Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
To the good people of Ricochet who support Mitt Romney for the Republican nomination, please look at this as an opportunity. There simply has to be a better defense of Romney and/or Romneycare than the one being provided by his supporters Ann Coulter and David Frum. I was alerted to the situation by this Frum tweet:
@davidfrum Bravo for Ann Coulter for championing universal private health coverage w subsidies for those who need them. http://bit.ly/yX0TFC
Now, at this point in his career, I'd be surprised if Frum didn't champion what proponents call "universal private health coverage" and what the rest of us call a gross invasion of personal liberty. But if I know one thing, it's that Ann Coulter would never in a million years do the same, right?
In what is either high performance art or clear evidence that there's been some kind of body-snatching, Coulter defends Romneycare on the oddest grounds ever. She accuses conservatives of equating the Massachusetts plan to the federal plan solely because they have similar nicknames and cover the same general topic area. As Philip Klein writes at The Washington Examiner:
This is a shameful argument, and she must have a very low opinion of conservatives if she thinks this is actually true. In reality, people don’t compare Romneycare and Obamacare because their nicknames share the same basic structure, but because the laws have the same basic structure. Specifically, both laws expand Medicaid, force individuals to purchase government-approved insurance or pay a fine, and provide subsidies for individuals to purchase government-designed "private" insurance policies on government-run exchanges.
She points out that some conservatives supported Romneycare at the time. She doesn't mention the many conservatives who opposed it at the time. Then she argues that Romneycare is constitutional, an argument against what exactly? Are conservatives claiming that it's not? Hardly. As Klein asks, do conservatives oppose massive tax increases because they're unconstitutional? No.
Finally, she argues that all the problems of Romneycare are due to Massachusetts Democrats. There are a few problems with the argument. Namely, Romney signed the law (while seated underneath the smiling gaze of Ted Kennedy) knowing that Democrats had enough votes to override Romney's line-item vetoes. He signed it after he'd announced he wasn't running again. As Klein writes, "Part of being a limited government Republican is realizing that once you put the infrastructure in place, successors can always add to it."
If Coulter has decided that Romney is the best of the Republican options and she can’t stand Newt Gingrich, that’s fine. If she wants to argue that conservatives should trust Romney’s commitment to repealing Obamacare, okay. But she shouldn’t defend big government social welfare policy as conservative and treat conservatives like they're too dumb to understand the difference.
It's hard for people to hold competing thoughts in their head at the same time. This is precisely my worry -- that supporting Romney will lead people where Ann Coulter inexplicably has arrived -- to a full-throated defense of Romneycare.
So I ask the wonderful Romney supporters here -- help out those of us who are terrified. Is this what you have to do if you sign on to support Romney? Allay our fears! Show us a better way.
- Comment (145)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
I'll admit I'm not a policy wonk on this issue.
That said, it doesn't take a policy wonk to realize most of the problems originate in government meddling, and the solution is not more policy but less... and to some extent, better policy, yes, but primarily less.
Excuse me, but why do we need a health guru? The health care market should be able to take care of itself if Government weren't meddling in it so much.
In general, I reject the very premise that we have to have a government "solution" to government-caused problems, and the fact you're talking about the need for one shows you're OK with the premise.
That said, to the extent the government gets involved, we need more along the lines of the HSA reforms done by George Bush. That's an example of a proactive, non-negative approach.
Jan '12
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
James Of England
He's always been strong on immigration. His record and philosophy on the judiciary was enough to earn him Justice Bork's endorsement. His foreign policy has been conservative enough to earn him Ambassador Bolton's support, despite Newt explicitly stating that he would appoint Bolton to Secretary of State. His record of cutting spending is unmatched in the field, particularly now. He is no friend to labor, and makes stronger anti-union promises than any recent candidate. He has always been a keen supporter of conservative education reform.
Well said, James of England. I support Romney, despite Romneycare and his continued support of it. Romney is conservative, in word and deed, on the vast majority of issues, many of which James listed above.
