Rommey Not Walking Away From RomneyCare of Massachusetts

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny



Mitt Romney has said rather decisively he is not waking away from ObamaCare's model, RomneyCare of Massachusetts. While admitting that his healthcare hasn't worked out perfectly he still believes it was the right thing for the Bay State. There are many who disagree and for good reason.

Even given RomneyCare there seems to be a growing consensus among conservative pundits that Romney is going to be the GOP standard bearer in 2012. With his liberal Rockefeller style politics it is hard to get ones arms around just why his nomination is becoming almost a forgone conclusion.

From his recent interview with Neil Cavuto.

(National Review Online) Don’t expect Mitt Romney to backtrack on his Massachusetts health-care plan at any point this election cycle.

“I am sure there are many people who have calculated, and perhaps correctly, that the healthcare plan I put in place in Massachusetts is not good for me politically, and if I want to encourage my political future, I should say it was a mistake and walk away from it,” Romney told Fox News host Neil Cavuto in an interview set to air later tonight.

“You have seen a lot of candidates look at their biggest vulnerability, call it a mistake, and ask for forgiveness,” Romney continued. “In my case that wouldn’t be honest.”

He affirmed that he believes the health-care program was the “right thing” for Massachusetts then, although he conceded that it hasn’t “worked perfectly.”

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

Asked if Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the Obamacare case, Romney said he was unsure at this point.

“I will take a look at her involvement,” he responded. “Typically a justice must recuse themselves if they have a conflict of interest; I don’t know what her conflict might be. My view is this is a pretty clear cut case, where the federal government has intruded on the rights of states.”

On the one hand you have to respect the man for his candor. Even if you disagree with his position.

On the other hand his position that it is not the federal governments role to mandate healthcare to the citizens of all fifty states is based on the sound classical liberal principle of states rights.

In summation, we have a presidential hopeful that passed a health reform plan that Obama modeled his own plan after. He believes it was the right thing for Massachusetts when he introduced it, and apparently still does... Even given Massachusetts has among the highest health care costs in the nation.

Assuming that if he were elected he would hold true to his statement, repeated many times that he would repeal ObamaCare it is easy to understand why he has as much support as he does.

On the other hand {again} given what we know, can you really believe and trust in this man?

What say you?

Via: Memeorandum

70 comments:

  1. I don't respect the man for his candor. He's still waffling on other issues, even as he stands firm on the biggest stain on his record.

    Romney has been entirely unclear on what his "repeal" of Obamacare would look like or how he would achieve whatever goals he has with regard to health care.

    I don't know why the other candidates have failed so miserably to attack Romney on Romneycare. The failures of the system are well documented.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The real issue in this is the mandate... Because for me, a mandate means I no longer have the freedom of choice!
    Not to mention the socialistic aspect of it!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I visited Boston shortly after RomneyCare became law. All over the place there were Romney's Orwellian posters reminding the citizens of their legal obligation to buy one of his insurance plans. Imagine my seething consternation when I learned that the governor of that state was a Republican. "Only in Massachusetts," I thought.

    But now it's not "only in Massachusetts." RomneyCare is now the law of the land all over the country and its Republican architect is making a strong bid for the White House.

    How poorly that reflects on the state of the GOP.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "RomneyCare is now the law of the land all over the country and its Republican architect is making a strong bid for the White House."

    I'm going to give you an opportunity to walk that back before I call it a goddam lie...and you the author of said lie. Just how much do you know about the history of "health care" legislation in the state of Massachusetts? Architect? I live to be corrected, so please fill me in on the architecture. Maybe I'm just stumbling around in abject ignorance thinking only what I feel allowed to think, so do me a favor and tell me why I'm so wrong and you're so right.

    Thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I would say, "Someone fetch me my elephant gun! I'm 'bout to go bag me a RINO!", but the leftists would see that and think I was threatening the life of Romney. Such sensitive people they are.

    Romney is the architect of RomneyCare. Obama likes RomneyCare. Obama creates ObamaCare. So...Romney as our next President would be a step up from Obama how, exactly?

