Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

THREE CHEERS FOR ROMNEYCARE! (Coulter Finally Officially Signs Ownership of Soul Over to Mittens) ^ | 02/01/12 | Ann "Mitt's OTHER Wife" Coulter

Posted on 02/01/2012 4:41:10 PM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

If only the Democrats had decided to socialize the food industry or housing, Romneycare would probably still be viewed as a massive triumph for conservative free-market principles -- as it was at the time.

It's not as if we had a beautifully functioning free market in health care until Gov. Mitt Romney came along and wrecked it by requiring that Massachusetts residents purchase their own health insurance. In 2007, when Romneycare became law, the federal government alone was already picking up the tab for 45.4 percent of all health care expenditures in the country.

Until Obamacare, mandatory private health insurance was considered the free-market alternative to the Democrats' piecemeal socialization of the entire medical industry.

In November 2004, for example, libertarian Ronald Bailey praised mandated private health insurance in Reason magazine, saying that it "could preserve and extend the advantages of a free market with a minimal amount of coercion."

A leading conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, helped design Romneycare, and its health care analyst, Bob Moffit, flew to Boston for the bill signing.

Romneycare was also supported by Regina Herzlinger, Harvard Business School professor and health policy analyst for the conservative Manhattan Institute. Herzlinger praised Romneycare for making consumers, not business or government, the primary purchasers of health care.

The bill passed by 154-2 in the Massachusetts House and unanimously, 37-0, in the Massachusetts Senate -- including the vote of Sen. Scott Brown, who won Teddy Kennedy's seat in the U.S. Senate in January 2010 by pledging to be the "41st vote against Obamacare."

But because both Obamacare and Romneycare concern the same general topic area -- health care -- and can be nicknamed (politician's name plus "care"), Romney's health care bill is suddenly perceived as virtually the same thing as the widely detested Obamacare. (How about "Romneycare-gate"?)

As The New York Times put it, "Mr. Romney's bellicose opposition to 'Obamacare' is an almost comical contradiction to his support for the same idea in Massachusetts when he was governor there." This is like saying state school-choice plans are "the same idea" as the Department of Education.

One difference between the health care bills is that Romneycare is constitutional and Obamacare is not. True, Obamacare's unconstitutional provisions are the least of its horrors, but the Constitution still matters to some Americans. (Oh, to be there when someone at the Times discovers this document called "the Constitution"!)

As Rick Santorum has pointed out, states can enact all sorts of laws -- including laws banning contraception -- without violating the Constitution. That document places strict limits on what Congress can do, not what the states can do. Romney, incidentally, has always said his plan would be a bad idea nationally.

The only reason the "individual mandate" has become a malediction is because the legal argument against Obamacare is that Congress has no constitutional authority to force citizens to buy a particular product.

The legal briefs opposing Obamacare argue that someone sitting at home, minding his own business, is not engaged in "commerce ... among the several states," and, therefore, Congress has no authority under the Commerce Clause to force people to buy insurance.

No one is claiming that the Constitution gives each person an unalienable right not to buy insurance.

States have been forcing people to do things from the beginning of the republic: drilling for the militia, taking blood tests before marriage, paying for public schools, registering property titles and waiting in line for six hours at the Department of Motor Vehicles in order to drive.

There's no obvious constitutional difference between a state forcing militia-age males to equip themselves with guns and a state forcing adults in today's world to equip themselves with health insurance.

The hyperventilating over government-mandated health insurance confuses a legal argument with a policy objection.

If Obamacare were a one-page bill that did nothing but mandate that every American buy health insurance, it would still be unconstitutional, but it wouldn't be the godawful train wreck that it is. It wouldn't even be the godawful train wreck that high-speed rail is.

It would not be a 2,000-page, trillion-dollar federal program micromanaging every aspect of health care in America with enormous, unresponsive federal bureaucracies manned by no-show public-sector union members enforcing a mountain of regulations that will bankrupt the country and destroy medical care, as liberals scratch their heads and wonder why Obamacare is costing 20 times more than they expected and doctors are leaving the profession in droves for more lucrative careers, such as video store clerk.

