Would Romney Oppose Repealing the Individual Mandate? (Yes. Read here)

American Spectator ^ | 4/19/10

[Behind Liberal Lines]

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.

[yongin]

American Spectator Philip Klein Twittered this: Prob w/ Romney’s defense (about state’s rights) is that it narrows debate to one of federalism when GOP needs to attack ObamaCare on policy.

Marco Rubio defended RomneyCare on state’s rights. The reporter should have asked Rubio if he supports RomneyCare for Florida.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I agree with you, but it’s not irrelevant that nobody on the republican side will commit to scrapping the change to pre-existing conditions, and most of the current elected republicans actively supported it and would put it in any alternative bill.

The public also overwhelmingly supports the ability to buy insurance without regard to pre-existing conditions. It doesn’t make any sense, it turns the notion of “insurance” upside down, but that is the political reality.

Nobody is saying they will go back to allowing insurance companies to exclude pre-existing conditions.

It’s also relevant because, if it is the case that we are going to force insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, the companies will go broke if people are allowed to wait until they get sick to buy insurance. Again, we know the problem is the pre-existing condition issue, but that isn’t going to change.

So do we force them to cover pre-existing conditions and let them go broke? Or do we try to fix that problem by making it hard for people to pick and choose when to buy insurance? That’s what the mandate is all about (which perversely makes the “pre-existing condition” problem moot, since everybody will be required to buy insurance at birth, and therefore will never have “pre-existing conditions” before purchasing insurance).

The better solution might be to to have public pools for pre-existing conditions, and accept that since we won’t let people die on the streets, we’re just going to have to spend tax dollars sometimes, and instead of doing it under the table, we do it above-board and so everybody can see what the cheapskates are costing the rest of us, and make them feel bad.

Which is just a “shame them into buying insurance”, rather than the “threaten them into buying insurance”.

The right way is to tell them if they don’t have insurance, we will let them die. That’s the “scare them into buyinginsurance”, but the problem is a lot of people don’t get scared until it’s too late, and it doesn’t help to scare dead people.

I know that you just wanted to use the issue to bash a politician, but there is a real issue and it needs to be considered. You and I don’t like how it’s being considered, but it’s not irrelevant.

[Diogenesis]

The issues are relevant. The fascist Romney — whom you
protect with each post — did not let the “little (his view)”
people decide. Romney the fascist imposer did, before
the carpetbagger then fled Massachusetts, too.

The public is quite fed up with Romney’s backstabbing
and saboteur games.

[rbmillerjr]

Scrap it. Kill the bill.

When the GOP wins Congress in November, ObamaCare is as dead as Romney.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Well, at least you agree that the issue of pre-existing conditions is relevant. I hardly think that “defends Romney”, because if it does since you agree you’d be defending him as well.

The point of this article was to castigate Romney for saying he wouldn’t repeal the national mandate, but the point is that the question asked was a compound question, and most posters are ignoring the second part of the question, and pretending the answer was just about the first — and the 2nd part about repealing the pre-existing conditions is equally important.

Especially since in fact we all agree about repealing the mandate, even Romney has said he opposes the national mandate, but almost nobody on our side supports repealing the pre-existing condition changes, even some of our most steadfast opposers of Obamacare insist they would include pre-existing language in the replacement bill.

So while it’s obviously more fun to play gotcha, and to ignore what we don’t want to think about, we do a disservice to the conservative cause when we misrepresent questions and answers.

[rbmillerjr]

“even Romney has said he opposes the national mandate”

Romney says alot of things.

Personally, I don’t see this as a state’s rights issue. IMO it is unconstitutional for the state of Mass. to compel a person to buy health insurance.

[Diogenesis]

The problem is Romney is a fascist.
The way to deal with “pre existing conditions”
is not by regulation but by competition.
Insurance companies should compete over state lines.
Lawyers should be removed (probably most of the cause
of the above).
Competition and innovation should be encouraged.

Romney, carpetbagger, backstabber (hit and run type)
was a fascist in both gay marriage and RomneyCARE.
Romney NEVER let the people vote. Not his way.

[Diogenesis]

Here are photos of your Mitt Romney at the point in time
where he claims "the Democrats made him impose RomneyCARE".

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Does Mitt Romney looks under duress
as he took the rights from every Massachusetts citizen?

[Tennessee Nana]

“Here hold ma beer while I sign this doggie...”