-
Adieu, Adieu, Remember Me
March 25, 2011 | 38 comments
-
DeMint’s Defense of RomneyCare is Ignorant…And Dangerous
March 17, 2011 | 85 comments
-
McConnell Pushing Vote to Block the EPA from Regulating Carbon Emissions
March 17, 2011 | 9 comments
-
More Barbour on Afghanistan
March 16, 2011 | 8 comments
-
House Passes Three Week Spending Bill
March 15, 2011 | 8 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Last week, I wrote a column explaining why a Mitt Romney nomination would kill the repeal movement by allowing President Obama to neutralize the health care issue given the similarities between the Massachusetts plan and the national health care law. At one point, I noted that Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC recently announced a “Prescription for Repeal” initiative to contribute to conservative candidates. But the language leaves wiggle by promising only to repeal the “worse aspects” of ObamaCare without defining what they are.
Today, a blogger for the website Rightosphere, Kavon Nikrad, writes that he asked Romney at a recent book signing to clarify what was meant by the “worst aspects,” and Romney told him that he would oppose a repeal of the individual mandate.
Here was the exchange, according to Nikrad:
I was one of the first in line to the book signing, and when my turn came I asked Gov. Romney if I could ask him a question. After he told me that this was OK, I posed the following question to him:
“You have stated your intention to spearhead the effort to repeal the ‘worst aspects’ of Obamacare, does this include the repeal of the individual mandate and pre-existing exclusion?”
The Governor’s answer:
“No.”
Gov. Romney went on to explain that he does not wish to repeal these aspects because of the deleterious effect it would have on those with pre-existing conditions in obtaining health insurance.
To be clear, once you force insurance companies to cover those with preexisting conditions, it leads to a mandate to force individuals to purchase insurance. Otherwise, healthy individuals leave the market and simply wait until they get sick, and insurers are left with only the sickest and most expensive patients. This triggers premiums to go up even higher, encouraging even more healthy people to leave the market, and so the so-called “death spiral” ensues.
Given Romney’s long record of publicly defending the individual mandate — even on conservative terms — it certainly sounds plausible that he would oppose repealing that aspect of the new health care law. But I emailed Romney’s Free and Strong America PAC to get its reaction to Nikrad’s post and will report back when I get a response.
UPDATE: Ben Smith gets a comment from Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom, who calls Nikrad’s account “innaccurate” but doesn’t address the actual question of what Romney would support repealing. Fehrnstrom says:
Mitt Romney has been very clear in all his public statements that he is opposed to a national individual mandate. He believes those decisions should be left to the states.
In reality, Romney hasn’t always been “very clear.” For instance, this was an exchange with ABC’s Charlie Gibson in a January 2008 Republican primary debate (transcript here):
GIBSON: But Government Romney’s system has mandates in Massachusetts, although you backed away from mandates on a national basis.
ROMNEY: No, no, I like mandates. The mandates work.
Later in that same exchange, he says that his national plan wouldn’t impose a federal mandate. Of course, what you would propose to do and what you would support repealing are two different questiions, and Fehrnstrom still doesn’t provide a satisfactory answer.
The confusion just reinforces what I wrote last week, which is that Romney would simply not be able to credibly campaign against ObamaCare were he the 2012 nominee. There are too many video clips of Romney defending the individual mandate in principle for him to present a clear contrast with Obama. Just check out this compilation by Democrats.
UPDATE II: Fehrnstrom now says that the mandate should be repealed. But we still don’t know what Romney means by wanting to only repeal the “worst aspects” of ObamaCare — nor does this explain how he’d be able to overcome charges that he’s flip-flopping on mandates.
UPDATE III: Here’s Romney in a Newsweek interview making the case that ObamaCare and RomneyCare are different.
