Home ND News Mobile Forum Contact Reader Blogs Register Login

Tuesday, June 05, 2007


Why Mitt Romney Should Be Unacceptable For Conservatives

Because he and Hillary Clinton think alike when it comes to health care:

  As he campaigns for the White House, Mitt Romney has had to tap dance around the health-care reforms he enacted while governor of Massachusetts. The first bit of bad news was that the plan’s cost was higher than predicted. Then it reneged on its commitment to cover the uninsured. But the latest bit of news about “RomneyCare” may require even fancier footwork.

  The Left is now thanking Romney for making HillaryCare respectable again. . . .

...the aspect of RomneyCare that most resembles HillaryCare is its very centerpiece, which Romney borrowed from the conservative Heritage Foundation: the health insurance “Connector.”

Cohn is essentially correct. The objective of the “Connector” bureaucracy, as described by Heritage Foundation scholars, reads like an exercise in government planning. The “Connector” is supposed to “reorganize[e]…a large part of the state’s private insurance system into a ‘single market’ structure with uniform rules and a central ‘clearinghouse’ for administering coverage.”

Why, exactly, do we need a new layer of government bureaucracy to do these things? So we will have someplace to buy health insurance? We’re getting along just fine without layering more bureaucracy on our auto insurance. In fact, we already have a connector for both health and auto insurance. It’s called the Internet. Has anyone ever heard of eHealthInsurance.com?

Why do we need a “Connector” to tell health insurers what to sell and at what price? Those sorts of price controls and mandated benefits are exactly the kind of government planning that is making health insurance so unaffordable. Shouldn’t conservatives be trying to repeal those laws, instead of creating new bureaucracies that will propose, enforce, and defend them?

They should be, but the ones in power aren’t.

Read the whole thing.

Does this tick you off? Click here to email your elected representatives right here on Say Anything, or comment below.

Comments

Mitt and Fred Thompson are the best chance conservatives. Mitt has been unwavering in the last 2 years as a social conservative in my opinion, although a friend of mine accused him of not challenging the Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling.

As a social conservative, I wouldn’t rule him out because of his health care plan alone. Most conservatives love his position on everything else.

If he were in office, I believe we would be a better nation, socially, economically, and militarily.


Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

george on June 5, 2007 at 10:02 am
Avatar for David Aust

Lets not forget, Mitt Romney is running to become the President of the United States. This means the President for conservatives, liberals, and everything in between. Politics by definition is the art of compromise. This means that he needs to compromise on lower issues in order to win on higher issues. We should not fool ourselves into thinking that any presidential candidate will not disappoint us because they will even when we only get information that is as biased as what we get from the news media.

David Aust on June 5, 2007 at 02:32 pm

Are there really any other things not to like about Romney as a conservative?


Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

george on June 5, 2007 at 02:56 pm

Even if he was elected, do you really think health care will really be radically reformed?


Why should we have less abortions if it’s not really killing someone?

george on June 5, 2007 at 03:04 pm

Romney is surrounded by a miasma of RINO-stench.  When Leftists are favorably touting him as a conservative and the man is elected in the ultra-leftist stronghold of the People’s Democratic Republic of Taxachusetts, everyone’s Spider Senses should be tingling.

Our problem has been and remains RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).  Even Clinton ran as a conservative, then, once elected, hauled up the Leftist Jolly Roger and swung the tiller hard-a-port.

Bush the First flew in under Reagan’s radar, but proved to be a vacillating capitalist.

Bush the Second campaigned as the New Hope against Clinton’s third term under Gore.  He has given us a royal screwing, as have the Vichy wing of the Republicrat party.

We haven’t had a chance to see Conservatives in power because we are consistently getting Leftists running under the aegis of the RNC, but who are, in reality, Democrat-lites.

As long as you can lie to get into power the entire elective process is a farce.

We need the likes of Fred, Tancredo and Huckabee.

Don’t be fooled: Rudy is a Leftist; Mitt is a Leftist and McCain—what can I say about McCain—he’s the Manchurian Candidate and a full-fledged Leftist.

How about a nice game of solitaire Raymond?


...for great justice

Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots, and on the matter of America’s self-preservation, the difference is irrelevant.” —Ann Coulter, P. 16

http://i44.tinypic.com/t89p3s.jpg[/IMG]”] t89p3s.jpg

2qu7zgw.jpg

AMERICANS FOR TRUTH

NO PRIDE. LV

MASS RESISTANCE

THE PINK SWASTIKA

Move_Zig on June 7, 2007 at 12:07 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

If you want to ignore a fellow commenter, download this.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.

    

By submitting your comment you agree to our terms of service.