-
Indefatigable
October 1, 2012 | 10 comments
-
Hugo Boss
June 22, 2010 | 30 comments
-
What Has Changed?
November 20, 2009 | 70 comments
-
The Bigger Picture
November 10, 2009 | 8 comments
-
Elections Have Consequences
October 30, 2009 | 161 comments
Another Perspective
Obamacare vs. Romneycare — A Crucial Difference
There are conservative reasons why Romneycare was backed by conservatives.
As the Maine primary and CPAC straw poll have again pushed Mitt Romney into the front of the pack, Rick Santorum continues to focus on Romneycare and its apparent similarities to Obamacare, as he and Newt Gingrich promised to do after Romney’s win in Florida.
But are the similarities all that Governor Romney’s opponents portend?
I don’t love Romneycare but it is worth noting a few things about it before the real battle begins in earnest — again. Former statements from Obama on healthcare demonstrate that the two healthcare plans, while similar in some ways, present vast differences in the essential origins and motives that separate Barack Obama and Mitt Romney from their infamous healthcare plans.
First of all, when Romney took on the uninsured in Massachusetts, working with both parties in Boston, he did so with the blessing of the Heritage Foundation. The idea was, essentially, people who were getting a free ride with respect to their healthcare would now have to pay. No more getting healthcare for free. This time you had to pony up some cash or buy insurance from a private carrier. The Heritage Foundation, a longstanding bastion of Conservatism, thought it bold, conservative thinking as they helped to craft its design.
From a Heritage Foundation article on Romney’s plan in 2006:
… to allow people to go without health insurance, and then when they do fall ill expect someone else to pay the tab for their treatment is a de facto mandate on providers and taxpayers. Romney proposes to take that option off the table, leaving only two choices: Either buy insurance or pay for your own care. Not an unreasonable position, and one that is clearly consistent with conservative values.
Like it or don’t like it, this idea, currently known as Romneycare, was the brainchild of Conservatism. Of personal responsibility. In 2006, long before Barack Obama had even thrown his hat into the presidential ring, the Massachusetts answer was “clearly consistent with conservative values” in its requiring recipients of healthcare to pay for a service that they would otherwise have received for free — rather, on the backs of Massachusetts taxpayers. Newt Gingrich supported its “tremendous potential” and “real solutions” — Gingrinchian praise for ”creating a sustainable health system” in Massachusetts.
But that is not the most significant aspect of this Romneycare vs. Obamacare battle: Newt’s praise and Conservative origins.
The most significant aspect of this war of words stems from a common logical fallacy known as post hoc ergo propter hoc, which suggests that if event O follows event R, event R must have caused event O. In the present case, event R would be Romneycare and event O would be Obamacare. Romneycare, they say, brought about Obamacare. Or, said another way, Obamacare came from Romneycare (first fallacy), so it must be just like Romneycare (second fallacy).
Before we get too lost in the weeds, it might be interesting to see what Romney’s and Obama’s original goals were.
As stated by Romney back then, “you will be free to choose but your choices will have consequences.” Buy insurance or pay for your healthcare. Romney’s goal was finite and simple: to require the few who were sapping the Massachusetts’ taxpayers to ultimately pay for healthcare either by paying the state or by paying an insurance provider. These people who had no health insurance — fewer than 10% in Massachusetts — would now have to contribute if they wanted healthcare. That was it. Insurance companies were not nationalized. Massachusetts did not become the default healthcare provider in that state. It is not what I would have done, but it was seen as bold and it was the kind of “outside the box” thinking that many from both Parties admired. Newt included.
So, back to the goals or the intentions of Obama and Romney. We know what Romney’s goal was. His goal was to involve the private sector of Massachusetts in insuring a small percentage of the Massachusetts’ healthcare pie.
Obama’s goal prior to signing Obamacare into law was much, much bigger.
In 2003, he said, ”I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan.” From that speech:
I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we’ve got to take back the White House, we’ve got to take back the Senate, and we’ve got to take back the House.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (98) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert P. Kirchhoefer
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/02/15/obamacare-vs-romneycare-a-cruc
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Eugenic Abortion 2.0
- Public Nuisances
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
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
Doctor Right| 2.15.12 @ 7:03AM
Maine? CPAC?
Please....
I was at CPAC 2009. Romney won that one, too. Ron Paul has won the CPAC straw poll, too...more than once. But so far, he hasn't won a single primary.
CPAC is regularly filled with activists. In past years, Paul-Bots packed the convention on the day of the straw-poll to inflate their Dear Leader's actual support. This year, the GOP-establishment sent their own minions across town to stuff the ballot-box for their guy, Mitt.
The CPAC poll is unscientific and ultimately meaningless.
As is the assertion that because Romney has won another northeastern, blue-state primary that he's somehow "back on top."
Tea Party voters do NOT want Romney, and I'm increasingly convinced he won't be the nominee.
Vern Crisler| 2.15.12 @ 9:27AM
Dittos, Doctor Right.....
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.15.12 @ 9:45AM
If it Quacks like a Single Payer, Government Run, Health Care Duck..............................
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 10:34AM
" As Rachel Maddow explains in this report, the Ron Paul strategy is to let the caucus results fall where they may, and then ensure Ron Paul delegates are elected to the convention. Because these caucus results are non-binding, it ensures that the votes matter less than the delegates sent to the convention. And right now, the Iowa, Minnesota, and likely Maine delegates will be attending not for Mitt Romney, but Ron Paul. Not for Gingrich or Santorum, but Ron Paul.
The strategy is pretty simple and not secret, as explained by Ron Paul strategist Doug Wead:
WEAD: I watch television and I see them saying Romney has this many delegates and Santorum this many, and as you know, not a single delegate has been awarded from Iowa or Minnesota or Missouri or Colorado or Nevada, and as you point out, we're tracking this at the precinct level, we think we have the majority of them, we think we've won in Iowa, we won in Minnesota, we won in Colorado, and Missouri is yet to be seen. And we think we probably won in Nevada, because we're counting the precinct votes. The only thing that I might add there is nothing wrong or deceptive about this, anybody can stay. Woody Allen says 80% of success is showing up. Our people show up. and they have a right to do that, and they are committed, and so they are running as delegates at the precinct level to the county convention where they will again run as delegates from the county convention to the state convention."
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Doctor Right| 2.15.12 @ 10:48AM
You have a rich fantasy life.
So, apparently, does Ron Paul.
Mike Hawk| 2.15.12 @ 1:11PM
He has a new high tech tinfoil hat to keep in touch with Paulbot control.
Drunken Sailor| 2.15.12 @ 2:14PM
Nice, I just pictured Clint sitting in his basement with a metal colander with wires sticking out sitting on his head typing away furiously (with one hand of course).
