Governing through Reason
Policy or Judgment?
Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Bainbridge Township, OH), a casualty of voters’ shift to a policy focus
I’ve been intrigued by what seems to me to be an evolution in the way we choose our elected officials. From my understanding of history, the purpose of a representative form of government is to have the people collectively choose a subset whom they trust to make decisions that would reflect, as closely as possible, the desires that they would have, were they to be informed of the relevant information. That is, they are supposed to choose someone in whose judgment they trust.
When an elected official uses judgment, it’s not unreasonable to expect a shift in policy as new information becomes available or the fundamentals change. In fact, not only is it not unreasonable, it should be expected.
But increasingly our government officials are being pilloried for using judgment.
A conservative website’s reaction to John Roberts’s opinion on the individual mandate
Look at Chief Justice John Roberts, whose job as a judge is, by definition, to use judgment. When he found the health insurance individual mandate to be constitutional, he went overnight from being the hero of conservatives to a traitor. He wasn’t expected to use judgment; he was expected to toe the line on conservative policy. And, when he failed to do so, he was vilified for it.
We have been hearing an ever-growing chorus of members of Congress who are retiring because they can no longer stay in Congress in good conscience, because they are increasingly unable to use their judgment, and are instead expected to hold fast to an overly simplistic set of immutable policies.
They read his lips, and later read him the riot act.
And so, over time, voters have shifted from choosing elected officials based on judgment to choosing them based on policy. Those who were unwilling to acknowledge the shift paid for it with their jobs. Remember “read my lips”? President George H. W. Bush made the right judgment call in raising taxes when he did, but it violated the policy under which voters chose him.
The problem with choosing our representatives based on policies is that they are immutable and evergreen. Until taxes are eliminated altogether, they can always be lower. Until our government is literally bankrupt, we can always spend more on police officers, firefighters, teachers, roads, military, and healthcare. Policy of this sort doesn’t leave room for acknowledgment of tradeoffs or prioritization.
Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney hasn’t had a career of policy, which has resulted in particularly unenthusiastic support from the Republican base. But neither has he had a career of judgment. How can we tell? Because a representative using judgment can explain why his conclusions have changed over time. Romney could have explained why he thought Romneycare was good when he supported it, but that his opinion had changed because of lessons learned. Instead, he has tried to explain why the PPACA is completely different from the virtually identical program he supported in Massachusetts. That’s not showing judgment; that’s pretending he has been following a consistent policy all along.
Compare this to Representative Paul Ryan (R-Janesville, WI), who is Romney’s running mate. Ryan has long run on a policy platform. While his votes in Congress haven’t always hewn to the policy, he has nonetheless managed to build a reputation for being a conservative policy man, with none of that pesky judgment to get in the way. It is this reputation that garners the support of the Tea Party.
What we’re left with is a ticket that has neither judgment nor policy at the top, and solely policy in the #2 slot.
Things are different on the Democrats’ side, with a candidate at the top who is focused on judgment. As you might imagine, I prefer this model. That said, while I think the policy that is derived from President Obama’s judgment aligns pretty closely with my own, it is also clear that his judgment in getting the resultant policies enacted has not delivered the desired results. Perhaps nobody could have; it’s hard to tell in absence of a control. I am more inclined to believe that judgment at the top simply cannot be effective against countervailing policy.
Given that judgment continues to wane as policy waxes in the District of Columbia, I’m afraid this does not bode well for our nation’s future.
But perhaps I’m too much of an idealist and not enough of an ideologue. What do you think?
Related articles
- Truth becomes first casualty of new Romney-Ryan ticket (capitolhillblue.com)
- Steve LaTourette Calls Grover Norquist Tax Views ‘Crap,’ Congress ‘An Alcoholic’ (huffingtonpost.com)
-
#2 written by mclever 9 months ago
Unsurprisingly, Michael, I agree with you.
@rgbact
Every time Obama has sought a pragmatic solution, it’s been met with an unrelenting “No” from Republicans in Congress, including when his judgment says that the best answer is the one Republicans claim they want, right up until Obama comes out in favor of it.
For example, Obama’s campaign rhetoric on immigration is far different from his quiet, Republican-like implementation of near doubling of the border patrol and other crackdowns on employers, while also extending limited “legal” status to certain groups — almost exactly what McCain’s original plan was. Judgment — the need to both secure the border and get a handle on the number of immigrants — overrode idealized rhetoric. Judgment and pragmatism vs. ideology.
Obama’s approach to both Iraq and Afghanistan has been undeniably pragmatic — using judgment rather than simply embracing the “end war now” idealistic ideology of many on the left.
Obama compromised on the recovery bills, to include more tax breaks and less infrastructure spending, which also showed an exercise of judgment — a trade-off of gains to get some stimulus passed, which is better than nothing.
Those are just a couple of examples off the top of my head. I’m sure DC could list 100 more…
-
I don’t know what I think about this one. Maybe if a conversation ensues, it will help me to clarify my own opinions.
The question is “policy or judgment?” But couldn’t it also be phrased “ideology or individual?” Do we really think individual politicians should set themselves above or apart from the ideology of their party? I’m not so sure. After all, individuals come and go, but we do expect the party to cleave to the same ideals over time. We expect Republicans to be for lower taxes, smaller government and a strong defense, and Democrats to protect the social safety net, oppose foreign adventurism and advocate for the oppressed. If a politician isn’t willing to do those things, why would he/she be a member of that party?
The ultimate current example of judgement over policy, IMO, would be Joe Lieberman. Is he an admirable, thoughtful politcian or a traitor to his own party? (That’s not a rhetorical question, BTW. I’d really be interested in knowing what the Dems in the room think about it.)
-
#4 written by mclever 9 months ago
@filistro
Guided by ideology but not beholden to it, I think is the key. Someone can have a set of principles (like maximizing the general well-being of all citizens, or maximizing profits for corporations), but specific policy points often come down to using judgment to prioritize which policies will most readily achieve those principles.
For example, someone might have the principle of responsible management of government money and limiting unnecessary debt. That person might also believe that tax cuts counter-intuitively raise revenues due to increased economic activity. If they discovered convincing data that tax cuts on certain brackets actually lower revenues, then I would hope that they adhere to the principle of responsible management over the policy of tax cuts, and therefore pursue policies that didn’t excessively cut taxes to the point of irresponsibly low revenue streams, which would necessarily increase deficits and debt. Similarly, someone might believe in the principle of cutting unnecessary spending, but judgment is required to determine what spending is “necessary.”
Or, someone might hold to the principles of preserving the environment, but not every “green” policy can get equal government attention and funding. Judgment is required to determine which will achieve the best results, and where compromises can be made to attain greater benefit than doing nothing at all. Did the politician violate principles if he agreed to a 10% reduction rather than a 15% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions? A policy hound might berate the candidate for compromising, but a pragmatist will recognize that the exercise of judgment accomplished something rather than nothing.
In Lieberman’s case, I believe that his “judgments” were calculated political moves and not based on a pragmatic review of how best to achieve principled goals, other than gaining him personal political power. I initially gave him the benefit of the doubt, though I was undoubtedly disappointed that he would campaign for the other party’s Presidential nominee. Furthermore, looking only at the voting record, that can be difficult to tell whether someone is principled or opportunistic, because someone might vote for or against certain bills for a variety of reasons that aren’t captured in a simple yea or nay. But Lieberman’s blatant political ploys during the health care debate made his objectives clear. I no longer consider him to be a principled politician.
