Say Anything Blog

That’s kinda interesting, although Romney’s promise of “war” with the WTO seems less like policy and more like silly rhetoric.  (FWIW, the WTO panel discussion he references is questionable) I wonder if he understands that he isn’t running for president of WTO dispute resolution panels.

With a really quick refresher, I don’t think Romney either doesn’t understand international tax or really doesn’t care about the competitiveness of US business overseas.  He very easily could’ve noted that the problem is with the US tax system, and he could’ve put it in very pro-business terms ("the problem is that our taxes are too high on business, we need to repeal taxes on foreign income, repeal subpart F and replace it with a business-friendly tax regime” etc).  Instead he used the topic for pro-forma bashing of furriners. 

His comments really should be an eye-opener for fiscal conservatives: instead of calling for lower taxes, he whined that other countries’ taxes are too low and they’re not playing fair because of it.

I am a pretty staunch conservative, yet I don’t understand why conservatives seem to be against any health care reform whatsoever.  And the plan that Romney put forth in MA is not the plan that would be expanded to the nation.  If you listen to what he has said on the subject he essentially says that he is very proud of the MA plan, but like anything, it doesn’t necessarily translate to the rest of the country.  What works in MA does not work in Wyoming. Mitt proposes putting states in charge of health care reform, and encourages an open market solution for the problem.
It is no wonder that Libs consider Conservatives heart-less, people need to start having a little more compassion and an open mind toward social problems.  I am small gov guy, and the Romney plan appeals to me. It helps everyone get taken care of using the private sector, and gives the power to the state. There will be no better reform for health care than that. http://www.dryflypolitics.com

...I don’t understand why conservatives seem to be against any health care reform whatsoever.

As “a staunch conservative”, you should know that collectivism doesn’t work, and that the only “reform” of “healthcare” is for it to be between a doctor and patient.  We don’t need the State to get between them, in any form.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Robert, this may come as a surprise to you, but government is already involved.  And if you think that government is going to completely withdraw and have poor people dieing because they can’t afford care, you are living in la-la land.  Get real.

Romney’s approach was to use the existing funding that was being spent on emergency care to fund insurance plans for indigent care, thereby encouraging preventive care (much less expensive).  He also required those who can afford it to get insurance.  What a novel concept, making people responsible for their care instead of allowing them the sponge off the taxpayer.  So I guess conservatives are against personal responsibility now?  That is a big change from what I always thought we stood for.

By the way, the Heritage Foundation helped design the system, and we all know how liberal they are (not!).

And if you think that government is going to completely withdraw and have poor people dieing because they can’t afford care, you are living in la-la land. Get real.

I don’t think our healthcare system was in this state before the govt started to interpose itself between doctor and patient, but since then, it has gotten bad.  Poor people weren’t dying when it was a regular business, so that is completely false.  In fact, as is usual with socialism, govt interference in the doctor-patient relationship has actually created a two-tier system: those with access to health insurance and those who don’t.  Before govt intervention, this did not exist, and health insurance wasn’t even necessary.  Think about it before you have another kneejerk reaction to reality.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I would appreciate some data supporting your contention.  I don’t think you are correct.

You still did not address the personal responsibility issue nor the fact that the Heritage Foundation helped formulate the plan.

I would appreciate some data supporting your contention. I don’t think you are correct. It’s history, and you can check it out.  As our healthcare business has become more socialized, it has gotten worse.  Ipso facto

You still did not address the personal responsibility issue I’m talking about personal responsibility, dude. nor the fact that the Heritage Foundation helped formulate the plan. Please explain what that has to do with anything.  To repeat, I don’t support any “plan” at all; I just want the govt to get out of the healthcare business and allow doctors and patients to relate directly.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Romney’s health care reform plan is NOT the same one that was passed in Massachusetts. What I can’t understand is people who fail to realize that Romney was dealing with an 85% liberal legislature who overrode EIGHT of his vetoes involving the reform plan. Are people being deliberately disingenuous or are they truly uninformed?