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:12PM
I Picture The Drunk, Boring The Hell Out Of The Bartender & Patrons & Gettin' The Bums Rush Finally, By The Bouncer.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:15PM
Hawk Touches Bibi's Mike.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:11PM
You Don't Have A Life, RINO-CINO Dr.Reich.
You're The Guy Who Said He'd Vote For the RINO-CINO Frontman, Mittens Romney.
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 3:47PM
Actually the credibility of the Maine results are dubious at best, and potentially shows that Romney is willing to resort to disenfranchising voters of their right to vote enmass in a manner that plays right into the Democrat narrative of Republicans.
Chuck| 2.15.12 @ 7:04AM
Romneycare failed and Obamacare will fail and that's the crucial similarity.
Lucy in the sky| 2.15.12 @ 7:43AM
Very good article by Mr.Kirchhoffer. A good remedy to the mass hysteria about RomneyCare.
Oh, my God, RomneyCare is just like ObamaCare..
What shall we do? Oh, let's re-elect Obama....
Morons.
Dai Alanye | 2.15.12 @ 9:23AM
"...vast differences in the essential origins and motives"
At this point no thoughtful person cares whether the original intentions were "good" or even "conservative." Romneycare has not worked well, and does restrict individual freedom. Additionally, it did lead to -- or at least encourage -- the development of Obamacare.
The primary reason poor Mitt is being attacked over Romneycare is that he stubbornly refuses to acknowledge the foregoing facts. Had he said, way back when, "It seemed like a good idea at the time," he'd have no difficulties now. But apparently his ego is tightly engaged with his faulty insurance plan.
The defense of Romneycare is simply another example of Mitt's poor judgment and tin ear.
TrueBlue | 2.15.12 @ 3:04PM
The road to hell...
My big issue with Romney's healthcare bill is that originally written it may have been a good idea. However once the legislature got ahold of it they made changes that were NOT good ideas. And that is the problem with any system the government creates. It may seem like a good idea at first, it may even be written to work as originally intended, but all it takes is another group down the line to vote in changes and it goes from being a good idea to a government controlled fiasco.
THAT is the problem with Romneycare that led to Obamacare. If somehow they wrote it to be an Amendment, one that didn't force people to carry a certain type of insurance so long as it covered BASIC healthcare needs, then it might work. But forcing employers to pay for insurance for their employees is bull, if a company wants to do so they can, but they should not be FORCED. If a person wants insurance that covers birth control, then they can pay for it, but they should not be FORCED to buy health insurance that covers this long list of items from the federal government that the person may not want.
I can fully understand wanting to make sure nobody gets a free ride, but if they REALLY wanted to fix it they would leave it to the hospitals to determine how to pay for those people. There are several ways to deal with this.
1) The hospital can work out a payment plan with the uninsured person to make sure they get their money, though it may cost the patient more than normal to allow for the fact it will take longer to get complete payment. Make it a signed contract, so they can send it to collections if needed.
2) Give the person contact information for various charities that help uninsured pay for procedures. This can be done in conjunction with number 1, and could be the hospital itself.
3) Don't treat the person. This is the least likely since most medical professionals (at least that I've met) are softies and not cold-hearted people like me. But let's face it, if a person can't pay for insurance and can't afford the procedures, just don't treat them. Someone has to pay, but guess what forcing taxpayers to pay for the uninsured is... unreasonable seizure of private property (ie someone else's money). The 5th Amendment protects people against taking of property for public use. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Last I checked the government isn't paying people back for the money they are taking to pay for someone else's bad habits (or bad luck).
Yes, I know the aprivate property line is generally considered only applicable to land, but think about it. Is your money not also your property? It's yours, you worked for it, you own it, just like anything else in your home that you buy with it. YOUR money is YOUR property, and the government is seizing it for public use to pay for hospital bills for the uninsured.
JayDick| 2.15.12 @ 4:34PM
Good post, very thoughtful. I would add that debts for medical treatment would not be dischargable through bankruptcy. The bleeding hearts will say we shouldn't put someone in bankruptcy because of medical problems. I say it is an important lesson that can be learned only by seeing it operate. Maybe then people would be more inclined to get insurance. Of course, the system would have to be designed so that everyone who wants insurance can get it, especially young adults.
R| 2.16.12 @ 12:39PM
Sure lets elect another idiot that can't see the difference. This whole paper is pure propaganda for Romney.
P. Aaron| 2.15.12 @ 2:07PM
They are both bad ideas because once enacted, they invite the abuse of revision by future legislators.
John - TMF| 2.15.12 @ 7:05AM
Please knock it off. RomneyCare and ObamaCare are virtually the same thing, and the individual mandate is only a portion of the abominations that both legislative messes are. No government at any level should be dealing with healthcare.
I very much suspect that the "real truth" is rather simple. The individual mandate was cooked up by the insurance industry as an industry wide bribe for mandatory per-existing condition coverage. Sort of a neat fascistic bargain if ever I have seen one. Lies and phony demands plus lots of money in campaign contributions equals government doing business.
The insurance industry lied to get access to all of that lovely free money that it would get from all of those young and self-insured people who were now forced to purchase premium health plans that they don't use.
Nice stuff if you can get your fingers into the pie. The lie is that the mandate was a requirement of coverage, financially. The truth is that the industry already covers per-existing conditions. They use the "group" excuse as a dodge, like groups are magic and somehow corporate level pools of money don't count... wait that a government thing again...
The insurance industry is becoming increasingly predatory, and using its vast amounts of money to manipulate government into forcing its market. Just look at MediCare. The insurance industry got the government to subsidize medical care for a "group" that is the most expensive to cover, and eventually mostly offloaded those liabilities on the government.
Now the industry is playing a double game with ObamaCare and the government to fix markets, allow for blame shifting on coverage control (I didn't deny you your kidney transplant... the big bad government did..).
The upshot that the industry is offloading the liabilities on the government and keeping the low cost revenue flows for itself. Lots of advertising dollars there.
The answer of course is to scrap all mandatory insurance at every level. Go to a free market solution of simple fee based, transparently priced medical services. People should be given the opportunity to purchase insurance that meets their needs, including Medical Savings Accounts and catastrophic hospitalization insurance.
There would be nothing better to do to reduce costs than a good old 80/20 plan. If the government wants to help pay with vouchers and individual tax exemptions then that is fine.
But the government should not be in the business of insurance, and insurance should not be in the business of government.
The solution is to totally scrap a very bad system - socialized medicine of any flavor - and go back to truly "individual responsibility".
