BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

[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.

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

Then perhaps you must have missed this sentence:

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.

 

[Rocko]

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.

Then perhaps you must have missed this sentence:

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.

I read that, but he's talking about his state. His argument the whole time has been it's fine on a state level, but wrong on a federal level. Now, I don't like his argument, or agree with him, but that statement doesn't clash with what he's been saying all along.

 

[dblack]

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

Then perhaps you must have missed this sentence:

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.

I read that, but he's talking about his state. His argument the whole time has been it's fine on a state level, but wrong on a federal level. Now, I don't like his argument, or agree with him, but that statement doesn't clash with what he's been saying all along.

In the op-ed, he's recommending the same approach be followed at the federal level. He hasn't been making the state's rights argument "the whole time", only since he's been taking heat for the mandate. In any case, if he was willing to feed his state to the insurance industry, I see no reason he'd object to throwing the rest of us to the wolves.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Then perhaps you must have missed this sentence:

I read that, but he's talking about his state. His argument the whole time has been it's fine on a state level, but wrong on a federal level. Now, I don't like his argument, or agree with him, but that statement doesn't clash with what he's been saying all along.

In the op-ed, he's recommending the same approach be followed at the federal level. He hasn't been making the state's rights argument "the whole time", only since he's been taking heat for the mandate. In any case, if he was willing to feed his state to the insurance industry, I see no reason he'd object to throwing the rest of us to the wolves.

In other words a vote for romney is a vote for obama?

 

[dblack]

I read that, but he's talking about his state. His argument the whole time has been it's fine on a state level, but wrong on a federal level. Now, I don't like his argument, or agree with him, but that statement doesn't clash with what he's been saying all along.

In the op-ed, he's recommending the same approach be followed at the federal level. He hasn't been making the state's rights argument "the whole time", only since he's been taking heat for the mandate. In any case, if he was willing to feed his state to the insurance industry, I see no reason he'd object to throwing the rest of us to the wolves.

In other words a vote for romney is a vote for obama?

From my perspective, yeah. I really don't see enough difference between them to bother.

 

[Rocko]

Then perhaps you must have missed this sentence:

I read that, but he's talking about his state. His argument the whole time has been it's fine on a state level, but wrong on a federal level. Now, I don't like his argument, or agree with him, but that statement doesn't clash with what he's been saying all along.

In the op-ed, he's recommending the same approach be followed at the federal level. He hasn't been making the state's rights argument "the whole time", only since he's been taking heat for the mandate. In any case, if he was willing to feed his state to the insurance industry, I see no reason he'd object to throwing the rest of us to the wolves.

can you show me where he's recommending it on a federal level? I was able to load half, and I didn't see it.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

... 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.

Well see, that whole Constitution thing (that document people like you despise) kind of gets in the way.

 

[dblack]

I read that, but he's talking about his state. His argument the whole time has been it's fine on a state level, but wrong on a federal level. Now, I don't like his argument, or agree with him, but that statement doesn't clash with what he's been saying all along.

In the op-ed, he's recommending the same approach be followed at the federal level. He hasn't been making the state's rights argument "the whole time", only since he's been taking heat for the mandate. In any case, if he was willing to feed his state to the insurance industry, I see no reason he'd object to throwing the rest of us to the wolves.

can you show me where he's recommending it on a federal level? I was able to load half, and I didn't see it.

You can read the whole op-ed here: USATODAY.com

 

[Sallow]

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".

Low?

Low on your side of the table. I, quite frankly, like the President. He's an accomplished man and is doing a pretty good job.

What are you guys running this cycle?

A corporate raider who's one accomplishment that actually benefitted anyone is being shot down.

A petulant self aggrandizing lying racist philanderer that shut down government, twice.

A theocratic congressional insider who absolutely can not run on a record of voting for ear marks..so he clings to wedge issues.

Good stuff.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

Yeah, they also have a lower quality of health care and rationing in order to get those lower costs and the lower infant mortality rate is a myth that's already been debunked here 100 times. You might want to read up before you call someone else a dumb ass.

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

Actually, less government would allow market forces to be reintroduced into the equation and help drive prices down. Who are you calling a dumb ass again?

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.

No, what needs to happen is the government needs to get the hell out of health care and everyone go back to true insurance, plans that cover catastrophic health events, not every single doctor visit and flu shot.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

Yeah, I'm not buying it either. It's been known that Romney would run for president again, so I agree with you, it would have been news.

