-
Dick Morris’ Bad Entitlements Advice
April 1, 2013 | 41 comments
-
Will Welker Walk?
March 11, 2013 | 273 comments
-
Not Yet Elite, But Pretty Neat
February 5, 2013 | 8 comments
-
The Harbaugh Bowl
January 22, 2013 | 33 comments
-
Tom Terrific
January 14, 2013 | 55 comments
Political Hay
The Federalism Dodge
Why Romney’s state experiment in health care necessarily has national implications.
When he stood up in Ann Arbor last week, Mitt Romney had a problem. As a Republican presidential candidate, he supports repealing the federal law signed by President Obama that forces people to buy government-approved health insurance, expands Medicaid, and offers subsidies to some individuals who purchase insurance through government-run exchanges. As the governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed a state law that does all of the above.
“A lot of pundits around the nation are saying that I should just stand up and say this whole thing was a mistake, that it was just a boneheaded idea, that I should just admit it was a mistake and walk away from it,” Romney said. “There’s only one problem with that. It wouldn’t be honest.” Why? “I, in fact, did what I believed was right for the people of my state.”
In a very business-like PowerPoint presentation, the open-collared Romney then proceeded to demonstrate that he still believes his Massachusetts health care law was right for the people of his state. So why does he want to repeal a federal law based on the same principles and that uses the same basic architecture?
Federalism, in a word. “Health care in Massachusetts may be different than in Montana or Mississippi,” Romney said. “I’m convinced, however, that the Obama administration fundamentally doesn’t believe in that.”
The main difference between Obamacare and Romneycare, then, is the level of government that implemented it. “Our plan was a state solution to a state problem,” Romney added. “His is a power grab by the federal government.”
Constitutionally, state governments retain powers not delegated to the federal government. But even if this technical-sounding yet important legal distinction could hold the public’s imagination in an election-year fight over health care, the federalism argument will not be sufficient for Romney.
Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan was designed in part by experts who supported an individual mandate at the federal level. (The state mandate, by the way, was a central component of Romney’s original Massachusetts proposal. Although he initially preferred a bond for people who chose to go without insurance, the mandate was neither incidental to his health care plan nor entirely a creation of the Democratic legislature.)
One was MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, who went on to help devise the federal law signed by Obama. He subsequently said Romney’s approach “gave birth” to Obama’s. “I’m a Dem through and through,” Gruber told Newsweek, “but Romney really knocked my socks off.”
Of course, Romney also drew from more conservative sources in coming up with health care reform ideas. In his aptly titled new book No Apologies, he writes, “The Heritage Foundation helped us construct an exchange that would make individual premium payments tax-advantaged, lowering costs even further.” But Heritage’s Stuart Butler, who played a key role in developing the exchanges concept, also supported a version of the individual mandate at the federal level. In his 1993 lecture “Why Conservatives Need A National Health Plan,” Butler argued, “The second element in our proposal is a requirement on Americans to obtain at least a basic package of health care insurance for themselves and their dependents.”
“[T]he insurance requirement is a protection for the rest of us against those who would exploit our good nature, forcing us to carry the risk that they should be responsible for as citizens in a society,” Butler continued. “So our mandate is not designed to micromanage people’s lives.” But it was a mandate to purchase health insurance. Butler’s ideas influenced a 1993 bill introduced by Sen. John Chafee (R-R.I.), who was authorized by then Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole to come up with an official Republican response to the Clinton health care plan. The Chafee counterproposal contained a federal individual mandate.
Romney inadvertently highlights the fact that Republicans — and even some conservatives — have in the past supported a federal individual mandate, the main issue in constitutional challenges to the national health care law. Romney even dropped hints that he might have once been such a Republican. During his 1994 Senate race against Ted Kennedy, Romney said he would vote for the Chafee bill, albeit reluctantly. (Kennedy would later support Romneycare and be present at the signing ceremony.) More recently, Romney has repeatedly defended the concept of an individual mandate against national critics.
“Some of my libertarian friends balk at what looks like an individual mandate,” Romney wrote in an April 2006 Wall Street Journal op-ed. “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.” In a February 2007 speech, Romney crowed, “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it [the Romney health plan], then that will be a model for the nation.” And in a January 2008 Republican presidential debate, he argued, “[I]f somebody can afford insurance and decides not to buy it, and then they get sick, they ought to pay their own way, as opposed to expect the government to pay their way. And that’s an American principle.”