    @Chuck,

    You soil this thread with your rudeness and internet tough-guy attitudes. I honestly detest seeing you here ranting on and spouting your drivel. Free Speech is not a license to be a jackass, Chuck. Free Speech is to be treated with better respect. Tact. Look it up, Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Chuck, simply put, it's a matter of freedom. Free to buy or not buy... Anything!
    And if he would make a mandate in Mass, then what else can we expect from what looks to me to be just another statist...
    No offense intended, but I would be thankful if you would not use the name of God in that way, Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  7. "You soil this thread with your rudeness and internet tough-guy attitudes. "

    I really tire of jackasses like you, whoever you are. "Rude" is your way of describing an idea so true it causes your brain to ache. Tough guy? Really?

    Ideas are what they are. They are either true or they aren't. If you prefer untruth to truth, you are a bad person. Period.

    Are you a bad person, whoever you are?

    ReplyDelete
  8. " And if he would make a mandate in Mass,"

    Do you stumble through life with the sort of abject ignorance that tells you the people of Massachusetts elect a King who inflicts his will upon them?

    Did the people of Massachusetts overwhelmingly support the law crafted by their 85(!)percent democrat legislature or did they not?

    Why some people cling to their own ignorance like it was a precious metal is beyond me. You don't need to believe anything I write. Two minutes and a computer are all you need to prove me wrong...if truth means anything at all to you, that is.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Chuck,

    My name is Donald Borsch Jr, and I reside in Bethel, CT. I blog at The Conservative Guild using the screen name of Chakam. I am an independent Conservative with Classical Liberal leanings and a smattering of Libertarian who also clings to his guns, his religion, and his strength of character.

    You, however, are an internet troll at best, self-feeding himself a false sense of bravery by using a keyboard as your bullhorn. You are a foul person, based on your vitriol and unwarranted rudeness, and if I ever met you in person, I would surely ignore you and write you off as impotent and worthless.

    However, Tim deserves better than this tedious back-and-forth between the two of us, so I shall thank you now to never again address me. I have more important matters to attend to.

    Take this opportunity to post some parting shot to assuage your hurt ego and public embarrassment. People like yourself always need the last word.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I care not what the people of mass want. I care how Romney may affect the rest of us...
    Romney? Nein Danke!
    Auf Wiedersehen, Tschüss, Mehr Glück nächstes Mal!

    ReplyDelete
  11. "My name is Donald Borsch Jr, and I reside in Bethel, CT."

    I don't care. My name is Chuck Coffer. I live in the North Georgia mountains with my wife and 3 of my 4 children. There. Now we're still complete friggen' strangers. The validity of everything you and I have written has changed not one fraction of a bit.

    I simply write what I know to be true. I attack what I know to be untrue. The reality is, Mitt Romney is a mirror image of Ronald Reagan in terms of his political career both in evolution and in current policy positions and he's being called a gaddam democrat. It's stupid to the nth degree and I'll keep calling it what it is. Stupid. Uninformed. Ignorant. Destructive. Pro-Brakabama. Anti-success.

    Ignorance is not a point of view. It's not an opinion. It's blindness.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "I care not what the people of mass want."

    If you were elected Governor of Massachusetts and said that, you would be a genuine scumbag. Mitt Romney is genuine. He's not a scumbag.

    Hell, I'm not even a Mitt Romney guy, but I'm sick to death of this cannibalism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Mitt Romney is a mirror image of Ronald Reagan"... Oh that's a good one.
    Thanks for the 'Chuckles'. hehehe

    ReplyDelete
  14. Explain how I'm wrong. You're smart, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. By the way, ecc102,
    Does this rise to the level of what you call "rudeness"?

    "Mitt Romney is a mirror image of Ronald Reagan"... Oh that's a good one.
    Thanks for the 'Chuckles'. hehehe


    If so, why are you not posting sanctimonious little screeds expressing your outrage at the "soil" and whatnot? If not? Why not?

    Explain your understanding of rudeness, please.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Try reading the article rather than protesting those that have made comments here.
    I made my point in my first comment. If you disagree, fine. I can accept that. I don't feel that makes you unintelligent, just opinionated.
    We all have opinions. that's a positive aspect of "free thinkers"... We think. We are not easily persuaded by the opinions of others.
    and FWIW, I understand your feeling about"cannibalism"... But I don't think it applies to RINO's

    ReplyDelete
  17. "Try reading the article"

    Flail much? I haven't posted any opinions. I've posted irrefutable facts and you've posted a bunch of fairy tale, menstrual cycle inspired crap. The fact that you don't even attempt to counter any of the facts I've listed is telling.