 

[Rocko]

In the op-ed, he's recommending the same approach be followed at the federal level. He hasn't been making the state's rights argument "the whole time", only since he's been taking heat for the mandate. In any case, if he was willing to feed his state to the insurance industry, I see no reason he'd object to throwing the rest of us to the wolves.

can you show me where he's recommending it on a federal level? I was able to load half, and I didn't see it.

You can read the whole op-ed here: USATODAY.com

Thanks. I read it, and I didn't read anywhere of him recommending a federal mandate program. I didn't take that at all from it.

 

[GoneBezerk]

There is nothing wrong with a state Govt making it mandatory for everyone to get some form of health insurance for emergency care. If you want to pay more for more medical serivces then do it.

It is UnAmerican to walk into an emergency room expecting everyone else in the place to pay for your medical bills.

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

No, what needs to happen is the government needs to get the hell out of health care and everyone go back to true insurance, plans that cover catastrophic health events, not every single doctor visit and flu shot.

Are you under the impression the majority of health spending in the United States is on...flu shots?

 

[Chris]

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

The individual mandate was a Republican idea from the beginning.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

The problem for Romney, both with his apparent prior support for a federal mandate and his ongoing defense of state-based mandates, is that Ohio voters recently rejected all such mandates in rather emphatic fashion. Just four months ago, Buckeye State voters supported a ballot measure that said, in part, “In Ohio, no law or rule shall compel, directly or indirectly, any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in a health care system.” Even though the vote was among all Ohio voters and not merely those who will be voting in the upcoming Republican primary, the measure passed by a whopping 32 percentage points (66 to 34 percent), won in all 88 of Ohio’s counties, and won in 81 of those counties by margins of at least 20 points.
Did Romney Support a Federal Mandate During the Obamacare Debate? | The Weekly Standard

 

[GoneBezerk]

Romney supports states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it, but not at a national level where the FEDs get involved with healthcare.

End of debate.

If a state can force you to own car insurance to drive on the streets then they should have the right to force you to pay for health insurance for emergency medical care since hospitals by law have to treat you when you walk into the emergency room.

You don't have the right to force me to pay for your medical bills because you think it is your right to spend that money on a PS3, booze, etc. You should be denied medical care if you don't want to pay something for healthcare.....you can just die with your PS3 in your hands.

 

[Vast LWC]

I read that, but he's talking about his state. His argument the whole time has been it's fine on a state level, but wrong on a federal level. Now, I don't like his argument, or agree with him, but that statement doesn't clash with what he's been saying all along.

He's making suggestions on what would work on a national level, based on what he did in his state.

That is the point, and it is accurate.

I'm not saying he's right or wrong to have made that suggestion, but he DID make the suggestion.

 

[Vast LWC]

Romney supports states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it, but not at a national level where the FEDs get involved with healthcare.

End of debate.

If a state can force you to own car insurance to drive on the streets then they should have the right to force you to pay for health insurance for emergency medical care since hospitals by law have to treat you when you walk into the emergency room.

You don't have the right to force me to pay for your medical bills because you think it is your right to spend that money on a PS3, booze, etc. You should be denied medical care if you don't want to pay something for healthcare.....you can just die with your PS3 in your hands.

You can say that all you want, the point is that when he wrote this Op-Ed, when the mandates were being decided on, he DID support the idea of mandates on a national level.

Facts are facts. And we are simply quoting the man's own words here.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Romney supports states doing healthcare insurance the way their voters want it, but not at a national level where the FEDs get involved with healthcare.

End of debate.

If a state can force you to own car insurance to drive on the streets then they should have the right to force you to pay for health insurance for emergency medical care since hospitals by law have to treat you when you walk into the emergency room.

You don't have the right to force me to pay for your medical bills because you think it is your right to spend that money on a PS3, booze, etc. You should be denied medical care if you don't want to pay something for healthcare.....you can just die with your PS3 in your hands.

You don't have the right to force me to pay for your medical bills because you think it is your right to spend that money on a PS3, booze, etc. You should be denied medical care if you don't want to pay something for healthcare.....you can just die with your PS3 in your hands.

People in Massachusetts are mandated to buy healthcare. If you lived there you would have to buy it, which is why romney will not win because of his mandate on the citizens Massachusetts and his past support of obamacare.