Back when Heritage was cooking up this crock of er um... poop... I was sure that it was just a typical establishment half-surrender to the welfare state. They are now paying for that trip on Socialist Acid.
r/TMF
Doctor Right| 2.15.12 @ 7:18AM
Nicely done!!!
W| 2.15.12 @ 8:06AM
What do you do with the people who do not have health insurance? The poor qualify for Medicaid, the old and disabled for Medicare, injuries at work with Workers Comp, auto accidents you have auto insurance, and so on. But there are people who simply refuse to buy any health insurance. And anyone who shows up at an emergency room must be treated as per federal law. Doctors and hospitals routinely write off uninsured accounts or give them a discount.
Instead of mandates, how about a government clinic, like the VA hospitals, to treat the uninsured? If it is good enough for our vets why not for the uninsured?
JJ| 2.15.12 @ 8:54AM
Being uninsured does not mean you are not obligated to pay for you medical care. This is a lie that continues to get spread. Just ask those uninsured who have lost their homes to hospitals.
Jack London| 2.15.12 @ 12:43PM
Shhhh - conservatives deny this is possible. Please don't wake them up - they need their ignorance to be conservatives.
Tim the Enchanter| 2.15.12 @ 1:18PM
Pssst! Jack- your idiocy is showing!
W| 2.15.12 @ 1:14PM
Did not say the uninsured do not have to pay. Having to pay and actually paying is the problem; as you know they do not pay.
squalis| 2.15.12 @ 10:19AM
I can tell you the VA health care system is not always good enough for our vets.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.15.12 @ 10:29AM
And I can tell you that, unless you're making LESS than $33,000, you don't get any VA.
Here, this MFer wants to give FREE EVERYTHING, if you're a Slut Whore, who never saw a Chair, or a Pool Table, that she didn't wanna be Bent Over, while I can't get VA MEDICAL, as a U.S. VET, because my wife and I make more than $33,000.
Now, you tell me, this POS/MFer, and his Fat Ass/Fat Mouth Wife, aren't a coupla F-ing SCUMBAGS.
Everything for the FREAKS!
NOTHING for the VETS.
W| 2.15.12 @ 10:37AM
Did not mean that it was "good good" for our vets, but only that the government thinks it is good enough so why not provide clinics for uninsured rather than a massive Obamacare?
Our local VA improved dramatically after 9/11.
Timothy L. Pennell| 2.15.12 @ 4:17PM
I wasn't attacking you. I was just venting on this Muslim C*cks*cker.
My apologies.
W| 2.16.12 @ 7:10AM
No problem, did not take it as attack, I should have been more clear.
flyovermark| 2.15.12 @ 10:48AM
Personally, I have always thought that if the government sees a compelling reason to insert itself into the "problem" of the "uninsured", then it should consider an altogether different approach; that of holding those who refuse to pay their medical bills responsible for their own debts. A federal program might take the form of an automatic federally guarranteed "emergency medical loan" for anyone unable to pay for their medical bill. The individual would get medical care, the medical provider would get paid, the cost would not be redistributed through health insurance, the government would own the debt, and the IRS could collect it, no matter how long it takes, from the individual who owes it.
We all know that there is no better a collection agency than the IRS.
W| 2.15.12 @ 8:34AM
The "problem" of health insurance was caused by the government.
During WWII FDR imposed wage controls on labor union contracts. Some smart union lawyers then negotiated health insurance coverage which was not considered a wage to get around the wage controls. So health insurance became a standard benefit in the union contracts, and then non union employers, and public employers followed the pattern.
The result is we have several generations of people who now believe the employer must provide health insurance as a benefit. If you ask anyone why don't you purchase your own health insurance, like you buy auto and home insurance, you get an blank look. It is expensive, but it would have been less expensive if we purchaed it ourselves, shopped around for the best plans with deductibles, and there would have been more competition.
Also the consumer would have been more careful in choosing medical providers for the costs as they do with all service providers.
Von Mises Jr.| 2.15.12 @ 9:28AM
Kudo's, John-TMF. The author, a lawyer with rudimentary training in logic, apparently knows nothing about economics. One classic fallacy here is Bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen." You correctly point out that the plan shifts premiums from the young and healthy to the poor and sick. The other mechanics are that when I sold to hospitals as a sales executive, indigent care was absorbed by paying customers. So did MA need a government boondoggle to shift premiums from young and those capable of paying to poor that could not pay when it was already being accomplished?????
Bart| 2.15.12 @ 1:32PM
ok john, stop the conspiracythink for a few minutes and deal with the facts. the fact is, those of us paying for insurance are subsidizing those who don't, both by the taxes and the premiums that we pay. insurance companies are charging more because of those same losses that they incur when people do not pay their bills. now granted, insurance companies are probably only exceeded by oil companies in their profit margin but let's just stick with the current business model for simplicity sake.
additionally, uninsured skew the statistics from an actuarial perspective, making it difficult to properly charge premiums.
finally, it is much cheaper to pay for a check up every six months than it is to treat an advanced medical crisis.
funny thing about all that is, no matter what the so-called original intent, the end result is that people are generally more healthy, insurance premiums normalize at a fair rate, and there is one less thing for people to bicker unreasonably about.
Seek| 2.15.12 @ 2:50PM
The Heritage Foundation has been pushing one individual-mandate proposal or another since the late-1980s. The question is why? Is it that its top brass, beginning with Ed Feulner, are starved for attention?
Doctor Right| 2.15.12 @ 7:09AM
...And let me add the following, please.
There's nothing Conservative about forcing people to buy healthcare, or anything else for that matter. And if Romney's strategy is to cherry-pick the minute details that separate RomneyCare from ObamaCare, that's pretty stupid. The architects of ObamaCare worked on RomneyCare. Spin that one, Mitt.
Two more things work against Romney:
1. TARP
2. Cap-n-Trade
These 3 things will be off-the-table if Romney is the nominee.
Elias| 2.15.12 @ 10:37AM
Doc, may I also add that Bob lost credibility on this piece when he harped on the conservative Heritage Foundation supporting the individual mandate, and then conveniently omitted the fact that Heritage later recanted (as Ronald Reagan said, "I think anew.."), and has since been steadfastly AGAINST the individual mandate. Bob sounds like what Ann Coulter has become - disingenuous and misleading, but without the wit.
(Filling in for Jack in Wi)| 2.15.12 @ 7:15AM
Ron Paul or ruin.
It's Israel's fault.
Neocon warmongers.
Global Jewish banking conspiracy.
POST American| 2.15.12 @ 7:18AM
---Just days after Whitney Houston's
death from Big Pharma ---
Remember kiddies, the term 'kiddies'
was introduced by the capstone EUGENICS
OP back in the 50's --to give a little cutsy
catagorical degradation to children.