In each of the above examples, Romney tiptoes up to the ledge on the federal mandate but declines to take the plunge. Other Republicans, however, were unambiguous in their support for the individual mandate. This includes former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who apparently still favors some form of mandate the federal level to this very day. In fact, when Romney signed the Massachusetts mandate into law, the AFL-CIO’s John Sweeney — then an opponent of individual mandates — complained the governor was taking “a page out of the Newt Gingrich playbook.”
Team Obama plans to use this history to drown out the federalism argument and blur differences with Romney’s current federal health care proposals. “We wholly endorse flexibility and we obviously feel that Massachusetts took a smart approach towards health care reform,” said White House press secretary Jay Carney. “Its provenance was so mainstream, there are great similarities between Massachusetts’ law, the Affordable Care Act and legislation proposed by then Rhode Island Republican [Senator] John Chafee in 1993.”
Carney also touted the federalism and flexibility allowed by the waivers that can be granted to states under current federal law. And don’t be surprised if they start pointing out that the federal government pays 20 percent of the Massachusetts program’s costs through Medicaid. Romney will not be able to counterpunch by pointing to the fiscal costs, long medical wait times, and emergency room crowding likely to take place under the Obama policy, because the best real-world examples of this come from the Massachusetts plan he continues to defend.
About the Author
W. James Antle, III, author of the new book Devouring Freedom: Can Big Government Ever Be Stopped?, is editor of the Daily Caller News Foundation and a senior editor of The American Spectator. You can follow him on Twitter @jimantle.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (47) | Leave a comment
More Articles by W. James Antle, III
More Articles From Political Hay
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/05/16/the-federalism-dodge
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Zbigniew Mazurak | 5.16.11 @ 6:27AM
And so, AmSpec has taken on Romney's federalism excuse. Let's look at it.
Firstly, it's true that the 10th Amendment, all prerogatives not vested in the FG are reserved to the states or to the people. But it's important not to omit, as James Antle has done, the second part: "or to the people".
Secondly, federalism is not an excuse, because, as I've been consistently saying for many years, tyranny is tyranny, regardless of whether it's imposed at the federal or state level. Tyranny is always bad, regardless of whether it's imposed by the federal government or by state governments.
In 2008, McCain (the most liberal candidate ever nominated by the GOP) excused his endorsement of Schwarzenkennedy's tough emission standards and state CAFE standards with the "federalist excuse" - that he's a federalist and that states can do whatever they want to do.
At that time, I criticized him, claiming that tyranny imposed by a state government is no better than a tyranny imposed by the federal government.
In 2010, when the Supreme Court overturned Chicago's unconstitutional gun ban with its MacDonald v. Chicago ruling, the defenders of states rights condemned me, claiming that under the 10th Amendment, states and cities have the right to ban guns and disregard the Second Amendment.
Tyranny is tyranny, whether imposed at the federal or state level. The problem with socialized medicine is not that it was imposed at the federal level. The problem with it is that it's SOCIALIZED. The same is true with the socialized medicine schemes implemented in Massachusetts, Indiana, and Utah.
Pecos Pete| 5.16.11 @ 7:24AM
Zbig: A federal individual mandate is tyranny. Obamacare must be repealed. Tyranny at the state, county or city level is the lesser of evils. There will always be some form of tyranny. I simply prefer that the tyranny that I have to live with is local and results from my neighbors. If I don't like the regulations and laws implemented by my local neighbors I can move to another locality where their tyranny is in line with my tyranny. Can't do that with federal tyranny.
aj| 5.16.11 @ 9:33AM
"Can't do that with federal tyranny."
Sure you can. Emigrate.
This whole debate is moot in a land where 60%+ of all health care is already federalized through Medicare.
Using 10th Amendment arguments in a piecemeal fashion is disingenuous. The Republic was destroyed decades ago. All the king's horses and the Libertarians cannot put it back together again minus a reviving work in the hearts of Americans by the Holy Spirit.