-
I read JFK’s Profiles in Courage when I was in junior high school. What I recall most about the book was how different times and different situations demand different sorts of courage. I can remember few details and no names, but I was struck by how sometimes Kennedy praised someone for bravely standing against a political party, or even against the campaign promises that had gotten the person elected — but other times, Kennedy lauded someone for doing what the voters wanted, even though it went against the person’s own personal desires and perhaps even against their religion or personal convictions.
It’s a balance, and what it finally comes down to is doing what is best for the nation and for humanity. Civil servants should be exactly that — servants of the civitas, the people.
President Obama has certainly used his judgement in a pragmatic, centrist way. Yes yes yes, the radical right has tried to paint him as an inflexible leftist of the most dangerous socialistical kind, but we all know that’s simply campaign rhetoric divorced from any reality any of us actually occupy.
Take his signature achievement — The Affordable Care Act. During the presidential campaign, Candidate Obama was opposed to the idea of an individual mandate. He embraced it as a conservative, Republican idea in a show of willingness to work with and compromise with both Republicans and Blue Dog conservative Democrats. It was President Obama who took a universal single-payer program off the table, much to the horror of half of his supporters.
(The President also used his judgement in the Constitutional aspects of it, holding repeatedly that there was no Constitutional problem with the final form of the mandate. He was eventually proven right.)
Or look at the budget debates a year ago. The President’s proposal for trimming over $4 trillion in deficits consisted of three parts spending cuts to one part tax cuts — a more centrist, pragmatic, and accommodating proposal simply could not be found anywhere. He even accepted some cuts from the Republicans in entitlement programs.
In both of the above examples, it was Republican intransigence and obstructionism that stood in the way, as the President showed prudence and statesmanship and keen-eyed judgement.
In the case of ACA, the wisdom he showed was borne out when the final product was finally enacted, and people are today beginning to see the benefits.
In the case of the budget battles, that is still playing out, and today he is using his judgement in an attempt to block Republicans from escaping the cost of their intransigence. It would be easy to bow to their demands to undo the impending sequester of military funds — which would be a rather shady back-door way for them to extort over a trillion dollars in cuts to domestic programs. But his principled stand against the far-right ideologues, a stand in support of the rule of law, is precisely what the nation needs right now. If Republicans want to escape from the consequence of failing to agree to a deficit reduction plan, then let them find a way to raise a trillion dollars of revenues to pay for avoiding the sequester.
-
#6 written by mclever 9 months ago
Or, in other words, filistro, most Democrats are Democrats because of a shared belief in principles like fairness and opportunity and helping the poor, which leads to supporting policies that improve education and ensure equal access and provide a sound social safety net. However, Democrats may bicker endlessly about which policies will actually achieve those principles, or which of those principles should take precedence.
I’m sure there’s a similar parallel on the Republican side, too, but the Democratic example is clearer, because of the striking policy divisions within the party. What’s that old joke about herding cats?
-
#8 written by GROG 9 months ago
Instead, he has tried to explain why the PPACA is completely different from the virtually identical program he supported in Massachusetts. That’s not showing judgment; that’s pretending he has been following a consistent policy all along.
Perhaps Romeny used his judgement that Romneycare was good state law for Massachusetts and that Obamacare is not very good federal law the U.S.
And by the way, I disagree that the two are “virtually indentical”.
-
Grog,
What is it about the greater US that makes a health-care program such as what works in Massachusetts unsuitable for the rest of the country, particularly since Romney said at the time that he thought it was a good model for the while nation? What factors made him change his mind, other than having the program embraced by a Democratic president?
-
#10 written by shortchain 9 months ago
GROG,
I’d be interested in a detailed description of how the two plans are different — and the same. From a first-order perspective, they certainly appear almost identical. They’re far more similar to each other than either is to, say, the Swiss plan that we discussed a while ago.@filistro,
Yes, as GROG says, the key is to use judgment in determining just how strongly one stands on ideology. In the case of the current GOP, one wonders where that line is, because we haven’t had it laid out yet.Fairness compels me to add that we don’t know of any ideological stands where Obama and the current crop of Democrats will draw the line either — except in this case, the line isn’t on the ideological side, it’s on whether they have any ideological principles at all. After all, they were perfectly willing to make a “grand bargain” and move toward deficit reduction on the backs of their constituency. And there’s the little matters of the “Patriot Act”, the “Drone war”, etc.
-
rgbact,
And of course Democrats were very happy to remind voters that he broke that pledge and made the wrong judgement, and they repeat it even to this day.
Yes, I never said that the ideological shift was an entirely Republican affair.
Instead, he has tried to explain why the PPACA is completely different from the virtually identical program he supported in Massachusetts
You lose alot of credibility when you keep repeating this.
Because he did such a great job explaining the difference that most Americans understand the differences, right?
What examples prove to you that Obama uses judgement over ideology?
I would have answered in almost exactly the same way as mclever did, so you can read that response as if it were mine.
Or is “judgement“and the Democratic platform pretty much the same things?
Not at all. There are plenty of Democrats who are more about policy and less about judgment. Most of them are in the House, as one might expect. And, as awful as I think W was as a President, I think he wanted to be more about judgment, but I don’t think he was capable. It’s not a partisan thing at all, except insofar as the Tea Party has recently pushed it on the Republican Party more forcefully than it has been pushed onto the Democratic Party.
-
#12 written by Mainer 9 months ago
Perhaps more concerning is when others draw the line for them and they fear moving in any direction. can you all say Grover Nroquist? A good friend says he strongly suspects that a good number of congress critters that still slavishly support supply side economic concepts know damn well it hasn’t worked (but for a few people at the very top), know damned well it never will and could at some point destroy the country. But to now try some thing else would be an admission that they were wrong all along and they have substituted vanity for judgement or principal. The ultimate principal only involves doing what is best for the county every thing else is just a minor subset and any politician that puts the country at risk over adhearance to some conceptual subset has some thing going on worse than a lack of judgment or weak principals for they also lack any sense of honor or duty.
-
#13 written by GROG 9 months ago
What is it about the greater US that makes a health-care program such as what works in Massachusetts unsuitable for the rest of the country, particularly since Romney said at the time that he thought it was a good model for the while nation?
First of all, the Romney plan for Massachusetts and Romneycare in Massachusetts are not one in the same. And Romneycare in Massachusetts and Obamacare are not one in the same either.1) Romneycare did not raise taxes. Obamacare does.
2) Romney balanced the budget before Romneycare was passed. Not so much with Obamacare.
3) Romneycare was passed as a market based solution to healthcare. Obamacare was passed as first step to a singlepayer system.
4) Romney care added only 1% to the state budget with no tax increases. Not so with Obamacare.
5) Romneycare solved a state problem with a state law. Obamacare is a one size fits all law for 50 different states, each with their own unique situations. -
Unlike shiloh, I don’t always have a keen grasp of the obvious
so it takes me a while to work through something and reach a conclusion that probably seemed totally clear to everybody else a long time ago.Thus… I just realized why the Obama campaign seems so zestful and energized since the announcement of Ryan. It’s because now they finally have a target. Imagine how frustrating it must be running against Mitt Romney. The guy is such an empty, shape-shifting chimera that there’s simply no THERE there. He never takes and holds any policy position, so there’s nothing to attack except his business record and his personal wealth. It’s like a professional boxer trying to spar with a huge bowl of cotton candy.