The 50s ALSO saw the rampant promotion
of the engineered term ---'teenager'
and the concept of 'dating' ---vs courting.
BTW --'SUB-Mitt ROME-knee' like
the probable Averell Harriman stealth
clone-- 'Bah' ---'Bah'---- 'BAR-Rockefeller'
Obama ---is a fully vetted, totally 'on board'
proponent of the capstone EUGENICS
age-enda that is --Obama-RomneyCARE--.
The CFR Globalist RED China handover,
world TREASON and FINAL EUGENICS OP
-----------------remains supreme------------------.
------------------BE NOT DECEIVED-------------------
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:21AM
Alex Jones And Michael Scheur Have Documentation Proving That Ron Paul Has Actually Won Every Single Primary And That The Neocons And Their Pro Israel Allies In The Media Are Suppressing The Results.
The Tea Party Rebellion Is Revolting.
Indy| 2.15.12 @ 8:14AM
Why doesn't Ron Paul go after Romney in the debates or with ads? Hmmm, must be a reason.
Alex Jones, really?
JJ| 2.15.12 @ 8:55AM
Just was Survivor. Obviously Paul and Romney have an alliance.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 10:47AM
Obviously, Little Israel Firster Smear Bund Poseur Punk Ass Poster Coward, Ya Ain't Man Enough To Post Under Your Own Name.
You're Scared Of The Tea Party Rebellion And Dr.Ron Paul.
Boo !
Fred Farkel| 2.15.12 @ 10:50AM
Romney Paul, that's the ticket. Get on board now. Free tinfoil hats for all.
Indy| 2.15.12 @ 10:56AM
Your post is ridiculous, seriously why doesn't Ron Paul go after Romney? You don't answer questions, instead you pull your cut and paste stunt, it's old. Add something to the discussion, why won't RP attack Romney? RP has admitted he is not likely to win the nominee. Me scared of the Tea Party, how funny, will you ever realize not all in the Tea Party movement support RP. I for one am focused on the senate / house because I cannot support any of the GOP candidates, I will vote against BO but I will not give my time to work on campaigns, I can only give that time to those I support.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:28PM
Do Your Homework Crybaby.
youtube.com/watch?v=6Hvuru-Slls
The Tea Party Rebellion Heads To A Brokered Convention.
Indy| 2.15.12 @ 8:40PM
Clint,
Way to support your candidate, you insult anyone who disagrees with you. When I asked a reasonable question you provide a link to a 12 minute video that does not contain "I'm Ron Paul and I approve this message" This is a support group for him, not his campaign.
Ron Paul is not airing ads against Mitt Romney, he does not go after him in debates, he's Mitt's attack dog against all other candidates.
In the end, I think many Ron Paul supporters will be disappointed to learn RP has an alliance with Romney, maybe he doesn't but it sure looks that way, he's collecting delegates for leverage.
I find many RP supporters no different than Leftists, they cannot recognize any flaw in their candidate. Honest people admit flaws in candidates. I support much of RP's platform, but the 20% that I disagree with is a show stopper.
Do you seriously believe RP supports your actions to insult anyone who does not agree with him 100%? You don't win him any voters with your attacks.
Lastly, not one of the veterans in my family support him and no that does not make us neocons. We don't agree with all US military actions, go ahead with your nasty insults but that is not the way of the Tea Party members in my circle of conservatives and it won't win over voters.
Mike Hawk| 2.15.12 @ 9:18AM
What, Clint?? I see you have a new high tech tinfoil hat. Is it free to all Paulbots??
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 10:48AM
Obviously, Little Israel Firster Smear Bund Poseur Punk Ass Poster Coward, Ya Ain't Man Enough To Post Under Your Own Name.
You're Scared Of The Tea Party Rebellion And Dr.Ron Paul.
Boo !
Fred Farkel| 2.15.12 @ 10:50AM
What is your real name Islamist Firster.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:22PM
What Is Your Problem, Asshat Buffoon, Farkel.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:17PM
Talk Into Bibi's Mike, Hawk.
Dai Alanye | 2.15.12 @ 9:26AM
You can't possibly be the real Clint. I smell an alien takeover or replacement by an android.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 7:20PM
No, You Just Smell Yourself,Israel Firster Bibi Boy , Dai Job.
Clint| 2.15.12 @ 10:42AM
Obviously, Little Israel Firster Smear Bund Poseur Punk Ass Poster Coward, Ya Ain't Man Enough To Post Under Your Own Name.
You're Scared Of The Tea Party Rebellion And Dr.Ron Paul.
Boo !
The Bruce| 2.15.12 @ 1:29PM
Alex Jones, day in and day out, talks about all of the "documents" he has regarding every nutter conspiracy he subscribes to.
Funny that he's never produced a single document online for others to scrutinize.
Could it be that he just a lieing fear-monger, and sheep believe everything he says?
P.Smith| 2.15.12 @ 7:37AM
Instead of forcing, through an act of law, people to buy health insurance (or presenting proof of an ability to pay) why not instead force those who have used the medical system and have not paid their bills, to pay. The way our society has historically functioned is that we have punished the law breaker after the fact, example: not paying bills, instead of what totalitarian states do which is attempt to stop the crime in the first place through preemptive action.
Herman the German| 2.15.12 @ 7:40AM
This is actually a very good point. However, I work for a credit agency and almost everyone has unpaid medical bills on their reports. The deadbeats who get free health care can never be forced to pay for it.....That's why Romney tried to tax them.
JJ| 2.15.12 @ 8:56AM
No, he tried to tax the other people, not the dead beats.
P.Smith| 2.15.12 @ 8:56AM
The reason people don’t pay is that they know the hospital has little recourse if they don’t. The indignant always manage to pay their power, water, clothing, transportation and cable bills because they know they will be cut off if they don’t. If they knew they would not have access to any care, because they have not even attempted to pay a past bill, the past due bills would begin to come in.
SCPOret| 2.15.12 @ 9:04AM
Hospitals, Drs offices and other healthcare providers can garnish the wages of those who recieve medical care and don't pay. It's not the most cost effiecient way to do it but if enough do it, people will feel the pinch who ignore collectors and I won't be forced to pay for Obamacare.
RustyG| 2.15.12 @ 7:52AM
And besides that he's the most electable and the only guy who can beat Obama ....... right Kirchhoefer?
Indy| 2.15.12 @ 8:27AM
How much Federal taxpayer money has been pumped into RomneyCare? The media fails to tell us, why? Truth is if federal taxpayer funding was not used to prop up RomneyCare it would have cost MA taxpayers much more or it could have bankrupted the state. In fact, the current governor is proposing reforms some of which are price controls which will lead to fewer providers and longer waiting times...a sign of what will happen with ObamaCare. Under RomneyCare and ObamaCare access to coverage increased but so did costs.
