Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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?
Published in General
The link suggests a $0.15 billion increase overbudget (and that after Deval Patrick added to the plan), plus a potential $0.1 billion in potential cuts in federal support from changes in federal rules. Romney cut spending by $1.6 billion. It’s a dent, but it doesn’t swallow the whole thing.
Maybe it’s just the Texan in me, but I recoil at the idea of the state telling me to go spend my money with any commercial enterprise except as a prerequisite to a privileged (like having auto insurance to drive.) [cut awesome anecdote for words]
I’m with you. It’s emphatically not how I want to live. My sense, though, is that the feeling is similarly strong looking the other way. We’re much more likely to get the Ryan plan passed (or Ryan-Wyden) if Massachusetts is only worried about what will happen to other people than if they think that they’ll be forced to be self-reliant, Texan style.
They’re kind of passionate about helping others, but can be distracted by other outrages, or by reality TV shows. If they didn’t think that Masscare might partially shield them from some of the blast, they’d be much easier to scare into being seriously and lucratively passionate.
How about because we aren’t France, and have a federation of states. Yes, individual states can do stupid things if a state’s voters want to. Do you see MA seeking to repeal Romneycare? It’s still overwhelmingly popular. If it ceases to be, the legislators of MA will repeal it, or be voted out of office. Why is that so hard for you to accept? As a New Yorker, I probably don’t like every law or obligation or tax in your state, but I don’t really care because I don’t live there.
Shorter version: the irrational hatred for a mild-mannered, center-right guy, and our next President, goes on, and on.
How about a state telling you to spend your money on state income tax? How is that substantively different than being forced to pay for health insurance? In both cases, you are being coerced to pay money.
I know its been posited around here that Romneymay be restricted from his squishy tendencies by a majority GOP House & Senate.
Might Newt be restricted in his flakiness by that same beltway that dislikes him?
Better to have an internal/party gridlock than one more pronounced by a congress & executive of different parties. In ‘internal’ filter so to speak.
The costs will increase every year as government distorts the market and seduces more citizens to depend on taxpayer money, right? To be honest, most of what I know of Romney and Romneycare is from critical editorials, so I have some reading to do. But my impression now is that Romney introduced yet another money sink and entitlement system which is sure to grow.
Even so, I’m not arguing that Romney is worse than Newt or any other candidate.
Well, it is not equivocation, it is not timidity, and it is not weak-kneed or a half-measured excuse for conservatism. It is a balanced and thoughtful analysis of the significant and important ideological differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. It is a response to a question asked by a reporter. It was recorded last year.
You and your brethren on this post, are obviously looking under every rock to find reasons not to support Mitt Romney. You even go to the extreme of selecting 3 seconds out of a 110 minute context to make your case. The other 107 seconds explain why the 3 seconds should not be a problem for conservatives.
And that’s no canard.
You and your brethren on this post, are obviously looking under every rock to find reasons not to support Mitt Romney. You even go to the extreme of selecting 3 seconds out of a 110 minute context to make your case. The other 107 seconds explain why the 3 seconds should not be a problem for conservatives.
·Dec 17 at 11:08am
Newt would probably end up doing whatever the highest bidding lobbyist would request.
Does that help clarify that plenty of people see both individuals as flawed. It should be no surprise that the real serious fiscal and social conservatives have issues with Romney. But the fact is they better vote for him if he gets the nod and arguments that he is Obama light have some validity but do not even come close to underscoring the benefits of removing our would be dictatorial Marxist in charge.
When you force insurers to make losing bets, you undermine the essence of insurance as a self-sustaining business.
And not one of the so-called electable politicians will ever state this. It makes me mad as hell that talking about this aspect of insurance does not happen because voters are so pathetic — voters actually believe that insurers owe them protections (some times even after the insurable event has happened).
It doesn’t matter whether it’s health insurance or Social Security, voters just cannot be bothered with reality.
Very little distinguishes Mitt from most people then; right, Todd. Except that Mitt is more knowledgeable about management than most people and that fact alone causes him to be more dangerous as a potential planner.
Speaking of which, Matthew, if you have time to put up a post about the response to Gov. Haley’s endorsement of Romney, filling us in on how folks in your beloved South Carolina appear to be responding, I’d be grateful. A report from someone on the ground would be migthy useful.
arguments that he is Obama light have some validity but do not even come close to underscoring the benefits of removing our would be dictatorial Marxist in charge.