But Ryan… that’s another matter altogether. There’s something you can sink your teeth into! TPM outlines Ryan’s 5 most notable proposals:
1.) Privatize Social Security
2.) Upend Employer-Based Health Care
3.) Convert Medicare Into A Voucher System
4.) Massively Cut Taxes For The Rich
5.) Unwind Medicaid And The Children’s Health Insurance Program
Now… that’s a juicy, target-rich environment. No wonder Obama and Biden have a new spring in their steps this week.
-
#15 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
-
GROG,
I disagree that the two are “virtually indentical”.
I’ve probably overstated that, but the differences that exist between the two are not of enough significance that Romney has been able to articulate them to the public. In other words, they’re sufficiently alike that Romney is unable to articulate the differences.
Perhaps Romeny used his judgement that Romneycare was good state law for Massachusetts and that Obamacare is not very good federal law the U.S.
Perhaps, but that’s not what he has said. Instead, as Governor he said that it is good for the nation. And then, as a Presidential candidate, he says that it isn’t. But he hasn’t explained what new information he has obtained that led him to a change of heart.
-
#17 written by Mule Rider 9 months ago
“But he hasn’t explained what new information he has obtained that led him to a change of heart.”
Well, after 3–1/2 years of Obama, many of us are still waiting for the “new information” he’s obtained to explain some of his changes of heart or mroe intricate details as to why he feels compelled to talk out of both sides of his mouth. As alluded to above, one example area where he’s doing this is immigration, where his rhetoric doesn’t neatly line up with his actions. He’s tougher behind the scenes, which I can appreciate, but I lose a ton of respect when he uses a far more amicable tone when addressing the Latino demographic about immigration issues, namely because he uses the opportunity to take swipes at his political opponents and subtly castigate them as racists and anti-immigrants.
-
#18 written by shortchain 9 months ago
GROG,
Thanks for the list. I did a little checking on my own, and I have annotated your list:
1) Romneycare did not raise taxes. Obamacare does.
That does not appear to be correct If you don’t buy health insurance in Massachusetts, you have a penalty enforced by the tax-man. I looked it up (see here, for example).
2) Romney balanced the budget before Romneycare was passed. Not so much with Obamacare.
True. But surely this is an external matter to the issue of health insurance? I don’t see why we have to cut 700 billion in defense spending before we can have health insurance, for example.
3)
Romneycare was passed as a market based solution to healthcare.
Obamacare was passed as first step to a singlepayer system.Where in the ACA was that clause? While this may be true, in some sense, it is not a part of the actual bill. And if true, it would therefore, by virtue of the fact that federal law supercedes state law, also be true in Massachusetts.
4) Romney care added only 1% to the state budget with no tax increases. Not so with Obamacare.
That depends, does it not, on whether you believe the CBO’s “scoring” on the ACA, which says that it will decrease the deficit by some billions of dollars. As for the “tax increases”, see above.
5)
Romneycare solved a state problem with a state law. Obamacare is a
one size fits all law for 50 different states, each with their own
unique situations.As a Minnesotan, I’m quite aware that there are things that a state can do to “tailor” its application of the law. It’s not truly a “one size fits all” law. Besides which, you’ll have to explain, someday, how a national law can avoid applying to all 50 states.
As I look at your list, it seems that, after eliminating the ones that I just can’t agree with (probably a fault in my left-wing eyes), I cannot grant your assertion that the two programs are that different. The only real one is the state versus national difference, and I don’t see that as a programmatic “difference”, just a difference of scope.
We’ll just have to disagree on this, I guess.
-
#19 written by GROG 9 months ago
shortchain,
Thanks for the response.
If you don’t buy health insurance in Massachusetts, you have a penalty enforced by the tax-man.
True. Romneycare does have a mandate.
True. But surely this is an external matter to the issue of health insurance?
Yes, but one of the criticisms by the right of Obamacare is that it is too costly and does nothing to curb healthcare costs.
Where in the ACA was that (eventual single payer) clause?
It’s not, but it’s the eventual goal of Obama and the left in general whereas Romneycare instituted more market based healthcare solutions. -
#20 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
GROG… Romney seems (as usual) to say several different things in thsi clip, but one of them is that “it would be good for the nation to take the path we took.”
-
GROG,
Perhaps the most significant example is one he provided much more recently. No, it’s not when he was Governor, but I personally find the timing of this to me more, not less, damning. He published this during the PPACA negotiations, and it goes into great detail as to why the ACA should look much like Masscare. -
Grog, shortchain responded to your list almost as I would have. Some of the items (such as not balancing the budget first) have nothing to do with the question (which was, How does the ACA differ from the state bill that Romney signed?) Others having nothing to do with either bill (such as your assertion that the ACA is a step toward single-payer — there is no evidence of that whatever, and even if it was true, you’d have to show how that differs from the Romney solution).
You say “Romney care was passed as a market based solution to healthcare” … again, you have to show how the ACA is different, since the “market based” part has to do with the purchase of commercial health insurance by individuals, which exists in both programs.
Also “Romneycare solved a state problem with a state law.” No, Romney addressed one part of a national problem with a state law. The ACA does attempt to address the entire national problem with a national law — which seems reasonable, doesn’t it — addressing a national problem with a national law?
And: “Obamacare is a one size fits all law for 50 different states,” a statement which is entirely untrue. There is a great deal of tailoring which must be done by each individual state.
Can you narrow your objections down to things that actually apply to the law(s) and also are true? They both have tax penalties (so much for only one of them “raising taxes”). I honestly can’t see anything in your list that underlines a difference between these two laws that makes one objectionable and the other not.
-
#25 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#26 written by shortchain 9 months ago
-
#27 written by mclever 9 months ago
@Max
Considering that Iowa is the fifth state I’ve lived in (and the fourteenth state I’ve worked in), I’m definitely a citizen of the USA first and a resident of my current state second, or maybe third.
But I’ve lived (and worked) in Texas, so I know where this question is coming from.
-
-
#30 written by Max 9 months ago
-
As a reminder, we got on the discussion of the differences between ACA and Romney’s state insurance plan because Grog suggested that Romney used his judgement in choosing to denigrate the ACA, rather than simply to follow the current Republican obstructionist policy which seeks simply to oppose anything the President supports.
We are looking for a meaningful differentiation between the ACA and the Massachusetts plan to justify the possibility of this being a judgement call, especially since Romney used to claim the Massachusetts model should be seen as a template for the nation. Given that fact, I can’t see how we could posit that Romney would oppose the ACA because it was a national solution to this national problem — he had already recommended something like the Massachusetts approach as a national solution. It is seems unlikely then that sometime c. early 2010 or late 2009 he would suddenly judge that national problems should not have national solutions.
-
keen grasp of the obvious
fili many try, few succeed!
>
Re: Max, when you join the military one becomes very nationalistic. So I’d say I was an Ohioan until I joined the USN. When “you” watched the London Olympics, who did you root for? Although, I was quite happy Andy Murray won the gold metal at center court. btw, Andy is not a Brit, he’s a Scot.
