Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
I am absolutely stunned by the content of this video of Mitt Romney, the latest from Andrew Kaczynski. It is not from 2006, not from 2002, not from 1994, not from some campaign of yore when he was appealing to a different audience. It is from just last year, in reaction to President Obama's health care law. Romney says: "I hope we're ultimately able to eliminate some of the differences, and repeal the bad and keep the good."
A couple of notes:
Romney applauds the "incentives" to purchase insurance in Obamacare, which he says "works." This, of course, refers to the individual mandate. The "incentive" is a fine.
Romney also inaccurately describes why his exchange functions - again leaving out the taxpayer funded subsidies which are inevitably redistributed from other taxpayers. Of the 412,000 people added to the insurance rolls in Massachusetts since 2006, only 7,000 of them have coverage not subsidized in whole or in part by the taxpayers.
Romney says that the "rates are lower than they otherwise would be" according to this. That's an item for further debate, but premium rates in Massachusetts are the highest in the nation and double the national average. They have increased dramatically since his plan passed - he really believes they would be even higher without it?
Romney claims that he opposes the aspect of Obamacare that will determine pricing of premiums - this is a bit of an inaccurate description, but even so, how does this not conflict with exactly the same policy approach in Massachusetts today, an inevitable result of his law?
In all, this is a very disturbing video given how recent it is. Considering that this follows on Philip Klein's discovery that Romney plans to use a waiver method for the states which does not kick in until 2017, and leaves much of Obamacare intact, my concerns about Romney's intentions have never been higher.
At the very least, Romney must explain to us what he means by "repeal the bad and keep the good."
UPDATE: Philip Klein points out to me that this was consistent with what Romney was reportedly saying elsewhere at the time in 2010 - that he would repeal "the worst aspects" of Obamacare.
So what's the good?
- Comment (89)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (3)
Comments:
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
wmartin
My understanding is that Romney has said that he will seek full repeal of Obamacare through the reconciliation process, since it is unlikely that the Republicans will have 60 votes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/12/mitt-romney-commits-to-repealing-obamacare-via-reconciliation/
Romney said in one of the early debates (the first debate?) that he would grant waivers while repeal is pending. Does he still stand behind that?
I dislike waivers in general, because they involve a president unilaterally suspending enforcement of law — a dangerous power. But Obama is already granting waivers, and I'm sure there's a long tradition of presidents doing so.
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Ben Domenech:
This doesn't accurately reflect what was said. The exact quote clearly reflects opposition to the current law:
..... I will certainly pursue repeal, and that’s something which will occur if we have a Republican House and a Republican Senate, my guess is it could be done pretty close to day one. If that’s not the case, and I have to go through the waiver process, we will do our best. Our lawyers think that providing a state a waiver that we will be able to conform with the law and that the state would be able to opt out of the system, but if a lawsuit ensues, and it takes months to sort it out, well during that time hopefully we will have the bill repealed. I think people recognize that if I’m elected President of the United States, that we are not going to have Obamacare with its full panoply of benefits and costs. The American people don’t want it. I don’t want it. And we’ll repeal it. ......
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Xennady
I think Romney will shatter the Republlican party, leaving the left a weak, divided opposition to the left in 2014 and 2016. At least if Obama is re-elected the GOP will stay intact, leaving the voters a place to turn when and if Obama attempts to be a new Chavez or Allende, as Obama often fantasizes about.
With Romney we've got a guy with bad political skills who really doesn't seem to have much of a problem with the leftist agenda.
That's not a recipe for political success for conservatives, no matter which way the wind is blowing. · Dec 17 at 1:45pm
And we have another guy who has also publicly supported the federal health insurance mandate, and was a huge booster of the mortgage bubble that blew up the economy. And, if that were not enough, is also repulsive to swing voters. It's not like Newt is going to take us to the sunlit uplands of true conservatism (even in the extremely unlikely event that he gets elected at all).
Either way, we're screwed.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Xennady
wmartin
My understanding is that Romney has said that he will seek full repeal of Obamacare through the reconciliation process, since it is unlikely that the Republicans will have 60 votes.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2011/10/12/mitt-romney-commits-to-repealing-obamacare-via-reconciliation/
Excellent.
So what happens when Harry Reid objects?
I sincerely hope I'm wrong. But I just don't have enough trust in Mitt "Oily Sheen" Romney to think he will actually be willing to fight through Democratic opposition to actually repeal Obamacare via reconciliation.
Especially after this video. · Dec 17 at 1:32pm
Reid will object when Newt tries to repeal Obamacare too. Newt has a long history of squishiness. As Mark Steyn puts it, "Gingrich is a pushover for progressivism who’s succeeded in passing himself off as a hard-line right-wing bastard."