The birth control, morning after pill, sterilization for "free" is one step towards collapsing the insurance industry. Who will insure religious instituitions if they have to provide this mandate for "free" and we know this won't be the last? There will be others such as mandating abortion coverage, it's just a matter of time.
In ObamaCare, insurance companies must pay 80% of premium dollars on actual medical care so by driving more cost to cover mandated services for free, the margins are squeezed. As more services are mandated, insurance companies will not be able to meet that requirement...collapse the system, it's the goal.
JimH| 2.15.12 @ 8:56AM
What this article shows is the main difference between some conservatives and libertarians and the commonality between some conservatives and leftists. For the Heritage Foundation and the conservatives who supported Romnycare the important thing was that while it involved the State in matters best left to the private sector and imposed requirements on its citizens it was not clearly authorized to do, it did so primarily for the reason of solving the free rider issue. It shows that some conservatives are perfectly willing to use the power of Leviathan over the individual when they think some societal good will result. This would contradict those definitions of American Conservatism which place the rights of the individual above the claims of society.
JayDick| 2.15.12 @ 4:43PM
You missed the fact that hospitals cannot refuse to treat people. That being the case, some way must be found to pay deadbeats' medical bills.
JimH| 2.15.12 @ 6:18PM
How did I miss it? What of 'free rider issue' did you skip over? I understand the rationale. I didn't say I disagreed even. I'm just pointing out that some who call themselves conservative's are more willing to impose the state on their fellow citizens than others.
Bill| 2.15.12 @ 8:57AM
These are big government ideas, taking away our liberty and imposing more taxes and regulations.
JJ| 2.15.12 @ 8:59AM
"As the Maine primary and CPAC straw poll have again pushed Mitt Romney into the front of the pack, "
This is pure spin. First the Maine primary is not fully counted yet, and secondly only Romney and Paul even campaigned in Maine. The 3 percent lead Romney has over Paul is a joke.
Then CPAC? are you kidding me. Exactly how hard is it to astroturf CPAC right in DC?
Then we have the polls which either show Santorum in the lead or the two of them virtually tied. Quit the insufferable spin.
Mike Hawk| 2.15.12 @ 1:16PM
WHats more, 2100 vs 1900 are not exactly overwhelming numbers. If 200 more Paulbots had been bused in, the old crackpot might have won. Hell, the total caucus votes was around 6000, if that.
sjccoach| 2.15.12 @ 9:17AM
Another RINO making excuses for the RINO Romney. Romney is Obama lite. Romneycare is Obamacare.
Old Soldier| 2.15.12 @ 9:18AM
RomneyCare doesn't bother me for 2 reasons:
1. I don't live in MA any longer. Federalism allows states to experiment with these kinds of ideas. If it fails, only MA suffers.
2. The alternative to RomneyCare wasn't the free-market. It was whatever far worse plan the huge Democratic majority in the MA legislature came up with and would have passed over Romney's veto.
I'm no Romney supporter, but any fair assessment of his Governorship has to adjust for the Democrats' huge majorities in the legislature.
ltw| 2.15.12 @ 11:27AM
The history of the Mass. coverage first healthcare plan to "deal with free riders" was not initiated or authored by the Democrat legislature...it was Romney at the suggestion of his transition team into the governorship. It's his legacy, not theirs. The individual mandate Romney never threatened to veto. He did threaten to veto the employer mandate, however he knew the legislature would override the veto. Political convenience. The same MIT economist that worked on the model for Romneycare, worked on the model for Obamacare. There are actual results of the Romney's legacy health care plan which are easily brought up as irresponsible on the state government's part. Asking individuals to be responsible, but government to ignore their own ideas which dig the hole deeper is hypocritical. I'm not saying the other candidates are squeaky clean in regards to healthcare ideas and votes, but the voter deserve to know accurate information so they can see how the candidates can make their case against Pres. Obama on government takeover of a 1/6th of our economy. Romney has the weakest case. That is a huge negative for him as a candidate. Yes the Heritage Foundation guy was there at the signing, and so was Ted Kennedy. The Heritage Foundation was not the elected official.
Bruce| 2.15.12 @ 10:09AM
There was a much easier way to solve the issue of providing health care to the "uninsured". As soon as you go into treatment, you sign a promissory note in the amount of the expected costs. If you think it is too expensive, go somewhere else. Once you sign the promissory note, there is a binding contract and the hospital and everyone else involved now has a legal remedy against you. Sorry you have to sign one for the hospital, one for every doctor, one for the anesthesiologist, etc. but you could have signed ONE form to buy that health insurance.
George S| 2.15.12 @ 10:19AM
Are you saying Romney should be credited for his intentions and not the results?
flyovermark| 2.15.12 @ 10:24AM
Seems to me, Mr. Kirchhoefer, that the whole purpose of your essay is precisely to get us "lost in the weeds". I question your premise that Romneycare was EVER a conservative idea, and point to your quoted line from Heritage as evidence that it is not: "… to allow people to go without health insurance...". This statement is anything but conservative thinking, yet is the foundation for everything said afterward.
Conservative thinking would never postulate that the federal government is in the business of "allowing" the people freedoms - even the freedom to be uninsured. Conservative thinking maintains that the federal government's entire purpose is to protect individual freedoms - including the individual freedom to be uninsured. Instead of protecting individual freedom, Romneycare creates a collective responsibility to the government, and therefore cannot be defended as a conservative idea.
Although much of your post concerns the very conservative ideal of "personal responsibility", the simple fact is that Romneycare takes the "guilt before evidence" approach, in presuming that an individual's mere state of "being uninsured" somehow proves that he will not pay for his medical care, and seeks a collective remedy that punishes both the innocent and guilty alike before the fact. This is the same thinking that would postulate that, since having a gun in the house greatly increases the probability of a gun-related crime, gun owners should serve a prison term beforehand to payback society for a crime that statistics show they are likely to commit.
I'm sorry, Mr. Kirchhoefer, but Romneycare was never the brainchild of conservativism. It, like it's namesake, is just another bastard child of progressivism.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 2.15.12 @ 11:38AM
Actually, a more significant difference is that under Massachusetts health care, private firms have proliferated. Under Obamacare, private health insurers will go out of business within the first two years.