Yes, Romneycare is a liability, but all candidates have liabilities. I happen to think that Mitt has many fewer than Newt.
Sep '10
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
From Gallup, just a few months before ObamaCare passed:
The crux of the issue is that people don't like paying so much for health insurance. Deregulation will help bring down costs to a point, but even at that point it will still be expensive. This is because so much of modern medicine is highly innovative and requires the labor of highly skilled professionals.
What is your solution for voters that expect a free lunch, Duane? You appear to be saying that our side should offer some sort of vitamin supplement in lieu of the full lunch.
May '10
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Bobby Shiffler
...I support Romney, despite Romneycare and his continued support of it... Yes, Romneycare is a liability...
Thanks for honestly answering this, instead of embarking on a futile defense of Romneycare.
Some may be able to support Romney in spite of Romneycare. So be it. I cannot.
Or at least not while I have any other remaining better choice (Santorum).
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 10:25pmMay '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Levin and Ponuru support what Romney did to the extent that they explain the context within which Mass tried to solve a problem that was largely caused by Federal policy.They also point out that the best conservative health policy experts such as Regina Hertizlinger endorsed what they were doing.Their analysis is thoughtful and correct and it clearly differentiates Mass from Obamacare.If read carefully and objectively it makes clear the Romney is in a very strong position in a debate.
Jul '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Chris Deleon
Excuse me, but why do we need a health guru? The health care market should be able to take care of itself if Government weren't meddling in it so much.
In general, I reject the very premise that we have to have a government "solution" to government-caused problems, and the fact you're talking about the need for one shows you're OK with the premise.
That said, to the extent the government gets involved, we need more along the lines of the HSA reforms done by George Bush. That's an example of a proactive, non-negative approach. · 36 minutes ago
We all strongly agree that minimizing the government involvement in healthcare would be the right thing. The problem is that 70 years of intense and incredibly invasive government interference makes taking government out of healthcare impossible, at least in 4 years. The fact of the matter is that we need people on our side who have worked on conservative solutions to healthcare problems (including those caused by government).
-E
Jan '12
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
The answer to Mollie's headline question is "yes". "Supporting" Romney does not mean I endorse all of his past, present, or future policies. I supported Bush, but did not like his Medicare Part D law, amnesty bill, AIDS money to Africa, etc. Romney is the most electable of the bunch and looks to be the most conservative (excluding Paul).
Feb '10
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
For a different take on Ricochet and Romney, see this post: Has Ricochet already thrown in for Romney?
I'd say most of Ricochet will support Romney if he becomes the nominee. Perhaps your frustration is that not everyone is falling behind him yet. But it's too early. Don't get ahead of yourself. The primaries are not over.
Edited on February 2, 2012 at 11:28pmRe: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Bobby Shiffler
James Of England
He's always been strong on immigration. His record and philosophy on the judiciary was enough to earn him Justice Bork's endorsement. His foreign policy has been conservative enough to earn him Ambassador Bolton's support, despite Newt explicitly stating that he would appoint Bolton to Secretary of State. His record of cutting spending is unmatched in the field, particularly now. He is no friend to labor, and makes stronger anti-union promises than any recent candidate. He has always been a keen supporter of conservative education reform.
Well said, James of England. I support Romney, despite Romneycare and his continued support of it. Romney is conservative, in word and deed, on the vast majority of issues, many of which James listed above.
Yes, Romneycare is a liability, but all candidates have liabilities. I happen to think that Mitt has many fewer than Newt. · 1 hour ago
Thanks, guys.
Apr '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
The King Prawn
Well there's yer problem. You have no understanding of what a constitution is. It is a limited grant of power to the government by the sovereign individuals of the society. It both empowers and limits government. The grant of power flows from the people to the government, not the other way around. Your understanding has the government as the sovereign and the people as subjects. I hate to break it to you, James of England, but we had a referendum on that crap a few years ago (about 236 years ago) and voted decidedly against being subjects rather than sovereign individual citizens. ·
I think that you're confusing the federal and state constitutions. The Constitution has enumerated powers. The state constitutions are different from pre-revolutionary era governments because they have a republican form of government, but they don't have enumerated powers.