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
James Of England
a: The three he spells out in the video, of which the big one is Federalism and the 10th Amendment.
Are you arguing that a state can be as stupid as it wants so long as it does not infect others? If not, are you arguing that the mandate is a dandy idea? If it is, why is it only fabulous at the state level and not at the federal level? Why not load up the bandwagon for a constitutional amendment to explicitly give the federal government the power to force citizens into commerce?
If the mandate is a bad idea it remains so at any level of government. The only time it appeared like a good deal was when it stood against a single payer, government monopoly healthcare system. As we've seen with Obamacare it is part and parcel of the planned destruction of the market system so that progressives can move us to a government system.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Ok, Newt fans - Here, Newt says that he would repeal Obamacare, but would reinstate "over 300 pages "of it. He wants to retain a little over 10% of Ocare, he says.
To put it another way, Newt wants to "repeal the bad and keep the good."
This is from september, more recent than the video of Romney that occasioned this post.
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/184747-gingrich-on-obamas-healthcare-law-about-300-pages-are-pretty-good
Edited on December 18, 2011 at 1:18amDec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
wmartin: Ok, Newt fans - Here, Newt says that he would repeal Obamacare, but would reinstate "over 300 pages " of it.
In other words, Newt wants to "repeal the bad and keep the good."
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/184747-gingrich-on-obamas-healthcare-law-about-300-pages-are-pretty-good · Dec 17 at 4:10pm
See Paul Rahe's post.
Perry 2012. He can't say it, but he means it.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
wmartin: Ok, Newt fans - Here, Newt says that he would repeal Obamacare, but would reinstate "over 300 pages " of it.
In other words, Newt wants to "repeal the bad and keep the good."
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/184747-gingrich-on-obamas-healthcare-law-about-300-pages-are-pretty-good · Dec 17 at 4:10pm
See Paul Rahe's post.
Perry 2012. He can't say it, but he means it. · Dec 17 at 4:11pm
I would give Perry another look if I thought we weren't running a risk of him suffering intellectual vaporlock at any moment.
I wasn't surprised to find that link of Newt basically saying the same thing as Romney about Obamacare repeal. The Mitt-Newt race is like a neverending tit-for-tat of awfulness.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
wmartin
I wasn't surprised to find that link of Newt basically saying the same thing as Romney about Obamacare repeal. The Mitt-Newt race is like a neverending tit-for-tat of awfulness. · Dec 17 at 4:22pm
Indeed, my friend, indeed.
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
"Perry 2012. He can't say it, but he means it."
My vote for Ricochet Quote Of The Week.
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
....
If the mandate is a bad idea it remains so at any level of government. ....
That's the key consideration. If Romneycare doesn't help the people of Masschusetts, then it demonstrates poor judgement.
If Romney intends to address national healthcare and other entitlements in any way, then the quality of his judgement should be considered by all.
One can't dismiss Romneycare by simply citing the 10th Amendment. If, as governor, Romney promoted bad ideas, then why should we not expect similarly bad ideas (on a variety of issues) from Romney as President?
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
Are you arguing that a state can be as stupid as it wants so long as it does not infect others? If not, are you arguing that the mandate is a dandy idea? If it is, why is it only fabulous at the state level and not at the federal level? Why not load up the bandwagon for a constitutional amendment to explicitly give the federal government the power to force citizens into commerce?
Well, isn't that true? A state can be as stupid as it wants, as long as 1) the Constitution is not violated, and 2) the voters are stupid enough to keep voting in officials who do stupid things. If we don't like it, we can vote with our feet and try one of the other 49. Or don'ty you believe in federalism?
A mandate, or strong incentive may or may not be a sensible idea- at the state level. It depends on the issue. A mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level, and it is also a bad idea because at the national level you can't vote with your feet and remain in the country.
May '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Aaron Miller
...............
One can't dismiss Romneycare by simply citing the 10th Amendment. If, as governor, Romney promoted bad ideas, then why should we not expect similarly bad ideas (on a variety of issues) from Romney as President? · Dec 17 at 6:15pm
Because whether or not the idea is "bad" depends on the issue and the context.
I can't wait till January is over and we get past all of this nonsense. Good grief. Newt, the inside-the-beltway neart-lifer, is the conservative outsider, Romney, the business guy who had to balance his budgets or go broke is the RINO Washington insider. Perry, the crony capitalist, is the great hope for ending crony capitalism and Washington influence-peddling.