If you want to be honest and become informed as to Mittt’s actual proposals, go to Mitt’s website and see the plan he is proposing. http://www.mittromney.com/News/Photo-Albums/Health_Care_Briefing). It looks more like the original plan he proposed in Massachusetts BEFORE it was altered.

Further, the only thing that saved the citizens of Massachusetts from Hillarycare —outright socialized medicine—was Mitt. He brokered the best compromise a conservative could hope for in that ultra liberal state.

Americans want health care reform and they want it NOW. If you don’t want Hillarycare—you better come up with a plan. Which Mitt did. In a more conservative setting his kind of reforms will work out even better.

Republicans are downright stupid if they think they can ignore this issue. Mitt is not stupid. He realizes the Mass plan is not perfect. He said he’s waiting for other states—especially more conservative ones—to put forward their own plans and see what happens. He’s admitted their is room for improvement.

Romney is coming up with innovative ideas and alternatives to the European-leaning solutions the libs are offering.
Romney gets it. Others, apparently, do not.

Robert, I’m sorry, but you are inventing history.  Health care in this country has significantly improved the overall longevity of the population, decreased infant mortality, discovered cures for diseases and overall created the best health care system in the world.  Government had a significant role in that process (does the express health and welfare mean anything?).  Were it not for government regulation we would be still at the mercy of charletans selling snake oil.

The issue is not whether there is government involvement, but how much and the direction of it.

Obviously you are so unfamiliar with politics that the Heritage Foundation means nothing to you.  That in itself speaks volumes.  It was nice to visit your site, but I probably won’t be back.

Rob,

I don’t understand why you insist on discounting Romney based solely on what he accomplished in MA without taking into account what he as Governor had to work with.  It strikes me as unfair.  It isn’t like he was the leader of the MA House or Senate, had he simply vetoed every bill that came his way in leftist dominated MA, he’d have had ever veto over-ridden and he would have been nothing more than a brief road bump for the state.  As it stands, his influence seems to have effectively pushed back on the tide of leftist legislation that became law there in and in some cases (like the budget) made a positive conservative change in the order of business for the state as well. But “ROMNEYCARE”, huh?  That’s it?

Were it not for government regulation we would be still at the mercy of charletans selling snake oil.

That’s the argument the AMA used to get a monopoly on regulating the medical profession.  Typical fearmongering to acquire control.
The performance of doctors is not because of govt interference; it’s in spite of it.
I have lived that medical history; you are simply wrong.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I don’t understand why you insist on discounting Romney based solely on what he accomplished in MA without taking into account what he as Governor had to work with.

Romneycare was Romney’s idea.  This wasn’t something foisted on him by Mass.’s legislature, he came up with it.

It’s a terrible plan that is already costing that state far more than he said it would.  It’s a dramatic failure and far too close to what Hillary wants.

That he’s unwilling to bring it up now in front of conservative audiences is telling.

Don’t be foolish and discount this.  Romney can’t be our guy.  He looks good now and is saying the right things, but ultimately actions speaker louder than words don’t they?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Rob,

Romneycare was Romney’s idea.

Sort of.  It was his response to intense pressure to provide health care to those without.  It was not the ideal solution favored by the MA legislature.  They over rode at least 1 veto during the process of crafting the legislation and submitting it to the governor.  He submitted a plan.  The leftist in the MA legislature revised that plan so that it suited them more.  Some back and forth, and then he signed a bill that met the satisfaction of a majority of the legislature.