And I was happy to see Mo Farah win the 5,000 and 10,000 meter race for Great Britain, although again, he trained in America and was born in Hargeisa, Somalia lol.So Mo was born next to the country Barack Hussein Obama was born. What a coincidence.
>
Remember watching the tv movie about the Miracle of Lake Placid and Herb Brooks kept asking his hockey players who they played for. And each would name their college team until finally …
Mike Eruzione: I play for the United States of America!
And he became the team captain, go figure!
I digress.
Anyway, I’m not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America! Gentlemen …
>
Go Buckeyes!
>
ok, ok, the first “event” which made me really proud to be an American was the Space Program er the moon landing. But again, we’re talkin’ Ohio ie Glenn, Lovell, Armstrong …
carry on
-
#33 written by rgbact 9 months ago
“But he hasn’t explained what new information he has obtained that led him to a change of heart”.
He hasn’t had a change of heart, its just the left seemingly can’t keep up with his smart arguments. Mitt created an approach that can indeed be a model for states that want to pursue universal coverage. Now if they don’t want to, they are free to pursue other approaches. But no state should have been crying to Obama about the need for him to do something to help them implement universal coverage, since Mitt created the model for how a state could do it itself.
So Mitt used great judgement in this case. The fact that liberals are trying to twist that judgement into some partisan “flip flopper” charge pretty much shows that they play alot of the partisan hack games that impede smart judgement that you’ve accused the GOP of.
-
#34 written by GROG 9 months ago
Michael,
I kind of suspected you were referring to the 2009 USA Today op-ed.
fili quoted Romney:
“it would be good for the nation to take the path we took.”
He doesn’t state that Romneycare would be good federal law. He has been clear that states would benefit from taking a path similar to the one that Massachusetts took. Individual States make up our “Nation”. He has been a consistent supporter of the fact that states should follow a similar path that Massachusetts took, but has also acknowledged that each state is different.
In 2007 during a Tim Russert interview on Meet the Press, Romney said:
“I think it’s a great plan, but I’m a federalist. I don’t believe in applying what works in one state to all states if different states have different circumstances.”
“Given the kind of differences between states, I’m not somebody who is going to say, ‘What I did in Massachusetts I’m going to now tell every state they have to do it the same way.’”
Politifact has dealt with the falsehood that Romney once supported Romneycare as federal law, and his ideology has now caused him to change course.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/nov/28/democratic-national-committee/did-mitt-romney-flip-flop-health-care-reform-dnc-s/So did Factcheck:
“The DNC video also portrays Romney as supporting the Obama health care plan. Not true. He has consistently defended his Massachusetts law as right for his state, but opposed imposing it on other states by federal law.”
http://factcheck.org/2011/11/flipping-through-dnc-playbook-on-romney/
And so did the Washinton Post who gave the claim 3 Pinocchios.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romney-flip-flopper-or-not/2011/11/30/gIQAH6ubEO_blog.html?hpid=z2
These falsehoods are a creation of the leftwing and the MSM and quite frankly, I’m surprised this blog has fallen for it.
-
#35 written by Max 9 months ago
-
Mitt created an approach that can indeed be a model for states that want to pursue universal coverage.
Nice try. But what Romney actually said (as opposed to what you apparently want him to have said) was that it should be a model for the national health care overhaul. So, what made him change his mind, other than having his ideas embraced by a Democratic president, and/or the necessity to follow the changing Republican party line?
-
#37 written by shortchain 9 months ago
GROG,
We don’t need Politifact, Factcheck, or WaPo to tell us whether Romney recommended the essential parts of the Massachusetts plan to Obama. We can read the actual OpEd, thanks to the miracle of the internet.Here’s what Romney recommended:
Our citizens purchase private, free-market
medical insurance. There is no “public option.”Check.
as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages “free riders” to take responsibility for themselves
Check.
Romney also recommended that the ultimate bill should be “revenue neutral”, so far as possible — which the ACA was.
Check.
The part that Romney recommended that Obama didn’t take involved “working with Republicans” — but, since it takes two to tango, it’s open to opinion who fell down in that situation.
What part of the recommendations in the OpEd, other than the ones I mentioned, did Obama fail to take? And in what sense did that OpEd not recommend something very like the ACA?
-
#38 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
I am a citizen of the United States of America. I am a Texas native. I call Colorado home, even though I lived there “only” 11 years and I have lived in Texas a total of 14 years and Mississippi a total of 16 years. California (where I only lived 2 years) is like a second “home”. I have also lived in Tennessee (4 years) and Utah (7 years).
-
#40 written by GROG 9 months ago
sc,
Here’s what Romney recommended:
Nowhere does Romney recommend that those things be forced upon the states by federal law. Nowhere.
Regarding the public option, we have never had a public option in this country. If Romney suggested PPACA should not legalize rape, would you say “Check, Romney got what he wanted. Rape was not legalized. What are you complaining about Mitt? You’re just opposed to it because Obama embraces it!”?
The first time he mentions the federal government he writes,
“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.”
Where is that in PPACA?
The next time he mentions the federal government he writes,
“Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.”Of course we know that PPACA does nothing to curb health care costs.
He goes on to say,
“At the core of our health cost problem is an incentive problem. Patients don’t care what treatments cost once they pass the deductible. And providers are paid more when they do more; they are paid for quantity, not quality. We will tame runaway costs only when we change incentives. We might do what some countries have done: Require patients to pay a portion of their bill, except for certain conditions.”
I have been criticised here for suggesting that if patients were to pay larger out of pocket payments, health care costs would go down. I used my recent ankle injury as an example.
Where is this in PPACA?
-
Nowhere does Romney recommend that those things be forced upon the states by federal law.
Since when do we redefine “federal law” as “forcing things on states”?
I guess air traffic control and federal highways were “forced on states.” So are military contracts. And food safety inspections.
This idea that federal law is “forced on states” is silly. We are not turning the clock back to 1850. We are a nation first.
-
Why isn’t the rest of the nation good enough to benefit from the Massachusetts health-care system? Seems heartless.
“Here is where the federal government can do something we could not: Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.”
Wouldn’t that be “forcing” something onto the states?
What seems to be happening here is that you’re okay with something being “forced” onto the states if it’s something you approve of. But if you disapprove of it, you’re willing to use the nonsense excuse that federal law should not trump state law.
-
can’t keep up with his smart arguments.
Speaking of which, mittens continual song and dance aside … Lawrence O’Donnell
eviscerated Ryan tonight in his rewrite re: his Ayn Rand fetish/devotion and now he’s “trying” to throw her under the bus!O’Donnell also ripped Ryan a new asshole re: his stimulus hypocrisy …
btw, grog and rgbact it’s good that you are still staunchly defending mittens as many Rep operatives/politicians/hierarchy have already jumped ship re: Romney’s recent v-p pick and are now sayin’ it seals the deal for Obama’s re-election.
-
GROG said,
[quoting Romney]: Use those funds instead to help the poor buy private insurance, as we did.”
Where is that in PPACA?
Section 1401(36B) provides subsidies (as a tax credit) for those making up to 400% of the Federal poverty level.
