The American Spectator

Conservative Brawler| 12.16.09 @ 6:05PM

I think you've missed Romney's point. While your assertion that candidates will (and should) be judged by their record is a valid one, it holds no significant bearing on Romney's work with health care. All Romney has done has provide context.

He did not, and he does not, support a national "public option." What he does support, as should any federalist, is the ideal that legislative decisions of the scope and scale of an issue like health care cannot adequately be done at a national level. The needs, wants and capacities of each state vary quite significantly. His state wanted the public option (they are ~90% democratic after all). As a federalist, he was obliged to give his state what it wanted.

Now, was MA's universal health care plan the best route? I don't think so. But with a democratic congress and an overwhelming majority of his constituency asking for it, I don't see why he would have refused. In a time where so many of our representatives are refusing to listen to the people, I don't think it's wise to burn our federalists at the stake.

Allen G| 12.17.09 @ 11:22AM

I don't think he's addressing "Romney's Point."

What he's saying (as I understand it) is this: If a Govenor of a State said something along the lines of "Sure I raised our State Taxes by 10%, but I only did that on the State level and, by the way, those meanies in congress made me do it," do you think he wouldn't get blasted in any primary race? Said govenor may have lots of other good points which outweigh the raising of the taxes, but it would still be a point he'd have to defend or walk away from.

Romney, OTOH, is trying to have it both ways. He's on the record as supporting RomneyCare (thus the reason it bears his name in common parlance) in MA, but now he's claiming he would never do that Federally. And, while that may be true, we don't have any proof of that. By definition, since he's never held a federal post.

Jeff Perren| 12.17.09 @ 3:53PM

"with a democratic congress and an overwhelming majority of his constituency asking for it, I don't see why he would have refused. "

Because the rights of doctors, insurance company stockholders, along with every other individual, are inalienable, i.e. not subject to a vote. Democratic elections are a valid method of choosing representatives, but that doesn't imply that anything whatsoever they choose to have them do is legitimate.

Niemsters| 12.16.09 @ 10:51PM

"It's one thing for me to argue as a pundit that Massachusetts should be allowed to have a big government health care system"...but isn't the distinguishing feature of RomneyCare the fact that citizens are given money to buy PRIVATE health care, not government care?
"And Mitt Romney's signature legislative accomplishment was creating a health care system that's been used as the model for what Democrats are on the verge of passing nationally."... This is just a talking point. Besides the goal of universal coverage, and the 'mandate' that was added in the House the plans are nothing alike. Where does Max Baucus say he structured his bill around RomneyCare?

Bmatkin| 12.17.09 @ 3:25AM

Would somebody please give the straight stuff on Romneycare? On websites favorable to Huck. I have seen really negative things, and on other websites really positive stories. Which is it? I really hate it when conservative web sites don't get their stories straight. Crappy spin is for lib sites only.
What's the truth?

Niemsters| 12.17.09 @ 12:37PM

Here is an actual analysis of Romney Care, download the PDF for all the facts:

http://www.masstaxpayers.org/p.....able_costs

Rank and File| 12.17.09 @ 1:10PM

Good posts and analysis. I think it's worthy of the time and discussion. Romney will have to face up to, and defend his signature in Massachusetts. Romney's been slow to go on the offensive and he's suffered from blaming some of his decisions on bureaucracy, but I think he needs to realize that this will be a central issue in the campaign for and/or against him. He had better be ready with answers that rise beyond the "well, it's all I could do given the circumstances and it wasn't quite the government option we're facing today" (that's my fictitious quote, not his). I still think the Federalist argument for what he did excuses and differentiates him sufficiently. However, he needs to be able to clearly state why he did it and explain exactly why he would not do it on a national stage. That point is a good one. I do not, however, think there is any evidence to suggest he would do anything of the sort (on a national stage). He has been clear on big government and spending as I see it, and is fiscally conservative. I like the man as the next Candidate.

racking| 1.6.10 @ 10:17AM

http://www.racking-shelving.com
http://www.cold-store-equipment.com

as a whole contractor for cold store equipment, design, manufacturing, installation.

professional racking & shelving manufacturer, pallet racking, drive in racking,
cantilever racking, longspan shelving, dexion racking,