Len| 5.16.11 @ 8:38AM
Tyranny is tyranny. Sir, you have it right, socializing health care or education or housing , these are all ways in which people use the guise of government's "legitimacy" to advance their interests at the expense of others. So government rather than protecting person and property starts redefining our boundaries, and instead of the individual having rights, which are to be protected, now it is society, and the collective state now makes decisions for the collective people.
Government properly enacted should provide a court system for justice and a police/military force, along with some necessary powers to treat with other governments, say concerning trade or the like. Justice meaning that no one gains an advantage through fraud or force, that our interactions and business dealings are consent based and not forced, and that others do not have some right to participate in these consensual interactions, or have a say, unless their liberty is impacted. Again, I say justice, not morality, else someone is gaining an advantage against someone else through force or fraud. To say that someone cannot steal is not legislating morality, but saying that someone may not gain at the expense of someone else. This is just, it is ensuring an even playing field, all else being equal.
Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:27PM
Zbig is correct. As an expert in practicing in an NHS system, let me tell you: Socialized medicine is dreadful. Very, very dreadful. Go to the NZ Herald website, look up District Health Boards, consider that the NZ Herald is to the LEFT of the NYT, and dig in. Happy reading.
Dee See| 5.16.11 @ 6:32AM
And still we wonder how a state, and country
that charges dollars in tax on a single pack of
cigarettes, a single glass of liquor, can be having
ANY health care funding problems at all?
Our sources in other countries are frankly mystified.
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.16.11 @ 6:42AM
“Romney will not be able to counterpunch….” Counterpunch? Romney has been counted out, has been carried away on a stretcher, and is receiving irrelevant CPR in the meat wagon by a few establishment pundits who haven’t pulled their head out of the sand since 2000 A. D.
Dennis Lukas| 5.16.11 @ 11:14PM
I love when politicians lie, People that do not have healthcare but can afford it are getting it for free.
If you get medical care and have a dollar in the bank you can bet there will be a collection agency
at your door!
Stan| 5.16.11 @ 7:26AM
This is old news and boring news. Nobody cares about Mass healthcare, Romney has said he would repeal Obamacare and give out waivers to states, now lets move on to something else. If you don't believe me ask New Hampshire Republicans, they could care less about Mass healthcare. Move on American Spectator before we move on to another source of information.
George S| 5.16.11 @ 7:57AM
If Romney can be talked into individual mandates he can be talked into accepting any liberal position. And the same idealists who swooned over compassionate conservatism will simply adore Romney. We learned from GWB that conservatism disguised as something else is something else.
Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 10:17AM
Whenever you hear the phrase "Let's move on" when discussing a politician's bad decisions, look out! An apologist is lurking close by...
Butch | 5.16.11 @ 4:39PM
Jackpot, Doctor Right. "Nobody cares about Mass healthcare . . ." Really?
Mimi| 5.16.11 @ 7:50AM
The Gruber quote in Newsweek...."Does the guy believe in anything", IS the real story here...and troublesome for Mitt Romney.
It boils down to a candidate who has CORE values and is consistant..." Finger in the Wind" will not cut-it! Over this week-end we sorted out and LOST 3 top tier candidates...Gingrich, Romney, and Huckabee....On to the SORTIN....Maybe we will see some NEW-GUYS....Remember...Authenticity, true to themselves, is what we are yearning for, in the New PRESIDENT !!
Mimi| 5.16.11 @ 7:50AM
The Gruber quote in Newsweek...."Does the guy believe in anything", IS the real story here...and troublesome for Mitt Romney.
It boils down to a candidate who has CORE values and is consistant..." Finger in the Wind" will not cut-it! Over this week-end we sorted out and LOST 3 top tier candidates...Gingrich, Romney, and Huckabee....On to the SORTIN....Maybe we will see some NEW-GUYS....Remember...Authenticity, true to themselves, is what we are yearning for, in the New PRESIDENT !!
Susan| 5.16.11 @ 8:01AM
Not dissuaded. Romney is sensible and not irrational as I see those trying their hardest to present "truth" in this article appear to be. Romney 2012 works for me.