Romney: “Take steps to stop or slow medical inflation.“
GROG: Of course we know that PPACA does nothing to curb health care costs.“We” know that’s not true, GROG. You can disagree on the effectiveness — even though it’s well-supported by applicable research and health care economists — but ultimately we’ll have to just see whether the PPACA interventions work. I discussed this as recently as yesterday on this blog. The Song, Cutler and Chernew article cited in “Ryan’s Lost Hope” said:
Success of the ACA can make premium support less risky by lowering traditional Medicare costs and helping to monitor and improve quality in private plans.
Get that? “Success of the ACA can … lower traditional Medicare costs.” So, I’m not the only one suggesting that Obamacare will decrease Medicare costs going forward. Everyone except right-wing idealogues think so. That doesn’t mean they’re wrong, but their bias does bring the quality of their analysis into question.
What would you suggest as an out-of-pocket expense for a patient like my friend in Cleveland who has non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and whose total medical bills will probably be in the $100K range?
-
GROG says:
I have been criticised here for suggesting that if patients were to pay larger out of pocket payments, health care costs would go down. I used my recent ankle injury as an example.
Except it has been shown not to work. Other than that, it’s a fine idea.
-
#46 written by Armchair Warlord 9 months ago
I have a number of chronic medical conditions which I have largely overcome by deliberately strengthening myself. I had to, to join the military. They don’t commission people who need to take handfuls of pills every day (although strangely enough once you get in they will push buckets of meds at you — the military medical system is infamous for giving out huge amounts of unnecessarily powerful and frequently addictive drugs) Total cost to me: not a whole lot.
Would I recommend anyone else do this, let alone that this should be a basis for policy? Hell no!
-
#47 written by shortchain 9 months ago
GROG,
There’s ample room in what any politician says to allow a listener to interpret the statement as they want, and Romney is not the most concise and careful speaker (or writer) around, so we cannot precisely winkle out his meaning from that op-ed.Even if we could, taking a single op-ed as an immutable indication of his beliefs would be unfair — surely his judgment would be expected to change with experience and observation, after all.
That said, if we consider the important constituents of his op-ed, we can say that he recommends:
- slowing down. This is hardly good advice, considering that the health care reform issue has been on the pot, in the USA, for 40 years. What would be added in spending an additional few months, after all that time?
- Getting bipartisan support. Again, only good advice if one can manage it. With the Republicans running as fast away from working with the Democrats as the Democrats were pursuing biparisanship, this simply wasn’t on the table.
- There is no getting around the facts that Romney advised against a “public option” and Obama took it off the table, and sought approval from the health insurance companies for a the requirement to purchase private insurance. I.e., a “private enterprise” solution.
- There is no way to ignore that Romney held up Massachusetts’ example: a mandate backed by a tax penalty.
Those were the major suggestions Romney made. He didn’t argue against a national healthcare program in that op-ed.
Again, that op-ed was a snapshot of Romney’s apparent beliefs at one point in the past. We cannot say that, over time, Romney has supported something like the ACA, as Romney has been all over the map on the issue — but we can with justification say, as was said above, that at one time, Romney appeared to suggest in that op-ed that Obama should model a national plan after the plan in Massachusetts.
It all depends on how much one weights the various suggestions whether you conclude that Romney supported something like the ACA. If one emphasizes items 1 and 2 above, no. But if they’re all weighted equally (and there’s no real indication in the original op-ed which indicates which one Romney considered the most important at the time), then yes.
Whatever, it’s clear that Romney doesn’t support anything like the ACA now. I’d go further and say it isn’t clear what Romney would support. His and Ryan’s plans are either very similar, according to Romney, or dramatically different, according to one of his surrogates. Both plans have insufficient details to answer these questions.
That is, the published policies of both campaigns are hopelessly vague. We cannot, based on those documents, decipher what their actions will be in office. (And it’s further complicated by the future makeup of Congress, which at this time looks like a copy of the current Congress, which is to say, dysfunctional.)
Personally, although I disapprove of Obama’s actions in several important civil liberties areas, I don’t want a President who will simply follow the desires of his base constituency, even though I’m one of them. We elect Presidents for fixed 4-year terms, and the conditions and issues at the outset of a 4-year term are unlikely to apply even halfway through. As Michael says, a “clockwork President” isn’t what our system needs.
Do you think Romney would exercise judgment, or do you think he would simply govern from his base, as George W. Bush did? (Until, in the end, even that base repudiated him, which doesn’t reflect well on his judgment, now, does it?) Do you think Romney would allow Ryan the freedom to pursue actions like Bush allowed Cheney to do? (I cannot express how opposed I am to that.)
-
Bottom line, mittens adding Ryan er Ryan’s plan to the Rep ticket means they have to run as strict, extreme cons and this scares party regulars shitless ie they have to run on their true conservative public policy! And again, cons comprise only 34% of the electorate.
>
Re: medication and the military, it was not my experience that “they” tried to push pills for unfounded reasons, both when I was active and now that I use the VA. But, but, but I was enlisted ie enlisted do the work, whereas officers are generally just in the way er figureheads. Even pilots don’t get off the ground w/out enlisted preparation.
Indeed, since Uncle Sam is currently deep in debt it behooves both active duty medical personnel and the VA to be judicious w/prescribed meds.
>
Have mentioned previously the reason Dutch came out w/his “zero tolerance” drug policy in 1981 was an EA-6B Prowler crashed on the flight deck of the USS Nimitz, killing 14 and “many” of the dead tested positive for marijuana. Shocking!
carry on
-
Bottom line, mittens adding Ryan er Ryan’s plan to the Rep ticket means they have to run as strict, extreme cons
Except that Romney and his surrogates are already running away from Ryan’s toxic proposals.
So here we have Romney trying to give the Tea Party a wink and a nod (“Look, I’ve made Ryan my Veep, so you’ll believe I’ll follow his plans, right?”) but telling the rest of the country, “Don’t be afraid of Ryan, I’ve got my own plans, and this is the Romney-Ryan ticket, not the Ryan-Romney ticket.” Once more, the slippery used-car salesman is trying to not get pinned down to any specific policy. No one knows what Romney stands for, other than getting his rich ass into the oval office.
And meanwhile, in an attempt to insulate Romney from Ryan’s horrendous plot to turn Medicare into coupon clipping, he’s lying outright about the ACA’s effect on Medicare. Once more, the basis for the Romney campaign is straightforward lies.
-
GROG,
I want to be very clear about my stance on Romney and PPACA. The point wasn’t that he ever endorsed the ACA itself. I never made such a claim, and that’s the claim that PolitiFact addresses. What I said was that he had endorsed Masscare as the model for the nation, which he did in that editorial. No, he has known since well before Obama was elected that he would be running for President this time around, so it’s not surprising that he would have tried to distance himself from the ACA.Nonetheless, his editorial never said anything about how there shouldn’t be a national bill at all…and this was when the main topic of the day was the national bill. His editorial was about the national bill. Rather than say, in essence, “we shouldn’t have a public option because we didn’t have one in Massachusetts and it worked out great”, if he were truly opposed to all national healthcare bills of this sort he would have said “this doesn’t belong in DC; it belongs in the state capitals”.
So, no, he never endorsed the ACA itself…just having the things the ACA does in the legislation that ultimately became the ACA. It was careful positioning, and gave him a fig leaf, but my issue is with the underlying behavior.