I believe that my understanding of Constitutional construction is one which we broadly share, and is a central element of American exceptionalism. No where else means its constitution.
Apr '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Busy System Admin
For a different take on Ricochet and Romney, see this post: Has Ricochet already thrown in for Romney?
I'd say most of Ricochet will support Romney if he becomes the nominee. Perhaps your frustration is that not everyone is falling behind him yet. But it's too early. Don't get ahead of yourself. The primaries are not over. ·
While I was sad to see BThompson's comment on Mollie's post, since Mollie has been the most charitable towards Mitt of Ricochet's contributors, there is no Ricochet non-guest contributor who actively supports Mitt without insulting him in every single post that touches him. There are many Mitt supporting members, and much in the main feed, but no contributors. Contributors include Ben D, one of Mitt's earliest and most dedicated and talented detractors.
Feb '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
James Of England
I think that you're confusing the federal and state constitutions. The Constitution has enumerated powers. The state constitutions are different from pre-revolutionary era governments because they have a republican form of government, but they don't have enumerated powers.
I think you're arguing that the Federal Constitution of 1787 doesn't apply to the states, which it does. Otherwise Illinois could ban guns, which it can't.
So the individual mandate is unconstitutional in Massachusetts as well as in the rest of the United States.
Mar '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Duane Oyen
Chris Deleon
Who's been the Republican health care guru over the last 30 years? · 3 hours ago
Thank you for this statement Duane. The real reason that we are stuck with a probable candidate who signed an individual mandate into law is precisely because Republicans were sticking their heads in the sand prior to 1993.
The sheer inability of the GOP to even talk cogently about healthcare was what lead to the panicked and thus botched proposal by Heritage that included the individual mandate. If someone on the right had done their homework ahead of time on this issue, they probably would have noticed the fallacy and come up with a better idea. Instead, government-coerced commerce received the "conservative" stamp of approval, paving the way for Romney to embrace it soon after.
If the Republicans lose this election due to Romney's weaknesses on healthcare, it will only be a just reward for their avoidance of the issue in the early 90's.
Mar '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Chris Deleon
Excuse me, but why do we need a health guru? The health care market should be able to take care of itself if Government weren't meddling in it so much.
An unregulated healthcare market may be able to take care of itself, but it certainly won't sell itself in this political climate.
We need a healthcare guru in order to convince a skeptical public that removal of government subsidies does not mean that their parents will die in a dimly-lit back alley.
Apr '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
continued: The podcasts are a different matter. On the main podcast, there is a mix of guests, and the premium podcasts actively trend Mitt (Law Talk has not voiced a view on Mitt or Paul, but is 2/3 fiercely anti-Newt and anti-Paul, 1/3 pro-Newt; LC/RC receives a constant stream of bile for being pro-Romney in occasionally genuinely ugly ways; Young Guns has a full ABR + Paul spread).
I don't think that the site has any responsibility to be representative of the party, nor that it would necessarily be commercially sensible to be so; there's space for a lot of different groups in the conservative movement. I also think that many contributors strive extremely hard towards fairness. It has also improved considerably, both contributors and laity, in its treatment of Mitt supporters since last Summer. I still think that May was the fever's height.
Nonetheless, the suggestion that complaints about the weighting are necessarily complaints that there isn't a 100% support for Mitt are unfair. For regular site contributors, the figure is 0%. That's your right, and complaints are wrong headed (IMHO), but the complaint is not ridiculous.
Apr '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Xennady
James Of England
I think that you're confusing the federal and state constitutions. The Constitution has enumerated powers. The state constitutions are different from pre-revolutionary era governments because they have a republican form of government, but they don't have enumerated powers.