Nunya| 5.16.11 @ 12:39PM
I can't vote for someone who is so obviously disingenuous as Romney. His statements show that he has no core values that he won't sway from, even if it means that he won't win. It's OK for me, but not for thee--Romneycare v. Obamacare. Sorry, to me that shows a lack of conviction--either it's good, or its not. If Obamacare was popular, my guess is he'd be fully behind it.
Larry| 5.16.11 @ 4:12PM
It may work for YOU, Susan my dear, but Romney stands a snowball's chance in Hades of being elected with the current position he takes on health care. Most people would say, why should I go with Romney when he would do away nationally with the same thing Obama did for the country? Federalism is NOT the correct answer; a bad idea is a bad idea, no matter whether it is a state or the federal government that does it.
We need a REAL alternative to Obama, not another empty suit.
Have you considered| 5.16.11 @ 8:11AM
I happen to agree with Romney on the federalist concept.
That however does not excuse his total ignorance in believing that Romneycare would reduce costs, emergency room use, etc..
I could not vote for someone who lacks the ability to understand basic economics and human behavior.
I would point out that All of these health care proposals are in response to a problem created by the government. When you pass a law that says no one can be denied care, whether they can pay for it or not, we were all conscripted, and put on this slippery slope to bankruptcy.
Like it or not, this is the crux of the entire matter.
Pecos Pete| 5.16.11 @ 9:06AM
"When you pass a law that says no one can be denied care, whether they can pay for it or not, we were all conscripted, and put on this slippery slope to bankruptcy."
Exactly. Well said.
Intelligent Design| 5.16.11 @ 8:19AM
So I guess Romney would agree that the federal government has no right to force citizens to buy a product, but he thinks individual states have that power. How totally absurd, this Romney guy. A citizen might have to flee from state to state to avoid buying things deemed essential. Perhaps the state of MA should require all of its citizens to take a certain drug deemed essential by the state Politburo. California might have 6 or 7 mandatory drugs, and a very long list of "must" products. Idiocy.
Longplay| 5.16.11 @ 8:27AM
@Zbigniew: ... and it's not just that, it's that his plan didn't work! It's a dramatic failure in both economic and healthcare terms - and he won't admit it. If elected, what other well-intentioned failures will he engineer?
Nunya| 5.16.11 @ 12:40PM
Exactly.
Louis Jenkins| 5.16.11 @ 8:37AM
Romney's only support is coming from MSN. I find it very hard to believe that Conservatives would even think of nominating him. RINOs on the other hand may be comfortable with the notion. Suffice to say, if Kennedy supported Taxchusettus care then its dead wrong.
notvanilla| 5.16.11 @ 8:45AM
Intelligent Stupid Speak at it's best! I do not trust this guy - at all. RomneyCare is losing money hand over fist, yet he says it is the right thing to do. What a lame brain idiot. I did not trust him last time and for sure will not this time.
Sam Vaughn| 5.16.11 @ 9:14AM
Romney is not a conservative. In fact, most Northeastern Republicans have nothing in common with conservatives and Republicans elsewhere. Politicians of all stripes in the NE talk a good game but are the most class-conscious snobs I've ever had the displeasure of knowing.
Steve A| 5.16.11 @ 9:40AM
By taking this position, Romney has clearly demonstrated that he is not the man for the job. Just another Big Government disciple in GOP clothing.
Paul| 5.16.11 @ 9:59AM
You Romey haters are not true conservatives. If you were, you would recognize that Mitt Romney is our best chance at defeating Obama in 2012. You talk of him as though he were finished, as he continues to lead the polls among potential GOP candidates, and continues to be the ONLY candidate that polls well against Obama head to head. But, even though you are all so intelligent, and so concerned about America's future, you manage to display the insanity of acting in Obama's favor. So, you will soldier on, clinging to the principles of ignorance and bigotry, ignoring the facts, lying about Mitt supposedly raising state taxes and constructing an Obama-esque public insurance option (both completely untrue, and you are without excuse for these distortions), and, if you can, hand the 2012 election to Obama and his band of radical marxists.
Yes, what a marvelous group of conservatives you are. I for one, am disgusted with the Spectator, which is the entity that is actually moving toward irrelevance. I say this because I am confident that Governor Romney will continue to be the front runner, and will eventually defeat Obama, in spite of all the hate and distortions spewed here.