-
GROG,
He hasn’t had a change of heart,
Exactly. He has consistently used judgement on issue.
You are clearly confused about what I meant by “change of heart”. The point was that judgment leads to changes of heart. So if there was no change of heart, there is no evidence of judgment. That’s not to say that there was no judgment at all, but you’re clearly using the lack of a change of heart as evidence of use of judgment.
The point is that there should be times when a position does change, such as your own with respect to same-sex marriage (which seems to have mirrored Obama’s, incidentally).
-
dc, Romney is in a perpetual state of confusion! Re: mittens continuous, negative pants on fire prevaricating political ads, again diminishing returns kicked in some time ago which is why they have little effect on Obama in the polls.
Indeed, Romney runnin’ 99% negative ads in the primary against train wrecks Newt, Santo, Paul, Cain, Perry when mittens only needed 30% to win a primary worked well lol. In a presidential election when Romney’s favorables are already subterranean, not so much.
>
The “debates” should be quite entertaining! You bet’cha …
-
Wait — did anyone here ever say that Romney ever supported the ACA? I don’t think so. I certainly can’t find anyone claiming that.
We were discussing why Romney would oppose the ACA, since it’s heart consists of features central to Romney’s Massachusetts program, features that Romney recommended should be used as a model on the national scale. The question is, since Romney’s suggestion was, in fact, followed, why did Romney oppose a program that essentially mirrors what he said should be done?
Grog quoted filistro quoting Romney:
“it would be good for the nation to take the path we took.”Romney didn’t say “It would be good for many states to take the path we took.” He said, in the context of the debate about national health care policy, “it would be good for the nation to take the path we took.” Trying to see this as anything other than a suggestion for federal law is a symptom of trying to read into it something to confirm once’s own desires, rather than a straightforward reading of what the man actually said.
Did Romney have a change of heart? (Grog says no.) Or did he simply follow the Republican policy of opposing anything Obama supports? (Grog says no.) Is there some other possibility? Grog says yes to that one — that Romney didn’t mean the things he actually said, and has all along opposed the existence of any national law that would address this national problem. If that’s so, then to my mind, Romney shouldn’t run for national office, since the point of national office is to find national solutions to national problems.
-
The “debates” should be quite entertaining! You bet’cha …
You’ve sure got that right! Watching Ryan and Romney go 100% negative, with the desperate and angry frustration they must be feeling, and unable to state any honest positions — up against Obama and Biden, who will be able to run an an impressive record of achievement (one minor point of which forms the basis for my article today), and being able to counter the Romney/Ryan lies live on national television — it’s going to be a treat.
-
Geez, Romney has now descended to the level of personal insult. I get that he’s following the Rovian concept of attacking the other guy’s strength (people like President Obama on a personal level) but this is embarrassing. He’s going to be reduced to calling the President a poopyhead and saying that Michelle dresses him funny.
I guess that’s what happens when Romney has no actual policies to propose, and the policies that Ryan supports are utterly toxic.Returning to the topic of the thread — all they’ve got to run on is the Republican policy that “Obama suck rocks!” and they’ve got to hope that no voters actualy use their judgement in looking at Republican campaign ads.
-
#57 written by dawolf 9 months ago
@MW
“The point was that judgment leads to changes of heart. So if there was no change of heart, there is no evidence of judgment”
I don’t agree with the first part of this. Let’s say I don’t have a policy on something, I research, use my judgement to decide. I haven’t had a change of heart, I’ve simply used my judgement based on the available evidence.
Lack of a change is not automatically lack of judgement, which you do address but I think lack of evidence is not enough.
-
#58 written by dawolf 9 months ago
@MW
There can also be evidence of judgement even in sticking to your guns — if Romney was arguing logically and clearly WHY Romneycare is not suited to all states he could show judgement
For instance, if he was saying “Massachusetts was quite a rich state, with few people being admitted without insurance and many of those being fairly healthy*. That gave us an opportunity to push this through. But we were a wealthier/healthier/whateverier state than most and that means Romneycare should not be used carte blanche across all states. I would like to see national solutions but Romneycare is a specific policy for a specific state. It has also been a great success in that state”
This would be much stronger than “Romneycare isn’t Obamacare, despite them being virtually identical, and Obamacare shouldn’t be in all states, despite me saying that Romneycare should be. I didn’t inhale. These are store bought cookies aren’t they?”
*I have no idea of the truth or falsehood of any of these statements.
-
dawolf, in a way, I’d think the scenario you describe in #57 does show a change — from having no opinion, to having one. That is the essence of judgement. This change came about through a means other than someone telling you what to think. That shows it was not simply due to policy. It is, I think, an example of what Michael is talking about, though it’s a special case.
I also think you’re correct in #58. Romney could have listed factors which describe why he would think Romneycare is good for Massachusetts but would be wrong for the nation, or wrong for other states. Such a line of argument could well be taken as “judgement,” whether he’d had a “change of heart” or not.
But you’re right, he didn’t do that. The only half-of-a-reason he gives is that “these decisions should be left up to states, not decided on a national level” — which is a policy statement, not an example of rational judgement. Whether he went through a “change of heart” or not, the reason is gives is simple adherence to policy, with no actual rational justification behind it, no data or logic or reasoning — that is to say, no judgement. It is a simple blind obedience to ideology without exercising any thought process.
-
#60 written by shortchain 9 months ago
DC,
Another instance of the lack of judgment is the assertion that the program should be done without raising taxes. Arguably, if the best way to produce a good result is to do it through taxes, then that is what should be done. The bland assumption that taxes are always the wrong way to do everything (except, for course, for raising money to pay defense contractors exorbitant amounts for military toys the military doesn’t need and doesn’t want) is the result of ideological blinders. -
dawolf,
I don’t agree with the first part of this.
Probably because you interpreted my statement has having an implied “always” in it. No, judgment doesn’t always lead to changes of heart, a lack of a change of heart simply cannot be evidence of judgment (or of a lack thereof, for that matter). A change of heart, coupled with an explanation as to what new information led to the change, is evidence of judgment.
In Romney’s case, he hasn’t demonstrated judgment with respect to the ACA. He has merely stated that he was right to implement it in Massachusetts, and Obama is wrong to implement it nationwide. That’s not a change of heart. What makes it sound like policy, rather than judgment, is his shape-shifting reasons why the ACA is wrong.
-
shortchain,
Another instance of the lack of judgment is the assertion that the program should be done without raising taxes. Arguably, if the best way to produce a good result is to do it through taxes, then that is what should be done.
I agree, except for the word “arguably”. As far as I’m concerned, there shouldn’t be any argument there. If the best way to do something is through raising taxes, then that’s what should be done, period. Full stop. Our goal in government should be to always do things in the best way possible. Especially if that best way violates our preconceived notions.
-
#63 written by Max 9 months ago
OK
If one is first and foremost, a citizen of the United States of America, why would one not expect to be able to receive the guarantee, as made in the Declaration, of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, regardless of where that citizen lives? We are not talking about something that is specifically said by the Constitution to belong to the states. Nor are we talking traditional functions of the states, such as driver’s licensing, issuance of marriage licenses, etc. etc.
We ARE talking about HEALTH, which is ESSENTIAL to life and the “pursuit of happiness” part of the above. Without health, the rest is just hanging on.
