Romney puts state power above individual rights
As Mitt Romney continues to try to square the circle of how a conservative could support a government command to purchase health insurance, he and his spokesman keep running into a basic conflict in their own thinking: If states can order individuals to buy a product, what happens to individual liberty?
At the start of his speech, Romney said “the people in America are sovereign” and have the “freedom to choose our life’s course.” So how can states mandate behavior, as Romneycare does? In an interview on Thursday, Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom provided some clarity.
“Each state should be free, as Massachusetts was, to pursue their own solutions,” he said. “Each state should have that liberty and that freedom to come up with their own solutions. That should be part of the liberties that we permit the states to enjoy.”
What about the liberty of the people? “That’s fine until the point where we get to the point where people don’t purchase insurance when they can afford to, and they go to the hospital when they get sick and the rest of us have to pay for it,” Fehrnstrom said.
The individual mandate ends up forcing a lot of people who don’t really need insurance to buy it, mostly the young and upwardly employed, subsidizing others who get around the mandate via fines, or not being in the US legally, etc.
Aside from its assault on individual liberty, if one is to judge RomneyCare purely on a “did it work” basis, the inevitable conclusion is that it didn’t.
is there any data concerning the so called “free rider” problem?
romney’s only chance is to admit he f’d up
say something along the lines of “thank goodness for federalism as my f-up only screwed the people in one state unlike obamacare which screws everyone”
but, rino that he is, romney clumsily meshes totalitarianism in the guise of federalism
The chances of Romney admitting he made a mistake are about the same as the odds of Obama saying he did.
In other words, ya gotta better chance of hitting the lottery.
Mitt Romney, the Father of Obamacare, says he still believes Romneycare was the right thing for Massachusetts and would support state-by-state MANDATES to impose heath insurance.
Romneycare was crafted by the insurers (including one controlled by a Republican operative) in order to force healthy profitable people into their system and at the same time assign unprofitable high cost users into taxpayer funded plans like Mass Health. Romney embraced it because he believed it would be the cornerstone of his 2008 presidential bid.
Romneycare has been a disaster in Massachusetts. We have the highest premiums of any state and the longest wait times to see a doctor or get emergency care. On top of that honest hard working people are paying for Romney’s MANDATE for their own coverage and for the lazy scum who get their Mass Health for FREE.
Independent minded voters who work hard to support their families, and value Liberty and Freedom, should be very skeptical of Romney’s kingdom style agenda.
at this point in the interview, there was the report of a loud clack or bang. Looking in the direction of the origin of the sound, people attending the interview noticed a large toaster. And rising from it was a crispy Mitt Romney, all dark and cruncy about the edges.
“That’s fine until the point where we get to the point where people don’t purchase insurance when they can afford to, and they go to the hospital when they get sick and the rest of us have to pay for it,” Fehrnstrom said.
Well great, why don’t you just mandate daily exercise and proper diet for the masses as that will likely do more to reduce heatlhcare costs than making people buy insurance. Ever get a look at some of the folks walking the streets these days? They start to wheeze just walking from the parking lot to the donut shop where they consume enough useless calories to kill the average uninsured 20-something slacker. Would doing this be just as big an assault on liberty as making folks buy insurance? Sure. Would it work a lot better and be cheaper for everyone in the long run? Absolutely. So if you want to create a totalitarian state, create one that at least would provide results otherwise shut the hell up and mind your own damn business. A**hole politicians.
Romney for crash and burn in 2012!
Mr. O’Fama, thank you! You got to the heart of the matter… you nailed it, and you nailed it good. (BTW, love the name… it expresses my sentiments exactly about the Prince of Lies in the White House).
If ya wanna take it to the limit, one could actually argue that the gubment could force people to vote for the “correct” politicians with the “correct” positions on healthcare.
Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, et al must be spinning furiously in their graves.
I wonder how Romney squares requiring people to buy insurance with his recent idea of signing an executive order to give all states a waiver from Obamacare. It sounds like he is trying to have it both ways. Who does he think this will please? Fail.
The weasel doesn’t understand a waiver is a govt.’s permission to let us not to do the things that we don’t want to do, we are like a 2 year old who needs mommy’s permission not to go to bed at 8. We pay the govt. type their salaries and have to ask them for permission not to do something, that grates.
The problem is more basic than that. The government mandates that hospitals treat people who show up sick or hurt and cannot pay. Once you accept that the government can dragoon healthcare workers into that obligation, all you are left with is figuring out how to pay for it. Romney tried one method. I can’t say that it’s any worse from a rights perspective than any other. Until you fix the basic issue, you’re stuck looking at lousy compromises like Romneycare.
Romney is toast. He’ll get a momentary advantage in the polls due to Huckabee refusing to run, but it will all come from Huckabee not being there, not any votes that he’ll pick up. Huckabee voters won’t back Romney; they’ll be divided between Herman Cain, Ron Paul and maybe Gingrich and Santorum. If Trump runs, Trump has Romney dead to rights. If not, then Romney will make it to Super Tuesday, but he’ll lose. Santorum will drop out after Iowa and endorse Cain. Gingrich will make it as far as South Carolina before withdrawing. Cain will either gather the necessary support to win the nomination, or he’ll drop out and endorse Ron Paul.
