While GOP nominee Mitt Romney has vowed that he will repeal Barack Obama's signature piece of legislation on his first day in office, he seem to be showing exactly what he does hope to replace it with: Romneycare. I don't know how he will repeal it on the first day. There would only be two ways to do that. One is that Congress would have repeal legislation on his desk, which is highly unlikely or he uses fiat power (executive order) to do it.
The healthcare law that Barack Obama and the Democrats passed known at Obamacare drew harsh criticism of conservatives, libertarians and Republicans. It was called socialism and rightly so. Arguments were made that the government doesn't have the right to mandate that we purchase a product: insurance. Yes, I'm aware that states mandate such product purchases for auto insurance. That doesn't make it right.
"I think throughout this campaign as well, we talked about my record in Massachusetts, don't forget — I got everybody in my state insured," Romney told NBC's Ron Allen. "One hundred percent of the kids in our state had health insurance. I don't think there's anything that shows more empathy and care about the people of this country than that kind of record."
But at what cost? A mandate that forced people to purchase health insurance and if they didn't they were penalized, or as the Supreme Court ruled in the Obamacare mandate, they were taxed. Empathy? Mandating health insurance is not empathy.
“Now and then the president says I’m the grandfather of ObamaCare. I don’t think he meant that as a compliment but I’ll take it.”
Many conservative sites wouldn't even carry the story, but understand something, that was not all that Romney said. He immediately followed that statement up with,
“This was during my primary; we thought it might not be helpful.”
Well why not? Could it be that it would have been seen for what it is? A liberal legislation? I think so.
“I’ve actually been able to put in place a system that fit the needs of the people of my state,” Romney added, “and I’m proud of the fact that in my state, after our plan was put in place, every child has insurance, 98 percent of adults have insurance, but we didn’t have to cut Medicare by $716 billion to do that. We didn’t raise taxes on health companies by $500 billion as the president did.”
While no one can deny that Bay Staters are among the most insured people in the nation, there is reason to question whether this is, as Romney would have it, a victory for the free market (aided by government mandates). According to CBS News, “Of the 439,000 previously uninsured Massachusetts residents who obtained insurance after the reform became law, 83 percent did through publicly-funded programs, such as Commonwealth Care and MassHealth. Federal Medicaid funds underwrite about half the state’s cost.”
That is, Romney’s great “success” in getting Massachusetts residents insured has come about almost exclusively through government spending, half of which was supplied by Uncle Sam. This is the only reason Massachusetts was able to implement its plan without major tax increases. (The observant reader will recognize a subtle shift in Romney’s rhetoric since the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate is a tax; Romney now says merely that he didn’t hike healthcare business taxes, not that he didn’t raise taxes at all.) If this is the prototype for ObamaCare, U.S. taxpayers are in deep trouble.
Romney describes how Romneycare will be implemented in place of Obamacare: “We’re going to give you the Medicaid dollars you’ve had in the past, plus grow them with inflation, plus one percent, and you as the states are now going to be given targets to move people towards insurance, and you craft programs that are right for your state.”
So to be clear, this will be a federally funded program with Medicaid dollars and the federal government will give states "targets" to "move people towards insurance. Yes states will craft their program, but is anyone actually thinking that this won't be mandated? I'm not under any such delusions. Ultimately though, because it is funded with federal dollars, it will be federally driven. That is always the case when government gets its hands in anything.
What is most interesting, in all of this is how comfortable now Romney is with promoting Romneycare, when he was so sensitive to that before. Remember the lies of the Obama campaign that Mitt Romney was the one responsible for the death of Joe Soptic and Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul came out and corrected those lies? She then went on to say,
"To that point, you know, if people had been in Massachusetts under Governor Romney's health care plan, they would have had health care. There are a lot of people losing their jobs and their health care in President Obama's economy."
She was blasted over that statement. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter both slammed her over the statement about Romneycare. Limbaugh said,
From the sound of this, they don't know, at the Romney campaign, what the purpose of this ad was and how it took root. They apparently don't know that the Obama campaign ran an ad accusing Romney of murder, essentially. Stephanie Cutter is backing it up. The woman did die. Romney got rich. He closed the plant. Husband lost the job. Wife got sick and died. Romney made out like a bandit.
Well, she'd-a had health insurance if she lived in Massachusetts. You couple that with there was a lack of understanding or desire to join the Chick-fil-A day? I mean, that's your base out there.
Coulter appeared on Hannity and took it a step further,
"Anyone who donates to Mitt Romney — and I mean the big donors — ought to call Mitt Romney and say if Andrea Saul isn’t fired and off the campaign tomorrow, they are not giving another dime. Because it is not worth fighting for this man if this is the kind of spokesman he has to respond to this by citing health care in Massachusetts."
There’s no point in you doing your show, there’s no point in us going to the convention and pushing for this man if he’s employing morons like this. This ad is the turning point, and she has nearly snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. She should be off the campaign.”
So let's get something out in the open. It seems that when Democrats want to make decisions that has government controlling our lives we rightly condemn them, but should the team have an "R" on their jersey and they proceed to use government to control us it's referred to as "empathy," or in George W. Bush's words "compassionate conservatism." Well, it is neither, government control over our lives is tyranny and it's quite simple that this is not a "right" or "left" issue, it's a freedom issue. No one should have the right to make me purchase a product, just as no one is responsible for paying my medical bill but me. The same is true for you too.
Yes, I am familiar that the states have the power to do this, but that is not the issue. Just because one may have the power doesn't mean it's right to use it and whether it is a state or the federal government, the results are the same.
Romneycare not only used state funds, it used federal funds as well. According to MittRomnneyCentral.com, Massachusetts "received $385 million per year of extra health care funds from the federal government that no other state received." Now think about that times 50! That's right though it was a state law, it used nearly $400 million in federal dollars every year to keep up. How's that going to work out in this economy? And Massachusetts is a fairly small state compared to others in the union.
We really need to see past the right and left. Yes, I realize they are there, but the reality in all of this is the struggle before us is not right or left. I mean, what if the center has moved left? Doesn't that, by definition, mean that the right has moved towards the left also? Our struggle is between freedom and tyranny. The question is: How many people will continue down the road of tyranny because of fear?
My fellow Americans, with either candidate you and I are going to get health insurance mandates from the government. You can call it Obamacare or Romneycare, but you are getting that one way or the other. As Alan Keyes has pointed out, Should Romney see the White House, the only difference will be that Republicans will embrace it because the guy has an "R" on his jersey.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.