So why would one, who may live in a MA, say, have to choose between possibly an excellent job offer in SC that could advance their career, and the health of their family by taking the job instead of staying in MA because of the health care law there?
Conversely, why should a person born in MS, with all their family and support network there, have to choose to move to another state, just for the better health care laws in that state?
No, healthcare, being a natural extension of the “life and pursuit of happiness” clause of the Declaration, and the “General Welfare” clause of the Constitution, should be considered as a right of citizenship of a citizen of the United States, regardless of WHERE in the US they may live!
This is NOT the America of 200 years ago, or 150, or 100, where citizens, many times, never left the COUNTY in which they were born. Even a trip a couple counties over was seldom seen. And a trip to even the state capital was foreign to many. The past 75 years Americans have become extremely mobile, and the old ideas of the constraints of being a states borders no longer hold. Just look at the responses here, of how many people have lived in MULTIPLE states.
An American citizen should, and by right ought, to be able to have consistent healthcare, BY LAW, where ever they may live in this great country!
-
Max,
I think those are good points. I think a response argument (which I don’t agree with) is that health care is a privilege (or a commodity, or a luxury), not a right — which means people who are privileged should be able to afford it, but the rest of us should just work harder.
What I don’t get about the “states’ rights” people is why a “state” is more sacred than a nation. Why is it that it is always, invariably, and incontrovertibly better to solve a problem at a state level — even when it is a national problem? I truly don’t understand the theology beneath this.
Why is being “forced” into something by a state better than being “forced” into that same thing by the feds? Why does anyone claim that a state is “forced” into something by federal law — but I seldom hear anyone complaining that a city or a county (or an individual!) is “forced” to obey state laws?
I get that some problems are better addressed on a more local level, because conditions can change from place to place. But when there is an issue that is affecting the nation as a whole, and when there are solutions that work better when they are addressed on that level — and/or when coördination between the states is essential — then doesn’t it make sense to address those issues on the national level? Why stick to a theological stance that clearly causes damage to yourself, your nation — and even your state?
I don’t get it.
-
DC,
What I don’t get about the “states’ rights” people is why a “state” is more sacred than a nation.
There’s a historical answer to this, but I don’t know how relevant it is today. It was necessary in order to get a bunch of different states, who had closer ties to England than to each other, to form a lasting union. The 13 states did not trust each other.
-
Yes, Michael, that was the judgement at the time, the logic and rationality which formed the basis of the current theology. I guess the question for today is, Do the people in different states trust people in other states more, or less, than they trust the King or Queen of England?
I think it more comes down to “school spirit.” In point of fact, there is nothing more particularly sacred abut Brier Patch High School than about Franklin Point High School. But the kids who grow up in Brier Patch School District are expected to cheer for the Home Team.
I think it’s the same way with this “states’ rights” gimmick. People in Alabama or Colorado are “supposed” to feel better about their state than they do about Massachusetts or Kentucky, and even to be suspicious of people who live elsewhere. And an organization (i.e., a “nation”) that is the collection of all them other furrin states must be viewed with even more suspicion.
I suspect it all comes down to in-groups and out-groups, “our” clique vs them other guys. If it’s not Scottish, it’s crap. Why should my tax money go to helping people in some other state? Hell, why should it help the people in the next county, or people whose ancestors came from some other country from my ancestors, or people who can’t even be bothered to learn to speak English?
-
#67 written by Max 9 months ago
dc
I think a response argument (which I don’t agree with) is that health care is a privilege (or a commodity, or a luxury), not a right .
I answered that as a part of the foundation of the comment’s conclusion. Ie.: health and healthcare are ESSENTIAL to life itself. The rest follows logically, and legally, through the Declaration and the Constitution.
-
-
Here’s a thought for our principled and judgement-using conservative friends.
There are over 200 nations on Earth. Every successful economy in the world, and most of the biggest economies, are mixed economies — that is, partly capitalist, but with elements of social support programs (retirement, health care, education, etc.), plus regulations on banking, consumer protections, and so on.
In contrast, all of the nations that have limited government and low taxes are extremely poor third-world nations.
I don’t know which way the causality goes. Maybe it’s just that richer nations can afford to be concerned with the welfare of their citizens. No matter. There is not a single example of a libertarian Ayn-Randian style state that works. Not one.
Can any conclusions be drawn from this?
-
#70 written by GROG 9 months ago
Michael wrote:
Romney could have explained why he thought Romneycare was good when he supported it, but that his opinion had changed because of lessons learned.
You’re making the assumption that Romney’s opinion has changed regarding Romneycare. His opinion of it has never changed. He has always supported it for the state of Massachusetts and he has never supported it as federal law.
The implication by the leftwing and the MSM being that his opinion didn’t really change, he just said it changed in order to oppose Obama. Of course that could not be true either because as early as 2007, he has not supported Romneycare as federal law.
What I said was that he had endorsed Masscare as the model for the nation,
Yes you did, but he has never endorsed it as federal law. They are not the same thing. His position has been consistent; he’s a federalist and that it would be a federal power grab. He has been very clear on that.
I understand that it’ the job of the leftwing blogosphere to twist his words and make it look like he’s being an obstructionist and all that nonsense, but it’s a complete falsehood. He has always opposed it as federal law, even before Obama was President.
-
#71 written by shortchain 9 months ago
-
He has always supported it for the state of Massachusetts and he has never supported it as federal law.
That’s incorrect, since it directly contradicts what Romney said, but I see you won’t be swayed from that position.
Okay, let’s say you’re correct. What are the differences between the federal version and the Massachusetts version, other than the policy position that Federal Laws R Bad, which makes Masscare okay for Massachusetts but which make it not “good for the nation to take the path we took”? What differences can we use to make a judgement that something similar to Masscare wouldn’t be effective and cost-efficient as a federal program? Romney certainly has never given any indication of any points on which he based such a judgement.
-
#73 written by Max 9 months ago
dc,
The right wing gave up a large part of their “states rights” argument with their support of the “Defense of Marriage Act”, a NATIONAL law involved in partial destruction of the “full faith and credit” clause in recognizing actions by individual STATES.
Even more so, they recognize health care is national, with their support of the HR 3805, The Ultrasound Informed Consent Act. It’s purpose: “To ensure that women seeking an abortion receive an ultrasound and the opportunity to review the ultrasound before giving informed consent to receive an abortion.” It’s a NATIONAL bill, dictating health care to the states. Paul Ryan, and 60 other right wing congressmen have signed on.
-
Max,
Yes. The “limited government” and “states’ rights” arguments are trotted out whenever there is a law they don’t like but have no rational arguments against. The arguments vanish for laws they do like — particularly laws based on religious commandments or laws that restrict civil rights or individual rights of conscience.
-
GROG,
You’re making the assumption that Romney’s opinion has changed regarding Romneycare.
Not at all. Quite the contrary; I assume that he has always supported it.
He has always supported it for the state of Massachusetts and he has never supported it as federal law.
Which is why he was suggesting during the debates over the ACA that Obama should model it after Masscare, right?
