-
Tebowing and ‘Polarizing’
June 11, 2013 | 7 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Horror!
March 1, 2013 | 4 comments
-
SOTU Preview: Human Props, Budget Fights, and Wedge Issues
February 12, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Hello, I Must Be Going
August 14, 2012 | 18 comments
-
Weekend Political Wrap-Up, Paul Ryan Edition
August 12, 2012 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Ann Coulter has offered a novel defense of Romneycare:
Whether you like a state-wide insurance mandate or not, it’s a world of difference when the federal government does it. Conservatives, having read the Constitution, ought to understand this.
It was on account of the difference between state and federal powers that the Supreme Court overturned the federal Violence Against Women Act. The court was not endorsing rape, but reminding us that states make laws about rape, not Congress.
The powers the Constitution doesn’t delegate to the federal government remain with the states and the people, so yes Massachusetts has police powers that the federal government doesn’t have. But there is also a “world of difference” between the government prohibiting rape, an act of violence against another individual, and forcing an individual to purchase health insurance. The Violence Against Women Act was unconstitutional because it usurped legitimate state powers. The individual mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level, but I would argue that it isn’t a legitimate use of state power either.
Coulter’s reference to the Supreme Court striking down the Violence Against Women Act reminded me of her friend Joe Sobran’s quip that “a narrow majority of the Court took the reactionary radical right-wing position that rape is not a form of interstate commerce.” He also quoted a law professor who disagreed with the ruling as saying it is “hardly common sense that Congress’s power to promote commerce is so limited that it cannot legislate against a practice that costs the national economy billions of dollars annually.”
Wrongheaded as that argument is, it’s the very same one that people use to insist that failure to purchase health insurance affects interstate commerce. It’s more or less the same free rider argument Romney used to justify it being his state government’s business whether an individual bought health insurance.
Coulter continues: “the nation’s leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped draft Romneycare. Indeed, Bob Moffit, Heritage’s senior fellow on health care issues, can be seen in the picture of the bill-signing ceremony, standing proudly behind Romney.” Well, if you’ve seen the picture, Teddy Kennedy is standing proudly behind Romney too. But this just illustrates the larger problem: many of the national scholars, conservative and otherwise, who advised Romney on Romneycare favored the individual mandate as federal policy, not just as a state law. Newt’s dalliance with a federal mandate, mentioned by Coulter, came from similar influences.
Obamacare and Romneycare are so tightly linked that not even a polemicist as gifted and persuasive as Coulter can separate them.
View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/01/26/not-buying-health-insurance-is
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 4:12PM
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
SCPOret| 1.26.12 @ 9:59AM
I like Ann Coulter, most of the time, but her blind support of Romney, along with the Washington GOP elites, is sticking a finger in the eye of conservatives. Romney is a moderate at best. We have had enough of the Rockefellow Republicans. The "its his turn" mentality of the GOP establishment does not win elections.
MainerDoc| 1.26.12 @ 12:10PM
I think Coulter sees Romney as the best of the bunch who have decided to run for the GOP nomination. Like her, I can't support Gingrich. There's something wrong with him, mentally and, consequently, behaviorally. I don't want a lunatic for a President.
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 4:08PM
So you don't think it's lunatic for a grown man to assume different positions on every major issue under the Sun.
There IS a guy erratic in the race, and that's Romney.
He's the guy that NONE of us know what position he'll take next, or once in office promptly assume.
Quartermaster| 1.26.12 @ 6:37PM
+10000
Mike 3/505| 1.26.12 @ 10:02AM
"The individual mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level, but I would argue that it isn't a legitimate use of state power either."
Your words are correct, but depending on an individual state's constitution, it may be legal. It would depend on how said state constitution was written. If there exists an "enumeration clause," and that power was not enumerated, then it would be unconstitutional in that particular state.
Regards,
Mike
somnolence| 1.26.12 @ 10:47AM
NEWT IS (was) a "Rockefeller Republican" who sided with the Heritage Foundation. My choice of devils between the two is ultimately Romney.
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 4:11PM
The guy who donated money to Democrats.
Michael Reagan said "Newt Gingrich sided with my dad, Romney with Paul Tsongas."