I think you're arguing that the Federal Constitution of 1787 doesn't apply to the states, which it does. Otherwise Illinois could ban guns, which it can't.
So the individual mandate is unconstitutional in Massachusetts as well as in the rest of the United States. · 16 minutes ago
I was saying that (1) the Constitution affords specific, enumerated, rights to American citizens, rather than vague aspirations in the style of most foreign constitutions. For this I was criticized for (2) not appreciating that it also included only enumerated grants of power. I was responding to that criticism (2) by noting that it true only of the Constitution, not state constitutions. Then I am assailed for not appreciating that (1) the Constitution affords specific, enumerated, rights to American citizens!
Do you have a negative right in mind that Romneycare violates? Do you have any case law to support it?
Apr '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Mendel
Thank you for this statement Duane. The real reason that we are stuck with a probable candidate who signed an individual mandate into law is precisely because Republicans were sticking their heads in the sand prior to 1993.
The sheer inability of the GOP to even talk cogently about healthcare was what lead to the panicked and thus botched proposal by Heritage that included the individual mandate. If someone on the right had done their homework ahead of time on this issue, they probably would have noticed the fallacy and come up with a better idea. Instead, government-coerced commerce received the "conservative" stamp of approval, paving the way for Romney to embrace it soon after.
If the Republicans lose this election due to Romney's weaknesses on healthcare, it will only be a just reward for their avoidance of the issue in the early 90's. ·
Sticking their head in the sand prior to 1993 would have been an improvement. EMTALA and the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act were both passed by Reagan.
Romney's plan to return medicare to the states is the first time a Republican has seriously run against a key Great Society program.
Feb '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Duane Oyen
Chris Deleon
.........
But you can't do that if you compromise up front, and don't even try to push for your cause, only for watering down theirs. .....
OK, Chris. I risk a CoC violation by stating that it is fairly clear to me that you are not terribly conversant with the details and facts of US health care, or the political issues surrounding each of the policy proposals (policy solutions regarding many of which we agree).
.....
And this view is based on.....?
Sounds like you're calling him dumb just because he fails to see the brilliance of your argument, such as it is.
Edited on February 3, 2012 at 2:03amApr '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Chris Deleon
Sorry, this is nonsense. Sometimes you have to stand on principle, even if the "political market" is not favorable to you, or appears to be "demanding" a particular solution (usually it's just the liberal media demanding it).
It does help to have an alternative, not just say "No." But the alternative is not just giving in halfway.
In the case of health care, the solution is more freedom, more market forces, less bureaucracy and less encumbering regulation. HSAs are one of the best things to happen to the healthcare market, for consumers, in the last few decades. They put consumers back in control, selecting health providers and responsible more directly for the cost, without so many middle-men and price-hiding mechanisms. For catastrophic needs, the coupled high-deductible insurance plan kicks in. Insurance once again becomes what it should have been all along-- protection against unforeseen large expenditures. ·
Although I get the impression that I'm more in favor of subtle, long term tactics than you are, I think that we agree on most of this. Add portability, returning Medicare to the states, and tort reform and you have most of Romney's healthcare platform.
Feb '11
Re: Can You Support Romney Without Supporting Romneycare?
Duane Oyen
.....
But I will say this. First a question. When has our side ever- I mean ever- seriously addressed health care- except as a negative reaction after the Left has put a lousy and statist proposal on the table? We talked a little bit in 1991 after Harris Wofford won the Pennsylvania special election, we were all over it in 1993 and 1994- after Hillary got her nutty project going (that is when the Right adopted the RomneyCare approach).
You have no influence when your program is all negatively reactive. That is why we have little credibility on education reform, on race-based preferences, and especially on health care.
Who's been the Republican health care guru over the last 30 years? · 4 hours ago
Duane, there are just some things that the federal government shouldn't do. "Solving" healthcare is one of them. To the extent that the feds can do something, I think that the ideas coming from our side sound like a good start: HSA's, allowing a national market, deregulation, more decisions made at the state/local level.