Doctor Right| 5.16.11 @ 10:20AM
"You [insert RINO Shmuck's name] haters are not true conservatives. If you were, you would recognize that [RINO Shmuck] is our best chance at defeating [Liberal Jack-Off] in 2012."
Now WHERE have I heard this before???
Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:30PM
Myself, I'm "living in the Wild Wild West," myself. I signed his draft petition (google draft Allen West 2012). Did you?
Steve A| 5.16.11 @ 12:08PM
Hey Paul, this is the same trash we heard about another fraud conservative 4 years ago (McCain). So, you can just save it pal. Nobody here is buying.
The Bruce| 5.16.11 @ 11:43PM
Paul, so I'm not a true conservative because I can't get behind a RINO (at best), that changes positions frequently, yet defends the one thing that been a abject failure in his home state?
What's the point of beating Obama if the alternative is hardly better?
C Smith| 5.16.11 @ 10:28AM
“Rigdon… made a new translation of the Bible, in which prophecies of the coming of Joseph Smith and the nature of The Book of Mormon are inserted in the 50th chapter of Genesis and the 20th chapter of Isaiah respectively…. the church was “persecuted”… on the 25th of March 1832 Smith and Rigdon were tarred and feathered at Hiram….In 1836 the Kirtland Safety Society Bank was organized (in accordance with a “revelation” to Smith)…. In March 1837 Rigdon and Smith, the secretary and treasurer, were charged with violating the state law against unchartered banks, and they were convicted in October…. In November the “bank” suspended payments and… Smith and Rigdon left the state for Missouri…. [After a] determined attempt to depose Smith… there was organized… a band… bound to secrecy under penalty of death, and formed to punish all who opposed the Church and its supreme head. Numerous crimes and outrages were attributed to them…. On the 4th of July 1838 Rigdon preached his “salt sermon” … urging his hearers to wage “a war of extermination” on those who disturbed them…. and necessitated the calling out of the state militia…. Smith and Rigdon with others were arrested and imprisoned on a charge of treason, murder, and felony… In 1842 Smith was charged with instigating and attempt… to assassinate ex-Governor L. W. Boggs of Missouri…. There seems to have been no secret about Smith’s cohabiting with other women…. he had a revelation expressly establishing and approving polygamy.” (The Encyclopedia Britannica, Thirteenth Edition, London, vol. 18, pp. 843-844, 1926)
http://popularapostasy.blogspo.....thers.html
Todd S| 5.16.11 @ 8:10PM
Take your anti-Mormon trash elsewhere, nothing to do with the subject at hand. I can come up with anti-Catholic stuff 100 times worse which is actually based on fact, get lost troll.
Chuck| 5.16.11 @ 11:12AM
A picture is "worth a 1000 words." Romney and Ted together speaks volumes.
cicero| 5.16.11 @ 11:24AM
About all these government health care plans - why is it that Medicare is the primary payee, even when th person has private coverage? At the time you sign up for soc. sec., you are mandated to sign up for Medicare. If you have private health insurance, your private carrier then becomes the secondary source of payment. However, your private care premium does not go down. Reverse that, and the medicare crisis goes away.
As far as mandating that all citizens have health care coveerage, there would be no problem if those who refuse to obtain private coverage (if they can afford it) were made to pay for their own care. The problem comes in when we set the level at which you pay your own kicks in. This is not rocket science.
Debt expands to meet the money allotted to it. The more money government allocates for health care, the more expensive health care will be. Give the market a chance to work. We might be surprised.
Oldefarte| 5.16.11 @ 11:35AM
This ["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."] is the entire/central issue of this subject, and his liberal argument is mostly false. Sure, someone has to pay, but that someone should either be the grantor of the medical care's expanse of the receiver of same. If the patient cannot pay, and yet the medical provider still grants its service which has to be eventually paid for, then same medical provider/hospital/physician should therefore become responsible for payment of this expense. It's the old saying about the Chinese laundry's owner conversing with a prospective customer bearing clothes to be dry-cleaned.....NO TICKEY, NO WASHEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Peppermint Tea| 5.16.11 @ 12:41PM
If Romney was truly a lover of liberty, he could have suggested Massachusetts de-regulate healthcare, by such measures as permitting more nurse practitioners, physician-assistants, and nurse-midwives; removing restrictions on insurance companies, and allowing extra-state competition. Let consumers choose. The Libertarian approach is not designed to find the ideal solution—in fact, a Libertarian would argue that we can’t even know what that is in advance. Only the free marketplace can solve this diverse problem.