I guess I get frustrated with intemperance towared well meaning conservative politicians in dramatically difficult situations by people who should really know better.  I’ve read you for years now, Rob.  I know you know how government works.  You know Romney isn’t 100% responsible for the bill that got passed.  You know there exists a large chunk of the public that is for government funded health care.  You know that areas that trend Democrat are more likely to have a population that favors such proposals.  Yet you aren’t willing to give this man any credit for at leasting pushing for the most responsible outcome he could possibly hope to attain.  I don’t say this lightly when I say that I’m a bit disappointed in your attitude toward Mitt Romney.  I like Fred Thompson.  I like Giuliani.  I don’t agree with them or Mitt on every single thing they say.  The fact is that in all of them, we have advocates willing to go out in front of the public and push for things you and I support.  They’re at least laying down words that they’ll later be required to answer for (after all, they’re Republicans not Democrats).

ultimately actions speaker louder than words don’t they?

Absolutely.  Don’t think I’m excusing him completely.  He put the best face possible on his MA health care plan and that makes him an opportunistic politician.  He didn’t run as a staunch conservative to win the MA governorship, but he did run to the right of his Democrat opponent.  And he delivered to the right of that opponent as well. 

Look, you support Fred.  I respect that.  I’m torn between the big 3, myself.  Have you found nothing in the way of merit in my appeal to you?  Isn’t it possible that Romney, the Democrat dominated MA legislature, the MA news media, and the people of the state itself all bear some responsiblity for Romneycare?  Is it too much to expect a little less derision from one of my most read conservative blog pundits toward (one of) the possible GOP candidate for President in 2008?

Osama Obama, Romney absolutely is 100% responsible for Romneycare.  Granted, the legislature made changes to the bill and overrode his veto on those changes (the Gov. of Mass. has a line item veto), but the genesis of the idea was still Romney’s.

It was his idea to force universal health care on the citizens of his state, to force them to by health care or be signed up for government health care if they couldn’t afford it.

That’s about as anti-conservative as it gets, and with this country nearing the tipping point of socialized medicine Romney just isn’t a risk we can take.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Right, so the MA (and national for that matter) news media and leftist MA voters had no part in the push for government funded health care?  I understand your concerns regarding socialized health care.  I share them.  It’s obvious we aren’t going to see eye to eye on this. That’s too bad.

OO: I think what it comes down with Mitt is whether he will stand up to the forces of socialism, or whether he’ll play politics with it.  I want a leader, not a follower.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Ok, one last shot.  This is from a symposium on Romney’s proposed national health care proposal by National Review

Robert E. Moffit
Romney’s health-care-reform proposal is a refreshing reaffirmation of federalism. At the federal level, he proposes a universal tax deduction for all health-care expenses. Every person would be able to get the same federal tax deduction for health insurance, for example, regardless of where they got it; health insurance would then be personal and individuals would be able to carry their health insurance from job to job. Romney would also strengthen health savings accounts by eliminating today’s minimum deductible requirement.

These are major and welcome changes. But the real heavy lifting would be up to the states. The Romney plan provides federal incentives for states to reform their insurance markets in ways that would reduce premium costs and expand private coverage options for consumers.

He leaves it to the states to determine how best to work out all the mind-numbing details, ranging from creating new risk pooling arrangements to drafting new underwriting rules. But under the plan, state officials would “earn” federal funds to help low income people get private coverage by making their insurance markets more affordable and consumer-friendly.

Romney’s got this exactly right: Essentially, he’s using existing government funds to do get the uninsured out of the hospital emergency rooms and into private health plans.

Romney’s national tax reform proposal would unify the tax treatment of health care for every American, while his encouragement of innovative state officials would respect the diversity of the states. After all, what works best for Massachusetts may not work well for Mississippi.

