-
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
-
Esquire Blogger Sees Paul Ryan, Shreds His Safety Net
August 11, 2012 | 13 comments
The Spectacle Blog
On the main site today, Robert Kirchhoefer does make one important distinction between the health care bill signed into law by President Barack Obama and the Massachusetts bill signed into law by then Gov. Mitt Romney: conservative supporters of the individual mandate, whether at the state or federal level, were trying to prevent something further to the left from passing; Obamacare supporters were trying to pass something further to the left and ended up with the individual mandate-driven system as a compromise.
Romneycare was intended as more or less than final step, while Obamacare is the first one. That, and the fact that state governments have police powers the Constitution doesn’t give to the federal government, are the two most significant differences. But conservative defenses of Romneycare still unwittingly make Obamacare harder to overturn or repeal.
First, such defenses tend to accept (at least for the sake of argument) the idea that the individual mandate was necessary to address the free rider problem. There are good reasons to think the individual mandate isn’t necessary for solving the free rider problem. More importantly, Obamacare’s mandate is as much about making the ban on preexisting conditions workable by pushing healthy workers into the health insurance market as it is about free riders. These are central policy and constitutional justifications for Obamacare.
Second, these defenses tend to emphasize (and sometimes exaggerate) the conservative pedigree of Obamacare. This makes it harder to work for its repeal politically. And with a Supreme Court that is reluctant to overturn domestic legislation of this scale, it makes the Obama administration’s interpretation of the commerce clause seem less outside the mainstream.
View all comments (10) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by W. James Antle, III
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/15/parsing-obamaneycare
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
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 @ 3:59PM
I agree that Gingrich is the best person to face Obama. We're not running against a Bill Clinton folks, we're running against someone whom is worse than Jimmy Carter (while Carter was inept, he wouldn't have tolerated the kind of corruption we see in the Obama administration (if Holder had been Carter's DoJ, Carter would have had him fired and sitting in prison months (if not years) ago).
Bill| 2.15.12 @ 5:56PM
Amen.
Floyd Looney| 2.15.12 @ 3:04PM
The courts will not overturn it. Depending on the courts is a loser strategy.
Garfield| 2.15.12 @ 3:44PM
Can we just make the ticket be Gingrich/Palin (to maximize the left and establishment having panic attacks for our entertainment) or Gingrich/Santorum (cause Gingrich has some executive experience while Santorum has none but Santorum would get said experience while VP and in 4 to 8 years (depending on whether or not Gingrich would run for a second term so it is most likely 8 years, Santorum would have the knowledge and experience to be a very good President).
George S| 2.15.12 @ 4:04PM
You want to solve the free rider problem? Simple. Allow hospitals to choose if they want to accept Medicare and Medicaid. But what good is a freebie if nobody provides the service; however there will be providers. Not as good, but WTF -- it's free.
That is the most effective constitutional argument against ObamaCare -- you get what you pay for and vice versa.
JeffC| 2.15.12 @ 5:36PM
but since the madate "penalty" doesn't go to the insurance companies they will still find themselves in a economic death spiral.
The mandate doesn't offset the pre-existing condition, it actually makes it worse.
April| 2.16.12 @ 12:36AM
Huge difference: Romneycare only affects MA residents. Obamacare affects everyone.
From a political standpoint I think Romney has a better argument against Obama than the other candidates... he can argue that it's a state issue and that each state should solve the issue in the way that best serves its residents while getting credit for tackling the issue. (You know how us conservatives are portrayed as not caring about all those poor, sick people dying in the streets - that argument won't work with Romney as the candidate. We may not like the solution, but unless you live in MA, so what?)
Conservatives should stop beating Romney up for 'Romneycare' and make allowances for the fact that he was the governor of Massachusetts, the only state (according to a recent Gallup poll) where liberals outnumber conservatives.
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:03PM
Its not a huge difference. MA was the only state within the scope of Romney. Romney supported the state mandates telling people what medical treatments they could do and not do under RomneyCare. So we still end up with government standing between the doctor and the patient.
RomneyCare means Romney can not make a case against ObamaCare without sounding petty and trite.
JJ| 2.16.12 @ 12:06PM
What the author ignores is that ObamaCare intends to provide 12 million illegal aliens free health care. It then has to limit the Medicare benefits to help pay for this. That and another 31 percent insurance increase.