Mitt Romney in 2006, in the WSJ, on universal health care in Massachusetts:
40% of the uninsured were earning enough to buy insurance but had chosen not to do so. Why? Because it is expensive, and because they know that if they become seriously ill, they will get free or subsidized treatment at the hospital. By law, emergency care cannot be withheld. Why pay for something you can get free?
Of course, while it may be free for them, everyone else ends up paying the bill, either in higher insurance premiums or taxes. The solution we came up with was to make private health insurance much more affordable. … With private insurance finally affordable, I proposed that everyone must either purchase a product of their choice or demonstrate that they can pay for their own health care. It’s a personal responsibility principle.
Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate. But remember, someone has to pay for the health care that must, by law, be provided: Either the individual pays or the taxpayers pay. A free ride on government is not libertarian. … [Therefore] we insist that everyone purchase health insurance from one of our private insurance companies.
And so, all Massachusetts citizens will have health insurance. It’s a goal Democrats and Republicans share, and it has been achieved by a bipartisan effort, through market reforms.
Gee, sounds a lot like the core premise of ObamaCare — which Mitt Romney now virulently opposes and says we should repeal. (Hat tip: Doug Mataconis.)
Will the GOP nominate a Romney/Huckabee ticket in 2012? If so, will they win? If so, will the POTUS’s and VPOTUS’s mutual personal contempt rival that of JFK & LBJ? / Discuss. ;>
As long as health care remains on the radar screen — and it doesn’t look like it will be going away any time soon — Romney’s chances aren’t good. He is an easy target for other GOP nominees to bash with his flip-flopping on health care (and abortion).
I agree with Joe. If health care is still a big deal as the race gets going, Romney will get booted early. He will do all he can to change the direction of debate. Since GOP view recent health care changes as a weapon, using the issue against Romney will just be batting practice for the final campaign.
Romney was my first choice in the 2008 primaries, but again, in 2008 I was a one issue voter, and my issue was The War (GWOT + Iraq + Afghanistan). In 2012, Romney will more than likely be one of my last choices because I highly doubt The War will still be my top issue and I will go back to being a multi-issue, partisan voter.
I could stomach Romney attacking Obamacare if he’d come out and talk about how Romneycare was a big mistake, but instead he’s pursued the intellectually dishonest path of saying they are light years apart, when in fact they are almost cloned clusterfucks. Romneycare has been a qualified disaster, and Obamacare will be, too.
Is it possible that one can be *for* something at the State level and still be *against* a Federal equivalent without being deemed hypocrite ? (grin)
Some of us do not like the idea of “There can only be One …” where it relates to significant parts of our lives like choice on healthcare, or religion, or employer …
What is the appropriate term for such a person ? Oh yes … Pro-Choice …
That’s a Good Thing, is it not ?
After all, this blog would not be anywhere near as entertaining and edifying if there could only be one Joe here …
While it is certainly possible to support a program on the state level while opposing a similar program on the federal level, it would be incumbent upon an individual holding such a position to explain clearly that principles of federalism are the underlying rationale for his position — as opposed to, say, a belief that universal health care is inherently OMG SOCIALISM, or that an individual mandate is by its very nature OMG TYRANNY. In other words, such a position would necessarily be nuanced. From what I’ve seen, Romney’s position on ObamaCare is by no means nuanced. It’s simply the same sort of bellicose denunciation we see from much of the Right.
The point of posting this is to contrast Romney’s former position, that an individual mandate is necessary to enforce personal responsibility in our complex health care system, with the current mainstream conservative position, which is NOT merely that a federal individual mandate is bad, but that the very concept of an individual mandate is fundamentally at odds with liberty. If this were merely a disagreement about which level of government can reasonably impose these sorts of provisions, the rhetoric would be VERY different.
Brendan – what happens when you read your own first paragraph in #6, while bearing in mind “It’s simply the same sort of bellicose denunciation we see from much of the Brendan. “ ?
For what it’s worth, this country *was* founded upon the pronciples designed to make the tyranny of the majority significantly harder to achieve … one way that this is done is by having the separate States able to have separate Laws …
I have yet to hear anyone give a good explanation as to how it will still be legitimate to refuse medical care – yet *NOT* be legitimate to refuse to have insurance coverage for medical care … and, yes, “OMG THAT’S RIDICULOUS !” doesn’t qualify as a “good explanation” …
I also have to admit that I find it interesting that the former Irish Trojan can now judgmentally mandate *how* another individual’s rhetoric must look/sound/be to be acceptable to the current Brendan … “If this were , the rhetoric would be VERY different.” …
(And, yes, I am taking current Brendan at the words he currrently uses, which contrast remarkably with the words and phrasings used by the former Irish Trojan of blog-fame …)
Ummm – can I claim that “pronciples” is a transliteration of the Oirish pronunciation of the more-commonly-used word “principles” ?