The selection of Romney represents the GOP repudiating every major domestic position over the last forty years, such as abortion, homosexualism, stem cell research, opposition to the VAT, the list is endless.
Romney's nomination represents the installation and coronation of the Northeastern Rockefeller Republican wing of the party. They are now our overlords, and they, and they alone, will tell us who is and who is not acceptable as our nominee.
By the by, these are EXACTLY the same people who told us Rubio was unacceptable and would cost us a Senate seat.
George S| 1.26.12 @ 11:15AM
Okay, what, then are your arguments supporting the premise that a mandate is not a legitimate state power? If the Constitution reserves powers to the states, and the people, without any conditions then the Constitution does not care what a state does within its borders. The intent all along; people could move if they didn't agree with things.
But all that aside, health care is a political issue. You can only take one of two positions:
a) Should the individual be responsible for his own health care, meaning that if he cannot afford to pay for treatment he is on his own with no government subsidies whatsoever.
b) Should we be compassionate to such a person and help out in any or some way with the Treasury to help that person get medical treatment.
States have the right to dabble any way they wish in an attempt to reconcile the two positions but the federal government does not. And if those two options are so ideologically clear cut, I have yet to hear any politician argue option a -- it would be political suicide. Which means we all talk a good game but want some help paying the bills. Hence, RomneyCare.
RomneyCare would have never been an issue if the federal government had not strangled the health care market with regulations and redundant oversight and had not given tax preference to employer heath insurance plans. Since the government is the cause of the problem by usurping power it does not have, the states are forced to cope in an attempt to set things right in their view. One state chose mandated coverage -- a legitimate power trying to wrong an illegitimate federal power.
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 11:58AM
So you are fine then with states implementing Jim Crow laws.
George S| 1.26.12 @ 12:09PM
Who is going to tell them No? Once you give the federal government the power to prohibit states from making Jim Crow laws then it is only a short step to throwing away the Tenth. Besides, which states are thinking about implementing those laws anyway? Hence, a false argument.
Dave| 1.26.12 @ 1:56PM
The Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment pretty clearly gave the Federal Government grounds to end Jim Crow. Last I checked there was no amendment that kept the states from creating an insurance mandate. Now I certainly agree that such a mandate may create more problems that it solves, but to compare a federal mandate to a state one in terms of constitutionality is a false equivalent.
I think she is right on this one.
Quartermaster| 1.26.12 @ 6:41PM
To judge if a state has the authority to enact such a mandate you would have to look at their constitution. As for FedGov, it has no authority to legislate in that area. The 14th amendment argument on Jim Crow is not applicable to Obamacare. FedGov has no authority to establish any kind of insurance program or welfare state. None. If SCOTUS upholds Obamacare as constitutional, then the degradation of the US is complete.
somnolence| 1.26.12 @ 11:37AM
Thanks, George. Like I say, Romney is the devil of choice that I will vote for.
Pete| 1.26.12 @ 11:56AM
Who cares about the individual mandate. We already carry insurance. The problem, which Ann Coulter, conveniently ignores is with everything else in ObamaCare. It puts the government in between the doctor and the patient. All this shows me is that Ann Coulter is fine with Tyranny as long as it comes at the state level.
MainerDoc| 1.26.12 @ 12:16PM
A big difference between "RomneyCare" and "ObamaCare" is that Massachusetts can't print money. "RomneyCare" (in the absence of "ObamaCare") will fail. It will either be too expensive or it will not deliver adequate health care to the citizens of Massachusetts or maybe it will be combination of both. In either scenario, the citizens of Massachusetts will have to get rid of it or alter it. "ObamaCare" has the power of the federal treasury's printing presses behind it. It will bankrupt our nation, destroy our health care delivery system and, in the end, only the administrators who have nothing to do with patient care will benefit.
Michael| 1.26.12 @ 3:27PM
Hey, Pete, what can you report as to the success that people have when the insurance company bean counter is between the doctor and the patient? Remember that the Affordable Care Act is not a government-run program. The aim is to provide a means of coverage for those without coverage. You are going to have to continue to pay whatever you now pay. No one is forced to buy insurance. But those who do not, by the law of averages will have a "need" that must be answered by paying forward into a fund. A deductible event implying equality with those, who have insurance, who can deduct the cost (or part thereof). It is just possible that Coulter's law school studies are paying off, finally.
