The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (39 comments)

  1. Boy Jonah, did you even follow his comparison between Obama’s plan and Romney’s federal plan? They were different as night and day. He intends states to improve upon anything that has been tried before even by himself. He is not suggesting that they do what he did because some of it he admits isn’t working well. Were you distracted during this speech? How did you miss so much?

    1. So, another Massachusetts miracle, this one defrocked before the election and not after, as the last time? “He intends states to improve…” his apologist says. So, is there a mandate that they do something? What does “he intends states” mean? What would this look like as a matter of law? Sounds like a mandate to me. I am encouraged that “he admits it isn’t working well.”

    2. Tristan Phillips

      Actually Mittens has NEVER backed away from Romneycare. He has supported that financial disaster from the get go: 2+ months for an internist visit? Absolutely. Individual mandate? Not a problem. Raise taxes & cut coverage while still unable to cover increasing shortfalls? We gotta do what we gotta do. Every time he has been shown what a failures his health care plan has been he’s doubled down. This speech was just more of the same.

      If I want to vote for a flip-flopper (I was for abortion before I was against it) I’d vote for John Kerry. If I want a socialist country along the lines of most totalitarian regimes I’ll vote for Barry. I don’t need both in a single RINO.

      1. Must be so scary to be a Republican right now… so much backstabbing, pettiness, hypocrisy, and not one ounce of common sense!! Tea Partiers, i.e. uneducated old white folks, are whipped up into a frenzy by Fox News, the most biased and propagandist network in modern history. And presto!, you have a newfangled “political” movement based on… what exactly? The tyranny of lowest-tax rates in decades? The abusive socialism of Medicare, a program that keeps the same uneducated old white folks from going broke, thus prompting hilarious (and not at all self-conscious) cries of “get the government’s hands out of my Medicare!” That’s like when you call Obama a Nazi Socialist… you can’t have it both ways Republicans, though you sure try. Now the Teapartiers have a massive case of buyer’s remorse (inevitable, given that they had no real discernible principles to begin wtih, and the politicians they elected were ostensibly capitalizing on that fact for their own benefit.) The whole picture is simultaneously riveting, heartbreaking and hilarious.

        Come bac to reality wingnuts… to the side where facts still rule reality… to the side where up is still up, down is still down and the world isn’t nearly as scary because it makes much more sense.

        1. richard40

          Common sense, right. Like saying Obamacare is good, and a trillion $ in stimulus reduced unemployment and produced a lasting recovery, and the highest spending vs GDP in 50 yrs is good, and the fed printing tons of money wont cause inflation, and we can fix the deficit by just taxing the rich, and Obama abandong every promise he made to change from Bush anti terrorist policies was not a disgusting lie. If you think that is common sense, I pity your ability to adapt to life.

          The Tea Party platform, of following the constitution, cutting spending, cutting regulation, and stopping huge tax hikes, looks pretty sensible to me.

        2. That’s like when you call Obama a Nazi Socialist… you can’t have it both ways

          Um, the Nazis were socialists though as the Nazis were the National Socialist German Workers Party. The term “Nazi Socialist” is a bit tautological but it is hardly having it both ways.

      2. If I want a socialist country along the lines of most totalitarian regimes I’ll vote for Barry.

        That comment is an insult to everyone who has lived under an actual totalitarian regime. And by extension, it is an insult to the men and women who fought and died so that you wouldn’t have to.

        If you can’t tell the difference between losing an election and losing your freedom, you are undeserving of freedom. If you can’t tell the difference between a tax hike and totalitarianism, you are a failure as a citizen. You have failed your duty to democratic society.

  2. Saying Obamacare and Romneycare are the same is like saying same-sex parents are the same as opposite-sex parents.

    They aren’t the same at all, Jonah. Sorry you don’t see that. I’d be glad to help you out:

  3. memomachine


    “miss so much”??

    If Mitt were wearing a mitt … (a pun for the ages there!) … and on the mound in triple-A baseball. Would you advance him to the MLB or send him on down to the next lower tier? Frankly that level of political judo-fu is quite beyond Romney.

  4. Romney just lost the election by not renouncing RomneyCare! Why? Cause all Obama has to say is “Romney just passed the exact same health care in Massachusetts as governor. My health care and RomneyCare are exactly the same! He likes RomneyCare but hates ObamaCare? He’s lying, he’ll say anything to get elected.”

    Game, set, match to Obama.

  5. Wow Romney-TROLLLLS use the same “Lori” wpelling as my mom. I can only assume Lori’s real name is….Larry.

    Kudlow! You out there??

  6. “Boy Jonah, did you even follow his comparison between Obama’s plan and Romney’s federal plan? They were different as night and day. ..”

    Well thanks for that concise list of all the clear differences between ObamaCare and RomneyCare. I can’t believe they were just out there like that and Jonah completely missed them.

  7. So the defense of Romney is … he was completely wrong on his signature political issue, and he kinda-sorta recognizes that now? Sign me up for more of that!

  8. teapartydoc

    It’s really too bad. I like Mitt. Really.He’s a very talented guy. But very talented people can be tone deaf, and I’m afraid he is.

