BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

[ScienceRocks]

BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate
Red State ^ | March 2, 2012 | Erick Erickson

BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate | RedState
Had Michigan not been as close, the Democrats would have waited to spring this on us in the general election. Luckily we have it now and I hope Ohio voters are paying attention.

In July 2009, Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed in USA Today urging Barack Obama to usean individual mandate at the national level to control healthcare costs.

On the campaign trail now, Mitt Romney says the individual mandate is appropriate for Massachusetts, but not the nation. Repeatedly in debates, Romney has said he opposes a national individual mandate.

But back in 2009, as Barack Obama was formulating his healthcare vision for the country, Mitt Romney encouraged him publicly to use an individual mandate. In his op-ed, Governor Romney suggested that the federal government learn from Massachusetts how to make healthcare available for all.


(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...



The op-ed no longer appears on the USA Today website but is archived on the Mitt Romney fan site "Mitt Romney Central" and is accessible on the former Governor's old website via the web archive.


Health care cannot be handled the same way as the stimulus and cap-and-trade bills. With those, the president stuck to the old style of lawmaking: He threw in every special favor imaginable, ground it up and crammed it through a partisan Democratic Congress. Health care is simply too important to the economy, to employment and to America's families to be larded up and rushed through on an artificial deadline. There's a better way. And the lessons we learned in Massachusetts could help Washington find it.

Romney continues further down in the op-ed bringing up the individual mandate dreaded by conservatives.


Our experience also demonstrates that getting every citizen insured doesn't have to break the bank. First, we established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others. This doesn't cost the government a single dollar. Second, we helped pay for our new program by ending an old one — something government should do more often. The federal government sends an estimated $42 billion to hospitals that care for the poor: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.


Mitt Romney's Advice For ObamaCare: Look At RomneyCare

 

[JoeB131]

So if this was in the newspaper, why are we hearing about it now?

 

[BreezeWood]

... encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.

The reason for the health insurance mandate is obvious - it should be embraced or at least understood by everyone and not used as a football by Republicans.

 

[Avorysuds]

Wouldn't shock me but I honestly don't care because Mitt won't win the GE... People simply don't want to vote for Mitt and Paul's support is just to big.

 

[Immanuel]

... encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.

The reason for the health insurance mandate is obvious - it should be embraced or at least understood by everyone and not used as a football by Republicans.

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

That makes about as much sense as sticking a two pronged fork into an electrical outlet and hanging on to see if you get shocked.

Immie

 

[JoeB131]

... encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.

The reason for the health insurance mandate is obvious - it should be embraced or at least understood by everyone and not used as a football by Republicans.

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

That makes about as much sense as sticking a two pronged fork into an electrical outlet and hanging on to see if you get shocked.

Immie

Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.

The costs are going up because the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply here. With no one controlling costs, there simply is nothing to stop the medical industry from running them up. Pay our costs, or die.

The thing is, the current system only continues because of government supports. Less government would collapse the system faster.

The Problem with Obama/RomneyCare is that they are both big wet sloppy kisses to the insurance industry, forcing people to subsidize them by compelling mandates, and infusing lots more government cash.

What they need to do is get rid of the overhead of unnecessary tests, torts, huge salaries for executives, etc. And some hard decisions will have to be made, such as not spending the 11% that we spend extending the lives of the terminally ill for a few more days.

 

[LoneLaugher]

... encourages "free riders" to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others.

The reason for the health insurance mandate is obvious - it should be embraced or at least understood by everyone and not used as a football by Republicans.

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

That makes about as much sense as sticking a two pronged fork into an electrical outlet and hanging on to see if you get shocked.

Immie

You know, Immie, I don't normally feel the urge to respond to much of what you say. That is probably because you are generally predictable and lack originality.

But........this time.........boy-oh-boy.....you really came up with an impressive analogy. I mean......like sticking a fork in an electrical outlet!? I wish I could come up with a gem like that!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The reason for the health insurance mandate is obvious - it should be embraced or at least understood by everyone and not used as a football by Republicans.

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

That makes about as much sense as sticking a two pronged fork into an electrical outlet and hanging on to see if you get shocked.

Immie

Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.

The costs are going up because the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply here. With no one controlling costs, there simply is nothing to stop the medical industry from running them up. Pay our costs, or die.