    I have facts. You have wishes. My grandfather used to say, "How 'bout you wish in one hand and shit in the other and see which one fills up first." It's an adage that never wears out.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It's 8:45 here in Niedersachsen and I have a cold Weißbier in hand. I wish you all well in the US and Chuckles I suggest you take Grandpa's advice...
    Prost!!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well, Romney Appears to have a Respect for States Rights in Relation to Health Care. I Think that's Good. I'm not sure how I Feel about a Flat Tax, as well as a 9% Federal Sales Tax, so I'm at a Lose in Relation to the Two Leading Candidates.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "It's 8:45 here in Niedersachsen and I have a cold Weißbier in hand."

    I'm awake and it's dark outside, so I have a cold Budweiser in my hand. hehe

    Be well,
    Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
  21. It's not just the federal government that has no legitimate power to compel citizens to purchase a product or service from anyone else using force or the threat of it. No one, anywhere has that legitimate power. Which, of course, does not keep thugs in positions of power from passing laws that claim they have that legitimate power.

    Anyone who espouses that governments can morally compel people to do such things is himself/herself a thug. Such a person should be eternally opposed and never be allowed to rise to the position of President of the US.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Define legitimate power, please.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Chuck

    Romney shaped Romneycare, Romney signed the bill into law. He defends it as his own to this day. Romney won't be absolved of its failures with debates over whether or not he is an "architect."

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Romney shaped"

    Indeed he did. He pared it down as much he was able. He restricted its scope as much as he could get away with.

    "He defends it as his own to this day"

    No. He defends himself to this day, and that infuriates the scrum of weirdos who live to hate him more than they hate their own crotch lice.

    "Romney won't be absolved of its failures"

    He needn't be. He didn't write it. A bunch of dirty-ass democrats did. Its a pity that so many people who claim to be on the side that opposes the dirtbag left reserve all of their ammo for Mitt Romney. Brakabama and his nasty acolytes sure do appreciate that kind of effort.

    Si se puedo?

    ReplyDelete
  25. "He didn't write it." Maybe.. but he did sign it!

    ReplyDelete
  26. When five out of every six legislators are democrats, they get their way. That's the country you live in. You're basically dogging the guy for not being a despot. You should examine your standards. They're irrational.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The epitome of irrationality suggesting someone examine their standards...
    I know what I believe in. The thing is, I don't agree with what Mittens believes!

    ReplyDelete
  28. Any power that usurps an individual's rights is illegitimate. No person, or group of persons, can cede someone else's rights. By any means.

    Many thugs, in and out of governments, have illegitimate power to violate individual rights. Some examples of such thugs are mob members and government employees, both elected and unelected.

    ReplyDelete
  29. "The thing is, I don't agree with what Mittens believes! "

    So which of the things that Romney is campaigning on do you oppose? I'm trying to take you seriously, dude. Help me out.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "Any power that usurps an individual's rights is illegitimate."

    I suppose I can go along with that, but it's pretty broad. After all, what are an individual's rights? That question is where the metal in the coin lives. There are no easy answers to it and certainly no absolutes. If there were, there really wouldn't be much to say about it. Then we'd have no blogs. hehe

    ReplyDelete
  31. Dude! You can obviously read, but don't...

    ReplyDelete
  32. So which agenda item was it, again? Which policy is he proposing that you disagree with? It seems to be pretty mainstream conservative stuff to me. What am I missing?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Chuck -- hehehe

    Or are you really Chuck?

    Better question, do you have purpose?

    If so you obviously have not yet found it.

    ReplyDelete
  34. You can download Romney's economic agenda here.

    It's pretty long, but it's the kind of stuff I want to see done. I'd go a little farther than him on reducing the corporate income tax, but everybody wants to rule the world, ya know. hehe

    So how about it? What do you not like about his positions?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Better question, do you have purpose?"

    You're a head case, Les. I'm done trying to have any meaningful interaction with you. I don't wish you any ill, but I have no interest in discussing these sorts of things with someone as off the reservation as you. You intentionally don't communicate in plain English. You write only for your own sake. You aren't a serious person. I'm not asking you to be. I'd simply like you to leave me alone.