— Robert E. Moffit is director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

The other reviews of his plan are largely favorable as well.  So with leading conservative voices willing to give Romney the benefit of the doubt regarding his sincerity as applied to the proposed changes to national health care policies, don’t you think he deserves at least a cursory examination before being condemned as a Hillary clone?

r108,

I certainly do not wish to dispell all skepticism about Romney’s ability to hold off the socialist tide.  He shows leadership capability.  Is he the strongest advocate a conservative could hope for?  I don’t know.  Who is?Personally, I harbor such doubts about all of the Republican candidates now striving for President in 2008 including Thompson.  He’s moved right on a few issues as well.  What I want is to encourage our side to give it’s public advocates the benefit of the doubt if at all possible.  These guys are out talking the talk.  They are giving us policies to parse and promote going into a very important election.  We should hold them all to their promises.  But dinegrating them constantly for previous imperfections is allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good.  And in the case of Romney, the guy was working with one of the most leftist legislatures in one of the most leftist states in the union.  He’s said that he got what he could passed in the state and that he did not think it was the best plan for the nation as a whole.  Rob Port has admitted that in crafting the bill, the legislature over rode his vetos which essentially made the bill not entirely of his own design.  Should he have refused to sign it?  Maybe, but I’m not sure even that would have stopped the legislation from passing under the requirments of the MA constitution.  He seems to have decided that the passage of some such legislation was inevitable and he tried to assert as much positive conservative influence on the final outcome as possible. 

That, and beyond the healthcare debate, he also took the state from deficit to surplus (not entirely on his own as the national economy certainly had some bearing on this acheivement) without raising taxes.....in Massachusettes.

OO: With Romney, we have the ability to compare his words with his actions, which is where he falls down, IMO.  I don’t expect perfection, but a demonstrated tendency to bend over for the lefties isn’t a sterling example of his leadership abilities, IMO.
Having said that, anyone is better than Hillary.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

OO: Anything other than fee for services medical treatment is socialism; it’s only a matter of degree.  I’m not saying there shouldn’t be some public funds, but they should only be for the poorest Americans, not the mainstay of the healthcare industry, as it is today.  In the spirit of the Constitution, govt entry into the private sector should be severely limited, and subject to much scrutiny, not advocated from an emotional, vote-buying position as is being done today.
Experience has shown that the market provides all varieties of product at all levels of price; govt interference is always designed to produce equality of outcome, but it never succeeds in doing that, because humans aren’t uniform.  It’s really a question of how free do you want to be?  Do you want to make your own healthcare decisions, or do you want someone like Hillary making those decisions for you?
It’s that simple.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

I like Romney’s positions on many things but his evasiveness on key issues concerns me.

OO: In addition, today’s “insurance” isn’t real insurance based on actuarial data in each individual case, but rather a “risk pool” which is really a pyramid scheme.  The giveaway is that if all the policyholders needed medical care at the same time, the insurance company would be unable to pay off, and the taxpayers would be tapped to pay the bill.  This happens all the time with flood insurance along the Mississippi Valley.  It should be fraud, but the govt just looks the other way and picks our pockets.
The whole “healthcare plan” concept is economically dishonest, and we all pay for it, both with our hard-earned money and with the quality and availability of healthcare.  Then there are the invaders…

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

r108,

I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here.  I even readily admit that Romney has to stretch to square his current policy proposals with those he promoted in leftist MA.  You said it, anyone but a Democrat (I’m lumping Ron Paul in that group BTW).  That leads directly to what my whole intention was in trying to get Romney a fair shake here.  When it comes to critisizing our own we can count on the Democrat msm to tear ours down tirelessly and overtly unfairly, on the other hand we should measure our critisisms of them carefully.

OO: I appreciate your views, even though I disagree with some of them, for reasons I have already listed.  Just to let you know, I have a problem with the word “fair”; it only means what the person who uses it intends it to mean.  Lefties use it a lot, btw.  “Your fair share of taxes.” for instance.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

Well taken, r108.  Indeed, the word fair is usually used unqualified.  I hope you will find in reviewing my comments that I followed my requests for fairness with very specific qualifications for what I considered that to mean.

OO: My point was that is an imprecise term, depending entirely on the person using it.  One person’s “fairness” is another’s injustice.  It has no independent meaning.

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.

That should be: “that it is an imprecise term...”

"Give the lefties a pile of money, and they’ll spend it buying votes.” - Rush Limbaugh on the “bailout”.