The thing is, the current system only continues because of government supports. Less government would collapse the system faster.

The Problem with Obama/RomneyCare is that they are both big wet sloppy kisses to the insurance industry, forcing people to subsidize them by compelling mandates, and infusing lots more government cash.

What they need to do is get rid of the overhead of unnecessary tests, torts, huge salaries for executives, etc. And some hard decisions will have to be made, such as not spending the 11% that we spend extending the lives of the terminally ill for a few more days.

And the question was

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

So why do you want more government control in your life? Do not answer that it's already known by some that you are a full blown liberal.

 

[Rocko]

I don't believe it. Had he wrote an op-ed in USA today encouraging it, than that would have been major news at the time. Romney is also not that stupid.

 

[LoneLaugher]

You don't believe it? How's life in that bubble?

BTW......you may be interested in this:

Grammar Mishaps: Then vs. Than

 

[JoeB131]

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

That makes about as much sense as sticking a two pronged fork into an electrical outlet and hanging on to see if you get shocked.

Immie

Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.

The costs are going up because the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply here. With no one controlling costs, there simply is nothing to stop the medical industry from running them up. Pay our costs, or die.

The thing is, the current system only continues because of government supports. Less government would collapse the system faster.

The Problem with Obama/RomneyCare is that they are both big wet sloppy kisses to the insurance industry, forcing people to subsidize them by compelling mandates, and infusing lots more government cash.

What they need to do is get rid of the overhead of unnecessary tests, torts, huge salaries for executives, etc. And some hard decisions will have to be made, such as not spending the 11% that we spend extending the lives of the terminally ill for a few more days.

And the question was

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

So why do you want more government control in your life? Do not answer that it's already known by some that you are a full blown liberal.

I thought I answered the question pretty well.

Government would bring down costs, and make sure that I got the service I was promised.

It's not a matter of "more control" in my life, it's a matter of making sure that my insurance provider actually does what they promised.

Last job I was at, I ran up a lot of medical bills in 2007. Oddly enough, when the recession hit, the first people they let go were the ones who ran up medical bills.

Making CORPORATIONS do what they promised to do by providing a bigger club is in my interest.

Because, politics should be about enlightened self-interest, not ideaology...

Too bad you are too stupid to realize that... but you think Ron Paul is sane.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.

The costs are going up because the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply here. With no one controlling costs, there simply is nothing to stop the medical industry from running them up. Pay our costs, or die.

The thing is, the current system only continues because of government supports. Less government would collapse the system faster.

The Problem with Obama/RomneyCare is that they are both big wet sloppy kisses to the insurance industry, forcing people to subsidize them by compelling mandates, and infusing lots more government cash.

What they need to do is get rid of the overhead of unnecessary tests, torts, huge salaries for executives, etc. And some hard decisions will have to be made, such as not spending the 11% that we spend extending the lives of the terminally ill for a few more days.

And the question was

Why on earth would anyone embrace higher costs and government interference in our lives?

So why do you want more government control in your life? Do not answer that it's already known by some that you are a full blown liberal.

I thought I answered the question pretty well.

Government would bring down costs, and make sure that I got the service I was promised.

It's not a matter of "more control" in my life, it's a matter of making sure that my insurance provider actually does what they promised.

Last job I was at, I ran up a lot of medical bills in 2007. Oddly enough, when the recession hit, the first people they let go were the ones who ran up medical bills.

Making CORPORATIONS do what they promised to do by providing a bigger club is in my interest.

Because, politics should be about enlightened self-interest, not ideaology...

Too bad you are too stupid to realize that... but you think Ron Paul is sane.

You gave an answer only a liberal would give.

 

[Rocko]

You don't believe it? How's life in that bubble?

BTW......you may be interested in this:

Grammar Mishaps: Then vs. Than

If you believe Romney wrote an op-ed encouraging the federal mandate in maybe the most recognized paper in the country, subsequently campaigning against the federal mandate, and it not being a issue up till now, then you don't any respect for how scrutinized and under the microscope these people are.

thanks for the tip though.

 

[dblack]

[Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.

The costs are going up because the usual rules of supply and demand don't apply here. With no one controlling costs, there simply is nothing to stop the medical industry from running them up. Pay our costs, or die.