Dec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Duane Oyen
Well, isn't that true? A state can be as stupid as it wants, as long as 1) the Constitution is not violated, and 2) the voters are stupid enough to keep voting in officials who do stupid things. If we don't like it, we can vote with our feet and try one of the other 49. Or don'ty you believe in federalism?
A mandate, or strong incentive may or may not be a sensible idea- at the state level. It depends on the issue. A mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level, and it is also a bad idea because at the national level you can't vote with your feet and remain in the country. · Dec 17 at 6:21pm
I do very much believe in federalism. My issue is that the mandate has been tried at the state level and found wanting. See Ben's comment a page back about how bad it is. Federalism worked in this instance. We know exactly what not to do in other states thanks to Romney and Mass. We must quit pretending that a bad idea is ok so long as it's not federal.
Jul '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
Are you arguing that a state can be as stupid as it wants so long as it does not infect others? If not, are you arguing that the mandate is a dandy idea? If it is, why is it only fabulous at the state level and not at the federal level? Why not load up the bandwagon for a constitutional amendment to explicitly give the federal government the power to force citizens into commerce?
If the mandate is a bad idea it remains so at any level of government. The only time it appeared like a good deal was when it stood against a single payer, government monopoly healthcare system. As we've seen with Obamacare it is part and parcel of the planned destruction of the market system so that progressives can move us to a government system.
Like massive, subsidized, pinwheels for electricity generation, right?
Gimme a break.
If the 10th is good for Ricky (and his completely phony, pandering, secession & alt-energy nonsense) then it's fine for Mitt.
We are conservatives. Adults. Let's hold candidates to the same standards.
Edited on December 18, 2011 at 4:20amDec '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
I never claimed giant bird slicers were a good idea.
Jul '10
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
That is true. I never claimed insurance mandates were.
However... there are drastically different standards being applied to Newt, Mitt and Rick.
If we must choose one, it seems sensible to hold the competition on a level playing field.
No passes for Mitt. No passes for Newt. No passes for Rick.
Run, chumps, run.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
The King Prawn
James Of England
a: 10th Amendment.
Are you arguing that a state can be as stupid as it wants so long as it does not infect others? If not, are you arguing that the mandate is a dandy idea? If it is, why is it only fabulous at the state level and not at the federal level? Why not load up the bandwagon for a constitutional amendment to explicitly give the federal government the power to force citizens into commerce?
If I was Governor, I would not have pursued it. Federalism is not an argument for the local policies being a positive good. It does make them dramatically less offensive.
One of my favorite rants is about Liz Dole's assault on the Constitution when she used federal highway funding to raise the drinking age to 21. I don't believe that the drinking age should be that high, but that's a secondary issue. What Dole did was unacceptable and unforgivable. What governors who earlier chose that drinking age did was a shame, but it's not one I've ever heard someone get angry over. Not the same.
Edited on December 18, 2011 at 4:55amFeb '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
For what it's worth, the Des Moines Register has endorsed Romney on the basis of his "Sobriety, wisdom and judgment." RomneyCare's good intentions were also sited, among other things. In the judgment of the Register's editors:
"This ability to see the merits of tough issues from something other than a knee-jerk, ideological perspective suggests that Mitt Romney would be willing to bridge the political divide in Washington. Americans are desperate for the Republicans and Democrats to work together. His record of ignoring partisan labels to pass important legislation when he was governor of Massachusetts suggests he is capable to making that happen."
Bridging the political divide. Republicans and Democrats working together. Haven't we seen enough of that over the last fifty or sixty years to know what the result will be?
I tend to regard an endorsement by the Register as only infinitesimally better, if that, than an endorsement by the New York Times, in other words worthy of deep suspicion of their motives and a good indicator of how not to vote. It will be interesting to see what the situation looks like in late April when the PA primaries finally roll around.
Apr '11
Re: Romney on Obamacare: "Repeal the Bad and Keep the Good"
Cont.
In the case of the mandate, I think that there are powerful advantages to having some states go ahead with different attempts to alter their form of government dominance of healthcare (since LBJ and Reagan, all states have government dominated healthcare). Vermont and Massachusetts are the clearest current examples. Through doing that, they show us what works and what doesn't work in an American context. The laboratories of democracy really do improve our understanding, and can help us to avoid mistakes.
With regard to its failure; Massachusetts residents pay a little more for their insurance than they would have otherwise, and suffer other problems, but more people are covered. Mass. is pretty aware of the trade-off and overwhelmingly wishes to make it. The program remains highly popular. I agree that there are ideological problems, but do not believe the program to be a huge practical problem for a state of Massachusetts' wealth and culture (there is no other state like that). Having frequently defended capital punishment on similar grounds, I feel somewhat bound to this argument.