    Best,
    Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Chuck - You're the head case.

    The fact you don't agree with those with different opinions does not make you right. Any more than just because I disagree makes me right.

    But hey, I'm just a head case right?

    You ask I leave you alone. In the first place I have not badgered you in anyway. You on the other hand you have done so on several occasions with a few of the serious visitors to this fine blog.

    I'm on to your game Chuck. For that reason You need not worry about me peeing on your rather irrelevant rants in the future. Frankly you're not worth the spittle a feline can muster.

    Good day,

    Les

    ReplyDelete
  37. The fact that you won't substantiate a single one of your idiotic claims negates any need on my part to take you seriously.

    I deal in facts, Les. I could give a shit about "agreement". Clarity is much more valuable than consensus.

    You don't understand that because you really don't want to be bothered with accuracy. You just want to feel good.

    Has it escaped your attention that not once have you refuted any fact I've posted with anything of substance?

    Best,
    Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Les, he just wants someone to give him attention. Some people enjoy an argument...

    ReplyDelete
  39. And others enjoy clarity. I know what camp I'm in.

    Do you?

    What was your disagreement with Romney's policy proposals again, John? Please forgive me for asking you to repeat yourself. You implied that you've stated your disagreements with his platform, but I can't find where.

    Can you help me out? Where should I look?

    Thanks in advance,
    Chuck.

    ReplyDelete
  40. John, I do believe you nailed it. Maybe his mommy didn't pay him enough attention when he was growing up.

    ReplyDelete
  41. As you engage in this, does your position become more valid or less, Les?

    Ideas are all that matter.

    Got any?

    ReplyDelete
  42. You Know. I'm not sure that I care for Chuck's Mannerisms either, yet I have not Found this Comment Thread to be all that Informative. The Post was Good, but the Comment Thread is nothing more then a Bunch of People Slinging Mud at each other and my Above Comment was entirely Ignored.

    If not Romney, then who are some of you Voting for and Why?

    ReplyDelete
  43. "I suppose I can go along with that, but it's pretty broad."

    Not to quibble too much, but I prefer to describe it as "inclusive" instead of "broad." It purposely includes all ones we know about which have been specifically identified in founding documents where they were enumerated. (not granted) It also allows for others not specifically mentioned. Thus, inclusive.

    "After all, what are an individual's rights?"

    A common definition is that a person has the right to do anything he pleases as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others to do as they please.

    "There are no easy answers to it and certainly no absolutes."

    I'm sorry to have to disagree. There are some easy answers. For instance, those enumerated in the DOI were thought by the founders to be "self evident." In other words, easy to discern.

    And they are absolute. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are certainly absolute no matter how many people on different sides of the political spectrum are keen to muddy the intellectual waters and have struggled mightily over long periods to pretend there are exceptions.

    I would add that people have an absolute right to refrain from buying any product or service from anyone else if they do not choose to of their own volition absent force or the threat thereof from a third party.

    Further, the founders sought to clarify for future generations of political mischief makers what they could not do (when it came to rights) when they purposely added the ninth amendment of the US Constitution to the so called bill of rights. In that amendment, they purposely did not enumerate additional rights in order to avoid a list which might be construed improperly. This may explain some of the confusion about what rights are and where they come from.

    I hope this helps to illustrate my points.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Here's a Question that I'm Puzzled by. Why is it Ok to Require a Person to Buy Liability Auto Insurance in Order to Drive a Car, yet not Ok to Require the Purchase of Medical Insurance? I'm just Asking, for this Seems like an Inconsistency.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Rational Nation USA: 100

    Chuck: 0

    Les, you consistently justify my respect for you!

    ReplyDelete
  46. I love me some Grant Davies right about now. Good on you, dear Sir.

    I'll pick you apart the same way picked me apart.

    Before I whip it out, are you referring specifically to Federal power?

    I'm not picking a fight. I just want to know where you're coming from. Are you a pre-Marbury versus Madison guy or are you not?

    Best,
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
  47. ecc102,
    Circle jerk:100%.

    Original thought: 0%

    ReplyDelete
  48. "I'm sorry to have to disagree. There are some easy answers. For instance, those enumerated in the DOI were thought by the founders to be "self evident." In other words, easy to discern."