-
#76 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
-
#78 written by Mainer 9 months ago
Not sure why but in dealing with most every thing Mitt has said on any given subject I am reminded of the comedy piece by a comic whose name escapes me right now. In the bit a sure handed shooter takes careful steady aim at a duck and misses where upon his compatriot with a bad case of the shakes raises his gun, waves it all over the place and finally jerks of a shot to some where only to have the duck come tumbling down. The shakey one askes asks “Good shot, don’t you think?” only to get the answer, “Big deal, what do you expect after you aimed at the whole damned sky.”
I have at best paraphrased this but it is a funny bit and in my mind seems to capture Mtt’s campaign to this point. If you aim at every thing you might just hit some thing or for the hunters out there quite possibly nothing. They could save a fortune on the debates this year just use videos of Mitt debating himself as he aims at every thing and nothing.
-
#79 written by GROG 9 months ago
GROG:
He has always supported it for the state of Massachusetts and he has never supported it as federal law.
DC:
That’s incorrect,
No, that is absolutely correct. Lots of things can be “good for the nation” that should not be made into federal law. You’re making a HUGE stretch suggesting otherwise.
-
-
#81 written by GROG 9 months ago
Michael,
Yes. Do you think it’s merely a coincidence that he writes this op-ed in the middle of the ACA negotiations?
No, I don’t think that’s a coincidence. I thought perhaps you had other examples rather than just this one op-ed which caused you determine that Romney suggested ACA should be modeled after Masscare.Regardless, even if you want to use only that one short article, nowhere does he suggest a federal healthcare law should be modeled after Masscare, even in that one op-ed.
In fact, in an op-ed written two months earlier he wrote:
6. Center reforms at the state level. Open the door to state plans designed to meet the various needs of their citizens. Before imposing a one-size-fits-all federal program, let the states serve as “the laboratories of democracy.”
Funny how the far left clung to the USA Today op-ed but not this one:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/05/01/the-answer-is-unleashing-markets-not-government.html -
#82 written by Max 9 months ago
GROG,
Didn’t you read the last paragraph of the Daily Beast Op-ed? Shot your argument all to hell!!!
“Republicans have introduced bills in Washington . ..”
He was NOT talking about Washington state!
He WAS TALKING ABOUT FEDERAL LAWS!!!!!!!! Can’t rationalize your way outta THAT one!Geesh! BTW, thanks for the citation!
-
I don’t think Grog views the USA Today op-ed as coincidentally occurring at the same time as ACA. He’s merely counting on Romney’s slippery used-car-salesman approach of never actually telling the truth. Romney always either lies outright, or says something that he can later reinterpret in a different way if you stand on your head and squint.
-
#85 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
#87 written by Max 9 months ago
-
#88 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
#89 written by Max 9 months ago
GROG,
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you’ve been arguing that Romney does not support federal action on health care, but a state by state modeled after MA.
But Romney himself says that the GOP is trying to pass federal healthcare legislation by passing “bills in Washington”.
The two positions are mutually exclusive.
-
The fact is, the ACA is exactly a state-by-state solution modeled on MassCare. Each state implements its own health care exchange, allowing private-company competition. It is a market-based solution, on a state-by-state level, modeled on what Romney set up in Massachusetts. Just as in MA, there are minimum standards which must be met. Just as in MA, there is a requirement for everyone to buy insurance, with a tax penalty if they don’t, and with subsidies to help people with lower incomes.
It is precisely what Romney recommended. He opposed it for — well, who knows why? He claims he opposed it because he didn’t want a “one-size-fits-all solution that is imposed on the states,” but since that’s not what ACA is, we don’t really know what his actual opposition is based on. All we know is that he’s against it, even though it is precisely what he recommended.
By the way, he also said, in another of his shifting statements, that any solution should be worked out in the laboratories of the States. Well, we’ve been doing that, for two hundred years. (Or anyway, at least for the last hundred years, since Teddy Roosevelt suggested we should have universal health care.) It’s time to implement the best solution that has been worked out in those laboratories.
How many more people have to die or go bankrupt when they get ill, simply because the insurance companies didn’t want to cover them, before we decide “Hey! We’ve ‘experimented’ long enough! It’s time to actually try something that we know works”?
Maybe we have to wait until there’s a Republican in the White House, eh? — except we know, for a fact, that a Republican won’t do it, even when the solution proposed is precisely the one he suggested.
-
#92 written by GROG 9 months ago
-
By the way. Paul Ryan voted for the auto bailout. It gave jobs for his state, which is proper. But then he keeps claiming it was a Bad Thing. The Republican policy is that if Obama is for it, we’re against it.
So, do we judge Ryan’s principle on his rhetoric, or on his votes? If his votes contradict his rhetoric, do we hold him responsible for dishonesty?
-
#95 written by GROG 9 months ago
My argument is that Romney has always supported Masscare as state law in Massachusetts but has never supported it as federal law. His opinion of that has never changed. He articulated that when Obama was still a junior Senator from Illinois and still articulates it today, therefore he did not “simply follow the Republican policy of opposing anything Obama supports”, as DC falsely claims.
My argument is that the statement “Romney could have explained why he thought Romneycare was good when he supported it, but that his opinion had changed because of lessons learned.”, is bogus because his opinion of it never changed.
-
#96 written by Max 9 months ago
GROG,
I’m not sure how that is more than VERY marginally different from my statement of what I understood you to be arguing. Perhaps you could point out that difference. Thanks.
Meanwhile, does not his explicit support of GOP “introduce bills in Washington” in efforts to pass FEDERAL LAW achieving the effect of Masscare demonstrate his actual support?
-
-
#98 written by GROG 9 months ago
“I’m not sure how that is more than VERY marginally different from my statement of what I understood you to be arguing. Perhaps you could point out that difference. Thanks.”
Because Romney has never said there shouldn’t be any federal action on health care. In fact he mentioned in the op-eds that there should be federal action taken on healthcare. Here’s one example. Maybe you can find more
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.
That would require federal action.
-
#99 written by GROG 9 months ago
“You can’t get away from the fact that Romney thought the nation should use MassCare as a model. Until Obama embraced it.”
The first sentence is correct. He has never changed his position on that. He thought Masscare was good for the nation in 2007. He thought Masscare was good for the nation when Obama embraced it. He has never thought it should be federal law.
You can twist and stretch his words all day long, but it doesn’t change what he has consistently said and written for years. Because you’re a fringist who believes states rights are a “gimmick”, I understand that your ideology does not allow you to see the difference between something being “good for the nation” and something “should become federal law”.
-
#100 written by Max 9 months ago
-
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Comment Feed for this Post
“President George H. W. Bush made the right judgment call in raising taxes when he did, but it violated the policy under which voters chose him
And of course Democrats were very happy to remind voters that he broke that pledge and made the wrong judgement, and they repeat it even to this day.
Instead, he has tried to explain why the PPACA is completely
different from the virtually identical program he supported in
Massachusetts
You lose alot of credibility when you keep repeating this.
with a candidate at the top who is focused on judgment.”
Please elaborate. What examples prove to you that Obama uses judgement over ideology? I’m not seeing it. Maybe as a state senator he was doing some great things?
“But perhaps I’m too much of an idealist and not enough of an ideologue. What do you think?”
That you’re enough of an idealogue. Perhaps your post would read a little less DC-like if you offered some examples of where “using judgement” didn’t just mean “voting for what Democrats want”. Or is “judgement“and the Democratic platform pretty much the same things?