To get the albatross off his neck, Romney needs to apologize for Romney-care. He might explain that MA was in a tight spot and he was brainwashed into going along but since then he has come to realize the American people want freedom before healthcare.
That would not be authentic, but, hay, this is politics.
Joe Oliva| 5.16.11 @ 2:18PM
The proper solution to recoup the costs of those who take the medical services of a hospital but refuse to pay is called - Garnishment. Hospitals simply need the authority to garnish the salary of anyone who doesn't pay. Most folks work so getting the money back is very likely.
Oldefarte| 5.16.11 @ 4:23PM
JO: I'll go you one better than that. If say an emergency room patient can't pay up front with a credit card etc, then the hospital/physicians sould refuse to treat that patient, period. This business of transfer the medical cost/expense to other patients of that hospital WITH medical insurance should be termned FRAUD!!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 5.16.11 @ 6:31PM
EMTALA does suck, indeed.
Tex Expatriate| 5.16.11 @ 3:23PM
Romney's statist support for a tyrannical law in Massachusetts is just one of the reasons he is unelectable to the presidency. His Mormanism is another. While his religion doesn't bother me personally, it troubles a great many others who vote Republican. Another reason, shared by all other candidates except Herman Cain, is his failure to attack the socialist Democrats.
Len| 5.16.11 @ 4:31PM
No, Herman Cain just supports the bankers and doesn't understand the US constitution does not allow for the congress to re-delegate it's responsibilities to private entities such as the fed, nor that the congress does not have authority to interfere in the market by granting monopoly privileges in any industry including money and banking.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wI_oocjB3A8
Not to mention Cain made statements in support of TARP, and in the debate made no substantive or direct answers.
Larry| 5.16.11 @ 4:54PM
I wonder: has anybody done a study of whether states mandating people to buy auto insurance has really solved the problem that gave rise to that policy? Because the auto insurance market is and has been far more competitive than the health insurance market, and auto repair and insurance prices have nowhere near skyrocketed in the way that health care and insurance prices have. I suspect this is because the reasons for mandating auto insurance are quite different from those mandating health insurance. And because the insurance/risk analysis in the health care field is far, far different than in the auto insurance business.
Nevertheless, there are some significant logical distinctions supporting the policy of mandating auto insurance as opposed to mandating health insurance.
First, you carry auto insurance more because of the things that others can do to you, or that you can do to others, by driving an automobile, than the things that you do to yourself.
On the other hand, poor health is far more often something that can happen to you without the actions of others, or even yourself. Should you be forced to buy health insurance simply because of something that happens to you independent of your actions or the actions of others if you don't want it? Or that happens to one of your immediate family members that you are willing to accept responsibility for? If you truly accept responsibility for your own health, one can see why an individual mandate would be anathema.
Second, from the standpoint of the legal arguments only, it IS important to understand that there are real distinctions between the activity of states exercising state power by enacting individual mandates, however distasteful or wrong-headed any mandate would be, and the federal government exercising purported powers by enacting a mandate. The fundamental distinction is the principle that the Federal government is, and should be, a government only of enumerated powers. Even more importantly, the Founding Fathers intended the term "regulate interstate commerce" to have a definite and limited meaning upon Congress. We may argue what that limit is, but if the U.S. Supreme Court holds that federal health insurance individual mandates are constitutional, one must wonder whether any limit now actually exists.
Some state constitutions may grant broader powers than one would have even imagined were possible with the Federal government, but the Federal government has its powers, and the States have theirs - with State powers being limited by what the Constitution says about Federal/State conflicts, or by reservation of exclusive authority in the Federal government. At least that was the point of view at one time in this country, if it is not now (and I think it is not, at this time, unfortunately).
Therefore, if you believe in a government of limited powers and in a true Federal system in which states may have some more leeway than the Federal government to operate in certain areas of life, then it is possible, and not inconsistent, to view a Federal health insurance mandate as unconstitutional.