The thing is, the current system only continues because of government supports. Less government would collapse the system faster.

The Problem with Obama/RomneyCare is that they are both big wet sloppy kisses to the insurance industry, forcing people to subsidize them by compelling mandates, and infusing lots more government cash.

What they need to do is get rid of the overhead of unnecessary tests, torts, huge salaries for executives, etc. And some hard decisions will have to be made, such as not spending the 11% that we spend extending the lives of the terminally ill for a few more days.

What they need to do is get hell out of the way and let the existing "system" collapse. It isn't viable and it needs to change. Obamacare is exclusively about maintaining the status quo, forcing us to continue supporting a failing system. The usual laws of supply and demand don't apply because the system has been designed to deny them, not because of anything inherent in the nature of health care.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't believe it? How's life in that bubble?

BTW......you may be interested in this:

Grammar Mishaps: Then vs. Than

If you believe Romney wrote an op-ed encouraging the federal mandate in maybe the most recognized paper in the country, subsequently campaigning against the federal mandate, and it not being a issue up till now, then you don't any respect for how scrutinized and under the microscope these people are.

thanks for the tip though.

Like the avatar, poor Alvin he took the stupid bullet for the home team.

 

[Vast LWC]

If you believe Romney wrote an op-ed encouraging the federal mandate in maybe the most recognized paper in the country, subsequently campaigning against the federal mandate, and it not being a issue up till now, then you don't any respect for how scrutinized and under the microscope these people are.

thanks for the tip though.

Yeah, that would be a good point, except he's right...

Here's an archive of the actual Op-Ed:

Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC - Romney Healthcare Op-Ed: Mr. President, What's the Rush?

It takes a second to load, so you have to be a little patient.

Interesting.

 

[Sallow]

You don't believe it? How's life in that bubble?

BTW......you may be interested in this:

Grammar Mishaps: Then vs. Than

If you believe Romney wrote an op-ed encouraging the federal mandate in maybe the most recognized paper in the country, subsequently campaigning against the federal mandate, and it not being a issue up till now, then you don't any respect for how scrutinized and under the microscope these people are.

thanks for the tip though.

Oh gosh..really?

Romney flip flops like crazy. Kerry was tagged a "flip flopper" over 1 issue. Count em..one.

And in this cycle you guys are putting up someone who doesn't seem to have any core beliefs. He will say anything to get elected. You watch..soon as this guy hits the General, you probably won't be able to tell the difference between him and Obama.

 

[tinydancer]

You don't believe it? How's life in that bubble?

BTW......you may be interested in this:

Grammar Mishaps: Then vs. Than

If you believe Romney wrote an op-ed encouraging the federal mandate in maybe the most recognized paper in the country, subsequently campaigning against the federal mandate, and it not being a issue up till now, then you don't any respect for how scrutinized and under the microscope these people are.

thanks for the tip though.

Oh gosh..really?

Romney flip flops like crazy. Kerry was tagged a "flip flopper" over 1 issue. Count em..one.

And in this cycle you guys are putting up someone who doesn't seem to have any core beliefs. He will say anything to get elected. You watch..soon as this guy hits the General, you probably won't be able to tell the difference between him and Obama.

What's with the "you guys"?

I frankly can't believe how low politics has become. Look at the field. It is no longer about serving your country or your people.

It's all about the politics of "me".

 

[Rocko]

If you believe Romney wrote an op-ed encouraging the federal mandate in maybe the most recognized paper in the country, subsequently campaigning against the federal mandate, and it not being a issue up till now, then you don't any respect for how scrutinized and under the microscope these people are.

thanks for the tip though.

Yeah, that would be a good point, except he's right...

Here's an archive of the actual Op-Ed:

Mitt Romney's Free and Strong America PAC - Romney Healthcare Op-Ed: Mr. President, What's the Rush?

It takes a second to load, so you have to be a little patient.

Interesting.

I only got to load half of it...I didn't read any part of him encouraging a federal mandate.

 

[tinydancer]

Does anyone else wonder how the Gore jr's and the Rommney jr's actually feel that it's a birthright to rule?

I don't know and maybe I'm misinterpreting it, but that is how the second and third generations of these powerful politicos come across.

Look at the Daley family or the Kennedys or the Bush family.