No other candidates will have a meaningful impact on the race UNLESS they siphon off enough votes to throw it to a brokered convention. This is particularly possible in a Cain/Trump tossup scenario. That’s where things get interesting. If no candidate receives enough pledged delegates to constitute a majority of the total delegates at the convention, there will be a floor fight for the unpledged delegates. If, after the first ballot, there is still no majority, ALL delegates become unpledged and can then vote for anyone, including someone who did not run for the nomination. Romney supporters are spiteful, and Ron Paul supporters are unlikely to support Herman Cain in light of his time at the Federal Reserve, even if it was 15 years ago (remember we’re talking about supporters who are fervent enough to be convention delegates- while the voters may overlook Cain’s time at the Fed, Paul’s delegates will not). Not only would there be a tough fight over the delegates, but there would likely be a “Draft Huckabee” and/or “Draft Palin” movement at the convention, pushed by Ron Paul supporters seeking an acceptable resolution to the deadlock. While neither Huckabee nor Palin will actively seek the nomination, neither will refuse it if drafted at the convention fifteen months hence.
Let me see–the government passed a law that says that hospitals must treat everyone who shows up at a hospital emergency room even if they just have just a painful hangnail, and it doesn’t matter if they can’t or won’t pay.
Gosh–is it possible that such a policy might have something to do with the “free rider” problem that Obamacare seeks to solve?
Government creates a problem which is economically indefensible and then uses it as a pretext to enact more insane solutions to the problems they created in the first place.
In the old times they were called lunatics. Now they are called “Progressives.”
["If states can order individuals to buy a product, what happens to individual liberty?"]
The [Declaration of Independence] states that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Similarly, the [Preamble to the Constitution] outlines the Framers’ intent to establish a government structure that ensures freedom from oppression. It reads, in part, “We the People … in Order to … secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity….” The [Bill of Rights] sets forth a number of specific protections of individual liberties.
The liberties guaranteed to individuals are not granted without restriction. Throughout U.S. history, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that individual freedom may be restricted when necessary to advance a compelling [government interest]…..such as public safety, national security, or the protection of the rights of others, etc.
One needs to do some scholarly reading of the constitution and Supreme Court rullings when attempting to have dialog of individual liberties. The founders primarily used the philosophical writings of Francis Hutcheson and John Locke from the 17th and 18th centuries to adress the foundation of individual liberties. However, as noted above, the founders did NOT include, specifically, definition all individual liberties in the articles of the constitution. This issue has long since been left to the Supreme Court to define….and define they have!
As to the States. The Supreme Court has ruled….”State governments may not regulate individual freedom except for a [legitimate public purpose] and only by means that are rationally designed to achieve that purpose.”
We can clearly see by the language of the Supreme Court that it lends istself to a high degree of subjective exceptions and interpretations for the benefit of federal and States governments.
Contrary to popular belief, abuse of the constitutions commerce clause, is what the federal government uses to oppress and dilute most individual liberties. Why folks refuse to wake up to this fact and move to ammend the commerce clause is beyond my comprehension! While it would not be a direct fix for states to then abuse their new expanded commerce powers, it certainly would be a driving force for them to follow lest the people of the States move to amend their constitutions to precisely define individual liberties beyond the approach of the commerce clause.
So, in judging presidential and congressional candidates, the constitution does NOT give you the footing people tend to believe with all the populist interpretations being represented today.
AHA! So states should be free, but individuals should not!
This man is a disgrace to the Republican brand. Why he’s allowed to remain in that fold is a mystery for the ages.
A few oldtimers who lived in rural areas prior to LBJ know that at one time healthcare was largely a local issue. There were more doctors and hospitals per capita than today, and the costs were in line with what people could pay for individually. Unions and federal wage laws gave rise to employer-provided insurance, and LBJ’s Medicaid/Medicare killed the small insurance companies along with the small private hospitals. The AMA prevented the number of doctors from keeping pace with the population, and government control via Medicare, destroyed many county hospitals. The mandate for free e.r. treatment was the death knell for most county-funded hospitals in areas with high illegal immigrant populations. One county official in South Texas stated 20 years ago that “one highway accident’s medical costs could exceed the annual tax revenue for the county.”
Now, everyone is so immersed in a culture of government/employer insurance entitlement that free markets aren’t even on the table. The logical next step is soylent green of some sort, since the 1/2 of the population that pays for everyone else’s uncontrolled medical costs cannot keep pace.
Rasmussen Polls show a giant disconnect between the political class and everyone else. It’s as if by walking into Washington, every Dr. Jeckyll turns into Mr. Hyde. Romney and Gingrich are examples of the problem Americans face; you can either pick an outright Marxist like Obama or a soft socialist like the RINOs. Will we see a 3rd party emerge that actually represents the public and not special interests?
Thank you ‘emmaliza’ for the reminder. I have given up reporting the details of those times as it goes ignored and deemed irrelevent by todays generations. The communities and health care providers took care of each other with the same levels of care afforded to all in the times, regardless, of ones ability to pay cash or pay over time. The only resemblance of those times are some in a few rural areas America and even those have become largely indoctrinated by the sickness of social justice America of today.