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 4:13PM
Coulter's lifestyle has finally got up with her.
She's unhinged.
And her little snarky friend Drudge has done enormous damage to the cause, whether he understands that or not is another matter entirely.
Tumqua| 1.26.12 @ 12:12PM
Wrongheaded as that argument is, it's the very same one that people use to insist that failure to purchase health insurance affects interstate commerce. It's more or less the same free rider argument Romney used to justify it being his state government's business whether an individual bought health insurance.
The argument in the first case is an argument about CONSTITUTIONALITY. It's an attempt to stretch the commerce clause, which is a favorite one to stretch whether it's about health care or private marijuana use or any number of things.
The argument in the second case is not about the US Constitution because it's not about the federal government. It's an economic argument.
If you think these arguments are really the same argument you're missing the point entirely. One is about what the US Constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate. The other is about whether the free rider problem justifies a coercive policy at the state level.
The constitutional argument is irrelevant to the state's decision. Whether or not it's Constitutional for the federal govt to do it has no bearing on whether the state is allowed to do it.
The economic argument is irrelevant to the question of Constitutionality. Whether or not it makes sense from an economic point of view does not affect the Constitutionality of it one way or the other.
They may both be wrong, but they are different arguments about different things entirely, and the answer to either question has no bearing on the answer to the other.
Dai Alanye | 1.26.12 @ 12:21PM
The front-runners are each poor conservatives and dangerously close to being unelectable. The answer is obviously Santorum -- more conservative, fewer skeletons in smaller closets.
Michael| 1.26.12 @ 3:29PM
The trouble, Dai, not all of his children can vote. And none can vote in California.
Drek| 1.26.12 @ 4:17PM
This isn't about skeletons, in the closet or out and about wandering the streets.
It's about competing narratives.
Gingrich has already dubbed the president "the food stamp president." That's a powerful mental image that has done enormous damage to the president, which is why the media has sought to render it toxic by tarnishing it as racist.
Romney hasn't any ability to frame himself or his opponent.
Negative ads do not a campaign theme make.
If the race comes down to who is the most likable, then it will be obama.
BUT if a Republican offers a compelling narrative of why obama and all things he represents must be rejected, then the GOP can and will prevail.
This point is made at length in Ben Shapiro's recent column over at Frontpage magazine.
Scott| 1.26.12 @ 1:17PM
"The individual mandate is unconstitutional at the federal level, but I would argue that it isn't a legitimate use of state power either."
It's interesting that the standard for the mandate is consitutionality at the federal level, but "legitimate use of state power" for the state level. You change the rules probably because you realize that constitutionality at the state level depends on the state constitution.
Rich Birkett | 1.27.12 @ 2:20AM
When Ann Coulter sought the Libertarian Party nomination to run against Chris Dodd's US Senate seat from Connecticut, they rejected her because she wasn't libertarian and/or didn't understand libertarian principles. This is further proof they were right.
ltw| 1.30.12 @ 10:29AM
I wondered why Heritage Foundation & Moffit wasn't pushing back against Romney's recent comments on the individual mandate. A picture explains a lot.
I guess, these are just words.
From Moffit's Washington Post column:
"Yes, in the early 1990s, we, along with other prominent conservative economists, supported the idea of such a mandate. It seemed the only way to solve the "free-rider" problem, in which individuals can, under federal law, walk into any hospital emergency room nationwide and rack up big bills at taxpayer expense.
Our research in the ensuing two decades has led us to realize our initial idea was operationally ineffective and legally defective. Well before Obama was elected, we dropped it. In the spring 2008 edition of the Harvard Health Policy Review, I advanced far better alternatives to the individual mandate to expand coverage, relying on positive tax incentives and other mechanisms to facilitate enrollment in private health insurance. This is what researchers and fact-based policymakers do when they discover new facts or conduct deeper analysis."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....727_2.html
And a link to the "far better alternatives" he mentioned
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~hh.....ue/223-233 Health Highlights_Moffit_edited.pdf