Big Tony| 2.15.12 @ 1:08PM
A couple of points nobody mentioned is that Romneycare is heavily subsidized by Medicaid and the more the state of Mass. spends on Medicaid the more money they get from the federal goverment, so the federal taxpayer is paying for Romneycare, it is not simply a program of, for and by just the people of Mass. all federal taxpayer are paying for a portion of Mitt's brainchild. And the second point is that Romneycare is a wealth transference scheme pure and simple, but it is wrapped in the best Orwellian retoric of telling one group it will stop the freeloaders, while at the same time telling another group of freeloaders don't worry Big Brother is gonna take care of you cause you can't do it yourself.
cicero| 2.15.12 @ 1:18PM
Oh, good, the intention were different. That makes it all better. Romney had good intentions. I'm sure that the liberals would tell you that their intentions ae good, too. Why doesn't Romney just come out and say, "We tried the same thing in Masachusetts, and it didn't work. What would make anyone think that it will work on a national scale?" As far as the uninsured go, if they can't pay, nobody minds helping them out. On the other hand, if they have assets, they should be made to pay what they can. The underclass could be trimmed, and the system made viable, if the government would adopt a "one child" policy. We will help you with the first one. After that, you are on your own. If you can't afford the next ones, put them up for adoption, or get the baby daddy to support them. But to trying to distinguish two systems that have no real difference is a fools move. The fact that the Heritage Foundation mistakenly thought it would work does not make it the gold statdard.
J McGrath| 2.15.12 @ 2:13PM
I don't know where Mr. Kirchhoefer got his information, but I don't prove every year that I have state approved insurance I face fines and possibly imprisonment. RomneyCare IS Obamacare writ small with all the problems and pitfalls that socialized medicine brings.
dennis byron | 2.15.12 @ 2:48PM
"Robert P. Kirchhoefer... a Washington, D.C. attorney who previously worked in banking and finance..." should stick to his lawyering because his finance figuring needs a lot of help. Kirchhoefer leaves out the major financial aspect of RomneyCare as described by Romney himself when he announced his healthcare insurance proposal in November 2004.
Romney did not say (despite what Kirchhoefer says in the article above) "These people who had no health insurance... would now have to contribute if they wanted healthcare. That's it."
Romney said (see Romney's introductory op-ed at http://www.boston.com/news/glo.....ce_reform/) people who can afford insurance but don't buy it should contribute, everyone else will get help. Underline "who can afford insurance."
But it turned out the great bean-counter Romney missed something because there were only about 30,000 people who could afford it but were not buying insurance -- not 100,000 as Romney estimated. And there were over 400,000 who needed to get it free or almost free because they could not afford it -- not 250,000 as Romney estimated. That's why RomneyCare is a zillion dollars over budget (estimates vary but it doesn't matter because Romney said it would be revenue neutral).
And that's the important similarity with Obamacare.
Bill| 2.15.12 @ 2:50PM
Anatomy of GOP candidates:
Romney: New England, executive and private sector experience
strength: money
weakness: Romneycare
Santorum: Rust Belt, legislative experience
strength: PA is a swing state, social conservative
weakness: lost his senate bid in 2006
Gingrich: South, legislative experience
strength: great debater, his leadership as the speaker
weakness: women voters, money
Paul: Southwest, legislative experience
strength: libertarianism
weakness: foreign policy
My take: Gingrich, a solid conservative and needs to win the women votes and have money
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 3:48PM
I don't think Santorum can beat Obama, he stands a much better chance than Romney (whom is the absolute worst possible choice).
I think people are counting out Gingrich way too soon, how many times has his campaign been declared dead only to come back again. Each time cause he's been attacked/smeared by the drive by media.
Obama wants Romney to be the nominee.
Obama only considers Santorum to be a possible threat.
Obama and the establishment are terrified of Newt Gingrich, I think he's our best choice and if he was really as unelectable as they have claimed, they would have been treating him with kid gloves (like they do for Romney), it would be him they were propping up instead of Santorum.
Stop and think people, Romney had to launch the biggest smear campaign in primary history to carry Florida. He did it with the help of the establishment and surprisingly from the Obama regime.
I don't want to send someone to Washington to win popularity contests, I want things to get fixed and no more kicking cans down the road. I want the establishment to have panic attacks when our nominee beats Obama. I don't want them expecting business as usual.
Folks we're running against a class-warfare ideologue with a silver tongue. We need someone that the class warfare rhetoric won't work on, and can tell the truth better than Obama can lie.
I know people don't like the current field of candidates, fine.
Everyone needs to stop looking at the polls, not give them credibility they don't deserve (they are trying to manipulate us into choosing who Obama wants to run against and/or is the most like Obama), and look at Obama's baggage, then look at Romney's, then look at Santorum's, then look at Gingrich, then look at Paul's.
Romney's Baggage:
- Bain Capital (in the general it will be baggage Gingrich was right to bring this up)
- offshore bank accounts
- "I don't care about the poor." remarks
- "I like firing people," remarks.
- Romneycare (which puts our chief issue off the table cause Obamacare is based off of Romneycare)
- 2005 mandating religious hospitals provide abortions in Massachusetts (you can argue this that or the other, if he was really staunchly opposed to this, he would have taken this all the way to the US Supreme Court)
- the shannigans to try to get him the nomination that have happened in Virginia, Maine, now in Indiana, heck I'm not sure he legitimately won Florida, they could have selectively counted the ballots (this is due to what happened in Maine, if the Romney camp would pull stunts like this in Maine, can we really trust the results of any other state he won).
- He has alienated much of the base to the point they have to hold a coin toss as to whether to vote for "Obamney" or Obama.
- George Soros approved
- Romney's own supporters (seriously when you start calling people whom are critics of Romney anti-mormon bigots, you further alienate the people you're trying to get to support Romney).
- Stuff we don't know about yet, folks Romney hasn't truely be vhetted at all. The media has been treating him with kid gloves, that should be a warning for everyone.
- Record as Massachusetts Governor (Rick Perry was right, this is a negative for Romney)
Santorum baggage:
- Remarks bashing tea party.
- Reputation for lots of earmarks (he can be seen as part of the problem)
- Remarks that can seem sexist
- He has a tendency to let the left define the issues. This contraceptive issue was in part a trap for Santorum, instead of going off and let the left define it, he should have flat out switched it back and said this is a fight over forcing people to fund abortions in violations of their religious beliefs.
- He hasn't been vhetted yet, I'm sorry but trying to kick Gingrich to the curb when we don't know that much on Santorum and how he holds up is idiotic.
- He doesn't have a history of standing up to the establishment in his own party.
- no executive experience
Gingrich Baggage:
- Consultant for Freddie Mac (this would be a major problem except for the fact we are running against someone that used his position as US Senator to protect Fannae and Freddie, also Gingrich is on record against the bailout of those two government entities)
- Personal life (if our economy was like it was in 1996, this would be a problem, however with so many Americans out of work, I don't think this would be a big issue, especially when people discover that a lot of the stories they were told about it were flat out lies).
