Posted on 02/01/2012 4:41:10 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles -- as it was at the time.
It's not as if we had a beautifully functioning free market in health care until Gov. Mitt Romney came along and wrecked it by requiring that Massachusetts residents purchase their own health insurance. In 2007, when Romneycare became law, the federal government alone was already picking up the tab for 45.4 percent of all health care expenditures in the country.
Until Obamacare, mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative to the Democrats' piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry.
In November 2004, for example, libertarian Ronald Bailey praised mandated private health insurance in Reason magazine, saying that it "could preserve and extend the advantages of a free market with a minimal amount of coercion."
A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.
Romneycare was also supported by Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor and health policy analyst for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care.
The bill passed by 154-2 in the Massachusetts House and unanimously, 37-0, in the Massachusetts Senate -- including the vote of Sen. Scott Brown, who won Teddy Kennedy's seat in the U.S. Senate in January 2010 by pledging to be the "41st vote against Obamacare."
But because both Obamacare and Romneycare concern the same general topic area -- health care -- and can be nicknamed (politician's name plus "care"), Romney's health care bill is suddenly perceived as virtually the same thing as the widely detested Obamacare. (How about "Romneycare-gate"?)
As The New York Times put it, "Mr. Romney's bellicose opposition to 'Obamacare' is an almost comical contradiction to his support for the same idea in Massachusetts when he was governor there." This is like saying state school-choice plans are "the same idea" as the Department of Education.
One difference between the health care bills is that Romneycare is constitutional and Obamacare is not. True, Obamacare's unconstitutional provisions are the least of its horrors, but the Constitution still matters to some Americans. (Oh, to be there when someone at the Times discovers this document called "the Constitution"!)
As Rick Santorum has pointed out, states can enact all sorts of laws -- including laws banning contraception -- without violating the Constitution. That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.
The only reason the "individual mandate" has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.
The legal briefs opposing Obamacare argue that someone sitting at home, minding his own business, is not engaged in "commerce ... among the several states," and, therefore, Congress has no authority under the Commerce Clause to force people to buy insurance.
No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.
States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.
There's no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today's world to equip themselves with health insurance.
The hyperventilating over government-mandated health insurance confuses a legal argument with a policy objection.
If Obamacare were a one-page bill that did nothing but mandate that every American buy health insurance, it would still be unconstitutional, but it wouldn't be the godawful train wreck that it is. It wouldn't even be the godawful train wreck that high-speed rail is.
It would not be a 2,000-page, trillion-dollar federal program micromanaging every aspect of health care in America with enormous, unresponsive federal bureaucracies manned by no-show public-sector union members enforcing a mountain of regulations that will bankrupt the country and destroy medical care, as liberals scratch their heads and wonder why Obamacare is costing 20 times more than they expected and doctors are leaving the profession in droves for more lucrative careers, such as video store clerk.
Nothing good has ever come of a 2,000-page bill.
There's not much governors can do about the collectivist mess Congress has made of health care in this country. They are mere functionaries in the federal government's health care Leviathan.
A governor can't repeal or expand the federal tax break given to companies that pay their employees' health insurance premiums -- a tax break denied the self-employed and self-insured.
A governor can't order the IRS to start recognizing tax deductions for individual health savings accounts.
A governor can't repeal the 1946 federal law essentially requiring hospitals to provide free medical services to all comers, thus dumping a free-rider problem on the states.
It was precisely this free-rider problem that Romneycare was designed to address in the only way a governor can. In addition to mandating that everyone purchase health insurance, Romneycare used the $1.2 billion that the state was already spending on medical care for the uninsured to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance for those who couldn't afford it.
What went wrong with Romneycare wasn't a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats.
First, the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature set the threshold for receiving a subsidy so that it included people making just below the median income in the United States, a policy known as "redistribution of income." For more on this policy, see "Marx, Karl."
Then, liberals destroyed the group-rate, "no frills" private insurance plans allowed under Romneycare (i.e. the only kind of health insurance a normal person would want to buy, but which is banned in most states) by adding dozens of state mandates, including requiring insurers to cover chiropractors and in vitro fertilization -- a policy known as "pandering to lobbyists."
For more on "pandering" and "lobbyists," see "Gingrich, Newt." (Yes, that's an actual person's name.)
Romney's critics, such as Rick Santorum, charge that the governor should have known that Democrats would wreck whatever reforms he attempted.
They have, but no more than they would have wrecked health care in Massachusetts without Romneycare. Democrats could use a sunny day as an excuse to destroy the free market, redistribute income and pander to lobbyists. Does that mean Republicans should never try to reform anything and start denouncing sunny days?