View all comments (30) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Philip Klein
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/19/would-romney-oppose-repealing
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
mbt changa | 4.19.10 @ 11:49AM
cool
Clyde| 4.19.10 @ 12:00PM
Dear Mr. Klein:
When are you going to actually write anything about health care reform instead of attacks on Obama or Romney or others.
You seem to be just another example of the many Republicans who keep burying their head in the sand concerning the health care issues in this country.
We know that Republicans can say "REPEAL IT" but I don't hear you proposing a solution for health care.
Why is that?
Philip Klein| 4.19.10 @ 12:22PM
As it turns out, I've written extensively about market-based solutions, throughout the presidential campaign and over the course of the health care debate.
For instance, here's a 6,000-word article I wrote two years ago arguing that conservatives needed to get serious about health care. In it, I explained what a market-based approach would look like.
http://spectator.org/archives/.....out-health
I just also happen to think that the Romney/Obama government-based approach isn't the way to go. So it's important to explain why.
Missy| 4.19.10 @ 2:42PM
What cave has Clyde been living in?
janelle| 4.19.10 @ 12:45PM
I'll wait till I hear Romney answer this on tape, tv or radio.
Dixie Pixie| 4.19.10 @ 1:19PM
Does anyone remember the phrase “ Tax Collector for the Welfare State”.
When did this become a GOP job description.
Janet| 4.19.10 @ 2:21PM
Janelle, You will wait until Romney is on tape, tv or radio?
Honey, there are enough of Romney flip, flops and spins in all media forms for a life time.
Frankly, some feel the republicans didn't put in put in because it is the health-plan they wanted. Reid went for Romneycare, killed a public option, and will make insurance companies wealthy (er).
The repeal and replace movement is a movement to take attention away from Romneycare, give Mitt something to yell about, a mode of to keep political fighting and attention off the lack of Republican leadership, for a bill they were supporting. It was nothing but a tact on repubs side. After all it came from the Heritage Foundation.
Missy| 4.19.10 @ 2:40PM
Romney is another RINO disaster.
iamse7en| 4.19.10 @ 2:58PM
Phil,
I'm sure you understand the distinction, between a state mandate, and a federal one. Romney, in that debate, was specifically referring to a state mandate, not a federal one, because they were talking about his Mass. plan. He has never suggested supporting a federal mandate. There is a big difference there. One is unconstitutional, the other may or may not be according to the state's respective constitution.
So, it's unfair to say he hasn't been clear about the federal mandate.
I'm with you on health care reform - I've always loved your columns about it. And I agree with much of the Romney criticism - except your suggestion that he hasn't been clear about a federal mandate. I don't agree with Romney at all - state mandate makes problems worse - but he's never come close to suggesting he likes a federal mandate - just a state mandate.
And this is coming from a Ron Paul fanatic.
It's much like the distinction between federal vs. state laws on abortion. One may be pro-choice, but oppose a federal law making abortion legal. Perhaps he believes it should be left to the states, and if in charge, he would pursue to make abortion more affordable and accessible in his state.
Philip Klein| 4.19.10 @ 3:55PM
There is a difference between a federal and state level mandate for sure. But I also think that the idea of an individual mandate -- at any level of government -- should be viewed as an affront to personal liberty.
And all of the arguments Romney makes in favor of his mandate are the same ones used to make the case for the federal mandate. And he hasn't always been clear. For instance, check out that clip I linked to, there's his appearance on "Larry King Live" in which he defends the mandate starting out by saying, "Right now, **in this country** people without insurance go to the hospital if they get sick..." Emphasis mine. In other words, he's talking about the whole country, not just Mass.
But again, putting that aside, my overarching point is that I don't think he'll be able to credibly campaign against the Obama mandate in 2012. Taking the position that mandates work well at the state level means that the debate is narrowed to the point where it's only about a federal vs. state function. But to win the debate over repeal, GOP needs to be able to attack the actual policy as well.
duplicator | 4.19.10 @ 3:01PM
I'll wait till I hear Romney answer this on tape, tv or radio.