Nothing good has ever come of a 2,000-page bill.

There's not much governors can do about the collectivist mess Congress has made of health care in this country. They are mere functionaries in the federal government's health care Leviathan.

A governor can't repeal or expand the federal tax break given to companies that pay their employees' health insurance premiums -- a tax break denied the self-employed and self-insured.

A governor can't order the IRS to start recognizing tax deductions for individual health savings accounts.

A governor can't repeal the 1946 federal law essentially requiring hospitals to provide free medical services to all comers, thus dumping a free-rider problem on the states.

It was precisely this free-rider problem that Romneycare was designed to address in the only way a governor can. In addition to mandating that everyone purchase health insurance, Romneycare used the $1.2 billion that the state was already spending on medical care for the uninsured to subsidize the purchase of private health insurance for those who couldn't afford it.

What went wrong with Romneycare wasn't a problem in the bill, but a problem in Massachusetts: Democrats.

First, the overwhelmingly Democratic legislature set the threshold for receiving a subsidy so that it included people making just below the median income in the United States, a policy known as "redistribution of income." For more on this policy, see "Marx, Karl."

Then, liberals destroyed the group-rate, "no frills" private insurance plans allowed under Romneycare (i.e. the only kind of health insurance a normal person would want to buy, but which is banned in most states) by adding dozens of state mandates, including requiring insurers to cover chiropractors and in vitro fertilization -- a policy known as "pandering to lobbyists."

For more on "pandering" and "lobbyists," see "Gingrich, Newt." (Yes, that's an actual person's name.)

Romney's critics, such as Rick Santorum, charge that the governor should have known that Democrats would wreck whatever reforms he attempted.

They have, but no more than they would have wrecked health care in Massachusetts without Romneycare. Democrats could use a sunny day as an excuse to destroy the free market, redistribute income and pander to lobbyists. Does that mean Republicans should never try to reform anything and start denouncing sunny days?

Santorum has boasted of his role in passing welfare reform in the 1990s. You know what the Democrats' 2009 stimulus bill dismantled? That's right: the welfare reform that passed in the 1990s.

The problem isn't health insurance mandates. The problem isn't Romneycare. The problem isn't welfare reform. The problem is Democrats.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: anncoulter; apologistsformitt; coulter4deathpanels; coulter4obamacare; coulterbringsdeath; coultervsamerica; deathcare; gagdadbob; halfwit4deathpanels; onecosmosblog; prostitutes4romney; romneybringsdeath; romneycare; romneykilledgrandma; romneysdeathcare; romneyvsamerica; sellout; skanks4deathpanels; tokyorosecoulter; whenmittbotsattack
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141 next last
To: Ronin

She is an entertainer but she had great one liners and wit at times. She was fun to listen to—until now.

I would not really mind her switch—really-—but she had some influence and the damage that will be done if Romney runs at such a critical time in this country will be devastating to this nation-—if not totally destroying it-—he will lose and if he doesn’t—he will continue on the zero road to destruction. It is so disheartening to know the Marxist have control of both parties at the top.

I can’t have any compassion for her in such a critical period in American history.

121 posted on 02/01/2012 9:35:11 PM PST by savagesusie (Right Reason According to Nature = Just LawD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: savagesusie

rock em sock em robots... by marx

122 posted on 02/01/2012 9:43:36 PM PST by HiTech RedNeck (Sometimes progressives find their scripture in the penumbra of sacred bathroom stall writings (Tzar))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Ann seems under the influence of either LSD or LDS.

123 posted on 02/01/2012 9:46:03 PM PST by MikeNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Coulter has lost Free Republic as supporters. Surely, she doesn’t think the Elders are going to replace us?

124 posted on 02/01/2012 9:47:49 PM PST by CT (Make Mine Newt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sheikdetailfeather

“The first hour of Mark Levin is done to educate Ann Coulter tonight on her cheering of Romneycare. Don’t miss it!”


“...Note that governments do not have “rights.” Rather, they have only powers.

