Corvette Forum : DigitalCorvettes.com Corvette Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney both have serious problems that have nothing to do with their presidential campaigns: At least on health care, both of them are statists, and philosophically incoherent ones at that.

The former House Speaker and former Massachusetts governor both defend the idea of an “individual mandate” to buy health insurance – Gingrich even on the national level, and Romney at least on the state level (and, by clear inference in the past, on the national level too). Their arguments completely miss the simple, underlying, philosophical principle inherent in the mandate question. The principle is this: No government, at any level, ought to be able to compel any individual to buy any good or service. Period.

Romney argued last week that the health-care plan he pushed through in Massachusetts (henceforth “RomneyCare”) was not just defensible, but a good idea. He hailed it as an excellent example of federalism at work. He said that what might be good for Massachusetts might not be good for other states, but insisted that RomneyCare as a whole was good for Massachusetts.

Setting aside the plain fact that Romneycare has been a massive failure in practical terms, Romney misses the point entirely. Even apart from constitutional questions, the mandate that is RomneyCare’s central feature is obnoxious. As U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson of Florida wrote in his decision striking down ObamaCare’s individual mandate, “It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place.”

Despite Romney’s weak rationalizing, the issue here isn’t utility, but liberty. Mussolini “made the trains run on time,” but that should never have justified his authoritarianism. Essential liberty must never be sacrificed on some central planner’s altar of efficiency.

It also would be disingenuous for Romney to suggest the mandate was some unfortunate compromise he had to make in order to enact the rest of RomneyCare. The truth is, Romney spent years arguing that the mandate was an essential feature of his law. Again and again, he cited it as a selling point. To anybody who believes that government should be limited not just in size but by function or powers – anybody who agrees with Jefferson that government should “leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” – this sort of raw government coercion is anathema.

Then there’s Gingrich, who has pushed some form of individual health-insurance mandate at the federal level since 1993. He spent much of Monday backtracking, but he can’t erase the simple fact that his endorsement Sunday of a “variation” of the mandate was a continuation of his 18-year embrace of statism on the same subject. As he was endorsing a mandate variation, he denounced Paul Ryan’s proposed “premium support” plan for Medicare as “radical… right-wing social engineering.” The philosophical derangement is breathtaking.

How, pray tell, is it radical social engineering for the government merely to provide a sort of voucher to an individual and let the individual make his own choices? On the other hand, the mandate Gingrich supports is the very definition of social engineering, and radical at that. How is it not social engineering for the government to force somebody to buy health insurance or an equivalent, in order to make it feasible for government to provide the bones and structure of a bureaucratized health-insurance system, paid for by coercing tax money from its citizens, all while heavily regulating the insurance industry itself?

Gingrich, just as Romney spent years doing, has argued that a health-insurance mandate is no different from a car-insurance mandate. That’s nonsense. Almost all auto-insurance laws require not that the driver insure his own car against loss, but that he insure against damage he might do to other cars or drivers. It is not collision insurance but liability insurance that is mandatory – and even then, it is not mandatory on private roads. The mandates are part and parcel of a licensing regime through which the state allows a private citizen to operate a vehicle – an entirely discretionary activity – on public thoroughfares. This is entirely different than forcing somebody to buy insurance merely because the person lives and breathes in these United States.

Our own health choices, stemming from the mere act of existing in human form, are no business of the government. Romney and Gingrich both would violate the Declaration of Independence’s encomium to both life and liberty. If “conservatives” are those who want to conserve our system of ordered liberty, then it is Romney and Gingrich who are the profoundly unconservative radicals.

http://cfif.org/v/index.php/commentary/56-health-care/997-romney-gingrich-flunk-poli-philosophy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
I didn't know it... but, Gingrich's comments are from 18 years ago ? He apologized yesterday for the way he put it... and akin-ed it to a gotcha moment. I'm satisfied with it. Lets see where he goes to from here. Romney's always bee alright with me.

I'll take either one over the present lack of leadership.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,253 Posts
It's interesting that you crucify Romney for implementing Romneycare, and you turn around and torpedo the only guys capable of beating Obama and killing Obamacare. Keep this kind of criticism up from the right, and you will permanently nail us all with the individual mandate you hate so much. This is very short sighted thinking. You had better figure out which is more important to you: Beating Obama and ditching Obamacare or having a great puritan Republican run for president and lose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,607 Posts
Currently hospitals have an obligation to treat uninsured individuals. They are able to write off some of the expenses on their taxes, but the major part of them end up in additional costs to everyone at the hospital.

Since the mandate is the major issue, what if we reworded the law slightly. You dont have to buy insurance, but have hospitals refuse treatment to the uninsured. This provides an economic incentive to get insurance while avoiding the mandate. It still doesnt stop someone from signing up right when they get sick.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
It's interesting that you crucify Romney for implementing Romneycare, and you turn around and torpedo the only guys capable of beating Obama and killing Obamacare.
Tex, you know that I will crucify any statist turkey, regardless of which faction of the statist party they represent. Have you went back and read any of your post regarding your biggest problem with Obama? I mean come on, Romney is worse than Obama..

Keep this kind of criticism up from the right, and you will permanently nail us all with the individual mandate you hate so much. This is very short sighted thinking. You had better figure out which is more important to you: Beating Obama and ditching Obamacare or having a great puritan Republican run for president and lose.
So.. Romney, the baby-daddy of Obamacare, will end Obamacare? Come on guys, who the heck are you trying to fool? Yourselves? Stand on principle and hope the rest of the roadkill does as well, maybe then we will quit getting these turkeys who do not have our best interest in mind.. and quit dragging the rest of us down the crappy dirt road we have been on for the last 40 years.

I didn't know it... but, Gingrich's comments are from 18 years ago ?
No, he has been for the mandate since 1993. So, for the last 18 years he has agreed with what you guys call "socialism" from Obama. Why do you think he attacked Paul Ryan so hard? I don't buy his backtracking, he said what he means, and means what he says. Newt is no great unknown..

I'll take either one over the present lack of leadership.
I understand your concerns, but the anybodybutbush mentality got us Obama, I am concerned that the anybodybutobama will get us even worse. I mean look at you, willing to toss your principals out the window and vote for a gun grabbing, healthcare mandating liberal, from Massachusetts, should he win the nomination?

I don't get it.. :huh:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Currently hospitals have an obligation to treat uninsured individuals. They are able to write off some of the expenses on their taxes, but the major part of them end up in additional costs to everyone at the hospital.

Since the mandate is the major issue, what if we reworded the law slightly. You dont have to buy insurance, but have hospitals refuse treatment to the uninsured. This provides an economic incentive to get insurance while avoiding the mandate. It still doesnt stop someone from signing up right when they get sick.
True, single payer is the best way. Eliminate the insurance companies all together. Insurance companies are middle men, who don't need to profit from this particular issue. They will still screw us good on homeowners and vehicle insurance, they will still make plenty of money. No system is perfect, but the ones we are looking at now are about the worst possible kind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
No, he has been for the mandate since 1993. So, for the last 18 years he has agreed with what you guys call "socialism" from Obama.

I mean look at you
No, that's not true. His statement about the mandate is out of context -and the actual context was in response to Hillerycare... 18 years ago. You are absolutely incorrect.

What are you going to do, bro ? -Let hump Paul and allow Obama to finish the country as we know it, off ? Do you really think Romey will take your guns, bro... really ? -or do you think that that's what that bastion of liberalism wanted to happen ? -Just like Romneycare ?

Wake the **** up... Ron Paul is a ****ing loser with great ideas. Vote for Obama, bro... that'll show us...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
No, that's not true. His statement about the mandate is out of context -and the actual context was in response to Hillerycare... 18 years ago. You are absolutely incorrect.
:laughing: ok. I forgot, we should listen to what dems say, past/present, but if a rep says it, only the latest version counts. Ridiculous...

“I agree that all of us have a responsibility to help pay for health care. And I think that there are ways to do it that make most libertarians relatively happy,” Mr. Gingrich told the host David Gregory. “I’ve said consistently, where there’s some requirement you either have health insurance or you post a bond or in some way you indicate you’re going to be held accountable.” - Newt Gingrich May 15th 2011

What are you going to do, bro ? -Let hump Paul and allow Obama to finish the country as we know it, off ? Do you really think Romey will take your guns, bro... really ? -or do you think that that's what that bastion of liberalism wanted to happen ? -Just like Romneycare ?
It don't have to be Ron Paul, but it can't be Romney or Newt. Romney is what he is, a gun grabbing, healthcare mandating liberal. And if beating Barry is so important you would take a chance on a guy with a history, more power to ya.. but there is a large percentage of us who aren't playing along anymore. So, if you want to play, relevently, your gonna need us. We are irrelevent every election season, thanks mostly to the roadkill voters who can stomach the likes of Romney/McCain/Etc. We are used to it..

Wake the **** up... Ron Paul is a ****ing loser with great ideas. Vote for Obama, bro... that'll show us...
How about this, YOU wake the **** up, and start voting along the lines of your espouses. Talking a good game isn't good enough, anymore. I won't need to vote for Obama if Romney gets the nod, your vote for Romney will guarantee Obama's win, just like it did in 2008.

cheers:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
31,366 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
No it's not. What we have right now is the best way. Just needs a little tweaking...
:laughing: Yeah, when a 30 minute ambulance ride and a cat scan cost $4791.00 I would ****ing think it needs tweaking. What it needs is the middle-men taken out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,914 Posts
Dude... he's Daffy Duck. No matter how intelligent -no matter how much sense he makes... he's Daffy Duck.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top