    What you call the "DOI" is not a legal standard. It's a protest letter.

    I dig that you're willing to put meat on bones. Few do.

    ReplyDelete
  49. @ Lista,

    The difference between medical insurance and car insurance is that there is no inherent right to operate a vehicle off one's own property. Therefore, as a condition of driving on roads which are not owned by the operator alone, the state requires people to carry liability to insure that if they harm others by their activities, they can pay to make the harmed party whole.

    You may notice that states do not require drivers to carry collision insurance on their own vehicles.

    Medical insurance to pay for a person to have himself provided medical care is no business of anyone else. He has the right to act in a way that may be detrimental to himself as long as he doesn't affect anyone else. And no one else can be rightfully compelled to pay for the medical care for another person against their will. This includes hospitals and of course taxpayers.

    Most people have ceded their rights to government in order to have emergency medical care provided to others who cannot pay. They do not have the legitimate power however to cede anyone else's rights.

    One bad law does not justify another bad law to attempt to fix the problems associated with the first bad law.

    This manufactured conundrum usually brings up the issue of who pays for the care of others when they are compelled by government to provide care (for those who cannot pay) at the providers expense. Those government laws are a different but important issue. Those laws are illegitimate as well as the laws compelling people to buy health insurance.

    I hope that is helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thanks Grant,
    I was Beginning to Think that I was just Going to be Ignored and therefore, was going to move on to another Blog.

    I'm a Republican, but I should Warn you that I Find Libertarians to be just a Little Extreme. I don't Know exactly what your Political Position is, but you Talk like a Libertarian.

    Though there is a Rational to your Way of Thinking, Allowing Someone to Die because there is no Money Available to Pay for their Health Care is a Good Example of Something that I would Consider Extreme.

    Personally, I don't see anything Wrong with a few Minimal Emergency Medical Services Offered by the Government to those who can not Pay, but that's just me.

    Gee! Libertarians. Let me Think.

    I Guess it would be Nice if we could Vote with our Dollars as to what Programs get Funded and which do not. This was the Reason for the Tax Exemption for Charitable Donations, but they didn't go Far enough with it. Nothing that is even the Slightest Bit Controversial should be Funded by the Government.

    Ok. Now the Question is rather or not Emergency Medical, when someone will Die if not Helped, is a Controversial Issue. I'd be more willing to Place this Responsibility on the Government rather then the Hospitals.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Lista, were you ignored or could it be no one disagreed with you? I don't think anyone is saying that Romney doesn't have "Respect for States Rights". But from what I know about it, it was a failure. And he refuses to acknowledge that. Isn't that what this post was about? And most of "We the People" do not want that on a national level!

    When I work on a construction project, I must have liability insurance in the event either I or my employees cause property damage while performing the work contracted to do.
    This is a mandate to protect the property owner. I have no no objection to this since it protects both parties. But it doesn't come from the Govt but rather from those I wish to provide my service to.

    As for my choice in candidates, the one who supports following our constitution!

    ReplyDelete
  52. "But from what I know about it, it was a failure. And he refuses to acknowledge that."

    Finally! So that's the nub of it. He hasn't eaten shit on television. You don't know a damn thing about Mitt Romney's policy proposals. All you know is he hasn't begged your forgiveness for having obeyed the people who elected him Governor. You just know you've been ordered to hate him and you have dutifully followed orders.

    Pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Chuck, you do not have the right to pin your opinion on me... Those are your words, not mine. I do not ask his forgiveness nor do I need it! You do not know me because if you did, you would know how I feel about hate.

    You sir, are a sad example of what our nation is becoming. You lack basic respect, and therefor credibility.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Lista,
    These blogs are voluntary, and response time varies by the availability of time for those interested in contributing and possibly answering a question. So you weren't being ignored, just not answered quickly enough I guess.

    I hope my comments were clear enough to shed some light on the differences between the two concepts regarding insurance. But I fear they were misinterpreted in some ways. For instance, they may have been improperly extended from the explanation of rights to the conclusion that those who explain those rights support allowing the indigent to die or otherwise suffer from lack of treatment. There are other options.