- The ethics violations
Gingrich can easily turn this against the Democrats and the establishment by painting it as an attempt by the "establishment, particularly Democrats" to get rid of him, because he wouldn't let them do the things that got us into the mess we're in. Fact is, Gingrich can post up the IRS report exonerating him, the CNN article from 1999, etc. I think Gingrich is planning on the Democrats trying this attack and then hit them over the head with it from nomination to election day. With how unpopular congress is, and Gingrich having not been in public office since I think 1998, he actually can seperate himself from the negative approval ratings of congress easily.
- Fact the establishment hates him (given the approval ratings of the establishment this could actually help Gingrich in the general).
- Fact Gingrich is know for "unrealistic ideas" (Gingrich can point to the "unrealistic ideas" that came true and paint a difference between himself and the establishment. He can show he comes up with solutions while the Establishment just wants to continue the status quo)
- Gingrich supposedly gets angry easily (this is coming from what the establishment says, remember people are really upset with the establishment)
- Gingrich is disorganized (okay? A lot of good leaders seem disorganized, furthermore remember the fiscal shape we were in when Gingrich was speaker of the house, do you really think people are going to buy that argument?)
- Gingrich isn't politically correct (again how does this hurt him, he's actually turned this into a positive).
- coup to remove him as speaker (remember folks how unpopular Congress is now, remember also the last balanced budget we had was created when he was speaker of the House, everything started going downhill after he was no longer Speaker of the House, I think one of the people responsible for the coup actually later ended up going to prison for corruption, so again Gingrich can turn this into a positive in the General election)
Ron Paul baggage:
- FOREIGN POLICY (sorry but being unable to understand why we shouldn't allow a bunch of fanatics that think they go to paradise for killing infidels get their hands on a nuclear weapon kinda makes him unelectable). (not even going to comment on his comments on Israel which also alienates our base and anyone that believes we should stand up for our allies, particularly one that has stood with us even when it wasn't conveinent for them.
- His stuffing earmarks in bills and then voting against the bills he stuffed the earmarks in, so he can claim he never voted for an earmark. (Puts his credibility in question)
- no executive experience
Ron Paul supporters, make no mistake I think some of Paul's domestic ideas are very good. If the Presidential election was just about the domestic issues, I would actually say given the Federal Reserve's shannigans, that Ron Paul would be the best choice. However, this isn't just about Domestic Policy, and Ron Paul's foreign policy is dangerously naive at best (and I'm being charitable).
Newt Gingrich has adopted some of Paul's domestic policies, intends for there to be an audit of the Federal Reserve. So he is taking Paul's policy ideas seriously and giving them serious thought. I don't believe Romney would give Dr. Paul's policy ideas the same honest looking at that Gingrich is.
Heck I wouldn't be surprised if a President Newt Gingrich would have Ron Paul be put in charge of the audit of the Federal Reserve and investigation of their shannigans. Cause if they were doing something illegal, I guarentee Ron Paul would find it.
Obama's Baggage -- The person we need to defeat in november.
- Used position as US Senator to protect Fannae Mae and Freddie Mac from scrutiny.
- Reverend Wright
- Crony capitalism
- Obamacare (something Romney can't go after, Gingrich, Santorum, Paul, and the people that are no longer in the race can all go after Obama on this issue) (Aside, to Santorum supporters: Gingrich actually can go after Obama on this with just as much credibility as Santorum, if not more so by saying it was a mistake to ever even support a concept like the individual, the proof that it is an unconstitutional powergrab, is Obama's own core legislative achievement, etc. In doing this, he also destroys the attempted narrative concocted by his critics that he is arrogant).
- Bill Ayers (part of his radicalism, and we know there is one candidate that would go after him on this and has already (Gingrich))
- Saul Alinski radical (Gingrich has already called Obama this)
- George Soros (Romney is approved by Soros too, so Romney can't go after Obama there)
- ACORN (well everyone in the election can go after Obama on ACORN except Romney thanks to what happened in Maine)
- Tendency for his supporters to call his critics racist (this would have looked plain stupid if Herman Cain was the nominee, and Gingrich has already taken the Obama loving media apart on this while the other candidates were afraid to challenge it)
- Obama's record as President (Romney has his mixed record in Massachusetts which could help or hurt Romney; Santorum and Paul have no record; Gingrich has a record of a balanced budget, trumped up ethics violations (which were later proved bogus by the IRS, which proves Gingrich was the victim of a partisan if not establishment based witchhunt), the coup by the establishment and the fact that we can trace the budget starting to go more and more out of whack for every year since then).
When you get right down to it, the person with the best record of accomplishments, the baggage that Obama would have the most problems attacking, the one most able to show Conservatives are the ones with ideas and Obama has nothing but rhetoric, is Newt Gingrich.
Big Bob| 2.15.12 @ 3:56PM
Wow, do we feel really smart now for parsing terms? This sounds more like an exercise than an analysis. The differences are not as important to me as the fact that Obama's minions came to Romney for advice and guidance. So who cares about the subtleties?
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 4:36PM
Agreed, this is why Romney cannot be the nominee.
Leveut| 2.15.12 @ 6:22PM
1. "to require the few who were sapping the Massachusetts' taxpayers to ultimately pay for healthcare either by paying the state or by paying an insurance provider. These people who had no health insurance -- fewer than 10% in Massachusetts -- would now have to contribute if they wanted healthcare. That was it. "
Just out of curiosity, how did Romneycare identify those ~10% ne'er-do-wells to make them pay, and how did Romneycare keep persons who were not in the original ~10% from deciding to take a free ride?
2. I guess the Heritage Foundation made a mistake in logical analysis. They reasoned (poorly): assuming the Mass healthcare problem should be addressed in detail by state government mandates, the state government mandates are a good thing.
Perusha| 2.15.12 @ 6:52PM
What does the war between the Mulims and the Jews have in common with the ongoing healthcare conundrum?
It will never end.
Just think---right now, perhaps THE most salient issue in the federal elections come November is about RomneyCare and ObamaCare! What a SICK country the USA has become.
The Absolute truth is that we are each, by and large, responsible for our own health. Nobody is forcing any individual to stick less than super foods into their mouths!
Choice ALREADY rules, and I write this after living long enough to notice how effective advertising has been in conning people to EAT CRAP. After all, nobody HAS TO watch ads. They could be like me, and either change channels when they come on TV, or mute them--and take a quick hike for the few minutes they are on. Or, God forbid, stop watching TV at all, or for most of the time.
Really, what does the preoccupation of the vast FAT population of Americans with healthcare tell you?