My ‘Obama light’ crack aside, I would vote for Romney without hesitation in the general against Obama. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t prefer that someone other than Romney were the recipient of that anti-Obama vote. Unfortunately, I have equally serious qualms about the alternatives currently in contention. It’s like having to choose between a myocardial or cerebral infarction.
Doc Stephens
You and your brethren on this post, are obviously looking under every rock to find reasons not to support Mitt Romney. You even go to the extreme of selecting 3 seconds out of a 110 minute context to make your case. The other 107 seconds explain why the 3 seconds should not be a problem for conservatives.
·Dec 17 at 11:08am
Does that help clarify that plenty of people see both individuals as flawed. It should be no surprise that the real serious fiscal and social conservatives have issues with Romney. But the fact is they better vote for him if he gets the nod and arguments that he is Obama light have some validity but do not even come close to underscoring the benefits of removing our would be dictatorial Marxist in charge. ·
The GOP candidate in the general has my vote [living in Georgia means that my vote makes no damned difference anyhow]. But these candidates disgust me and I cannot stand any one of them. If the libertarian-leaning ones didn’t have some strange ideas regarding foreign affairs…
More fuel for the rage pushing Ron Paul, when all the possibilities seem mired in statism and corruption his insane foreign policy appears as less a roadblock by the hour.
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. ·Dec 17 at 6:30pm
I didn’t see anything about mandates or incentives in the comment you linked. It was about premium increases, which have nothing to do with mandates.
The King Prawn
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. ·Dec 17 at 6:30pm
The mandates are part and parcel with forcing companies to insure the uninsurable.
The mandates are part and parcel with forcing companies to insure the uninsurable. ·Dec 18 at 12:21pm
A problem we run into is that forcing companies to insure the uninsurable is very popular, alas.
If Mitt or Newt explicitly said that he was repealing the part of Obamacare that allows young adults to stay on their parent’s insurance until they’re 26, the election could be lost just on that alone.
Looking back at the original post, I do wonder if Ben Domenech is “absolutely stunned” that Newt wants to keep parts of Obamacare (over 300 pages, 10%, whatever). Does he have “concerns about Newt’s intentions?”
At the very least, Newt should explain to us what he means by these very recent comments.
James Of England
Even so, I’m not arguing that Romney is worse than Newt or any other candidate. ·
If Romneycare were a more radical plan, perhaps, or if it were federal. If it makes little direct difference to any but the 8% or so previously without and under with the mandate, it’s unlikely that the Mass. healthcare market will be so different from its neighbors that it will not be able to rely parasitically on their price mechanism. There isn’t much of a seduction to government money; the subsidy isn’t worth poverty.
If Mitt wins and interstate health insurance purchasing passes, Mass. insurance costs should fall considerably, although since healthcare prices will remain higher than in red states, (wages/ land), insurance may become more complicated.
……………..
If Mitt wins and interstate health insurance purchasing passes, Mass. insurance costs should fall considerably, although since healthcare prices will remain higher than in red states, (wages/ land), insurance may become more complicated. ·Dec 18 at 3:11pm
Sadly, that may be the toughest challenge of all. This is one of the two or three most important reforms you could effect, and in my study of the matter, appears to be perhaps the most difficult. You are fighting the state-chartered Blues who want to avoid any competition, and the NAIC (National Assoc. of Insurance Commissioners)- an extraordinarily powerful group that does not want its current monopoly power diluted, plus all the local hospitals who want to avoid further price pressure.
This needs to be done, and to get there, the public has to be so firmly in favor that the usual back-channel influence peddling is preempted by popular will. Difficult, maybe not impossible. But under-appreciated by most conservatives who talk about it. Possibly even tougher than tort reform and licensing reform.
This needs to be done, and to get there, the public has to be so firmly in favor that the usual back-channel influence peddling is preempted by popular will. Difficult, maybe not impossible. But under-appreciated by most conservatives who talk about it. Possibly even tougher than tort reform and licensing reform. ·Dec 18 at 3:28pm
I haven’t studied this option much, but it seems both difficult and somewhat problematic. Will states still have the regulator authority they currently have? If not, who sets policy requirements? One reason a policy in one state costs so much less than a policy in another is that the latter state might require less coverage for things like mental health/substance abuse counseling, etc. This appears to be yet another method by which costs might be contained except for the fact that Washington bureaucracy has to become involved. It puts us right back to the head of HHS saying what is and is not an acceptable level of insurance. Am I wrong on this?