    Since you commented; As to my philosophy, I describe myself as a freedom advocate. Many people feel comfortable by labeling others in order to categorize them and I have found that it's human nature to do so. I hope my views are varied enough so that it is harder to put them into a box labeled "libertarian" but I have been called worse things.My views are on display on my blog, http://whatwethinkandwhy.blogspot.com where I write original essays of varying quality.

    I also recently was invited to formally write for this blog although my work has been featured here with my permission for some time. For better or for worse you will begin to see more articles by me here. I also write for one other popular blog on a regular basis. You may search this site for some of my articles if you are curious about my positions. I certainly thank you for your interest if you decide to do so.

    I usually find that objections, (such as yours that libertarian-ism is somewhat extreme) are based more on a lack of understanding of the positions than a disagreement with them. I would rather blame that on poor communication of those ideas than the lack of intellectual curiosity on the part of those with the misconceptions, but I suspect both play a role.

    I have momentarily run out of time, (It's Sunday morning) so when I get a chance I'll be happy to address your excellent question in regards to emergency medical care for the indigent and how that might be provided in a civilized society without violating the rights of the people who live there.

    Regards

    ReplyDelete
  55. John,
    I really enjoy your site. It's elegant in it's uncluttered simplicity. A winner!

    ReplyDelete
  56. "
    You sir, are a sad example of what our nation is becoming. You lack basic respect, and therefor credibility. "


    Which policy position of Mitt Romney's do you oppose? Be a model of "respect" and answer a simple question. Show that there is even a shred of substance to your claims.

    Credibility indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Again we have the haughty principles of the ignorant idealists colliding with the brutal honesty that enjoys the brutality more than the honesty.

    "Any power that usurps an individual's rights is illegitimate."

    I agree with that too, but what planet have you been living on? Chuck is correct that the implications are overly broad and vague. What ARE our rights with respect to the authority of the state?

    By DEFINITION we surrender certain rights when we institute government. A long time ago the Supreme Court interpreted the 9th and 10th Amendments as truisms with respect to federal powers. The 9th did not, as much as we would like it to, establish the existence of a plethora of unenumerated rights yet to be acknowledged. In fact, that amendment has been construed by liberals to support broad notions of entitlements as rights.

    The 10th Amendment has sparingly been used to limit federal intrusion in state affairs. I suspect the current SCOTUS will strike down Obamacare on one of these grounds, but if the composition of that court changed by ONE member, the court would hold otherwise.

    Many of you display your ignorance of a state's police powers which gives it broad authority to infringe liberty for the common good, however unwise or poorly defined that is. You do not have the liberty to drive 66 mph in most places. Is 65 mph a magical, life saving number? It's completely arbitrary, yet it infringes on your liberty with a negligible impact on public safety.

    California recently mandated the purchase and installation of carbon monoxide detectors. Don't hold your breath waiting for the Supreme Court to strike that down.

    States are suing the federal government over usurpation of THEIR powers, not YOUR RIGHTS from the individual mandate in Obamacare. You're too ignorant to understand the essential arguments in our common law at issue here.

    Unlike Obamacare, the Massachusetts scheme is legal. You don't have to like it, but you're free not to live in Massachusetts.

    Chuck is also correct that many of you are thick slicing Romney's role in that bill. A Republican governor of a largely Demon Rat state has limited power. Vetoing every stupid bill passing across your desk isn't a good re-election or governance strategy. The issue wasn't WHETHER the Peoples Republic of MA was going to have public health care. The issue was how invasive it would be. As Chuck said, Romney fought to limit the damage and he was proud of his efforts. Politics in divided government is all about COMPROMISE.

    In that respect, Romney was exactly like Reagan. Reagan made huge concessions to the Demon Rat congress in order to increase military spending, cut taxes, and get other things he wanted. So if you are the type of person who is unwilling to compromise, then Ronald Reagan is not YOUR hero. If Ron Paul is your example of an uncompromising leader, then recognize that neither he nor you will EVER wield political power in this nation. That's why you are perpetual losers. None of you have the imagination to ask yourself and honestly answer what you would do as governor of one of the Peoples Republics. You talk the talk, and you can't walk because you're a paraplegic.

    Chuck and Romney and I want to WIN this election so we don't see a newly constituted Supreme Court affirm all of the statist policies we abhor for the next quarter century.