Santorum has boasted of his role in passing welfare reform in the 1990s. You know what the Democrats' 2009 stimulus bill dismantled? That's right: the welfare reform that passed in the 1990s.
The problem isn't health insurance mandates. The problem isn't Romneycare. The problem isn't welfare reform. The problem is Democrats.
PLEASE have a qualified physician check your hormones - soon.
You are erratic, illogical, moody, losing touch with reality, etc. as you go through change of life.
The hot flashes you are having are not signs to support Mitt.
Mark Levin’s rebuttal of Ann Coulter’s “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” article
You said it....she's always come across as snarky and arrogant to me.
Dear Ann,
The question is do we want more government intrusion into our lives or less. Do we want more government programs, more regulations, more control, more of government choosing winners and losers or less.
Heed Reagan’s words. Socialized healthcare insurance whether imposed at the federal level or the state level is simply another foot in the door to socialism.
And if it’s implemented anywhere, it’s just another hook for the liberals to hang us on. As you admit, the liberals in Massachusetts demanded that their healthcare program covered abortion and there wasn’t a thing the Republican governor could do to stop it. They’ll also demand their death panels (though they won’t be labeled truthfully - truth is unimportant to liberals) and they will demand that government controls who and what is covered, who can charge what for services, and they most definitely will put restrictions on profit (greedy capitalists).
It is not a good thing for conservatives to go along with more government control, more government intrusion, more of government forcing citizens into their programs at the point of a gun.
This is not free markets. This is not conservatism. This is not capitalism. This is not states rights. Free markets do not require government force. Conservatism does not require government intrusion. States rights to not trump individual rights. Capitalism does not include socialist fascist government programs.
Our unalienable individual rights are a gift from God. No government, federal or state, can legally/constitutionally trample our unalienable individual rights. Yes, they can tax us, and regulate certain activities within the law, but they most definitely cannot force individuals to purchase products or services against their will. This would be tyranny.
Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed.
A state might demand that we carry liability insurance if we license and drive a vehicle on public roads within the state, but we can opt out simply by taking the bus.
Short of picking up stakes, we can’t easily opt out of breathing a state’s air. And Romney is pushing for these plans in every state so we’d soon run out of states to move to even if we wanted to.
I do not, cannot and will never understand your attempts to justify Romney’s intrusive socialist plans for America.
RomneyCare is a godawful socialist program!!
If the Republican party starts pushing for socialism and our formerly stalwart conservative allies go wobbly, I’m afraid we will wake up some day not too far off and have to explain to our grandchildren how great America used to be when it was free.
Where is my old friend, Ann the liberal slayer?
I found this funny. It sounds like a physiological evaluation. No a palm reading, no an advertisement for women seeking men. Maher must had called it quits. Any takers? Notice that FR is mentioned on the bottom
Ann Coulter
in Relationships
Open and generous, Ann Coulter enjoys a wide circle of friends and acquaintances and she thrives on sociability and fellowship. She is adventurous, playful, freedom loving, and always ready for a good time. Coulter rarely allows obstacles or difficulties to keep her down, for no matter how bleak the past or present, Ann always expects a better, brighter future. In fact, she is uncomfortable with her own or other people’s problems and emotional pain. Ann Coulter often tries to “cheer up” or offer philosophical advice to those who are hurting, but she unwittingly avoids or ignores the emotions involved.
Friendship means a great deal to Coulter, perhaps even more than love relationships or romance. For Ann Coulter to be happy, her mate must be her best friend and encourage Ann’s aspirations and ideals. Ann Coulter also needs a great deal of emotional freedom and mobility.
Coulter works well with the public and has an instinct for what the public wants and will respond to. Having a “nest” is not especially important to Ann, and she may invest more of her emotional energy into her career or public life than in her private life. Providing and caring for others, in a professional capacity is very likely.
She is uninhibited and spontaneous and will often do something unexpected or humorous in order to loosen people up and get them out of their rut. Ann Coulter craves emotional stimulation, excitement, surprises and anything new. Coulter also loves to feel free and unfettered.
In love relationships, Ann Coulter seeks companionship and friendship with someone who is fun loving, playful and open to adventure and new experiences. She enjoys traveling together, meeting new people and making new friends. Honeymooning in a distant location appeals to Ann, and she is also attracted to foreigners or people with diametrically different backgrounds than her own. Ann Coulter supports her partner in taking risks and making positive changes, rather than preserving the status quo. She also very much wants a partner who will encourage her own aspirations and dreams. It is very important to Ann that she have a spiritual or intellectual rapport with her love partner, perhaps more important than the emotional/physical aspect. Ann Coulter is not especially sentimental and her love partner may feel that she is too casual and not serious or romantic enough.