This obviously goes for states as well, which is why it is absurd to argue for “states rights” in order to bypass the Constitution and restrict human rights.

Which is why the Confederate assouls who used “states-rights” as a pretext to restrict and deny the rights of human beings were anything but conservative. For only a leftist could believe that the state has a supernatural right to strip man of his natural rights.....”


125 posted on 02/01/2012 10:56:58 PM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: CT

As much as it pains me to say this I think we were gamed by some of these people, they said what we wanted to hear so we would buy their books and tune into to them for ratings. It hurts me as bad as it would hurt catching a dear friend talking mean behind my back. I feel very betrayed by the GOP-e, FOX, Drudge,.............. the list goes on.

126 posted on 02/01/2012 10:57:43 PM PST by StPaulRevert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
I heard him tonight, oh maaan he chopped her. I think either she's lost her mind or Romney has made her an offer $$$$ she couldn't refuse. I don't think she is *that* daffy to do a 180 and torch her career. I really believe she cashed in her chips. She's a diva and wants that shopping money. Some women are like that; They'd sell out there own kids for a buck

And another point: Ever since she began worshipping at the altar of Mittens she would say in her column off and on: "It doesn't matter what (candidates name here) says or does because Romney WILL be the nominee"...Why was she so sure? Because she knew he was doing a Mike Bloomberg, throwing tons of money at anything that stood in his way including paying off a certain blonde columnist so he could appear more conservative.

127 posted on 02/02/2012 12:21:46 AM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (How ironic that Ann Coulter should write a book called Treason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
I see what you're saying and I'll go back and double check, but what I recall Newt talking about mandating was something like the uninsured motorists pool that many states have for drivers who cannot afford auto insurance because they're young or have had a lot of tickets, that kind of thing. Georgia and SC both used to have that and an awful lot of people start out driving by paying that fee because otherwise they wouldn't be able to afford any insurance. That's what I recall him talking about and if he made that more elaborate I missed it. Even at that I clearly recall him pointing out that it would be for those entering the workforce and be put in place along with deregulation of medical care to bring costs down. This was when he was Speaker and Hillarycare was being pushed. Second, I'm pretty sure he's backed off of even that due to having been convinced that no government at any level could resist expanding it to mandating what treatments were available and so on.

Various things come along sort of as a nebulous idea and people think they're reasonable until the full effects start to get reasoned through. The first time I heard Newt mention anything about mandates was as a counterpoint to Hillarycare to illustrate how if anything had to be done it didn't have to be done at the Federal level like Hillarycare. So, at least at that point in time he didn't see it as anything like RomneyCare, OmbamaCare, or anything else that dictated what services were available to who.


128 posted on 02/02/2012 12:25:12 AM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people know it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I only commented on the individual mandate, not on any other parallels to Obamacare, if there are any. It seems to me that what most people focus on, with hating Obamacare/Romneycare, is that we are forced to participate or pay a fine. Newt’s idea isn’t really any different, and yet he is lauded as this wonderful conservative. But there’s nothing conservative about forcing people to purchase any kind of product. The three ideas are essentially the same.

129 posted on 02/02/2012 5:08:12 AM PST by Roos_Girl (The world is full of educated derelicts. - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Rashputin

Some of the videos I’ve found of him, and perhaps the Beck interview but I don’t remember that one specifically, he is talking about wealthier people being forced to participate because some of them are opting to not buy insurance and then will skip out on their hospital bills. While I agree that, if that is indeed happening, it’s not right for the people to do, I have to wonder how that cost compares to all the illegals making use of the hospital ERs because they know they won’t have to pay anything. I suspect that that total amount is much higher than the instance Newt was talking about.

I’ve never come across him saying that the individual mandate he was talking about being at the state level, or that it was only for low income or those freshly entering the work force. Even if he had, it’s still an individual mandate and unconstitutional. I don’t see how what he’s said, as recently as 2 months ago, can be explained away. And certainly it casts much doubt on his supposed conservatism.