    For all the talk about our Constitution, none of you "holier than thou" libertarians understand how our actual state and federal governments operate, nor do you understand the common law evolution of government power and individual rights.

    I wish the government were more like you want it, but if wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.

    Chuck, you make wonderful points, but you have to tone down the personal insults. I do agree there is a strong component of cannibalism and defeatist despair here.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Duly noted, but I honestly don't think I've engaged in personal insults. I'm simply describing what I see. I find it alarming that people can have what you would think are very firm beliefs while demonstrating no willingness at all to illustrate what it is that underlies those beliefs. It's bizarre.

    For two days I've been trying to get Romney haters to justify their hatred. Nothing. Not a single policy position they oppose. I'm not even a Romney supporter really, but I hate untruth. The rap on Romney is without substance. It's completely based on high school type personality stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  59. With respect to the individual mandate, that is probably the most economically prudent part of Obamacare, albeit not legal

    Unless we intend to turn people away from hospitals who do not have insurance, then everyone who has no insurance and no means to pay, free rides on the rest of us. The mandate makes sure they can't pass their expenses onto us. It is identical to the mandate for auto insurance. In fact, the argument is stronger for health care since auto repair shops can and do deny services (or your car) for people who don't pay. Mandatory liability insurance isn't for YOUR car.

    I consider the mandate a de minimus impact. It cost me less than $50 per month for a catastrophic health policy for my children, and my own group policy was even cheaper. Whether we gift the indigent with insurance or force them to buy it, that is a legitimate police power of the states. For nonindigent adults, it has an even smaller impact on liberty. The power and rationale for both health and auto insurance are identical. There is no distinction.

    I would submit that we do, in fact, have a right to convey ourselves in vehicles within certain bounds of safety for ourselves and others and liability for damages.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Yes, Chuck, I see it too. I watched the video of the alleged smoking gun comments by Romney. Almost all of them were taken out of context. It's the same sort of character assassination one would see on Daily Kos or The View.

    I hated to hear Romney's pro abortion stance, but i don't vote for people based on a single issue. Good people can differ substantially on important issues and still share many core beliefs.

    My main point has been that even if Romney is a wolf in sheeps clothing, any threat to our liberty would come from collaboration with Congress. If we are worried about statist intentions of Republicans in Congress, we have bigger problems than the identity of the person in the White House. I think those fears are partly grounded in the reality of the corruption of power and political compromise, but irrationally founded on ideological premises.

    I don't object to reasoned disagreement within our party or ideology. I'm not comfortable with character assassination that ultimately hurts our own goals. I'm not a Romney supporter, and I'd rather not waste words defending him.

    I wouldn't even come to this site if I didn't like it. I linked to it. I want to add to and influence the discussion.

    Not only haven't I heard much reasonable objection to Romney, I see no reasoned support for any viable alternative. When Perry was on top, he was the target. I don't much care for Perry either.

    I do hear a lot of moaning about Romney's 'inevitable' nomination. By no means do I consider it inevitable. He's the odds on favorite for two reasons: 1) organization, 2) how he polls relative to Obama. Political analysts, as opposed to pundits, are good at gauging political strength.

    But I fear we can fare worse than Romney. I have no animas for any candidate in the field, not even Ron Paul, but some of his views are reactionary. My number one concern is losing to Obama, not a particular facet of our candidate's ideological purity or his pragmatism. We lose too much by losing the office.

    "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..."

    "Chief Justice Sonya Sotomayor"

    "Associate Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton"

    Repeat it over and over, people, until it makes you sick. Then you will be in the right frame of mind.

    "President Romney" doesn't frighten me in the least. If I ever live to regret saying that, I will find consolation that it would have been no better under Obama.

    You will never live to hear "President Ron Paul."

    ReplyDelete
  61. John,
    I'm just saying that if Romney Truly does believe that health care is not a Role of the Federal Government, then he Probably will Repeal Obama Care. What I Understand is that he Thinks that this is something that should be done by the States, not by the Federal Government, in which case, he would agree with you that it should not be done on a National Level.

    Unfortunately, you are Right about Chuck's Lack of Credibility, due to Lack of Respect, yet Let's move on.