Ann is attracted to foreigners, exotic places, traveling, and to people who can expand her horizons, teach her something, or show Coulter places and worlds she has never experienced before. Sharing a philosophy or ideal with her love partner is important to her.
Also, Ann Coulter feels love and kinship for people everywhere, not only with her own family, nationality, or group. Finding similarities and making links between people from differing backgrounds or with different perspectives is a gift of hers.
Ann Coulter loves to laugh, celebrate, and to enjoy herself with her companions. Emotionally open and easygoing, Ann considers just about anyone a friend or potential friend. Her good humor and friendliness make her quite popular and well-liked. At times, Ann Coulter overdoes the festivities, but she rarely regrets this.
Her love feelings are easily aroused and her romantic relationships begin with a sudden electric attraction, but they often end abruptly, and Coulter may be in and out of love relationships - especially in her younger years. Ann Coulter craves emotional excitement and needs to feel spontaneous and free, so she may avoid making firm personal commitments. Unusual or nontraditional forms of love and relationships appeal to Coulter, and she is attracted to unique, creative or unstable people.
Somewhat over-enthusiastic in matters of love relationships, Ann Coulter could fall in love with the wrong person. She may be too selfless and have the illusion that her only need in relationships is to make the other person happy, leading to disappointments and regrets.
It is easy for Ann Coulter to show others the love she feels for them and she talks freely to them about her feelings. Ann likes nice surroundings and wants to beautify her environment as quickly as possible, once she has come up with an idea to do so.
Astrological factors in this Astro Profile section:
Moon in Sagittarius
Moon in 10th house
Moon Trine Uranus
Venus in Sagittarius
Venus in 9th house
Venus Sextile Jupiter
Venus Square Uranus
Venus Conjunct Moon/Neptune
Venus Opposition Uranus/Asc.
Click to analyze your relationship with Ann Coulter
The complete Astro Profile:
Natal chart and birth information
You are here -> Relationships profile
General characteristics
Approach to life
Inner motivation
Interests and abilities
Drive and ambition
Growth and expansion
Challenges
Creativity, originality & imagination
Generational influences
Ann
Ann Coulter on Wikipedia
Ann Coulter Official Website
Ann Coulter Esoteric Profile
December 8
Ann Coulter
Kim Basinger
Teri Hatcher
Jim Morrison
Diego Rivera
David Carradine
Sammy Davis Jr.
Elsa Benítez
Camille Claudel
Sinéad O’Connor
Photo Credit: Ann Coulter’s picture is courtesy of FreeRepublic. Photographic illustrations of Ann Coulter are copyright © by their respective holders. The images are published with permission or as allowed by the copyright law’s fair use or quotation provisions. If any copyright holder objects to an image being included, please notify us and it will be removed immediately.
I enjoyed reading Ronald Reagan’s 1961 Coffeecup speech on socialized healthcare.
Thanks very much, dear Jim.
I will listen to the audio tonight!
She's done sold her soul to him!
Pitiful!
Ann Coulter: “Where are my marbles? Have you seen my marbles? I seem to have misplaced them. One was blue, one weas red and one had a picture of Romney inside of it. Can you help me find my marbles?”
She is an absolute disgrace.
I think she’s the next Arianna Huffington...didn’t she claim to be a republican conservative at one time, then off the deep end.
the woman’s a hideous tranny lesbian liberal. I’ve not understood some people’s infatuation with her - she’s always and only been about selling her books.
She’s a phony.
Mann Coulter, aka Annie the Trannie, aka Adam’s Apple Ann, should be banned from being posted or linked on FR.
If you recall Ann said during the March for Justice that she was not allowed to speak because of a contract with her publisher and a new book coming out.
Oh, she did say hello to all on stage but that was it.
I walked out with her that day over a long field and had a good conversation. It went something like she had to remain neutral. I respected that if she had to do it for a living.
Well after all these years she is no longer neutral.
And, she still needs to start eating at McDonald's.
I’ll bet she joined AARP.
She needs to cut her hair and start dressing like a woman in late middle aged... rather than a cougar.
She hit the “change” hard.
Interesting that people think it’s bad that Romney and Ann are for the individual mandate, but for years Newt has said he was for the individual mandate and that’s fine. Interesting...
Wow. She must have a hundred pounds of magic lingerie by now. Has she joined the LDS?
“Other wife?” Milt can have hundreds, nay, thousands of wives. How else can he populate the planet he’ll rule?
Newt has emphatically backed out of that as well as a multitude of other bad ideas.
Newt looks good mainly because he seems to be the hopeful that has shown the most pugnacity towards Obama. This may be the only thing that counts in the end game. Other hopefuls may in principle be able to bring a better management to the Oval Office than Newt could; however getting them there first would be required.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.