((shrug)(blush) OK, OK, it’s a stretch, admit)
So even the Alasdair can make typos ! (sigh)
Yes but nobody’s said a Blessed thing about Pastor Huckster for Veep. (See my threadstarter, above. 🙂 Can there to be no political pairing of Moroni & the Minister? (An Uncivil union, as it were? 😉 Has Rev. Mike used up all that Fox hotairtime for Naught? Dear me. ;>
“… I highly doubt The War will still be my top issue…”
Ah. So then, Andrew, you’ve seen the light and come around to supporting our Wartime President’s wise foreign policies after all? Good for you. ;}
“…this blog would not be anywhere near as entertaining and edifying if there could only be one Joe here …”
Alasdair, I Question that. I think any blog with Signor Mama as the only Giuseppe in residence will be just as Entertaining & Edifying as all Heck. 🙂
As to your fear of bad deems, rest easy: we know you are No Hypocrite but an Honest man. / What I wonder is, as a (presumptive) critic of Pelosi’s (she should pardon the expression 😉 abortive Demon Pass operation, would you ever be likely to mistake Me for an opponent of Deem and Rum? :>
Bit of a Pronounciation stretch, yes, The Alasdair. / But I believe the actual Irish Gaelic for “principles” (a characteristically lengthy phrase 🙂 would Transliterate as, “that which we never sell out Cheap”. ;>
Ahhh – yet Beppe Mama (since such would be Signor Mama) just doesn’t sound the same …
Plus – Joe the Elder is much more pun-ctilious in his usage (and abusage) of lingua britannica …
Indeed, did Pelosi not attempt more of a “Deem and Run”, initially ?
Isn’t “Rum, Sod-all-Me, and the Lass” how you describe Reid, Obama, and Pelosi … ?
Alasdair, it doesn’t surprise me that you are ignorant of the facts surrounding the health care bill, but its pretty sad that you haven’t even paid attention at all. People who object to health coverage on moral/religious grounds are exempt, meaning they don’t have to buy insurance OR pay the penalty.
Joe, I can honestly say we are much better off now that a true leftist has to own The War (even his version of The War dares not speak its name…). Biden can crow triumphantly about Iraq the same way that I can brag about cooking the dinner Bea places in front of me, and he can continue to make promises he can’t keep (closing Gitmo, trying terrorists in civilian courts, etc) — the important thing is, we are surging in Afghanistan, tyranny and terrorists are under duress, the Patriot Act remains in effect, and the GWOT overall (or whatever Obama prefers to call it these days) continues with very little change from the previous administration. It only comforts me a little to see that the Democratic leadership weren’t truly anti-American, they were just playing dirty politics.
David K – riddle us this …
Do you *actually* believe that, just by claiming exemption on moral/religious grounds, you can avoid sending money to the IRS – since those are the folks who supposedly will ‘police’ the premiums for healthcare insurance ?
Um, yeah thats kinda what the bill says Alasdair. This is pretty basic stuff, but then I guess you haven’t done any reading of the bill, summaries of the bill or what not and just take on blind faith whatever Papa Rush and co. tell you it says.
From Ann Althouse:
Barack Obama in 2008, debating Hillary Clinton, on the individual mandate:
Gee, sounds like the Ghost of Obama Past opposed the core premise of Obamacare. If Obama can fool enough of the people enough of the time, then why not Romney?
Contrary to the unthinking and inaccurate davidkian stereotyping, I don’t actually listen to Rush Limbaugh much … I prefer to read things for myself … it has been a challenge trying to find the legislation’s text to read it, too …
Still, as far as I know, those who have set up churches and religions whose theology requires that their only tithing is to the religion have not managed to avoid the attentions of the IRS, as far as I can ascertain … the IRS seems to take a dim view of such things …
In fact, probably the only group of True Believers who are consistently-successful tax avoiders (cheat is such an ungentle word) (successful at least until someone catches them at it) seem to be nominees to Cabinet positions in the current White House Administration …
Out of curiosity, David K, which “impartial sources” do you use ? TPM ? DailyKOS ? Democratic Underground ? MSNBC ? The DNC ? Fox News ? (grin)
Actually I’m not a regular reader of any of those sites. Primarily I get my news from the Seattle Times (mostly for local stuff) and CNN, although I’ll seek out information on particular issues from a variety of sources when I need more info, typically major newspapers. Most recently for the health care bill I found a fairly good summary from the Christian Science Monitor.
You are also equating two completely different issues here. Relgious beliefs that disallow ANY payment of taxes to the government (i’ve never heard of one) and religious beliefs that are against modern medicine. It is the latter set of beliefs (which have been upheld by the courts) that will be exempted from the requirements of the bill and this SPECIFIC tax. You can doubt it in practice as much as you want, but the bill SPECIFICALLY has exemptions for these people. Exemptions that seem perfectly adequate to reasonably minded people and have been completely uncontroversial except in your bizzare world.
Since the final details are nowhere near set in jello, even (given that the reconciliation bill is going (has gone?) back to the House from the Senate, who knows what will eventually sediment out of this ?
You know, as in – “This bill is exactly what I ‘sed-I-ment’ …” …
Pingback: Tweets that mention Individual mandate = personal responsibility, says the Ghost of Mitt Romney Past -- Topsy.com