  9. How did you miss so much?

    Are you serious? Romneycare and Obamacare may differ in the details, but the concept of government’s dictating health care to us is the same. When presented with the insurance situation in Massachusetts, Romney’s solution was an elaborate government program that has overburdened physicians, created even more crowding in emergency rooms and caused insurers to operate at a loss.

    If Romney were as free-market-oriented as he claims, the idea would never even have occurred to him.

  10. Michael

    Obamacare includes an individual mandate, one that is pretty obviously unconstitutional. So did Romneycare. If he doesn’t clearly and forcefully say that was wrong, he is not going to get my vote.

    1. richard40

      At least the Romneycare mandate, being at the state level, is not unconstitutional, unlike Obamacare. Of course that does not make Romneycare right, just much less wrong than Obamacare.

  11. Romney is this election’s “It’s my turn” candidate. He’s got the presidential hair, the suit, and he’s run so many times that he and the left media (who know he is unelectable) and quite possibly the Republican Party poobahs have decided he’s the man, it’s his turn to get the nomination. The media love it because he’s unelectable, and Romney and the Republicans love it because it’s just right. So he’s this election’s Bob Dole, John Kerry, John McCain: The guy whose turn it is.

  12. Jonah, i am curious. What should Romney have done? Clearly Romneycare was a mistake, but to say so directly would cause as much collateral damage to his presidential aspirations as what he has done, which is assert improbable logic that Romneycare is a success, but its spawn, Obamacare, is not.

    Bottom line, i think Romney is screwed either way. The WSJ editorial had a line about his primary position on this issue being he is a competent manager and can fix this. We already have a president we elected on this premise…we know how effective that was.

  13. If the twin issues of Romney-care and his abortion flip-flop weren’t enough, Romney also has to deal with the unspoken elephant in the room … there’s no way in hell evangelical GOP primary voters are going to vote for a mormon. I’m not necessarily advocating that view, but I have enough exposure to southern/evangelical culture to know for certain that there are large chunks of regular GOP primary voters who, regardless of other issues, will NOT vote for Romney because of his religion. So, I find it hard to believe that Romney wins Iowa. He didn’t win NH in 2008 so I see no reason to think he’ll win there in 2012. He then loses badly in SC … can his campaign survive the consecutive losses? I don’t see how. Bottom line … even if he solves the Romneycare and abortion flip-flop issues (and I don’t see how) he still has no apparent path to the nomination. So my conclusion is that he is not a serious candidate in the sense that he cannot win.

    1. dalancroft

      I worked for a Mormon-founded firm for three years and during that time learned quite a bit about the LDS. Quite frankly, it is a cult. Whereas the Bible is reasonably accurate in many of its geographical descriptions, the Book of Mormon simply does not. Israelites in the U.S.? REALLY? Tribes traveling thousands of miles to Central America just to wage war? REALLY? And the whole “we’re living saints here on Earth” assertion is no more than unbridled ego and wishful thinking.

    2. richard40

      I can forgive Romney for his change on Abortion, and I dont care about his being a Mormon at all, as long as he does not want to force any Mormon specific beleifs on the rest of us (which he does not). The Mormon issue is similar to the concerns about JFK being Catholic, a non-issue.

      But I will NOT forgive Romney for Romneycare, especially since he has yet to say he was wrong and repudiate it (like Pawlenty did with his previous openness to cap and trade). Romney does make a good point that Obamacare is much more wrong than Romneycare, despite its similarity, since it binds the entire country, not just the people in MA who might actually like it. But just because Obamacare is much worse than Romneycare does not make Romneycare good.

  14. I believe that Romneycare is similar to Obamacare, and that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. However, that does not make Romneycare unconstitutional. The U.S constitution clearly limits the power of the federal government However, each state can add its own rules – which Massachusetts obviously did.
    That does not mean you have to like Romneycare. Just remember that Romney was governor of the most liberal state and had to go along with the legislature

    1. So you don’t have an issue with states forcing you to buy health insurance? just the federal govt?

      1. richard40

        To James:
        I would not like it if my state did it either, but at least it would be clearly constitutional, unlike Obamacare. And if my state goes too far, I can move to a state that I like better, unlike with Obamacare. These 2 factors make fed gov mandates much more abusive than similar state level actions.

        That is one reason why leftists insist we do everything at the fed level, instead of doing most things at the state level like we should, and like the constitution originally envishioned. They know that if a leftist state goes too far, every non-parasite will leave the state, and it goes broke, witness IL and CA. But if they pass it at the fed level, they know they have captive victims, with no way out.

      2. Calvin Dodge

        I have major issues with states requiring it. But that’s a matter of what I believe is right, not a matter of the LAW. States can also enshrine other stupid requirements in law (like Florida licensing interior decorators, or Colorado regulating the number of taxicabs).

  15. Why is mandatory auto insurance OK, but health insurance is unconstitutional?

    1. You dont need any insurance if you drive only on private propery. Many, but not all, states require you to carry insurance if you drive on public (the states) roads.

    2. Joan Crowell

      you don’t necessarily HAVE to drive a car, but you do have to EXIST. You are being forced to purchase health care just because you EXIST.