Isn't it an admission of bodily irresponsibilty? Why, here I sit in my local library, and within the last few minutes three morbidly obese "youths" crossed my viewing area! It is SO DISGUSTING to see the quick motion fattening of Americans!
What is an explosion?
Taking galactic time (oh, my God, another grossly fat woman-a mother pushing her child in a carriage, no less!-just insulted my eyes) as the standard, a human lifetime is a snap of the fingers explosion, time wise. And, so the obesity explosion is even speeding up!
Excuse my raw observations---well, the husband of this 300 pound female LOOKS normal, maybe 6 feet tall and 180 pounds. I just don't get it. Don't men have any standards these days, any self respect? Me, I want to vomit when just seeing such ignorant suicidal fools! It would probably kill me to have to hug one, let alone make love to one!
Oh, how the explosive "healthcare" death spiral is so very IN OUR FACE, these last days!
Hey---gays are out of the closet. NOW---fatsos are, as well, and they are INDEED the new normal.
Gross mothers, without a doubt, will be the ideal for their kids. At least for most of them. Just as children raised by Christians tend to buy their parent's belief system, it's going to be EVEN MORE awesome to witness the next decade's acceptance of even MORE blimps!
No EXIT.
Nite| 2.15.12 @ 9:03PM
Romney said in the debates that he would repeal Obamacare. His campaign said he would not, but instead make a few changes. I want Obamacare fully repealed. Romney obviously lied through his teeth. He has changed his positions so much, I am surprised he even remembers what his current position really is for this point in time. He is a weak candidate and should not have been run.
Marc Jeric| 2.16.12 @ 12:30PM
When the British nationalized their health care system in 1948, the system had
1) 480,000 hospital beds serviced by 350,000 employees;
2) in 2002 the system had 186,000 hospital beds serviced by 882,000 employees;
3) in 2008 the system had 160,000 hospital beds serviced by 1,368,000 employees.
All unionized employees, of course, with huge pension benefits and salaries, long vacations, free health care, etc.
Now lets extend the above trends into the near future: zero hospital beds serviced by 10 million unionized employees.
Marc Jeric| 2.16.12 @ 12:59PM
Another story about teacher unions in the Clark County, Nevada (that's the City of Las Vegas plus surrounding communities); the school system has 300,000 pupils (not students - these attend universities), serviced by 18,000 teachers and 20,500 other unionized employees. The teachers ask for more money so thay could reduce the average class size down from the existing 40 pupils per class down to 16. Well - if the average class size is 40, then the real teaching teachers should be 300,000 divided by 40 = 7,500 teachers. What do the other 11,500 "teachers" do? And what about those 20,500 "other" employees do? Ever since this country allowed government employees to unionize in the 1960's, we have become a nation of illiterate nincompoops; the unions have brought our education from the first in the world down to the level of Zimbabwe.
Tex Expatriate| 2.16.12 @ 5:35PM
An application of Ockham's Razor cuts to the core of all the government-mandate arguments. End the mandate (which itself is unconstitutional) that hospitals and care providers must treat those who cannot or will not pay.
Do that and no one has to screw himself into a million-curved pretzel over mandates.
TeaPartyPatriot4ever| 2.16.12 @ 8:34PM
"Romney’s Cronyism Problem is Emblematic of Contemporary Politics"
by Benjamin Domenech Published: 7:12 PM 12/16/2011, The Daily Caller-Managing Editor, Health Care News
Quote-
“Cronyism.” That word has been thrown around a great deal in the Republican primary battle. It’s bad when it’s done to lure companies to locate in a particular state, or to reward a political ally, but it’s worse when it’s used to increase government intrusion into people’s lives.
That’s what happened when former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney pressed to get support for his health care reform, the widely acknowledged model for Obamacare.
The back story here is little known, but very damning. According to a 2008 report by the Heritage Foundation, at the time of Romneycare’s passage the two largest safety-net hospital systems in Massachusetts — Boston Medical Center (BMC) and Cambridge Health Alliance (CHA) — had “become dependent on direct subsidies” and were concerned that, even accounting for the significant rate increases allowed under the new law, a shift to Medicaid managed care would hurt their bottom lines.
So to get his signature health care law passed, Romney and his allies agreed to a host of annual payments — including “MCO supplemental payments,” “disproportionate share hospital” payments and special “hospital supplemental payments,” targeted exclusively for the two systems.
At the last minute, more than $540 million in so-called “Section 122 payments” were inserted into the law, designed to supply BMC and CHA with an even bigger financial cushion over the next three years. In practice, these funds — which included federal, state and local taxpayer money — served as direct subsidies for the two providers’ expansions.
According to MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber, one of the designers of Romney’s law and one of the experts who consulted with the White House on Obamacare, “The federal government was essentially supplementing the expansion of these inner city hospitals.” When some lawmakers suggested cutting back on the amounts, provider officials complained about all the great programs they’d have to shut down — such as BMC’s “food pantry.”
The irony is that the corporate cronyism it took to get Romney’s law passed proved its financial undoing, at least in the short term. As it turned out, the cost of these subsidies made the difference for Romneycare’s dubious financial stability.
Facing higher than expected enrollment, the Section 122 payments forced Massachusetts to prioritize more money for the required earmarks to BMC and CHA — money that might otherwise have been used to cover costs of patient care. According to the Heritage Foundation, in 2008 “Section 122 payments come to $180 million, while Commonwealth Care overruns are $153 million. … In effect, the state was subsidizing institutions, not patients.”
Unquote-
jstwndring| 2.16.12 @ 9:24PM
Obamacare vs Romneycare -- A Crucial Difference.
Indeed. One, is socialism advanced by Democrats, and, the other is socialism advanced by Republicans. Justify it any way you want, but, the nomination of Romney means we get to keep either in whole, or, at the very least the framework of one of the most dangerous pieces of legislation ever passed. Who do we want credited with this monstrosity?
opr| 2.21.12 @ 9:03AM
The provincial systems in Canada are single-payer for only those services listed as covered under the provincial/territorial plans. For additional services/drugs/glasses/allied health, private coverage or out of pocket payments occur. Most, if not all, Western European systems are a mix of public and private financing and delivery. They all provide universal care. Your comparison of Obama's broadly stated goal, and the reality of Canadian and European health care systems, is only accurate in the reference to universal coverage. European systems are not single-payer.
Dorothy K Carter| 2.23.12 @ 12:53AM
Obviously the people at American Spectator haven't seen this poll: http://www.latimes.com/news/po.....6566.story
michael moss | 2.26.12 @ 1:34PM
Fine piece, very important. The IM is not the essence of ObamaCare or of RomneyCare, just a false litmus test. ObamaCare is socialized med; RC is not. Romney clumsy but maybe crafty. See fuller treatment at: mecmoss.com