Nice article on the origins of the Individual Mandate, but you left out the
interesting part of the story. Now explain why Republicans so violently
rejected an idea that came from conservative ranks.
And, unfortunately, we somehow have saddled ourselves with a presidential debate
format that forbids a clear and full discussion of the
Heritage-to-Romney-to-Obama story. It took me more than two minutes to read this
excellent summary.For those watching tonight's debate, the
short-hand references to the differences between, on the one hand, what Mitt
Romney as a Republican governor in a Democratic-rich state tried to do on a
state level (where the state constitution does not forbid such a mandate), and,
on the other hand, what President Obama did on the national level (in the face
of a Commerce Clause that does not permit such a mandate and under the
Trojan-Horse guise of a "this-is-not-a-tax" promise that proves in the
end to be short of the truth) may be obscured by the rush to the next two-minute
topic and may be appreciated only by those who may have otherwise turned off the
TV (be it talking heads or mindless entertainment) and read about and tried to
understand these crucial matters over the years.Hopefully, perhaps
despite some of us as ignorant voters, we can right this ship.
Integrity and honesty, each the hallmark of a civil society. Lack thereof, no
matter Republican or Democratic citizen, is the very reason government programs
fail. There is no accountability and dishonesty thrives. Free markets may be
harsh at times, but insure honesty and accountability, which also allows real
charity to be a part of the answer, not government welfare, which isn't
charitable at all! Government charity is an oxymoron. Without God, any
government will descend into apathy, dependency,despotism, and tyranny. At
least in free markets, you have a choice.
Republicans just arn't being honest about it. They can't support it
now simply because Obama implimented thier own idea.
It's obvious that there are no easy solutions to this complex problem. But
simply fighting one another instead of working to find those solutions will
never help anyone.At least Obama tried to do something while others
were fiddling.Now how about trying to work together to improve,
rather than destroy the progress ACA has brought.
For a variety of reasons, including the amount of government money already in
health care, we have created the Medical-Industrial Complex.For a country
that cannot afford its health care system we sure spend money on facilities,
equipment and salaries as though we had all the money in the world to spend.And frankly, medical science is far less advanced than we think it is.
Fully expect to see Willard dancing, bobbing and flat out lying when he
discuss's the difference between Romneycare and Obamacare. Some advice for
Willard, remember the first rule of "holes". When you are in one, stop
digging. The more you say on the subject the worse you come accross. Contrary
to some of the posts here most Americans are informed on the basics. They know
more and more Americans continue to lose insurance, the cost of health care
continues to climb, and they don't like to the individual mandate. Polls
continue to grow for support on Obamacare, although they are not above 50%.
Obama will be able to show his leadership on this issue and if Romney dwells on
the subject he'll come accross as out of touch with the issues facing those
not in the 1%. Better to try and say he was proud of Romney care and wish that
B.O. would have worked with Republicans to produce a better bill. It's a
lie, but most that will come out of both of their mouths will be.
One issue in the healthcare debate that hasn't been talked about is how the
definition of "insurance" has changed.Historically,
"insurance" was a form of risk management to hedge against a future
unforeseen or contingent loss. Now, insurance simply means "getting someone
else to pay for it."The fight is not so much about who will pay
for unforeseen losses as it is for who will pay for foreseeable costs -
"cost shifting" rather than "burden bearing."Cost
shifting by government mandate burdens society. Those who get their
"costs" paid are those who lobby best. Those without a voice, those
with unforeseen burdens, who need mutual help the most, are often losers. This
was true in Massachusetts and patently obvious in Washington, D.C.Insurance, true insurance, should provide for unforeseen losses and be
optional, not universal. "Not one soul shall be uninsured" may sound
familiar to some, but we all voted against "universality" eons ago.
When arguments are made that supposedly involve everyone, be careful and hold on
to your wallet.
@Stephen Kent Ehat -- Were you on vacation the week the Supreme Court ruled that
the law was not unconstitutional? Unconstitutional does not mean "I
don't like it."
Regardless of origins . . In the debate just ending Romney surgically carved the
President up on the healthcare system, Romney knows more about healthcare
finances, medical delivery, cost efficiencies etc. than the President and any of
his handlers. On this issue one candidate really knows what he was talking
@armchair -- I disagree. I thought that was Romney's weakest argument in
the debate. I think people are really going to be concerned about losing
coverage for preexisting conditions and lifetime caps. I think most people are
beginning to realize they don't want to go back to the way things were
"Romney knows more about healthcare finances, medical delivery, cost
efficiencies etc. than the President and any of his handlers. "And with all of that knowledge and experience, he instituted an insurance
mandate in Mass and touted it as a country wide plan.Now, he has to
run away from it to please the GOP.