James Of England
……………..
If Mitt wins and interstate health insurance purchasing passes, Mass. insurance costs should fall considerably, although since healthcare prices will remain higher than in red states, (wages/ land), insurance may become more complicated. ·Dec 18 at 3:11pm
This needs to be done, and to get there, the public has to be so firmly in favor that the usual back-channel influence peddling is preempted by popular will. Difficult, maybe not impossible. But under-appreciated by most conservatives who talk about it. Possibly even tougher than tort reform and licensing reform. ·Dec 18 at 3:28pm
A slight correction: cross-state-lines purchasing is done on the state level, not the federal.
Sadly, that may be the toughest challenge of all. This is one of the two or three most important reforms you could effect, and in my study of the matter, appears to be perhaps the most difficult. You are fighting the state-chartered Blues who want to avoid any competition, and the NAIC (National Assoc. of Insurance Commissioners)- an extraordinarily powerful group that does not want its current monopoly power diluted, plus all the local hospitals who want to avoid further price pressure.
This needs to be done, and to get there, the public has to be so firmly in favor that the usual back-channel influence peddling is preempted by popular will. Difficult, maybe not impossible. But under-appreciated by most conservatives who talk about it. Possibly even tougher than tort reform and licensing reform. ·Dec 18 at 3:28pm
A slight correction: cross-state-lines purchasing is done on the state level, not the federal. ·Dec 19 at 5:48am
But doesn’t it immediately become interstate commerce? I can’t imagine the federal government leaving it alone.
Duane Oyen
James Of England
……………..
If Mitt wins and interstate health insurance purchasing passes, Mass. insurance costs should fall considerably, although since healthcare prices will remain higher than in red states, (wages/ land), insurance may become more complicated. ·
A slight correction: cross-state-lines purchasing is done on the state level, not the federal.
Well, it is now. Hence “if it passes”. Although his plan at the moment is a little more limited than in 2008, (you can take your insurance with you when you change residence, but you have to spend time in Kansas to bring your Kansas insurance to Maine), it’s my impression that he still views it as a step in the direction of interstate purchase. It was mentioned (not by Mitt, but by people on his campaign) in 2008 as a tactic for that. Health Insurance is one of the very few areas that states still erect the serious barriers to interstate commerce that Article 1, section 8 was designed to break down.
I feel reasonably hopeful that in 2019, King Prawn will be able to enjoy his Texan health insurance without leaving the cool Washington breezes (and his family) behind.
If Mitt or Newt explicitly said that he was repealing the part of Obamacare that allows young adults to stay on their parent’s insurance until they’re 26, the election could be lost just on that alone.
This is extremely troubling to me. Perhaps offering the promise of a job by the time you’re 26 is the coutner-carrot to offer? Alas, at some point socialism insures it’s and our destruction–hope it’s not too late.
A slight correction: cross-state-lines purchasing is done on the state level, not the federal. ·Dec 19 at 5:48am
Not necessarily, and that is the point. Insurance is presently regulated by the states, with only ERISA as a significant relevant exception to this discussion. The proposal of the Jeffrey Anderson (and others) “Small Bill” is that the feds pre-empt under the commerce clause and permit interstate sales to compete with state-regulated sales.
Micheal Greve of AEI has done a loot of work on the need for the Feds to get involved in some of the excessive, abusive, and predatory state regulatory schemes under the justification of the dormant (i.e.,. “negative”) commerce clause. For example, if a state A/G operates to restrict competition for the benefit of commercial interests in his state, a federal role makes sense as a competitive measure.
Duane Oyen
The King Prawn
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. ·Dec 17 at 6:30pm
The first statement wasn’t related, and the second is not linked up either; it is an asserted effect, not shown. Correlation, not causation. More specifics, please, King.
James, Thanks for helping me out. Obviously, the active cohort of Ricochet readers and writers has decided that Romney is not their guy, and reason does not persuade them. ·Dec 18 at 7:39am
So anyone who disagrees with you is being unreasonable? ·Dec 18 at 7:52am
Absurd! Only those who refuse to consider other points of view are unreasonable. I’ll let you discern which is which.
Stated another way, many of the comments posted early in this stream seemed to me to be emotional and not particularly rational. The extraction of 3 seconds of a 110 second statement to intentionally distort and deride a candidate’s position, followed by an emotional piling-on in support of that distortion illustrates my point.
On the other hand, not all reasoning is sound.