-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Mitt Romney believes in an individual mandate to buy health insurance. He made such a requirement his signature achievement as Massachusetts governor. He defends that system, despite its obvious and manifold flaws. But he opposes a federal mandate to buy health insurance. That is different, he insists. But how?
Romney’s problem came up again in the context of the District Court ruling tossing out the ObamaCare mandate. Reports National Journal:
A federal judge in Virginia on Monday said that the linchpin of the new health care law, which imposes a penalty on people who don’t obtain insurance, violated the Constitution’s commerce clause.
“The court ruling supports Mitt Romney’s view that ‘Obamacare’ is an unconstitutional power grab by Washington,” said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. “We should repeal the law and return to the states the power to determine their own health care solutions.”
In fact, Romney’s legal argument is sound. States have “police power,” which allows them to regulate most anything if not constrained by their constitutions (or federal Constitution or law). In contrast, the federal government is supposed to be a government of limited, enumerated powers, and Article 1, Section 8 no where gives Uncle Sam authority to force people to enter into commerce and buy a private product.
But the substantive point remains. If Mitt Romney likes mandates, how can he criticize ObamaCare as a matter of policy? He can’t. And it will be one of his greatest vulnerabilities if he runs for president again.
View all comments (12) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/12/15/mitt-romney-dances-on-the-head
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
Al Adab| 12.15.10 @ 2:45PM
Romney is the embodiment of establishmentarian, accomodationist Republicans. He is after all still his father's son and George opposed the Conservative movement to his dying day. When seeking future leadership for the GOP, Conservatives must admit, Mitt ain't it.
Stan| 12.15.10 @ 2:57PM
It's that matter of "policy" that differs the two health plans. Sorry Bandow playing with words isn't going to change my mind. They are different from night and day and if that's the biggest obstacle in Romney's way then I'm voting Mitt Romney. If he runs that is and that's another story.
Dave| 12.15.10 @ 2:59PM
I disagree. Romney is the only credible choice for the GOP. He is intelligent and has a great deal of public and private experience. He has turned many things around for the good. While I don't agree with everything he has said and done, he is the best candidate by far.
Sean| 12.15.10 @ 3:27PM
Romney had no clue about the economy, is a big government liberal, and he is the only credible choice Republicans have?
Al Adab| 12.15.10 @ 4:21PM
Stan, Dave:
It's about more than winning. Even were you correct about Mitt being the only electable Republican, central planning Lite is still just that. Better The Left gets the blame for the coming collapse. Henry Clay on point, "I had rather be right than President."
Pete| 12.15.10 @ 4:22PM
Substance clearly didn't matter two years ago. Why don't we run a Handicapped Hispanic Transvestite and see if we can't get the guilt vote.
Occam's Tool| 12.15.10 @ 8:01PM
Marco doesn't need to wear a dress to win.
Curly Smith| 12.15.10 @ 6:19PM
Yeah, Romney has a good legal argument. In fact, the Republic was established with experimentation like RomneyCare in mind. Try those wondrous ideas in a small incubator and see if it grows to fruition or if it kills everything that it touches. The problem that Romney has is that all State experimentation with health care, even before RomneyCare, has utterly failed. And it failed even with massive infusions of federal (read that as "money from taxpayers in other States") money.
Romney has zero chance as a Presidential Candidate unless he comes to us with a "Here's why my signature legislation failed" presentation. And, that presentation can't be limited to a single "the Democrats stole my homework" slide. There are reasons why it failed, they are the same reasons that TennCare failed, they are the same reasons that all other experimentation has failed. Romney is smart enough to discern the reasons for failure but he hasn't demonstrated that he has enough courage to admit the truth. Until he does, he's utterly unsuited for consideration for office. The sad thing is that he's uniquely suited to point out the problems of State mandates and public care and then expound on why personal responsibility and an unfettered private sector are preferable.
bluecollarbytes| 12.15.10 @ 8:05PM
Romney could bring an awareness of the crucial importance of healthy profitable business to maintaining a healthy America. On the other hand, he's already demonstrated that he's a big govt person having no ideological problem with govt-controlled health.
To further complicate things, he's not a natural spiritual defender of the unborn, which if I understand correctly, the Mormon faith does not either. This spells TROUBLE for his hoped-for nomination with a large swath of voters.
He Is well- groomed, and continues to groom, but he is far down on any list I consider.
Larry| 12.15.10 @ 11:20PM
Curly Smith is pretty much correct in his discussion of what Romney is going to have to say in order to make a case in regard to health care. He's going to have to admit his plan in Massachusetts has been a failure, and he is going to have to retread some ground insofar as what states (and the Federal government) should do with respect to health care. Unless he does that, and more on the other issues, I will not vote for the man.
CJ| 12.16.10 @ 1:51PM
Bandow,
Romney's argument is perfectly valid. This is the root of modern Conservatism. If you want no better example of someone that practically mirrors Mitt Romney's stance, you need to look no further than Thomas Jefferson.
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence was the most extreme example of "individual liberties/small Federal Government" during his time. Even Benjamin Franklin and John Adams disagreed on this point.
Jefferson wrote, "All men are created equal" for the Federal Government's founding document, but yet in his home of Virginia he owned over 600 slaves. The reason for this is that he believed that individual's ought to be able to act in any way they saw fit, even if it looked bad for the nation at large.
Jefferson believed that each state had these experimental powers to do as they wanted, yet the Federal Government did not. This idea is as American as you can get. That's what makes our nation so great, the people have 50 distinct choices as to what suits them best. But, when the Federal Government starts enacting "one-size-fits-all" laws, our freedoms disappear.
Therefore Romney's stance on Massachusetts Health Care and ObamaCare, as paradoxical as it sounds, is about as close to the ideals of Thomas Jefferson as you can get. To misunderstand this, is to misunderstand what true "Classic" Liberalism is.
james| 2.4.11 @ 9:07AM
Newt Gingrinch responded to the Tea Party view of Romneycare:
• Romney is firmly committed to repeal of Obamacare
• It’s not accurate or fair to compare Obamacare and Romneycare
• Romney vetoed many provisions of the Mass bill and Romney was overridden by Democrats
• The original Romney bill was better and practical than what the liberal Democrats did to it
• The Democrats overrode Romney’s original bill on a whole series of items
• The issue is not as clear cut as Tea Partiers think or the liberal media has made the issue out to be
http://www.knrs.com/onair/Rod-.....ycare.html
Here are the facts about Romneycare:
• Mass employers have no mandates, but “requirements”
• Mass program relies on personal responsibility & the market.
• Mass health plan insures all without taxes or socialization.
• Mass reform focuses on individual responsibility (via fines).
• MA state health insurance plan lowered costs initially.
• Mandates on health insurance work in Massachusetts.