130 posted on 02/02/2012 5:17:50 AM PST by Roos_Girl (The world is full of educated derelicts. - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Democrats could use a sunny day as an excuse to destroy the free market, redistribute income and pander to lobbyists.

Indeed! If Romney is the GOP nominee, he gets my vote. Obama must go, and I would vote for a syphilitic camel over him. Romney is a heckuva lot better than a syphilitic camel!

As for all you Ann attackers, no one is forcing you to read her opinion nor comment on the thread.

Flame away!

131 posted on 02/02/2012 5:55:16 AM PST by Rummyfan (Iraq: it's not about Iraq anymore, it's about the USA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
“...Note that governments do not have “rights.” Rather, they have only powers.

This obviously goes for states as well, which is why it is absurd to argue for “states rights” in order to bypass the Constitution and restrict human rights.

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!


132 posted on 02/02/2012 6:12:12 AM PST by Diamond (He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Annie. Annie. Annie. Srsly?!

       Bend Over!

133 posted on 02/02/2012 6:15:41 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diamond

You’re welcome! :) bttt

134 posted on 02/02/2012 6:21:10 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("One party will generally represent the envied, the other the envious. Guess which ones." ~GagdadBob)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle; ejonesie22; Elsie; ellery
Romney's critics, such as Rick Santorum, charge that the governor should have known that Democrats would wreck whatever reforms he attempted.

Ann. We've been over this a thousand times already at FR. The Mitbots formerly here screamed this over and over, that Willard's plan was great until the evil Libs supposed 'wrecking' of it. BUT your boy still loved it ... well after the Liberal 'wrecking' .... and commissioned a $30,000 portrait to highlight Romneycare ... AS HIS GREATEST ACHIEVEMENT!

Romney Gives Mass. Health Reform an 'A' (in July, 2009)

Wait. There's more! In 2012, I'm gonna get Ann Coulter to support this piece of sh*t!

135 posted on 02/02/2012 6:25:16 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
Look back during the Hillarycare arguments. I'm sure he was talking about the same thing as uninsured motorists pools like the States have. I really don't know if he was talking about State or Federal level equivalent, but I do know that's the comparison he was talking about. Anyone who wants to drive and doesn't want auto insurance because they figure they can pay their own way, or because it's expensive, or anything else, has to pay into the uninsured motorists pool to be able to register their vehicle. There are some older folks in SC that I know who do just that because it's much less expensive than insurance and they drive very little these days. They're well off so it's a pretty good comparison.

If your argument is that such a pool is unconstitutional, then I'd agree. I'm just pointing out that I have never heard Newt advocate the sort of thing Hillary, Romney, and Obama, have advocated and put in place. Everything I've ever heard Newt talking about was an alternative to a big system so I'm sure there are more than a few things he's mentioned as possible alternatives.

136 posted on 02/02/2012 7:32:52 AM PST by Rashputin (Obama stark, raving, mad, and even his security people knowIf it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: GrandJediMasterYoda

Mark Levin’s rebuttal of Ann Coulter’s “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” article
The Right Scoop ^ | 2/01/2012 | The Right Scoop
Posted on February 2, 2012 11:00:24 AM AST by Sudetenland

Ann Coulter wrote an article today called “Three Cheers for RomneyCare” where she defended Mitt Romney and RomneyCare. Mark Levin decided to read her article, fresh off the presses, on the air and go through it line by line, “reeducating” her on why RomneyCare is not only wrong, but a big problem for Mitt Romney and all of Massachusetts.

137 posted on 02/02/2012 8:19:30 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Mitt can buy the mediots. Look at Coulter, as a probable example of a mediot whore cashing in on the Mitt Gravy Train for their 30 pieces of Silver!:

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle

Coulter, go $#%$ &%*%#$%#

139 posted on 02/02/2012 5:12:13 PM PST by mojitojoe (SCOTUS.... think about that when you decide to sit home and pout because your candidate didn't win)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rummyfan

No flames here, because I do respect loyalty. Still, is it wrong for FReepers to disagree with Ann?

140 posted on 02/02/2012 5:13:23 PM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140141 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson