Via Player-of-the-Month johnk:
Now, the personal mandate was not too popular around here when the health care law first passed. But dang it all … Mitt makes a very convincing case that it’s a necessity. (And on reflection, I agree with Mitt: The mandate is the nudge that gets people into the risk pool — which, of course, they’re already in whether they have insurance or not.)
Oh wait … never mind? It’s social-o’-fascism?
Please share widely!
What I think is lost in this debate Federalism/state’s rights debate is that the only two consistent GOP health reform proposals, federally mandated medical malpractice reform and federally mandated opening of state insurance markets to outside policies, are completely anti-Federalist positions.
Romney has signaled many times that he supports shoving medical malpractice reform down the throats of states that want to run their own state civil tort courts, and from what I read about his newest proposal, I think he wants to implement the open borders insurance reform, which basically makes whatever corrupt stooge that is currently Mississippi’s Insurance Commissioner the insurance commissioner for the other 49 states.
If Republicans are going to flog the Federalist thing, they should be forced to defend their anti-Federalist policies over and over again.
WSJ comments are pretty nasty, but more directed at using some of the gaps in the Massachusetts law to kill Obamacare I think. The Massachusetts Health care program is still doing very well, thank you.
I think Romney’s speech in Ann Arbor will go over pretty well with the general public –” I acted responsibly in a bi partisan way to help draft and sign a bill that was right for Massachusetts at the time.”
Especially if he is able to come up with a credible alternative or smart fixes to “Obamacare” in the next few weeks.
I can’t figure out what he’s going to say that would help him in any way.