    Grant,
    I didn't Mean to Insult you in any way by calling you a Libertarian. Since I do not Know you, I was Only Guessing. I Find Labels Useful when First Getting to Know someone, but I do not Lock these Labels in Concrete, cause I Know that First Impressions can sometimes be Wrong.

    Thanks for Responding and I do Respect your Need for Additional Time before Responding, for Politics can be quite Complicated and as I'm sure you've Observed, those who Respond Quickly and Briefly are Often more Insulting then Informative.

    Nick,
    I'm not sure what your Entire Philosophy is, but I did Like your Statement that "By DEFINITION we surrender certain rights when we institute government." No One has the Right and Freedom to Steal or Murder, do they?

    There are lots of Safety Regulations that are Required when Building a New Home or Building. It's Called the Building Code. I don't Imagine that that is what you are Talking about in relation to Monoxide Detectors. That's Cool. It's when they Mandate what Light Bulbs you Buy for your Own House, that I become Annoyed.

    You Seem to Agree with my Suspicion that there are Libertarians among us who Hate Compromise. I'm too New here to Know Exactly who is who in that Regard, but I Agree with you in Relation to Compromise and if that is the Only True Issue that Causes People to Oppose Romney then I'm Likely to Vote for him. Got to do more Study.

    As to Health Insurance, the Problem I have with it is that the Government should not be the One Selling such Insurance, for the Government is not Supposed to be Participating like that in the Market Place. It is Actually Easier to Mandate Taxes, then to Mandate a Purchase, yet Obama Care is Far too Excessive and too Expensive, as I'm sure we all Agree, including Romney.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Thanks Nick,
    Your Comments are Quite Informative and Make good sound Sense.

    ReplyDelete
  63. "The power and rationale for both health and auto insurance are identical. There is no distinction."

    Which of course is the same position Obama takes. I must respectfully disagree with both of you.

    ReplyDelete
  64. There are valid a priori based arguments for requiring people to have car insurance. The requirement that you buy something as a condition of being granted the privilege of being alive by some gang of government vermin is about as anti American as it gets.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Right Chuck. Now validate your statement.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Read it again, Les. Read it as many times as it takes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. I Think what Chuck means is that Driving is a Privilege, but Living is a Right. The Unfortunate Reality, though, is rather it is a Right of not does not Change the Fact that the Preservation of Life Costs Money and the Political Part of it is who is going to bear the Burden of this Cost?

    Right now the Burden is being Carried by the Hospitals, as well as all those who do Pay their Medical and Insurance Costs.

    Here's another Take on it, though. Freedom is actually not a Right, but a Privilege. We have Laws, such as don't Murder, don't Rape and don't Steel and if you Break One of these Laws, then you Loose the Privilege of Freedom.

    If Freedom is a Privilege, though, then....

    Well, you Fill in the Rest...


    We can Make Requirements for Privileges Right?

    Yes. I Know to a lot of you this sounds like Blasphemy to the Sacredness of your Beliefs, yet it is not an Illogical Argument.

    Meanwhile, in the Present Political Climate it is easier to Mandate Taxes, then a Purchase, but the Government is going to have to Come Up with something more Reasonable then the Extreme of Obama Care. Such is Totally Ridiculous and Goes Way Beyond the Subject of Emergency Care.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Liberty, or freedom is a right all individuals have by virtue of their very existence. With liberty, or freedom comes responsibilities. First and foremost among them is to respect the liberties, freedom of others.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Then Shouldn't they Respect Our Right to not have to Pay for their Medical Costs? When they Take Personal Risks, such as not having Insurance, even though this is a Personal Risk, it is a Risk that Involves my Pocket Book.

    Anyone who Can Afford Medical Insurance should buy it. That is unless they have enough Money to their Name to Pay their Medical Bills, whatever they might be, and that is quite a lot.

    If the Cost is too High for some, then we Need to Find another Solution, yet this is not in any way an Easy Issue. If we can not Mandate the Purchase of it, then Taxes is the Only other way. To Make the Hospitals, as well as the Insured Public, Foot the Bill for the Uninsured is not Working.

    Obama Over did it, but that doesn't Mean that Nothing at all should be done.

    How about giving Additional Insurance Write Offs as an Incentive for Businesses to Buy Insurance for their Employees?

    ReplyDelete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.