Bob K.| 5.17.11 @ 2:29AM
You have to own a car (or truck et al) and have the need to drive it before you are required to buy the insurance. It applies only to this particular class of people engaged in this particular activity so it's risks can be managed and the state can enforce it.
In our attempts to manage all parts of society, this is one segment that can be managed because we have selected it and agreed to it. It is possible this way to manage small parts of society in their actions in small selected segments of it.
It is not possible to manage ALL of society in it's actions in selected segments of it without making non-obeyance criminal such as in the Crimes Codes and the enforcing of it by police powers. If a large part of the people disagree with it for whatever reason it cannot be enforced. This is why socialism cannot work. Eventually too many people will no longer believe in it and it will collapse like it did in Russia.
Dee See| 5.17.11 @ 12:23AM
---Great piece!
BTW, speaking of EUGENICS --uh, we meant
'health care' check out Webster Tarpley's new
video on the subject, just out.
Special focus not only on the Rothchild/Rhodes/Milner/RIIA ---
Rockefeller legacy with Cold Springs 'research' and the
Kaiser Wilhelm Institute (pre-Nazi!) ---but, more up to date, White House science Czar John Holdren's
book 'ECO-SCIENCE' --a several hundred
page cookbook and blueprint for MASSIVE
extermination.
Other recent sidelights is the now ON RECORD
FACT that 'fave' Eleanor Roosevelt 'behaviorist'
(ie EUGENIST) Nickolai Pavlov wasn't just
electro-shocking and torturing stray dogs for
his 'research' ---but inmates and orphans as well.
AS our own Globalist RED China eco-TREASON
op finishes off ---and as virtually our entire
medical and think tank establishment (ie research and actuarial whorehouses operating TAX FREE)
is under the direction of third generation EUGENISTS (think Bill Gates for starters)
----YOU'D REALLY BETTER TAKE A LOOK.
REALLY
-------------------REALLY
--------------------------------------REALLY
John B| 5.17.11 @ 7:15PM
We simply must defeat Romney in the primaries. We need to begin to gather around any SINGLE viable alternative. Daniels, Bachmann, Pawlenty would each suffice.
Inform| 5.18.11 @ 2:21AM
Did the author actually bother to read Romney's book, "No Apologies?"
Check it out on Amazon - 100+ reviews, 4.5 out of 5 rating by conservatives who actually read up, rather than write narrow-angle hit pieces -
http://www.amazon.com/No-Apolo.....ewpoints=1
I've read it and consider it valuable insight into a man who not only seems to have the street creds to work with Paul Ryan and other conservatives to pull us out of the progressive social, political and economic craphole, but will pull no punches when dealing with Russia, China and the Mideast.
He reminds me a litte of Reagan; he of the really nice smile.... and the iron teeth.
Moreover, anyone actually delve into "bluer than blue" Massachusetts' unique healthcare situation at the time?
Take a look:
http://www.patheos.com/Resourc.....et=0&max=1
Myself, I not only consider Mitt Romney presidential, but packing serious business credentials to boot.
What a concept - a well rounded leader with business acumen who balanced Massachusetts' budget, instead of us electing yet another smoothmouth born of the gov pol.
Lastly, I find it passing strange that Pawlenty, suckered in by Cap and Tax, gets a pass just because he says "It was a dumb mistake. I'm sorry."
I worry if he got suckered on that, what can I expect when he has to negotiate with the Democrats, Putin, the NKo's, the Irani Boy Band and the Chinese A Team?
At least Romney had the guts to say what he meant: I could say I made a mistake, but _that wouldn't be honest._
It would have been so easy for Romney to fall on his sword, do the mea culpa thing, and be a big hit. He didn't. And to me, that says something about the character of the man I read about in the book...
By the way, the above was not written to convince you, not much chance of that, but to make you think.
Do your own reading on all the candidates - then you can weigh each person's strengths and weaknesses, record and writings and make an informed decision.
For me, I'm for Mitt, but only the tincture of time will tell... I'll wait to see what time, pseudo-debates and the October Surprise Dipstick Press will bring...
Thank you for reading this far.