Yesterday, the NY Times wrote about the Massachusetts health care program, as the individual madate takes effect. It is hard to imagine anything representing a greater affront to conservative principles than using government to coerce private citizens into purchasing healthcare. It is shocking that Mitt Romney could institute such a mandate and just months later run for president claiming to be a “conservative” in the tradition of Ronald Reagan, and be taken seriously. It is especially surprising given that one of the main gripes conservatives have had with President Bush has been the Medicare prescription drug plan–RomneyCare is far worse.
Even if you are more sympathetic to Romney than I am, I challenge you to read this and ask yourself whether you believe it is consistent with limited government principles:
There is one bright spot in the plan–residents who don’t like it can move:
We won’t be so fortunate if such a plan gets created at the federal level. And as we have seen under President Bush, it is a lot easier for a big government Republican to to pursue expansionist domestic policies than it is for a Democrat. Practically speaking, a President Romney could put us on the pathway to socialized medicine faster than President Hillary. While Romney may be trying to distance himself from the plan as he tries to sell himself to conservatives, given his record of doing whatever is most politically expedient, there’s no reason for conservatives to believe that he would rule out a similar nationwide plan as president. And yes, this is why a record of brazen flip-flopping matters.
Notice to Readers: The American Spectator and Spectator World are marks used by independent publishing companies that are not affiliated in any way. If you are looking for The Spectator World please click on the following link: https://spectatorworld.com/.