Romney: Massachusetts Plan Applicable at Federal Level

     Mitt Romney has denied claims that he ever advocated instituting a plan similar to Romneycare on the national level, yet in the past he has indeed advocated such a plan at the national level. He said that "I think a lot of what we did could be applicable on a national basis. My preference, however, is not to have a one-size-fits-all plan pushed on all the states, but instead to give the states flexibility in creating their own plan." He made it clear that allowing states to set their own standards for health insurance, and in doing so following the Constitution, was merely a preference. He went on to add, disingenuously, that "Our plan did not include a government insurance plan. We did not put together a government-insurance product that was then sold to individuals. Instead, we relied entirely on private market-based insurance plans to help people get insurance. I think that’s a much better model." In the context of a discussion of Obamacare that statement is irrelevant - Obamacare also avoids establishing government-insurance, instead forcing the individual to purchase private insurance.

     The fact that Romney would accept, and in the past advocated, a plan similar to his Massachusetts plan at the national level speaks volumes about his principles (or lack thereof). Romney's plan in Massachusetts alone resulted in a 7.3% increase in the state budget in 2010 and a 42% increase in the state's overall costs for health programs. Romney's plan was not fiscally conservative in Massachusetts, and should he implement a similar plan at the national level, as he has said he will do (repeal and replace) we have no reason to expect that that plan will be fiscally conservative, either.

     Romneycare truly was the blueprint for Obamacare. The two are similar in their disregard for the principles of good government, for the law of the land (the U.S. Constitution in the case of Obamacare, the Massachusetts constitution for Romneycare), and in the fact that, so far, they have been failures. We cannot expect a marked difference between Romney and Obama when everything in the past records of both men suggest they will be exceptionally similar.

For a new birth of freedom!

Republican Congress Funds Obamacare

     Republicans may talk a good talk when it comes to conservatism, but when it comes time for them to walk the walk things get a bit dicey. House Republicans passed a continuing resolution funding Obamacare, including the unpopular HHS mandate, which requires all insurance providers to provide access to sterilization, contraception, and abortifacients free of charge. It also does not restrict funding to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the country.

     The House of Representatives controls which funds are appropriated and for what. It, as the body which most closely represents the will of the people, stands as the last defense against irresponsible and immoral spending. While the Republicans in the House may have claimed to oppose Obamacare and funding for Planned Parenthood, they could have acted and refused to include those programs in the continuing resolution yet they did not. It is not difficult to see that their true goal is not to advance conservatism and better the country but to dupe a large portion of the electorate. These are the men and women many conservatives claim will keep a "President Romney" in check. How can we expect that they will risk political suicide and stand up to the most powerful figure in their own party when they won't even take the opportunity to excite their base by standing up to the most powerful figure in the opposing party?

     The Republican leadership is corrupt, unprincipled, and concerned only with gaining and holding power and prestige for themselves, yet many well-meaning conservatives will blithely troop to the polls to vote to keep this group of unscrupulous egomaniacs in power, who gladly provide lip service to conservatism but betray at every opportunity. It would be far better if those conservatives would utilize their energy to send the message that their country is more important than their party, and that principle matters more than politics. Vote for a man whose rhetoric supporting America's founding principles has not only been matched but exceeded by his actions in defense of those principles--Tom Hoefling.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney Opposes Full Repeal of Obamacare

     Reuters reports that Romney said recently that he would not repeal all of Obamacare, instead cherry-picking the bill, repealing some parts and keeping others. Although that is precisely what he said he would do during the primary, many conservatives were able to imprint their own desires onto Romney and had successfully convinced themselves that he favored full repeal. In reality, just as Romney favored a plan essentially identical to Obamacare in Massachusetts, he still favors universal, government-mandated healthcare. His differences with Obama are merely cosmetic.

     Conservatives who vote for Romney aren't letting themselves be fooled, they are fooling themselves. Romney doesn't even lie about what he plans to do--ignore social issues, continue the same failed foreign policy, and keep some or most of Obamacare--almost all of which is antithetical to conservatism beliefs. The only candidate in the race who truly recognizes the value and meaning of the Constitution and the principles of limited government on which the country was founded is Tom Hoefling. Don't fool yourself--vote for the clear conservative choice.

For a new birth of freedom!

Romney did it First

     Conservatives have been almost universally outraged over the passage of Barack Obama's signature healthcare legislation, "Obamacare." However, many of these same conservatives enthusiastically (or not-so-enthusiastically) support Mitt Romney, not realizing or not caring that Romney's signature healthcare legislation "Romneycare," is, according an adviser who held a leading role in designing both programs, the same in every major aspect. Obama did it, but Romney did first.

"Romneycare" the Same as "Obamacare"

     Jonathan Gruber, the architect of Mitt Romney's "Romneycare" in Massachusetts confirms what we all knew in this article from Hot Air: "Romneycare" is in all significant respects the same thing as "Obamacare." While it was glaringly obvious that many extremely odious aspects of the two plans were the same--notably mandated coverage of contraceptives, abortifacients, and all abortions, regardless of the religious conviction of the insurer--were the same, Gruber's statement provides further confirmation, as he advised both Romney and Obama while they devised their plans.

Healthcare

     Today the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Healthcare Act, not-so-affectionately dubbed "Obamacare" was constitutional (for more on that go to this link). Not only does it continue that body's long-standing record of consistently taking the wrong side of every issue (notably Dred Scott and Roe v. Wade, but a quick examination of history provides a number of other examples), it also points out the folly of "holding our noses" and voting Republican, however distasteful the candidate. Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by George W. Bush, was the deciding vote in favor of Obamacare. Many conservatives trooped to the polls to hold their noses and vote for Bush, in large part because doing so allowed them, they thought, to gain a conservative Supreme Court. It did not, and it never will. At present five Supreme Court justices have been nominated by Republicans; only three of them are consistently true to the Constitution. It is incredibly naive to believe that Mitt Romney, whose healthcare plan provided the blueprint for Obamacare and who appointed more Democrat than Republican judges as governor of Massachusetts, will change that trend. Further, as obviously unacceptable as Romney is, Obama is far worse.