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!

Conservative?

     Romney has been praised in circles on the right for his recent debate performance, in which he thoroughly demolished a somewhat vacant Obama, leaving him the clear victor on the platform. However, conservatism did not win as Romney did. While Romney claims to be a champion of conservatism, his statements did match that claim. For example, he lauded Medicare, a product of Lyndon B. Johnson's ultra-liberal Great Society program, and accused Obama of cutting the program - hardly something a conservative would do. Further, he again supported his own plan for government-mandated universal healthcare in Massachusetts at the national level, as he has in the past.

     The race between Obama and Romney is not, as it has been made out to be, a contest between a conservative and a liberal. It is rather a contest between two liberals of the most effective means of instituting liberalism. The choice between the two of them is no choice at all. The only choice for those who wish to preserve conservatism for future generations is Tom Hoefling, the only true conservative in the race.

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.