount of extra people being insured there has been no benefit to the state from romneycare whatsoever. the rest of the country is bailing out romenycare and has been from the beginning. and now de-evolve patrick is being forced by the state supreme court to cover green card holding aliens- whom he tried to deny access to the health connector-because romenycare was working so well and everyone loves it. MA also loved teddikins kennedy. tools.

and again, if the state can constitutional require you to buy insurance it can also allow you to get you some slaves. oh yeah and limit your speech. it’s constitutional if a state does it.

mittens on March 26, 2012 at 8:40 PM

RomneyCare expanded coverage simply by putting more people on the dole. Since 2006, 440,000 people have been added to state-funded insurance rolls. Medicaid enrollment alone is up nearly 25%, and Massachusetts is struggling to cover the cost.

Of the previously uninsured individuals who have signed up, 68% are receiving free or subsidized coverage.

Many of these people aren’t even citizens of Massachusetts. A recent report from the Massachusetts Inspector General found that state agencies have failed to implement controls to prevent ineligible people from making claims. In 2010 millions of dollars were spent on medical services for individuals from 48 other states and several foreign countries.

That’s only the tip of the RomneyCare cost iceberg. Originally projected to cost $1.8 billion this year, the reform effort is now expected to exceed those estimates by $150 million. An analysis from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation found that state spending on health care reform grew from $1.04 billion in 2006 to about $1.75 billion in 2010. Over the next 10 years, RomneyCare will likely cost $2 billion more than predicted.

As health costs have risen public approval of the law has dwindled. A poll by Suffolk University found that 49% of state residents do not think that RomneyCare has been beneficial. That represents a 20% drop since the law passed in 2006. A mere 38% felt the law was helping.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/04/25/health-care-mitt-romney_print.html

mittens on March 26, 2012 at 8:53 PM

no one in MA voted romneycare in- it was constructed and passed in the legislature.

That’s how we do things in a republic, just like the other 49 states. IIRC, Romney even had a line item veto, some of which were overridden, some of which were not.

the unemployed, small businesses, and the marginally middle class all suffer under romneycare.

I would argue probably not, after being relieved of paying for free riding.

there has been no cost savings with romneycare- not from any quarter

No argument there. There are also no real cost containment provisions in Obamacare. Major problem. There are even worse cost containment provisions in the status quo. What is your proposed solution?

Something has to be done. Health Savings Accounts and tort reform, even if you could pass them, are not going to be enough.

Either there is some personal responsibility to pay for health insurance or there is not. We long ago decided that there is a societal responsibility to pay for health insurance, so I am in favor of making free riders pay something like their fair share with a head tax.

cool breeze on March 26, 2012 at 9:32 PM

mittens on March 26, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Thank you for some sanity on this thread. And thanks to others here who have tried to explain the issues. The mantra of the tenth amendment covers a multitude of sins if we were to use the logic of those who seem to believe that “States Right” is a pass for whatever the state would force upon the people, as long as the people supposedly want it. The problem is, Romney likes using government to force people to comply, the very thing Santorum is being accused of doing.

I apologize that I don’t have time to stop and get involved in conversation, but reading the comments by some of the Romney supporters is so frustrating. I wish you would seriously consider what mittens and several others are trying to explain about the way this law was passed in Mass, and the effect it is having on people in that state. It was poor decision making from a legal standpoint and bad governing from an administrative, and Romney is partially responsible. Romney will use this same method if he is elected president. Conservatives should reject this method of governing.

Constance on March 26, 2012 at 9:33 PM

I have family in Massachusetts.
They hate RomneyCare.
For them, ‘Romney’ is a curse word.
I imagine there are many, many, many more who hate Romney and his health care plan in Massachusetts.
shinty on March 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM

Don’t hate Romney, Romney care on the otherhand… Romney is my last choice when voting to defeat Obama and his agenda.

Living in MA insurance has gone up about 30% yearly over the last 3 years for me, my co-pay went up 1 of those years and my % of coverage dropped from 90% to 80%, next year, when the premiumum goes up again I expect 70%.

Granted it could be worse, and I expect that in the future. People in MA aren’t thrilled with Romneycare from those I’ve talked to and that includes people with lower incomes also seeing their premiums go up too as they try to make ends meet, never mind what I’ve read here’s just a sampling:
http://americaswatchtower.com/2010/10/27/illegal-immigrants-cost-massachusetts-taxpayers-38-million-a-year-under-romneycare-is-this-to-be-expected-under-obamacare/

wubu on March 27, 2012 at 12:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2