    3. mvfreeman

      Auto insurance is only mandatory for automobile owners, not the general public. And that insurance is to cover your liability for damaging other peoples property.

      Apples and oranges.

    4. Benjamin

      Because you can choose not to drive a car, but you can’t choose not to be alive.

    5. richard40

      to Eddie;
      There are several good reasons, which honest leftists know, but never admit to.

      1. Manditory auto insurance is a state requirement, not a fed one. State individual mandates are clearly constitutional, since state power is not limited by things like the commerce clause, fed ones are not. And if I dont like the policy in a state I can move to a better state. If it is fed policy I have no choice. People in MA may like Romney care, that is their business, but why inflict it on other states that clearly do not want it.

      2. Manditory auto insurance only requires you to insure against liability damage you may inflict on others, not what may happen to yourself. It thus protects innocent third parties. Manditory health insurance does not.

      3. If you dont wish to drive on public roads, you are not required to have auto insurance. But you are forced to buy Obamacare even if you never see a doctor in your entire life, and dont intend to, or if you do you plan to pay the bill with your own savings. What if you have religious beleifs and dont beleive in treatment from doctors or hospitals, you are still forced to buy insurance you will never use. What if you only wish to ensure against catastrophic costs, and set aside your own money for routine costs, again Obamacare does not give you that option. Obamacare removes all individual choice, and is dictatorship by big gov.

      1. thearcho


        Other states have the option of bucking the federal law so long as they can come up with a plan that will bring down the costs of health services in their state.

        Any person who enters an ER and does not pay inflicts financial damage on all who use hospitals and ER’s because their cost of care must be covered from somewhere and thus the cost is shifted to those who already do pay.

        It is absolutely ridiculous to assume that you will never visit a hospital at some point in your life. Sometimes it will be in the public interest for an individual to be placed in a hospital to prevent the spread of infectious disease to the rest of the population. These things are out of our control. People get sick or wounded and those illnesses are a threat to innocent third-parties. It is in all of our interests to treat sick people so that the safety of our communities is upheld.

        Also, the ACA does in fact give you the option of not purchasing health insurance, it just requires that you pay a penalty of a measly 2.5% of income, at a minimum of $625 a year. I think that most people would find that to be extremely inexpensive compared to the alternative of purchasing insurance. Also, the law states that the policy you purchase must be minimally comprehensive, which I am sure will include catastrophic plans.

        You have the individual choice of how you would like your medical care to be delivered but the rest of us should not pay for you to recieve free care. Before the ACA was enacted, I did not have a choice but to pay for other people’s choices to be treated without paying. That is the opposite of freedom for me.

    6. Calvin Dodge

      There’s this little thing called “The 10th Amendment”. I won’t bother quoting it here, since you can look it up on your own time.

      But the gist of it is that STATES can require auto and/or health insurance, but the Federal government CAN’T.

      That’s not to say states SHOULD require it, of course.

  16. JT Cunningham

    Why is it constitutional for the federal government to mandate hospitals provide health care for anyone who comes to an emergency department with an emergency medical condition (called EMTALA, signed into law by Ronald Reagan- Google it)? Why is unconstitutional for that same government to now say you must pay for that care by purchasing insurance? There is a disconnect here. Hospitals in the US provide billions of dollars in unpaid care (only 50% of all ER bills are paid) because of this law. The individual mandate is one way to at least try to get people to pay for the care the governmeent mandates they receive. Isn’t that what we want in this country? People to be held accountable for their own health and welfare. This is as Republican an ideal as Ronald Reagan himself.

    1. richard40

      to JT Cunningham.
      The solution is to stop the emergency room abuse, not force the rest of us that do pay into a gov run health system. Find ways for people to be forced to pay for this care. If the person has a job, their wages should be garnished. If they are on welfare or medicaid, their benefits should be cut. Require proof of legal residency, and if they are not legal residents, they are automatically deported unless they pay. Get strict enough on these type neasures and the emergency rooms will clear out pretty quick.

      If you dont like that solution, another I could support is to NOT require emergency rooms to treat those that cant pay. That may lead to a few destitute people dying in an emergency room that wont treat them, but I dont have that much sympathy for them. If some leftists think that is too cruel, why dont they form their own private charity to pay for destitute emergency room care, instead of sticking the bill on the rest of us.

      1. Wow, that’s the conservative take in a nutshell. Poor? Screw you, you die. Very nice.

      2. Find ways for people to be forced to pay for this care.

        We did. It’s called the individual mandate.

        at may lead to a few destitute people dying in an emergency room that wont treat them

        We already tried that. That used to be the way it was. We got here from there. Why do you think going back to there is going to lead anywhere but here again?

  17. Ventura Capitalist

    How come we don’t just have clinics, like on House? A nurse (preferably a psychopath like House or an ex Marine Drill Instructor) guards the door to the emergency room. If you’re dying and you can pay, come on in. If you’re not dying and/or you can’t pay, he/she kicks your stinking butt over the the clinic. Just as a good will gesture we take 1/10 of the money pi$$ed away by BammyCare and use it to (partially) fund the clinics.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:


Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Refine Content