Obamacare = Romneycare = Mitt's the Biggest Loser?

[Peikko 1,575]

Jon Chait loves a good fight so I'm not surprised he's in I Told You So mood today. I kinda, sorta, less confidently, told you so too even after Massachusetts when the prospect for HCR were pretty bleak and Fred Barnes was saying it was dead, dead, dead.

Well, we all get things wrong and sometimes perhaps we get a little lucky. The chap with the most to lose from last night's vote - in terms of politics and 2012 if nothing else - is our old chum Mitt Romney. No wonder Romney released this statement:

America has just witnessed an unconscionable abuse of power. President Obama has betrayed his oath to the nation -- rather than bringing us together, ushering in a new kind of politics, and rising above raw partisanship, he has succumbed to the lowest denominator of incumbent power: justifying the means by extolling the ends. He promised better; we deserved better.

He calls his accomplishment "historic" -- in this he is correct, although not for the reason he intends. Rather, it is an historic usurpation of the legislative process -- he unleashed the nuclear option, enlisted not a single Republican vote in either chamber, bribed reluctant members of his own party, paid-off his union backers, scapegoated insurers, and justified his act with patently fraudulent accounting. What Barack Obama has ushered into the American political landscape is not good for our country; in the words of an ancient maxim, "what starts twisted, ends twisted."

His health-care bill is unhealthy for America. It raises taxes, slashes the more private side of Medicare, installs price controls, and puts a new federal bureaucracy in charge of health care. It will create a new entitlement even as the ones we already have are bankrupt. For these reasons and more, the act should be repealed. That campaign begins today.

In other words, Romney is now pledged to running against his own record. This is an unusual strategy but one forced upon him by a) his actual record and b) the temper of the Republican party and conservative movement. All this trouble over one tiny bill he signed when Governor of Massachusetts! Because Obamacre is, in the view of plenty of sensible observers, merely a souped-up version of the Romneycare Mitt signed into law in Boston - and that he boasted about during the 2008 campaign. Back then it was a case of "I can fix health care because I've done it in the Bay State". How times change. Now, of course, he must disavow this and pretend it never happened. In a sense, mind you, this merely shows that, for all that the MA reforms may not have been perfect and for all that they may not scale to the national level, the ideas behind Obamacare were hardly revolutionary. The detail may, for sure, be another matter. Still, in outline, Governor Romney could be proud of this sort of thing; Candidate Romney must disavow his own past.

So this, at least potentially, makes the race for the 2012 GOP nomination even more open and, hence, increases its entertainment potential. Romney isn't done yet but since his populism is transparently phoney it's a problem for him that he's now going to find it difficult to return to his can-do, technocratic roots.

The legislative process may have been, to put it mildly, untidy but the President and the Congressional leadership had a mandate to produce these reforms. Complaining that they've done what they said they would do and howling that it's not fair and a big Democrat took the ball and ran away is neither dignified nor persuasive.

Maybe the Mormonism would have made it difficult for Mitt anyway; the health care thing makes it all the harder for him to win the nomination. In that sense he's the biggest (political) loser today; in that sense too you may say that Obamacare is a price worth paying if it ends Romney's hopes of reaching the White House...

Link

Edited March 22, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What the State of MA does is ALOT different than what the Federal Government does.

Romney has even said himself many times, what MA chose to do may not work for other states, nor should it be forced upon them by the Federal Government.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

A one size fits all "solution" from the feds is not the way to go. Mitt, unlike Barry, is capable of learning from his errors.

[Peikko 1,575]

Keep telling yourself that the politicians on one side wear the white hats, and the politicians on the other side the black

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Keep telling yourself that the politicians on one side wear the white hats, and the politicians on the other side the black

Never told myself that. I do see the differences in political philosophies and proceed accordingly.

[Peikko 1,575]

Yeah, whatever.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The problem isn't isolated to Romney. Many Republicans find themselves opposing their previous record. Take the insurance mandate - seemingly the most controversial point of the package - for example. Here's a conversation on that issue from FNS:

WALLACE: Gentlemen, let's address some of the big controversies in this debate. And let's start, first of all, with mandates.

Senator Grassley, what's wrong with requiring individuals and companies to pay for health insurance so that all the rest of us don't have to pick up the tab for the uninsured?

GRASSLEY: And you're probably picking up 1,000 — some estimates — $1,800 on your premiums for people that don't have health insurance because of the expensive use of emergency rooms, as an example.

There isn't anything wrong with it, except some people look at it as an infringement upon individual freedom. But when it comes to states requiring it for automobile insurance, the principle then ought to lie the same way for health insurance, because everybody has some health insurance costs, and if you aren't insured, there's no free lunch. Somebody else is paying for it.

So I think individual mandates are more apt to be accepted by a vast majority of people in Congress than an employer mandate would be, as an example.

And with that goes the portability of the insurance from one employer to another so you don't — you don't have to be tied to your job.

But there is a very important issue here, and that is that we consider that there are some people who can afford their own health insurance but decide not to buy it because they want to pay it out of pocket. Should you require those people to do it?

I believe that there is a bipartisan consensus to have individual mandates.

You got that? Bipartisan consensus for the individual mandates.

Or the cost of the plan? Well, roughly a trillion dollars over a decade. Remember the price tag on plan the GOP advocated during the 2008 campaign? Yes, it was more than a trillion dollars. McCain's plan would cost $3.6 trillion over 10 years, the campaign said. That was their plan. But a plan that costs a fraction is too expensive. What a bunch of hypocrites.

[Peikko 1,575]

It's all about generating panic in order to get elected. Bunch of nutters.

Attack ads work, attack politics work, at least in so far as you can make sure you get elected. The shenanigans doesn't actually work for the people though it's just bullshit - neither side is immune.

Edited March 22, 2010 by Madame Cleo

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

It's all about generating panic in order to get elected. Bunch of nutters.

Attack ads work, attack politics work, at least in so far as you can make sure you get elected. The shenanigans doesn't actually work for the people though it's just bullshit - neither side is immune.

ita

[spookyturtle 9,465]

ita

Didn't you mean, IEA? ita makes no sense.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

Didn't you mean, IEA? ita makes no sense.

noob! ita = i totally agree.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

noob! ita = i totally agree.

So you totally agree, IEA?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Didn't you mean, IEA? ita makes no sense.

Arguing over a bill that has not been implemented and may or may not alter the landscape of healthcare, IEA.

[Ban Hammer 13,340]

So you totally agree, IEA?

ita snapping turtles IEA

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Didn't you mean, IEA? ita makes no sense.

For Charles to agree with anything Madame Cleo says makes no sense. Charles agreeing with anyone, IEA.