Mitt is a flip | 4.19.10 @ 3:12PM
Duplicator, there is enough on all media where Mitt contradicts himself. Romney left the 'loop' holes in his movement giving wiggle room for himself. His movement is nothing more than a manipulation of the American public, a deception to give a false appearance. The undefined 'bad stuff' in his movement has no meaning, his movement is all fluff.
It is time the public understand Romney uses double-bind, and gaslights... done to confuse the human mind, and to mold people into what he wants them to think.
If people we not getting that message out the 'terror' series on Romney on the blog below, they were not getting the seriousness of the message, and the danger of Mitt.
http://mittromney2012potus.blogspot.com/
Mitt is a Flip| 4.19.10 @ 3:30PM
Double bind from wikipedia --
A double bind is a dilemma in communication in which an individual (or group) receives two or more conflicting messages, with one message negating the other. This creates a situation in which a successful response to one message results in a failed response to the other, so that the person will be automatically wrong regardless of response. The nature of a double bind is that the person cannot confront the inherent dilemma, and therefore can neither comment on the conflict, nor resolve it, nor opt out of the situation.
A double bind generally includes different levels of abstraction in orders of messages, and these messages can be stated or implicit within the context of the situation, or conveyed by tone of voice or body language. Further complications arise when frequent double binds are part of an ongoing relationship to which the person or group is committed.[1][2]
Double bind theory is more clearly understood in the context of complex systems and cybernetics because human communication and also the mind itself function in an interactive manner similar to ecosystems. [3] Complex systems theory helps us understand the interdependence of the parts of a message and provides "an ordering of what to the Newtonian looks like chaos." [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind
Romney's repeal and replace movement is a double-bind. as well as his flips.
One of Romney's first moves was to intimate people from asking him questions or questioning his motivations by using 'bigot'. This is a beginning method used to silence by intimidation.
People needed to be given 'permission' to question Romney, because he and his staff were at the bully stage of intimidation. He was also gas-lighting and using double-binds. Romney was taking people down the yellow brick road.
Time it stops Mitt.
Wally| 4.19.10 @ 4:03PM
Time to stop Mitt!
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 4:28PM
Remember When We Liked Mitt Romney? links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Cris Worth| 4.19.10 @ 4:38PM
Romneycare has superseded Mormonism as Willard's X-Factor. But the language leaves wiggle by promising only to repeal the "worse aspects" of ObamaCare without defining what they are...defines the man. If Romney wins the Republican nomination let us stand together-take off our hats-the bugler blows taps for the Grand Old Party.
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 4:49PM
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Romney camp denies that he told blogger he’d keep ObamaCare’ links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.19.10 @ 6:12PM
Multiple-Mandate Mitt « Around The Sphere links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Camron Barth| 4.20.10 @ 2:55AM
I think individual mandates are alright at the state level. Reform should happen at the state level, it’s not the role of the federal government. The president’s national overhaul is inappropriate and unconstitutional.
And by the way, President Obama is a big flip-flopper. During the last presidential campaign, especially during the debates against Senator Clinton, he made it crystal clear that he opposed “individual mandates.”
So it’s President Obama who has baggage when it comes to healthcare. Romney has credibility.
Janice| 4.20.10 @ 3:48PM
You're wrong, Romney is just another lying politician; RomneyCare is bankrupting Mass. RINOs like him have destroyed our party.
He'll lose to Obama just like McCain in 2008.
dresses| 4.20.10 @ 3:27AM
Nationwide bridal salon offers bridal and wedding gowns, bridesmaid dresses,
flower girl dresses, tuxedos, and other special occasion apparel. Site includes a bridal
links london
Pingback| 5.5.10 @ 12:57PM
Rethinking Petraeus in 2012 | FrumForum links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
MAGGIE| 11.4.10 @ 9:48PM
Do not demand health insurance mandates on America, we want our options back.